View Full Version : Obsolete?
Bill Pierce
07-18-2008, 12:38
We've been talking a lot about the limitations of the M8. But, could it be that the rangefinder model is becoming obsolete? After all, it's just one way of focusing. Once upon a time there was scale focusing, groundglass focusing and rangefinder focusing. But now there are several ways to autofocus, one of which could be made to focus very high speed lenses accurately if the subject had sufficient contrast and brightness. Some of the DSLRs come very close to that already. (And their very high speed lenses do well with groundglass focusing, also.)
The brightline finder on today's rangefinders are great. So much so that a lot of folks are slipping them in the accessory shoes of little cameras ranging from Minilux to Canon G9. And, by the way, it's not such a stupid thing to slip them into the accessory shoe of an SLR or DSLR - two good viewing systems in one body. I equipped my old Nikon F's that way and was thought of as, initially, totally crazy and, then, not so dumb.
I don't think the rangefinder is going to be replaced unless its manufacturers choose to cease producing. But, I'll keep my reasons to myself until after the first screams of outrage from my fellow forum members for even suggesting such a thing.
Bill
Al Patterson
07-18-2008, 13:13
Of course the rangefinder model is obsolete. My Canon 5D with an ST-E2 in the hot shoe will focus the fastest Canon EF prime perfectly every time in total darkness.
Like most other people here, I own numerous Leica, Bessa and Canon and other RF cameras and I love to pick one up and walk around town with it. But it's nostalgia, not a practical consideration. If a digital RF were not obsolete, Nikon and Canon would be churning 'em out by the millions. But only Leica soldiers on.
And I'm sure both of our posts will draw some flames. ;)
True statements are always the most controversial....
Why not organize all human reproduction to be done via in vitro fertilization? It would surely be more efficient. However, I'm told that many people still prefer the obsolete, less efficient means of fertilization. ;-)
If you forget about the focusing method for a sec, a separate viewfinder built into the camera makes a lot of sense. Different DOF perception, brighter, no mirror slap, etc.
Now if this viewfinder is best coupled with a mechanical RF like in a Leica, or with a different focusing method is another question.
It can be coupled with an AF mechanism as sophisticated as in the Hexar AF, with adapting brightlines in the VF, etc.
It could also be overlayed with an LCD-based, digital RF patch AND with selectable autofocus. A technology already used for military purposes. It will still, strictly speaking, be an RF, and could feel similar to a Leica but be more functional.
That we will see sooner or later, I believe.
Roland.
f/stopblues
07-18-2008, 13:24
Like most other people here, I own numerous Leica, Bessa and Canon and other RF cameras and I love to pick one up and walk around town with it. But it's nostalgia, not a practical consideration.
I have to pick nits about just this statement, although I generally agree with what has been posted so far. I'm 27 years old and hold no nostalgia for any rangefinder. I was born in the hayday of the SLR. I moved to rangefinders for purely practical considerations. It is a specialized tool that fits my needs precicely. Right, it's probably not practical for even a majority of photographers, but a blanket statement such as that fails to acknowledge the motives of a large base of this forum, I would venture to guess.
back alley
07-18-2008, 13:26
it's me that's obsolete!!
Yes, it's Joe ;)
Roland made a good point that there are more differnces in/around viewfinder than just focusing method. That's what makes it for me. Nostalgia isn't that much of a factor, since RF doomsday predictions been around longer than I am, and yet all the film SLRs somehow vanished now, while RFs still being churned out for the devoted user base. Leica wrote the first chapter of 35mm photography, and ironically, now it's doing the last one as well.
NathanJD
07-18-2008, 13:40
Surely the format of a camera is simply it’s user interface, the actual functionality of it is the same as any other camera – it takes photos. Some people prefer it and some can’t stand it; it’s just the same as the cars we drive, shoes we wear, computers we use, sofas we buy, glasses we wear, you name it – if it is ergonomic in design there will be variation and preference. Otherwise we would live in a very boring, grey world.
Also, let’s not forget that this forum has 25,000 odd members, and that’s not all of the RF users in the world, for a 'niche' market that will never realistically have the lion's share that's not too shabby.
