Is the rangefinder dead?

D

d_ross

Registered User
Local time
7:24 PM
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
545
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]and is the new rangefinder actually the digital point and shoot? Imagine what the great rangefinder users of the past would have done with modern digital point and shoot camera's? Some modern masters do now!

As far as I'm concerned the main benefit of the rangefinder, when used for it’s ideal purpose, is the ability to see what's going on outside the frame, to help us anticipate what may happen while the camera is up to your face, where it needs to be to take good photographs. But lets face it a point and shoot held at half arms length offers this in abundance. 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, everything you could want really, and they deliver very good image quality! All this for a fraction of the cost of a Leica rangefinder, or any other digital rangefinder for that matter. Add to this that you look just like every other person walking around like a robot with camera at arms length, therefore blend in perfectly. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]

One of the reasons I say this is that I have seen a lot of Fuji X100 users photographing this way and wondered is this is because it's actually a better way to work?
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Dead? New rangefinder cameras are still being made as you read this!

Rangefinders enable one to manually focus in low light easier than other means of manual focusing (at least, they enable me to do that). Holding a camera at arm's length (or in any position other than braced against one's head) results in more camera shake.

Just because an item has become something of a niche product does not make it "dead".
 
I didn't mean literally dead! it was just a philosophical question, more about the once undeniable benefits of a rangefinder over other types of camera for street photography, where they once excelled over all others, and now maybe don't, perhaps the advantages of a good digital P&S outweigh the benefits of a digital rangefinder, not too serious a question :)
 
Do these dead topic always have to come up?

Correct me if I may be wrong, a rangefinder is not a point and shoot.

And how can the rangefinder be "dead" if they are becoming increasingly popular?

Andy
 
jeez don't be so defensive and serious:) I never said a rangefinder was a point and shoot. I was referring to why people use rangefinders, the primary reason to see outside the frame while photographing, and how perhaps the P&S actually offers this as well if not better.
 
Sure, compact digital P&S cameras have their advantages. I have one, in fact.

However, rangefinder cameras also have their advantages. So I have one (actually, two) as well.
 
OK so dead was bad word, I was of course referring to the reason we use rangefinders. if I could change the title I would. I find myself using my P&S more and more in situations when I would in the past, before the P&S got so good, have used a rangefinder!
 
K14 said:
Dead is when they try to pry the barnack from my rigamortis hands.

Gary
Click to expand...

thumbsUp.jpg
 
my question could have been, how many people use a rangefinder right eyed as they were designed to be used :)
 
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.
 
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...

This what I was thinking really, the advances in the likes of the Nex camera's and P&S camera's like my Sigma DP2 have excellent image quality, and they also perform the task of allowing us to see outside the frame while shooting, so I should have asked perhaps is the rangefinder becoming redundant? as obviously it will never die!
 
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. :D
 
Last edited:
I don't know why people are getting so offended. I understand exactly what you're saying.
At least for street photography the main benefit of having a rangefinder was the near silent shutters and ability to blend in with a crowd.

However nowadays if you have a leica/voigtlander/contax/etc. rangefinder, most people will notice right away and be drawn to you. I've been shooting a few times where I just had random people stare at my camera. (Bessa-R) So the stealth benefit isn't always there.

However I've been able to take more candid street photos with my iphone because no one even knows I'm taking a picture. So I don't think there's anything more stealthy than that. :p

I don't think rangefinders are "dead" persay but I do agree that for street photography they aren't as stealthy anymore because they look unusual compared to today's consumer cameras and so they stick out quite a bit.
 
That's two new threads from New Zealand in one afternoon, and both of them bordering on the esoteric. I think that winning the World Rugby Cup has done something strange to them.
 
d_ross said:
This what I was thinking really, the advances in the likes of the Nex camera's and P&S camera's like my Sigma DP2 have excellent image quality, and they also perform the task of allowing us to see outside the frame while shooting, so I should have asked perhaps is the rangefinder becoming redundant? as obviously it will never die!
Click to expand...

I cannot follow your chain of thought. Before discovering the RF cameras, I had already many digital and analog SLR, super zoom and P&S cameras. None of them could give me the eyelevel VF view combined with outside frame viewing while shooting.

That's why - from an composition prospect - the discovery of the RF typical VF with inside frames was the aha moment for my photography: A fully new image composition method. Since then, I shoot mostly with RF cameras, because my image composition got noticeably better. Let alone the RF patch focussing device: I like it.

I don't get the analogy you construct between a P&S with or without a VF and the framed composition view thru a RF viewer. They are worlds apart!

Don't get me wrong. I still use (D)SLR, still have (D)P&S and still I'm considering a NEX-7 for a compact DSLR+P&S+video+M-lenses+VF combination. (All right, CEVIL is shorter)

Or did I miss a new body which will give me that framing tool back in digital world, apart of the R-D1 or M8/M9?
 
You intelligently re-phraes the question, though i was not offended when I first read your post. Are RFs "redundant"? For me, the answer is "no." I am not a hold-over. I just got here along with many others: it's all part of a search for a different and more authentic photography experience than that offered by the DSLR, which for a variety of reasons has deadened photography. I got to my film RF after ditching a DSLR for what you could call a glorified, lens exchangeable p & s: the Olympus Pen (E-P1) m43 camera. It's not the same as a RF but the more open and less viewfinder-dependent shooting styles have undeniable similarities.
 
Last edited:
Seriously though, I'm waiting to see what Fuji come up with when the recently "pre-announced" interchangeable lens X-xxx details become available. That might be the one to push me over the edge and start disposing of my film cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top