Is the rangefinder dead?

back alley said:
new rangefinders are nearly dead, yes. in the 'world' of photography barely anyone uses rangefinders and those that do almost always have other camera types in their kits.

few of us actually use rangefinders for all of their shooting.

the x100 (& the nex, m4/3 etc) proves (to me, anyway) that folks are looking for a better cheaper digital alternatives to the rf, if for nothing else to use their m mount lenses.

i wish it were'nt so but the world has gone digital and dslr for the most part...just look around at most any public event.
Click to expand...

I agree what is said here. Personally I use mainly my two RF's but when I look around me, in the photographic community where I have contacts almost no one use RFs. Sometimes I have doubts as well...Now the new cameras like x100, or x1 or the 4/3 are not perfect yet but for sure within a short time (a couple of years?) they will be improved enough to be a good substitute for RFs. Times change, the market will influence us pushing slowly but inexorably in a direction that we cannot contrast too much. Just my idea which could be wrong...
robert
 
d_ross said:
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Modern point and shoot camera’s like my Sigma DP2 offer fast accurate focussing, including manual focus, a decent size sensor to give a look similar to full frame camera’s, and a quick enough shutter response... [/FONT]
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't call my Sigma DP2s a point and shoot. Actually it's one of the slowest camera around, only the DP1 is even slower. In low ligt the auto focus is useless and the manual focus is a pain. Wish I could afford the X100....


wallace
 
wallace said:
Well, I wouldn't call my Sigma DP2s a point and shoot. Actually it's one of the slowest camera around, only the DP1 is even slower.
Click to expand...
What is it then? I had the DP1, I used manual focus only (or about 99% of the time) and had an auxillary viewfinder on it. It was a pretty nice scale focus p&s/viewfinder camera, and the files were very good.
 
Lss said:
What is it then? I had the DP1, I used manual focus only (or about 99% of the time) and had an auxillary viewfinder on it. It was a pretty nice scale focus p&s/viewfinder camera, and the files were very good.
Click to expand...

From your post seems it's F&P&S - focus, point, shoot. P&S either doesn't need to be focused or does it automatically.
 
Are we sure the ability to see outside the frame is the primary reason people use rangefinders? They have other attributes that also appeal to people.

An RF is an RF because there's a rangefinder inside. To me, that's the key distinguishing characteristic. Everything else falls into place as a result.

Idle question: What percentage of new Leica buyers know it's an RF and know how that makes it different from an SLR?
 
btgc said:
From your post seems it's F&P&S - focus, point, shoot. P&S either doesn't need to be focused or does it automatically.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what the Sigma DP cameras do. But they have a fairly good manual/scale focus override, too, which is what I preferred using.
 
"Is the rangefinder dead?"

Definitely. It's been dead for a long time. You need to be an aficionado to even know what it is and how it differs from other cameras. It's a relic from the past just like TLR.
 
Mablo said:
You need to be an aficionado to even know what it is and how it differs from other cameras.
Click to expand...

That can be said about any other camera on the market. People (who are not into photography) do not know what differentiates a SLR from a Point and Shoot other than size and perceived quality.
 
This is another one of those topics that someone posts for the sake of posting.
If you think rangefinders are dead, they're dead, and if you don't, then they're not.
Let's move on.
 
rbsinto said:
This is another one of those topics that someone posts for the sake of posting.
If you think rangefinders are dead, they're dead, and if you don't, then they're not.
Let's move on.
Click to expand...

It's the hyperbole -- It's dead! -- that distracts us from a reasonable question, much as it does with the film discussions.

If new camera designs offer attributes much like ranger finders, then wondering out loud if those new cameras will attract current RF users is legitimate, and obvious.
 
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 :)
 
Last edited:
Yea, the OP's question is a reasonable one but unfortunately the title begs for and got knee jerk defensive answers. Not at all unexpected on a dedicated RF forum. I tend to think like David Manning, post #54.

Bob
 
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...

I agree, more or less.
robert
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top