Horses for courses. Use my M's for some work and Nikon DSLRS for when the picture desk is screaming. Sometimes use my M's when they are but 20 mins in snappy snaps on to cd into the mac and down the wire doesn't usually add much more to thier frenzied paranoia. Use what suits the subject and you best. Oh dear God I wish that M8 was what it could have been .
jplomley
07-18-2008, 13:55
Oh for gods sake....here we go again. Does anyone have a different song to sing?
Roger Hicks
07-18-2008, 13:56
Of course RFs are obsolete, in the same sense that propelling pencils are obsolete or silverpoint drawing or bicycles or wooden field cameras or SLRs...
But it ain't just nostalgia. As long as people like to work with a particular tool, and as long as they find they produce a different kind of work with that tool, and as long as they are willing to buy that tool, it isn't obsolete or even (more correctly) obsolescent.
Cheers,
R.
Hi Bill,
Since quite some time I hold the view that what is obsolete in the "digital world" is the SLR way of doing thing. Once live view has come of age, the clumsy swing mirror will be doomed. In particular since that interferes with the optics.
I see future in direct vision view finding, but am not sure how much mileage there is in an optical rangefinder.
vincentbenoit
07-18-2008, 14:14
Cherish obsolescence!
Vincent
Obsolete but with three basic controls, I don't have to surf menus, press down on one of many hard buttons and thumb wheel through options, because there aren't any other options on an RF film camera. I can scale focus pretty quick a 28mm lens, too.
There is no need to hurry in my photography and I wish I had a dollar for every time I've had jiggle the cursor ring to select a new AF point on my DSLR's.
A quick blink saved to brain implant and then shared by telepathy with your friends and clients. No cameras.
Yep been watching too much BSG on the Sci Fi Channel or Sky .Am I a Cylon ?
Obsolete is relative. Look at vacuum tubes. Musicians pay top dollar for a tube amp that weighs 4 times as much as its solid-state equivalent ... but people believe you can't get that special tube sound without one.
Right. The distortion that comes from driving the Vacuum tubes into saturation. There are some darn good modeling amps around now, though. Alas, even though I own a Fender twin, full of sweet vacuum tubes, I still suck as a guitar player! :)
Another important point ... the instrument does not make the artist! :)
I'm solid-state myself, but sometimes use an Electro-Harmonix English Muff'n (overdrive/preamp footpedal) with two good ol' 12AY7 tubes.
tmfabian
07-18-2008, 18:01
Well then, how about this....still image cameras are obsolete.
With the quality of high end video cameras these days...why not just walk around, video everything and then pick the stills out...i mean most video cameras aren't any bigger than the monster DSLRS of today.
on a serious note, I don't feel it's obsolete...it works the way it was designed, it's just not new technology any more. That being said...there's a reason I got rid of all my DSLR rubbish and picked up my leicas, and I will never go back to those mirror slapping, AF whining, thousand button monstrosities.
Carlitos
07-18-2008, 18:10
I think this is a perfect topic.
I cut my teeth on an FM3A, then D70, then RD-1, and now D700. Look at the evolution of photographic tools in just 7 years!!! Amazing.
Maybe the question is not, 'has this tool or that tool run its course?'; but, 'is there another purpose-built tool that delivers superior results in the hand of the creator?' Oil and pencil are still leading the world of contemporary fine art; they have their purpose, and Lucian Freud's current work will attest to this. Will the camera or computer kill the paintbrush? No.
If anything, the Rangefinder will push the DSLR to become something new that allows us to produce greater results than either as they stand today, and I think the D700 is the first step in that direction. However, for ergonomics, stealth, and scene composition - I don't think any current DSLR displaces the rangefinder.
Even with the latest DSLR, you will still catch me on the street now and then with an RD-1 or Leica in my hand and a smile on my face! And to me, those are the moments I produce my best work.
tmfabian
07-18-2008, 18:10
The Dallas Morning News has been using frame grabs from HD Video cameras as stills on Page 1 for a long time, now.
