Is the rangefinder dead?

Funny, I never have been interested in what's happening outside the frame. Inside, yes. Outside, no. A rangefinder's usual advantage is to be smaller and lighter, along w/ using wide lenses and hyper focal focusing so you don't need AF. The old masters of photography would have taken no better photos w/ a "better" camera. trust me. I would love to see a modern photographer equal their work w/ any camera. The greats would have taken wonderful pics w/ any old camera.

What I'm seeing is the death of great, meaningful photos. There's a glut of digital shooters out there w/ all the latest bells and whistles turning out meaningless photos. It's just amazing. Yes, I do think film photographers take "better" photos, as it implies a greater knowledge and passion for not only the photograph, but of it's history and it's present. Millions of amateurs (in the not-so-good, consumer sense) doing weddings and shots of their kids for facebook and whatnot is not photography, it's snap shot shooting. Nothing wrong w/ that, but it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
claacct said:
The classic RF/Human condition/HCB School/Magnum Photos tradition of photography is dead. Now its all about imitating the Japanese tradition of dark and nihilistic photography /Moriyama et al.
Click to expand...

Huh? so easy to call things dead... :bang:
 
d_ross said:
I didn't mean literally dead! it was just a philosophical question
Click to expand...


Ah! In that case, it shall forever live as long as all photos taken with a rangefinder remain alive --philosophically, of course-- in the collective memory of humankind.
 
I thought we already went through "the rangefinder is dead" thing in the early 1960s with the heavy promotion of the 35mm SLR camera?
 
Yes, I have photographed in situations where my digital p&s did the job and my M3 would have failed: in a moving boat with brilliant ambient sunshine but open shade where the subject was; necessity for accurate fill-in flash with no time for mental calculations. But upon pressing the shutter I had to wait 2-3 seconds for the shutter to actuate. If the subject gives you that amount of time, or if you have enough $$ for a p&s with instantaneous shutter response, fine; but where getting the "moment" is paramount, I still like having the old M with me.
 
Last edited:
David_Manning said:
If you read the entire thread, it's interesting to see what a variety of emotional responses have been posted to such a controversial question (on a rangefinder forum, no less!).

But I think it's an interesting question. I think the rangefinder came about as a result of the existing technology. Were reflex-cameras even invented when the Leica was created?

I remember reading that one of the benefits of the smaller format lenses and film (as opposed to existing-format cameras) was that more of the image was in focus...the depth of field was deeper. Also, HCB enjoyed the Leica's small, stealthy proportions.

I sincerely believe HCB, if he were alive, would be shooting a large(ish) sensor compact today. I think the ability to NOT put the camera to his face would support his desires to blend into the environment.

I don't shoot one myself (I really like the way the X100 handles instead), but I think the NEX, with it's angle EVF (an effective waist-level finder) would be his style...tiny, sharp, and quick.

I think the survival of the rangefinder is due to peoples' desires for many things...the love of mechanically-operated objects, the smallish size, maybe a desire to "think different" (sorry Steve), and also, let's not count out the natural tendency to stick with what's tried and true vs. learning a new way of doing things.

In my own case, my M6 purchase was motivated by a mix of all those things...I wanted the mystique, to join the club. At the end of the day, though, the M6 was slow to reload, inflexible to shoot (except for subjects left to mostly P&S subjects), slow to focus (unless I wanted to focus by zone...can you say "P&S infinite DoF?), and required a true labor of love to handle after the latent image was formed.

So, I tend to agree with the OP. Today's P&S cameras (especially the high-quality ones) are probably to us what the rangefinder was intended to be at the turn of the 20th century.

Discuss :)
Click to expand...

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Thanks David, you put it much better than I did here. I tried to change the title of the thread immediately when I realized what I'd done, but too late. Interesting how so many people reacted as though I'd said I slept with their mother:)

Jawarden you must play cricket

-- Thomas [You know what's really dead? Prints. Nobody I know ever prints a photograph anymore]

I agree, I am constantly telling people that they don’t have photographs until they print them.

