Why Rangefinder

The other tiebreaker (not an RF) is the Yashica T4 Super with its second viewfinder in the top plate.
 
I just started using a rangefinger a year ago. I bought a Canonet glll and later a bessa r. For me it's a fun camera to use and easy to carry around. The bessa is so lightweight to carry I can take it anywhere. I don't have the heavy lenses of my Canon SLR to weigh me down. I like the idea of taking one camera & one lense and learn to compose a photo instead of using various lenses or even a varable lense like say my 35-70/3.5 lense on my Canon, which I much say is a really great lense. I'm also finding out that shooting wide means I need to get closer to my subject. A quite good way to face ones fear of insecurity if I might add. BTW I enjoyed reading of your recent meeting with Chris Weeks & SG on his blog recently. Every one should go and read his report on the M8. It's the best I have read.
 
"We've all confessed on this forum to what our favorite non-rangefinder cameras are, and, in some cases, presented specific reasons for using them."

I've not confessed that!
The only non-rangefinder I've handled is a Speed Graphic in the Army and a Rollei TLR and use/used them only for the larger film.

I do like that the Rollei forces me to think about shooting and why; I also hate that. With my M3 I just shoot; I've handled it so long I don't think; I see and shoot.
 
It's the ratio of the quality of my photos to all of the following: phyiscal characteristics (size, weight, noise, "feel"), personal challenge (lI like the problems that RF presents); status (OK, it's a small pond, but no one owns a better and cooler dRF).

Maybe a final metric: When I shoot with a 1D-II and fast zooms (still seems necessary for most of my work,) I often wish I had my M8 in my hands. When shooting with the M8, I rarely wish for the dSLR. There are undoubtedly shots that I miss when I don't have the SLR, but I'd rather forego the shot than the Leica.
 
For me, it's a choice between a IIIa/Summar
and a Rolleiflex. I tend to shoot both with
open apertures. Each has its own look. If
I want something exact, sharp, precise, I
reach for the Rolleiflex. If I am looking for
something more impressionistic, then I'll
grab the IIIa.

My usual tool is the Rolleiflex. But sometimes
I don't want biting detail, or a square. That's
when I give the IIIa a workout.

Sanders
 
Here's Mike's entry from the other thread. Seems pretty intelligent to me.

Bill


...None of the above. I use RF cameras for two different reasons.

Firstly, and probably more importantly, because I see and compose differently with an RF camera. I see what's outside the frame as well as what's in it, and I see everything in focus and imagine what I'm subtracting from what I see in the viewfinder by my choice of framing and aperture setting. With an SLR I (effectively) see only what's inside the frame and what's in-focus at maximum aperture, then have to imagine what I'm adding by an awareness (that I find far from total) of what I can't see through the viewfinder.

Neither is better nor worse in an absolute sense: I just find I compose differently with one from the way I compose with the other. I'll choose which camera to use partly based on what I think will work best for a particular task (or just as the mood takes me).

The second thing I find is that I get better focus accuracy with an RF camera (at RF-appropriate focal lengths) than I get from either MF or AF SLRs. I think a well-adjusted long-baselength RF has theoretical advantages over an SLR within their focal-length range - but I really think, for me, RF focusing just somehow suits me better.

...Mike
 
Photography is about seeing. Cameras are about capturing what we see.
RF's for the most part allow you to see, with the camera, with the least amount of distraction in the frame. They allow you to see at the precise fraction of a second, as the camera records the image. With flash, that's a real big advantage. They allow you to see the surrounding elements of the frame and most of all, they allow you to think.

I get asked some times, "why do you use Leica's"? You can't get tele shots with those things. I usually reply, I leave those shots for you guys, I'm not interested in anything my RF camera's can't get......there's other photographers for those shots.....

shooter
 
The vf, size and sound. I love the bright viewfinder that doesn't "blink" when a mirror flips up plus the size & sound aid in discretion. So really, it's just the experience that I'm after - it's just so much more pleasurable with a RF.
 
Out of all my 8 cameras (all film) the only SLR is a Nikon FM3A. Just because I like it and rarely use it I decided to take it with a Voigtlander 40mm f/2.0 SL lens to Tokyo for 2 week while working here (sans a rangefinder camera). My conclusions are that for fast street style/candid work its "horrible".

This I find for two primary reasons. The first is when focusing through the viewfinder its nowhere near as fast as a rengefinder patch to confirm focus, especially wide open. Ok, so an auto focus SLR might help a little here. The second, and very important to me, issue is that the lens barrel markings on SLRs are just not of much use for zone focusing. The focus through is very short and markings are, therefore, usually not very well spaced.

So for me, the SLR is being relegated to close accurate framing requirements from now on (I dont have a need for long lens anyways). But the snap of that image coming in to focus on a bright screen is very nice...

regards
Craig
 
I use a rangefinder, because they are small, quiet, unobtrusive and fast to operate.

Unobtrusiveness is a big plus. I love the fact that people think it's an antique or point and shoot, when in fact it's a professional camera. This allows me to shoot in situations where people with a big SLR would draw too much attention or are not permitted to work. I've also noticed that sometimes my subjects are more relaxed with the Leica, than with an SLR mounting a lens the size of a coffee can. A rangefinder can also be less offensive under certain circumstances. There is something very intrusive about the sound of an SLR. The more gentle 'kiss' of the Leica makes me feel more comfortable, when I am shooting in a very personal or in a delicate situation that requires me to respect another persons feelings.