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0704/d2-voodoo-tool.html
Yup, that was my point, a lot of papers are doing that, quite a few here in Boston do, in fact it's now a requirement to work with them that you know how to use video equipment.
and here's the video camera that will make still cameras obsolete...12mp video full frame 35mm (movie style) sensor, up to 100fps. Why bother trying to capture the right moment when you can capture them all and edit later.
http://www.red.com/cameras
For that matter why bother even sending a person out when you can just install a few of these around town...keep them running and edit a picture out later.
An ST-E2, in addition to providing infrared remote control of Canon E-TTL flash units, can also be set to project an infrared grid on the subject when the shutter is fired. Since the grid conforms itself perfectly to the subject it is projected on, it provides a precise, high contrast target for the cameras AF system to lock onto. The AF system doesn't care what the aperture is, whether the subject is wearing flat black from head to toe, or even if there is any visible light at all. It locks to the grid and focuses the lens.
That is the first time I hear about an AF system, which can outperform a rangefinder in extreme low-light. The AF systems I have seen so far work well (and fast) with subjects in good light (and high contrast) but available light ... RF cameras are not so obsolete yet, IMHO.:p
As I draw toward obsolescence myself I find I tend to collect and cherish things of similar fate. I do beleive that there is a big difference between Obsolescence and Usefulness.
Best regards,
Bob
myoptic3
07-18-2008, 20:48
For me. a split prism finder in a SLR is easier to focus. Couldn't they make the same thing in a RF camera? Or I would prefer to have a RF camera that works like the old Leningrad. On it, the screen was split horizontally and you lined up the top and bottom sections. Much easier to see.
Out of interest, are there well known p/js still using [film]rangefinders all the time?
amateriat
07-18-2008, 23:19
Well then, how about this....still image cameras are obsolete.
With the quality of high end video cameras these days...why not just walk around, video everything and then pick the stills out...i mean most video cameras aren't any bigger than the monster DSLRS of today.
You beat me to the punch on this one ;)
As far as my approach to photography is concerned, I'll simply borrow a quote from the gang at Low End Mac (http://lowendmac.com/): It's Obsolete When I Say It Is.
- Barrett
Roger Hicks
07-18-2008, 23:45
Do the words 'obsolete', 'obsolescent' or 'anachronistic' have any meaning in art, or in the tools used to produce art?
Cheers,
R.
I have a use for a 35mm rangefinder. Therefore it is not obsolete to me
So what else matters?
"Do the words 'obsolete', 'obsolescent' or 'anachronistic' have any meaning in art, or in the tools used to produce art?"
Of course they have ..................... You could pay carpenters to build your house using only hammers, but would have a better built house that you could move into in months instead of years (and be left with a lot more money) if they used Paslode nail guns. ............
For a non-refined quality job, this may be true. But for a highly well done job, this depends very much on the skills of each craftman with his tool. Simply owning the more advanced tool is no guartanttee of success. I even dare to assume leicasniper will agree so far.
The very adventment of the internet has turn the very meaning of obsolence - into an obsolet and anachronistic term. Unless we are the owners of a camera manufacturing company and have to decide if to mess with digital or not.
====
As for our truly distinguished expert, our friend Bill Pierce, I think that although he may be somehow right in his definition of a RF camera as a certain way of metering distance, from here flow a whole series of differences between a RF and a SLR that may be of decisive importance in certain types of photography. Both ways.
Although you can perform street photography with any type of camera, according to your own temperament, in my opinion the RF remains so far the classic and irreplaceable instrument.
Now let's accept we are die hard wrong, and our RFs are definitely obsolete instruments. So ?
Are we a bunch of blind chickens looking for the fashionable and/or most advanced, as our sole starting and ending point of reasoning ? I don't think so. In fact we are not only an independent social phenomena but also a necessary retro backfire of the mainstrean current.
Are we in photography what in politics is called "reactionaries", or "restaurators", or "contras" ? This is a nice question, but more complex.
I would like to see ourselves as a kind of pluralists.
