Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Nope. it works just fine! 
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
rogerzilla
Well-known
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.
*OK, this is an advantage for macro stuff, when you can get everything sharp at f/2.8
*OK, this is an advantage for macro stuff, when you can get everything sharp at f/2.8
kshapero
South Florida Man
I am happy to use film rangefinders and film SLR's. I suppose if film dies for real before I go, then and only then, you can bury my cameras with me. Just don't put them a landfill with all the obsolete digital cameras. D100 anyone?
K14
Well-known
So that makes these, the "Siri" cameras, telling the master what's best. Us "range finders" types, have to "google" and then decide what's best.
Gary
maddoc
... likes film again.
As far as I am concerned my rangefinders are not dead, can`t judge about the general situation of film, though ...
Neare
Well-known
No hard feelings mate
it must be something in the air@d_ross I understand what your getting at. If we look at what RF's were and what they are now. RF's were the staple 35mm camera, following on from the introduction of the SLR most of the people who used RF's were those who grew up using them thus felt most comfortable.
There are those that use them for their advantages, seeing outside the frame, always full DOF, no blackout. Their idea was that direct connection to the world you were photographing. But they are a dying breed as very few people would opt for those advantages over other modern advantages such as autofocus etc. those that do, and there are some, are a minority.
Then you have a lot of people who use RF's not out of practicality, but for what they represent. They used them because they're Leica... or such and such photographer used them, or because they're different thus 'cooler'. In all honesty, I think this makes up a larger slice of the market than those who use them for practical reasons.
Lss
Well-known
Does not work for me. Simple as that.
Steinberg2010
Well-known
Well I arrived at rangefinders through a rather complicated path... I started to get interested in photography about 18 months ago. In the past I had always borrowed my brother's D40...I then found a D1x going cheap on ebay which was my first camera capable of pretty much any manual control. However, by that point I had discovered this website and so the lure of trying film was never far away. That in turn led to a FM body and 50mm Series E. Then the siren songs of Leica pulled me in even further. To me I get the best shooting experience with my rangefinders, they're the simplest to use and have a great tactile experience. Here in Cambridge I regularly see people with rangefinders (saw a Zeiss Ikon the other day) though obviously there aren't as many as the DSLR or mirror less crowd...
~S
~S
Roger Hicks
Mentor
RFs are about as dead as large format.
Different cameras handle and respond in different ways, and (as a result) sometimes have some influence on what the final picture looks like.
I don't like slow lenses, or zooms, or cameras (or any other kind of software, such as bloody Adobe) that try to override my decisions. I don't like bloated DSLRs that look as if they've been pumped up with a bicycle pump. I like interchangeable lenses; I like optical finders (and LOATHE 'finders' on the backs of cameras); I find manual focus quicker and more accurate than autofocus.
This pretty much leaves me with Leicas for digi, or Leica, ZI and Voigtländer for film.
This will not be everyone's choice, but as long as there are enough people like me, RFs won't die.
Different cameras handle and respond in different ways, and (as a result) sometimes have some influence on what the final picture looks like.
I don't like slow lenses, or zooms, or cameras (or any other kind of software, such as bloody Adobe) that try to override my decisions. I don't like bloated DSLRs that look as if they've been pumped up with a bicycle pump. I like interchangeable lenses; I like optical finders (and LOATHE 'finders' on the backs of cameras); I find manual focus quicker and more accurate than autofocus.
This pretty much leaves me with Leicas for digi, or Leica, ZI and Voigtländer for film.
This will not be everyone's choice, but as long as there are enough people like me, RFs won't die.
I had one on a Retina IIa that was dead. But a litle Ronsonol freed the mechanism right up. Slightest bit of machine oil, good to go.
But on a Canonet Ql17 GIII- had to replace the entire mechanism. But the camera works now.
But on a Canonet Ql17 GIII- had to replace the entire mechanism. But the camera works now.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think that aside from Leica's persistent efforts with the digital M the rangefinder is a dying technology that's being over run by cameras like the X100 and these new thingys with 'peak focusing' ... whatever that is!
No one else seems to be interested in making a digital RF body which indicates to me that they see no future in such a camera.
No one else seems to be interested in making a digital RF body which indicates to me that they see no future in such a camera.
Snapper_uk
Well-known
No.
The cameras you describe as making rangefinders redundant are point & shoot cameras. There are people that want a bit more than that from a camera. If that wasn't so, auto-everything SLRs/compacts would have killed off the rangefinder decades ago.
The cameras you describe as making rangefinders redundant are point & shoot cameras. There are people that want a bit more than that from a camera. If that wasn't so, auto-everything SLRs/compacts would have killed off the rangefinder decades ago.
btgc
Mentor
Let's rephrase it...they don't see way they can sell them for 7K coins. If Sony or Panasonic would make new DRF for $1200 retail how many would say peaking focus still is better? Everyone would jump aboard.
pvdhaar
Peter
I thought medium format was dead..
But then I got back into MF earlier this year (Holga at first) and much to my surprise found out that I could have a roll of 120 processed and printed faster and cheaper than a roll of 35mm film.
Sure, I can get the same turn-around time on 35mm, but then the price triples. Or I can get 35mm printed almost as cheap as rollfilm, but then the wait doubles..
Makes one consider using a 6x6 SLR as a point and shoot from now on..
But then I got back into MF earlier this year (Holga at first) and much to my surprise found out that I could have a roll of 120 processed and printed faster and cheaper than a roll of 35mm film.
Sure, I can get the same turn-around time on 35mm, but then the price triples. Or I can get 35mm printed almost as cheap as rollfilm, but then the wait doubles..
Makes one consider using a 6x6 SLR as a point and shoot from now on..
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
If it could be done for that price someone would have done it by now.
And what camera manufacturer in their right mind is going to look at Leica's sales figures and think to themselves "Gee ... I wouldn't mind a piece of that action!"
btgc
Mentor
I can't say for sure....but my take is Leica is used to make RF cameras, have tradition in this so they continue. There's border where company continues to make something and where company moves away (like Canon - they had knowledge how to make RF's but in old days they started to make enough gear different from RF's). Leica is like farmer who knows how to grow exotic culture and lives from it. Others would do same but their dads have not did it and they also do not want to and they grow common cultures they know will be in demand, even if price is lower because of competition. But they could grow that exotic culture with no problems. RF assy itself isn't THAT expensive, just remember mirriads of cheap RF's from 70ies.
ricnak
Well-known
the RF is the only thing alive in my house
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I sometimes wonder if the digital M wasn't a Leica and cost half the current price how many units would it sell per year?