Why Rangefinder

[Bill Pierce]

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. But, in most cases, it's just been that we enjoy using them.

Here's the flip side to why other cameras. Why a rangefinder? In the old days, it was pretty obvious. Rangefinders couldn't focus long or macro lenses. And the conventional viewfinder built into the camera didn't do a very good job with these lenses either. But early SLR's like the Kine Exacta didn't have an instant return mirror or auto diaphragm. You might just as well put your long lenses or your macro lenses on a reflex housing like the Visoflex on a Leica as put them on an SLR. For sports photographers, Norm Goldberg motorized Leicas and built Visoflexes with pellicles (beam splitters) or micro switches that triggered the motor when the mirror was out of the way. It was that or motorized Hulchers that shot at frame rates that make even today's fastest DSLR's look pokey.

When cameras like the Pentax introduced the instant return mirror and the auto diaphragm (It stopped itself down; you cocked it open after you took the shot.) using wide and normal lenses on an SLR became a real possiblity. But the optical wedge (SLR rangefinder spot) and the microprism just didn't have the focusing accuracy needed by highspeed wide-angles and normals. A pretty standard rig was two RF bodies for your wide and normal, an SLR for your long lens (unless, of course, you were Gene Smith, who used to use up to six bodies).

Autofocus on SLR and DSLR bodies have leveled the playing field. There are certainly differences in autofocus performance even with different camera models from the same manufacturer, but the days when focusing accuracy with wides and normals used at their maximum apertures absolutely demanded a rangefinder have passed.

So, why do we use rangefinder cameras? I used to own 9 Leicas - 3 around my neck, 3 in the hotel room and 3 in the shop getting lubed and adjusted. That was pretty common. Today I use one (yes, there are more in the closet) with maybe a second lens in my pocket. It's almost always with me, but it's shooting personal pictures. (In the last survey, we saw a lot of members using DSLR's for "professional work" but doing projects and personal pictures with an RF.) I use an M8 because it's small and because it's image quality in a big print eats those other small cameras alive. It ought to; it cost 10 times as much - and that was without a lens.

I would like to know why you use rangefinders?

Bill

[Finder]

The real reason? Because I like them. There is nothing I can do with a rangefinder that I couldn't do with another type. Cameras are a compromise. Rangefinders seem to offer fewer.

[Finder]

No, the compromise thing is silly. I just like them. They just clicked with me.

[FrankS]

Why do some prefer a blonde, red-head, Asian, or Latino?

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=680658#post680658

[Anupam]

My question is more why not use rangefinders? Unless I want to do macro or wildlife or have the luxury of a tripod, I can't see any advantage to SLRs for handheld shooting on the street. No mirror, small and seeing outside the frame are invaluable in these situations.

Just like I use the RF for what it's good at, I use SLRs for what they are good at (macro, long lens - wildlife etc) and view cameras for what they are good at (landscape, architecture, still life).

I approach each kind of photography seriously enough to be able to use a specialized tool for it. SLRs win out for most people because they are the most versatile - true that it is the jack of all trades, but it is only master of a few.

-Anupam

[lawrence]

I use a rangfinder because it's smaller and quieter, and therefore more discreet than an SLR. It's also sexier -- the soft 'whoosh' of the Leica shutter is like a lover's kiss, rather than the slap around the chops from an SLR.

[mike goldberg]

Here's another, "Because I like them." Even tho one can shoot quite swiftly with an M2, M3 or newer M-mount, I feel the RF camera is slowing me down, somewhat. Sometimes [not always], I am pre-visualizing in the work. In another post, Frank used the term "contemplation." Yes, it is a pause for reflection.

Then, there's the aspect of having fun... one helluva good time, using a 45-50 year old RF film camera. And, I enjoy two Fed-2c's, both of which have been CLA'd. A favorite Jupiter 8, was modified to the Leica standard.

Finally, there is "photographic history," and feeling a part of that. No-no, I don't walk around with a Leica, thinking about history. My network of colleagues and friends KNOW I'm a bit of an eccentric, and that's just fine. Occasionally, I think that I am indeed, part of a cadre of photographers helping to keep film alive.

BTW, I like digital too.
Ciao,

[Peter55]

With a rangefinder I like the way I can see beyond the frame lines of what my 50mm lens is capturing. This helps me to find a comfortable and well framed image to photograph.

