Are rangefinder relevant to your photography?

Are rangefinder relevant to your photography?

  • Yes - I still use a rangefinder for most of my photography.

    Votes: 198 57.6%

  • Yes - but I use the rangefinder only at times and more often use a different style of camera.

    Votes: 90 26.2%

  • No - I like my rangefinder but rarely use one these days.

    Votes: 48 14.0%

  • No - never owned a rangefinder and don't think I ever will.

    Votes: 2 0.6%

  • Not yet but thinking about getting one.

    Votes: 6 1.7%
  • Total voters
    344
40% dSLR (Nikon D3100 with manual lenses)
35% Leica (Leica II, M2, M4 once repaired)
25% Rolleiflex (Tele and 2.8F)


Since the dSLR does not meter with manual focus lenses, I use my Gossen Lunasix 3 lightmeter with all three systems. I hate AF, I have two lenses that do meter with the D3100 but they do not AF. Even then, I never use Shutter Priority and even Aperture Priority is rare.

Mostly all manual:cool: It's just the way I enjoy my work most!
 
I'm Jumping on Kieth Too

I'm Jumping on Kieth Too

Keith said:
I like the compact design and the focusing of a rangefinder ... the vague framing I'm not so keen on.
Click to expand...

The major advantage of a rangefinder is that compositions 'fall' into the cross hairs (frame lines) like shooting skeet or trap.

I was raised shooting guns and photography seemed to be an extension of that. There is a world of difference between open sights and telescopic. One shoots sports with an SLR only by the necessity of having a long lens. However, my batting average with a rangefinder on the street is almost always .500, with an SLR, at best .025. SLR's are for long and macro lenses, and studio work.

In my world I use an SLR 10%-15% of the time. They are generally to bulky, too heavy, and too slow.
 
Last edited:
I love using my Yashica GSN and could use that and nothing else for most of the photography I do, otherwise it's the digital P&S for cat shots. The GSN is just the right size for my xxl hands and it works ok in that it doesn't get in the way of me getting the shot.
Would love to try a M6 and the idea of an Epson R-1d is rather exciting.
I don't find slr cameras as exciting as I once did but I would still like to master my 124G.
Alas life has been getting in the way lately and I haven't done much photography.:bang:
 
My Yashica Lynx and Argus C-3 are my aimlessly walking around cameras. For me this is my no stress shoot anything and maybe end up with a few keepers.
 
I love my 6x4.5 Fuji MF rangefinder...it's small, compact and gives outstanding results. Almost all of my photography is film based medium format, although I do have and use a Pentax digital. My Leica's, although not quite "shelf queens" don't get as much use now since 35mm is not my primary medium. After this discussion, I think I'll start using them again because it's a joy having a camera that responds so effortlessly to my needs.
 
I don't get any income from photography. I shoot for myself, so no type of camera is relevant or not relevant. I shoot what works best or O.K. at the time, or I shoot what I'm in the mood to use. Rangefinders are still fun to use.
 
Gumby said:
Not really. It is a perennial question.

I use rangefinder cameras when that is the proper tool for the purpose.
Click to expand...

+1

It really is just a box with different qualities. For night shooting, I think the RF is a ready-choice. For macro, SLR. If I think someone MF incapable might be handling the camera (perhaps me, if I tie one on), the Hexar AF comes out.

I do sometimes wonder if something isn't lost by this forum not being more dedicated. Then I focus my thoughts more productively.
 
TXForester said:
I don't get any income from photography. I shoot for myself, so no type of camera is relevant or not relevant. I shoot what works best or O.K. at the time, or I shoot what I'm in the mood to use. Rangefinders are still fun to use.
Click to expand...

+1
Same for me.
 
I use RFs amongst other cameras. I don't earn my living with photography; so, I can enjoy using various types of cameras without having to fulfill the demands of photograph buyers.
 
I picked up my friend's dslr this morning and shot a few photos just to remember what non-rangefinders are like... and I didn't like the remoteness of the process. It was like an electronic black box took a photo for me and I could only hope its decisions were in line with my expectations. When I use a rangefinder like my M8, I feel a lot more present in that process.
 
jippiejee said:
I picked up my friend's dslr this morning and shot a few photos just to remember what non-rangefinders are like... and I didn't like the remoteness of the process. It was like an electronic black box took a photo for me and I could only hope its decisions were in line with my expectations. When I use a rangefinder like my M8, I feel a lot more present in that process.
Click to expand...

Really? That seems to be almost my exact opposite reaction.
Granted, you are using an M8, so your RF experiences are vastly different than mine.

For me, with my DSLR (granted I'm using old manual glass and run teh camera on full manual) I feel very connected. Each shot is a progression. I take my shot, I examine the results, and adjust accordingly. I 'dial in' my photo and find it very involving.

In contrast, with my fixed lens RF, I take a light reading, set my speeds, set my focus, frame it up, push the button... and then pray. To me it is much more of a black box because I don't know if it worked or not, and I won't know for weeks. It isn't that the RF is less involving, it is that it is much more mysterious and unknown. Especially shooting B&W. With my film SLR, at least I get an idea of what the monochrome image will look like (even if it is mono-green or whatever). With the RF I don't even get that.
 
Use a rangefinder for certain things, but not everything--good for live concert work and candids, but not the best for landscape and aviation shooting. That's when I break out the SLRs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top