Cheers,
Ruben
Harry Lime
07-19-2008, 03:12
Obsolete may be the wrong word. 'Forgotten' may be a better description.
9 of 10 people who ask about my M cameras don't even know what rangefinder focusing is. Interestingly once you explain the concept and they give it a try, a lot of people actually like it.
I think an RF camera still has a lot of advantages over an SLR:
- Brighter viewfinder
- More accurate focusing in low light
- You can see the action outside of your framelines
- Smaller body due to the lack of a mirror box
- Can be quieter
- Less vibration due to the lack of a mirror
- Retrofocus lenses, but of course this is a two edged sword with digital.
- Ergonomics. WIth an RF camera the viewfinder is usually on the far left side of the body. That way the corner of the body containing the viewfinder fits neatly in your eyesocket and it's very easy to handle the camera, when you're in a hurry. The viewfinder of an SLR is in the center of the body and your nose is always in the way, unless you are an amateur boxer. Therefore it is clumsier and slower to quickly raise the camera to your eye. A good high eyepoint VF makes a big difference, but I have yet to find another camera that matches an F3 in that respect.
Autofocus is great at shooting sports, wild life etc (although some may argue with that), but I can guarantee that scale focusing in the right f-stop range is faster than any current or future AF system will ever be.
This is why I sold my Canon 5D and am switching to Nikon for digital.
It's one of the main reasons why I desperately wanted an M8.
In Canon's infinite wisdom and drive for total automation they crippled the distance and aperture scales on their lenses, so it is difficult or impossible to scale focus.
For street photography, documentary work and general shooting this is a disaster and probably the reason why you see so many photos these days with the subject centred in frame...
Nikon has followed a similar path, but at least they still give you the option to use older manual focus lenses on their newest digital bodies. With Nikon you get the best of both worlds.
I do not think that the RF concept is obsolete; it's just mostly forgotten.
HL
But Harry - people today seem to be unable to scale focus a 28 or 35 mm focal length lens -with or without a depth of field scale. It is too much of a challenge. You need motors, movable AF focus points and a focus assist light to get the job done. Think power tools.
By the way, a RF camera has two focus modes, scale focus and RF assist. The former gets my vote about a third of the time.
mfunnell
07-19-2008, 03:40
We've drifted a bit off course, though, from Bill's original question. It was concerned specifically with the focusing system of rangefinders. And the modern autofocus camera has clearly obsoleted the manual rangefinder in its once advantage in focusing wide or fast lenses in low light. My 5D with the ST-E2 can focus my 20mm f1.8 lens perfectly in total darkness if I desire. You can't do that with a manual rangefinder.
Just because a relatively small number of people continue to cling to an outdated focusing method doesn't make it any less functionally obsolete.Actually, I can focus my Contax G2 or Hexar (the AF one) in total darkness as well. Whether those cameras, or yours, have focused on what you want them to focus on is best left as an exercise for the reader.
And, in fact, you have not addressed the primary difference I, personally, find between focusing an SLR (AF or MF) and focusing a manual RF. Both SLR and RF systems give me positive confirmation I've focused on what I want to - the SLR by more-or-less direct confirmation (ie. I can see the image is in focus through the viewfinder) and the RF by coincidence of images at my desired point of focus (assuming my RF is in alignment).
The difference is that for practical purposes (at least in fast-moving hand-held work) the depth-of-field shown in the viewfinder of the SLR is that at the maximum aperture of the lens, and I have to imagine what will be included in the zone of acceptable focus and the transition to out-of-focus areas when the system stops down to my selected aperture as I release the shutter.
The RF system shows me essentially infinite DOF through the viewfinder and I have to imagine what will be excluded from DOF, transition to OOF etc. when the image is recorded at my selected aperture.
With an SLR I imagine what I'm including while with the RF I imagine what I'm excluding. This changes the way I compose photographs when working with the different systems. (Perhaps it shouldn't, but it does.) For some things I prefer to do it one way, for others the other. Perhaps this doesn't matter to you - but it does to me and I know it does for at least some others.