Exactly ijohnnyz [For me, it's not about the output, but the experience. I like rangefinders because I have to operate it differently from other types of cameras and that makes me see, think, and compose differently. That experience does crossover when I'm using other types of cameras. I feel the same about music. I play and compose music differently on different instruments. If I understand your logic, I might as well get a music midi controller and do it all on the computer.]

Which is why I have a 4x5 6x6 6x9 film camera’s, I don’t want all my songs to sound the same, using the best tool for the job is why I find myself using the DP2 when I’m doing documentary work [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]in a crowd .[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]
Roger [The trouble is that pocket digicams and camera phones take pictures with almost infinite depth of field* due to their tiny sensors and small focal length lenses. It's not the same result]

The DP2 and Leica whatever it is equivalent both have APS C size sensors so separating the foreground background etc is the same as with most digital SLR’s.
So once more, I wasn’t suggesting the rangefinder is dead! I’m one person who will continue to use them. I was though suggesting that perhaps the advantages, for documentary work, they had over other cameras have diminished to the point where people may actually get better street-documentary photographs using a quality P&S camera, not to mention the $ savings. Underlying this, as was pointed out somewhere in the thread, was the question of how many people actually use a rangefinder as it was designed and how many use them because they enjoy the experience or like to decorate themselves with a Leica.
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
David_Manning said:
I sincerely believe HCB, if he were alive, would be shooting a large(ish) sensor compact today. I think the ability to NOT put the camera to his face would support his desires to blend into the environment.
Click to expand...


I think that if HCB had have been around today, he would have stuck to painting and we would never have heard of him.
 
The dream many people have, of a semi-affordable non-Leica digital rangefinder (Zeiss Ikon ZD or whatever you imagine it to be) is probably dead. None of the big makers who could make it happen want to step in to a 50-year old non-AF mount.

Rangefinder-style shooting (fast, in the moment, small bodies/lens)? It'll live on, and in digital terms is in a better place right now than it's ever been.
 
No as long as I am using one. I could care less what everyone else is using/doing.
But I do agree the masters used the very best they could afford at the time.
Elvis is dead. My M6/M3 is still working.
 
Steve M. said:
Funny, I never have been interested in what's happening outside the frame. Inside, yes. Outside, no. A rangefinder's usual advantage is to be smaller and lighter, along w/ using wide lenses and hyper focal focusing so you don't need AF. The old masters of photography would have taken no better photos w/ a "better" camera. trust me. I would love to see a modern photographer equal their work w/ any camera. The greats would have taken wonderful pics w/ any old camera.

What I'm seeing is the death of great, meaningful photos. There's a glut of digital shooters out there w/ all the latest bells and whistles turning out meaningless photos. It's just amazing. Yes, I do think film photographers take "better" photos, as it implies a greater knowledge and passion for not only the photograph, but of it's history and it's present. Millions of amateurs (in the not-so-good, consumer sense) doing weddings and shots of their kids for facebook and whatnot is not photography, it's snap shot shooting. Nothing wrong w/ that, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...


i could agree with this if you had said 'new' shooters, either film or digital.
i see the lack of historical awareness as the biggest weakness of new shooters in general.
 
I only have one thing to say in this thread.

Please don't mention the rugby. Otherwise, these bast*rds will never shut up.

(I'm Australian).
 
back alley said:
[/b]

i could agree with this if you had said 'new' shooters, either film or digital.
i see the lack of historical awareness as the biggest weakness of new shooters in general.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with you, I often speak to groups of new photographers, and the blank faces at even the simplest reference to history is sometimes mind boggling! Whether we shoot film or digital is well established here as being irellivent. But, even being a predominantly film photographer myself, this also makes me wonder if people ignore, at a cost to their work, a better tool for a job simply because it is digital?
 
clicker said:
Rangefinder cameras are not dead, unlike many photographers who are dead.
Click to expand...

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]I’m not trying to be rude here, but I don’t really understand what your saying, have you read the thread and what it’s actually about?[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top