I also like the gentle sound of the rubberized cloth shutter curtain.

[VictorM.]

I get the pictures I want with a rangefinder.

[cmedin]

Why do some prefer a blonde, red-head, Asian, or Latino?

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=680658#post680658

Frank,

You got me thinking and I guess I am as camera agonistic as I am women agnostic. :) My more serious relationships were with a brunette, a mexican, a vietnamese, a redhead, and a blonde. I also like rangefinders, SLRs, TLRs and point and shoots...

As for why rangefinders, I like the beauty and mechanical precision of a Leica screwmount. They're also small, unobtrusive, and being able to see the image at the moment of capture can be important at times.

[GoodPhotos]

I use my IIIf just for fun. (I just got 13 rolls of frozen Kodachrome25!)

In this day and age where I've gone through 5 (soon 6) different DSLR Nikon models since 2003 for work, there is an odd thrill in using camera and lenses for fun that are almost as old as my dad yet still work as well today as the day they were made. I 'went digital' earlier than most in my market and for convenience and control sake, I'll never shoot film again for work. Because of this many folks considered me anti-traditionalist, but this simply isn't so. Old TLRs and the LTMs (at least) are fine jewel quality fun had at very inexpensive prices. About as traditional as you can get without coating your own plates. :)

[Bill Pierce]

With a rangefinder I like the way I can see beyond the frame lines of what my 50mm lens is capturing. This helps me to find a comfortable and well framed image to photograph..

For me, this is a big deal.

Bill

[kevin m]

I love the floating framelines in the M finder. For use with a 35 or 50mm lens, they're perfect. Anything wider, an accessory finder, or an SLR, works better. And for anything longer, it's all SLR.

[aizan]

not having a ground glass also means i can see what's going on before i get focused.

[ernesto]

A Poll same topic:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49960

[Taqi]

Size, speed, street.

[tedwhite]

The first time I looked through an M3 - after a couple of decades of SLR's - I was amazed: Everything was already "in focus," brilliant and crisp. All I had to do was briefly adjust the patch and go click.

Today I have a Voigtlander Bessa R. It's not a Leica, it's not as silent as a Leica and I'm sure it won't last as long, and so far there ain't no mystique, but the viewfinder is what matters. It's the same: bright, sharp, somehow larger than life, and I've become enamored of the floating framelines because you can see what 's just about to enter them; something you can't do with an SLR. To me that is so important.

Ted

[Dogman]

Okay, I agree with most of the reasons previously posted. All valid and practical and warm/fuzzy. I have to admit that one of the reasons I use rangefinders (and also why others do too if they admit it) is because many of the photographers whose work I admire used them. My list of influences include Walker Evans, Robert Frank, Lee Friedlander, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ralph Gibson, Garry Winogrand, Andre Kertesz, Robert Capa, Gene Smith, Robert Doisneau and many others who all used rangefinder cameras, sometimes in addition to other cameras. Of course many of them used rangefinders because that was what was available, however, their type of photography was influenced by their equipment as much as today's photography is being influenced by digicams, cell phone cameras and Photoshop. With the choices available today, I still lean toward the traditional and using rangefinders makes me feel a small measure of kinship to those whose photography I love.

[Solinar]

Minimalism - With a DSLR I often feel like I'm using a wired remote to control the camera.

Also, you can take a photo of your girlfriend and check out other ladies that are outside of the frame.:rolleyes:

[Sjixxxy]

Also, you can take a photo of your girlfriend and check out other ladies that are outside of the frame.:rolleyes:

There is the tiebreaker. ;)

[tedwhite]

The other tiebreaker (not an RF) is the Yashica T4 Super with its second viewfinder in the top plate.

[gb hill]

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.

[MikeCassidy]

"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.

[MartinL]

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.

[Sanders McNew]

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

[mfunnell]

I said my piece on the poll thread:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=679453&postcount=4

...Mike

[Bill Pierce]

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

[M4streetshooter]

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

[jky]

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.

[craygc]

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

[Harry Lime]

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.

[Pablito]

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.

[ErnestoJL]

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

[MikeL]

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.

[JNewell]

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.

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.

[like2fiddle]

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...

[dingowarlord]

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.



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

[Spider67]

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?

[kshapero]

itimacy, pure and simple