Autofocus SLRs don't address this difference. Viewfinder AF systems (eg. the Contax Gs, the autofocus Hexar, other P&S cameras etc.) are more like the RF in terms of view through the finder - but they can't positively confirm focus is really where I want it to be. For example, when I use my Contax G2 focus tends to be spot-on or "missed by a mile" with nothing much in-between - my fault as I've had it focus on the wrong thing, but "its fault" in that I have no visual confirmation until I see the print. That doesn't help much with, say, zone focus as its no use having a 5m DOF if you've missed focus by 10m. (And, yes, I know I can scale-focus my G2 but that's a separate issue.)
So, if I want a viewfinder that shows everything in focus while composing yet gives me positive visual confirmation (not an electronic signal from an AF system) that focus is where I want it to be then I'm pretty much stuck with a manual coincident image RF system, pretty much like a Leica M (note: I often use Hexar RFs). I don't see how this viewfinder system is obsolete if there's nothing more modern that can do what it does when that is what I want. (I like AF SLRs just fine when that's what I want, too.)
Again, this may not be a concern of yours but it is one of mine.
...Mike
David Goldfarb
07-19-2008, 04:00
The main attraction of a 35mm-sized RF over an SLR would seem to me to be better, simpler, non-distorting, non-retrofocus lenses, and smaller, quieter cameras that focus well in low light are bonuses.
Smaller and lighter, I think become more important features in medium format rangefinders, because they can make the difference between shooting medium format or using a smaller format on any given occasion.
For large format I think the RF serves the function (except perhaps in the case of Polaroid conversions that are more like big Leicas), of making the big camera much more versatile by providing an alternative to groundglass focusing for moving subjects and handholdability, but I guess LF/RF shooters like myself are already a niche within a niche within a niche.
I don't see autofocus as a replacement for manual focus of any type. An autofocus camera can focus "perfectly" on what the camera thinks is important. I'd rather decide what's important for myself, thank you very much.
shimokita
07-19-2008, 04:15
Context, context, context. As the world of online reporting becomes more and more obsolete is it that thoses involved in that arena see everything in that light. The statements in the original post could be argued point by point if they were valid. How does the so called "limitation of the M8" generalize to the experience of using a film base range finder? Are we following the money or talking about a near religions experience. Do people still buy Leica cameras (since this is the camera mentioned in the lead statement of the original post)?
In a business context, I guess Leica still has some reasons for continuing the production. If only to keep something alive that will support their current efforts. But so what.... If it wasn't a leica M, it would be a Canon, Pentax, or any one of a number of film cameras. The DSLR is obsolete, but not yet common knowledge.
clh
Harry Lime
07-19-2008, 05:00
But Harry - people today seem to be unable to scale focus a 28 or 35 mm focal length lens -with or without a depth of field scale. It is too much of a challenge. You need motors, movable AF focus points and a focus assist light to get the job done. Think power tools.
I hate to say it, but you're right.
It's interesting how people react when you demonstrate scale focusing to them. Quite often you can almost see a lightbulb go on over their head and more often than not they are amazed that the system is not in wider use...
By the way, a RF camera has two focus modes, scale focus and RF assist. The former gets my vote about a third of the time.
Same here.
;-)
HL
mfunnell
07-19-2008, 05:05
In real world use, though, most people using either viewing system don't think about DOF at all when they shoot.I'm wondering where that "real world" is. Are we now talking about the mass consumer market? Or are we simply going wherever we need to be to justify a contrarian position?
...Mike
Roger Hicks
07-19-2008, 06:22
For a non-refined quality job, this may be true. But for a highly well done job, this depends very much on the skills of each craftman with his tool. Simply owning the more advanced tool is no guartanttee of success. I even dare to assume leicasniper will agree so far.
The very adventment of the internet has turn the very meaning of obsolence - into an obsolet and anachronistic term.
I would like to see ourselves as a kind of pluralists.
Dear Ruben,
Beautifully and tactfully phrased. To say that 'computer controlled water jets are the tool of choice' is pure twaddle: try forcing a sculptor who uses traditional tools to use computer controlled water jets, and see how long it is before you get a computer controlled water jet stuck up your jacksie.