With a 35mm lens framing accuracy is good enough. The longest focal length I'll
use on an RF is a 50. After that the frame lines becomes too small for my taste.

I'm partial to the Leica, because I think it is the best of the breed. The lenses are second to none and I like the flexibility to be able to use anything from a 70 year old Elmar to the latest ASPH model. The camera also just works. It feels right in your hands.
 
cuz i learned on RF when I was 12 yrs old and it feels right to me. And cuz I love those Leica lenses. and for a lot of the other "usual" reasons.

But I don't hesitate to use AF slr's when I need AF.
 
I prefer RFs because they are a lot quieter than the quietest SLR (not talking about the Canon Pellix), besides smaller and easier to carry (with colapsible lenses of course) than any SLR.

I do not hesitate to use what I need when I have to, that´s why I have several other cameras.

Cheers

Ernesto
 
For me, a snapshot taker, I like seeing what's outside the framelines. In my work context is very important for placing results in, and to me seeing the area outside the framelines can help me decide what I choose to include inside them. Just my 2 cents.
 
Pablito said:
cuz i learned on RF when I was 12 yrs old and it feels right to me. And cuz I love those Leica lenses. and for a lot of the other "usual" reasons.

But I don't hesitate to use AF slr's when I need AF.
Click to expand...

Wow, way cool - I thought I might be the only one. For me, it's because when I was 13 or 14 I decided I wanted a "serious" camera and saved up quite a lot of money. Thought I might want an SLR and remember looking hard at the Minoltas SRTs, the Canon FTBn and the Rollei SL35. A camera dealer who was a friend of my father's persuaded me to buy a used M3. I can still hear him saying something like "you can shoot in a church and even the mice will not hear you." The rest was, as they say, history.

Bill, I have tried to divorce myself from the M several times but I keep coming back because, in no particular order:

1. I like the view outside the framelines
2. I like being able to see during the exposure*
3. I cannot get the feel of the classic M body out of my neurons: it is the perfect physical package for me

* not because it helps me know that I've captured "the decisive moment" but because it helps me know when I don't, so I know I need to shoot some more frames...!

These days I am still using film SLRs and experimenting with a Nikon DSLR and the Epson R-D1 (love it!) but there is no replacement for the "classic" M body. However, I am done with trying to get rid of M bodies. They are not best for everything, or even most things (IMO), but what they do they do best.
 
Last edited:
I can focus a rangefinder more easily, especially in low light, and since most of my shooting is indoors, that is important. I also like the compactness of the package, and the quiet shutter.

That being said, I learned an important lesson last weekend as I shot photos of my daughter on stage: Sometimes, a rangefinder with a long (90) lens just isn't the best tool for capturing the images you want. In this case, on stage in varied and challenging lighting, a dSLR with a decent long lens was probably the best tool. The rangefinder was perfect for the backstage, dressing room shots, and I got some of those, but from the fourth or fifth row...
 
Harry Lime said:
I use a rangefinder, because they are small, quiet, unobtrusive and fast to operate.

Unobtrusiveness is a big plus. I love the fact that people think it's an antique or point and shoot, when in fact it's a professional camera. This allows me to shoot in situations where people with a big SLR would draw too much attention or are not permitted to work. I've also noticed that sometimes my subjects are more relaxed with the Leica, than with an SLR mounting a lens the size of a coffee can. A rangefinder can also be less offensive under certain circumstances. There is something very intrusive about the sound of an SLR. The more gentle 'kiss' of the Leica makes me feel more comfortable, when I am shooting in a very personal or in a delicate situation that requires me to respect another persons feelings.


With a 35mm lens framing accuracy is good enough. The longest focal length I'll
use on an RF is a 50. After that the frame lines becomes too small for my taste.

I'm partial to the Leica, because I think it is the best of the breed. The lenses are second to none and I like the flexibility to be able to use anything from a 70 year old Elmar to the latest ASPH model. The camera also just works. It feels right in your hands.
Click to expand...



Just like Harry Said. My sentiments exactly.
I used to own a Nikon F5 With a slew of lenses that I used to lug around in a back pack. In One of my travels thru Italy, I got so tired from lugging that backpack with me, That the next day I left it behind at the hotel and just used my M6 with a 24,35 and the 50. I spent the rest of the trip shooting with the M6.

When I got back to NYC, A few days later I sold all of the Nikon gear and bougt another M6 with the sale of the SLR.

So why do I use a RF? It's so light and easy to carry 2 bodies, 3 lenses in a very small bag. and since I tend to use wide angle lenses for most of my shots, why then do I need a SLR for. I love my leica's
 
I started using RFs as some kind of reenactor "How did they do it?" using FSU's.
Later I thought that trying different cameratypes would help me to get a grasp of the essential picturetaking -> I used to say : "I do it because I don't want to depend on a single camera!" "Well yeah nou you depend on thirty!" was a friends answer.

From a users point I concur with:

"I use a rangefinder, because they are small, quiet, unobtrusive and fast to operate."

Great thing to use an Olympus 35 RC or a Retina IIIs -< they are good tolls fro that task

And with Ted White: I find it very comfortable that focusing is a quick affair. You just have to put that little spot in focus and than you can simply concentrate on making pics.

The Bessa R showed me how comfortable an RF could be. it made me rediscover my Retina IIIS. With some of the FSUs and Screwmount Leicas it's a bit like using Muzzle loaders for hunting: The job can be done but why let the Bessa or the Retina catch dust?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top