There are no rules in art, and very few in craft; there are still those who prefer brass slot-head screws in mahogany to Pozidriv in medium-density fibreboard, even if the former does demand 'obsolete' skills.
As others have said, and as you say above, in a world of niche markets, 'obsolete' is an obsolete term.
Like others, too, I'm also slightly puzzled as to where this thread can lead. Is it going to change anyone's mind about using rangefinders? Is it going to make them better photographers? The only thing that stops it being trolling is that it is probably counterproductive, if the assumed troll question is 'Should we all dump rangefinders because they're obsolete'?
Cheers,
Roger
As I draw toward obsolescence myself I find I tend to collect and cherish things of similar fate. I do beleive that there is a big difference between Obsolescence and Usefulness.
Best regards,
Bob
Very well said...................Robin
photomoof
07-19-2008, 07:46
Of course the rangefinder model is obsolete. My Canon 5D with an ST-E2 in the hot shoe will focus the fastest Canon EF prime perfectly every time in total darkness.
Like most other people here, I own numerous Leica, Bessa and Canon and other RF cameras and I love to pick one up and walk around town with it. But it's nostalgia, not a practical consideration. If a digital RF were not obsolete, Nikon and Canon would be churning 'em out by the millions. But only Leica soldiers on.
And I'm sure both of our posts will draw some flames. ;)
I have been watching this thread with some amusement.
First we have to define exactly what we all mean by "obsolete."
My Mac dictionary defines it this way:
outdated, out of date, outmoded, old-fashioned, démodé, passé, out of fashion; no longer in use, disused, fallen into disuse, behind the times, superannuated, outworn, antiquated, antediluvian, anachronistic, discontinued, old, dated, archaic, ancient, fossilized, extinct, defunct, dead, bygone, out; informal prehistoric
"Out of fashion" and "no longer in use," seem to be the important definitions Bill is referring to.
However there are two more important issues on the table -- regarding "no longer in use."
1) If more of "you" do not buy new Leicas, especially the M8, the prices will just keep rising, or the company will cease to produce rangefinders and only license lens designs.
2) High quality film scanners may be out of the reach of "regular folks," as Nikon seems to be going out of the business, with no other reasonable alternatives? If you shoot film, you will be left with flatbed, professional drum, or traditional chemical as you only choices for using film cameras.
edit:
Finally you will use what you are able to make work for you, and that will vary according to your toleration for older technology, some will find it better for their needs, some will find it maddening.
amateriat
07-19-2008, 09:06
Of course they have meaning in tools to produce art, or anything else for that matter. A sculptor can cut metal shapes with tin snips or hack at granite with a chisel, but computer controlled water jets are the tools of choice these days. You could pay carpenters to build your house using only hammers, but would have a better built house that you could move into in months instead of years (and be left with a lot more money) if they used Paslode nail guns.
And a fast computer, a big, snazzy Wacom tablet, and Adobe CS3 are a hell of a lot neater and more "efficient" than messing about with oils, acrylics, charcoals and pencils...right?
It comes down to what you're trying to achieve, and why. One chooses the tools one groks with, old or new.
- Barrett
crawdiddy
07-19-2008, 09:39
Some tools are remarkably resilient.
The typewriter rendered pencils obsolete 150 years ago. Word processing software made typewriters obsolete about 20 years ago.
Yet you can still purchase new pencils. And yes, even a Brother typewriter, although it's been retrofitted with software.
photogdave
07-19-2008, 10:06
This is why I sold my Canon 5D and am switching to Nikon for digital.
It's one of the main reasons why I desperately wanted an M8.
In Canon's infinite wisdom and drive for total automation they crippled the distance and aperture scales on their lenses, so it is difficult or impossible to scale focus.
For street photography, documentary work and general shooting this is a disaster and probably the reason why you see so many photos these days with the subject centred in frame...
Nikon has followed a similar path, but at least they still give you the option to use older manual focus lenses on their newest digital bodies. With Nikon you get the best of both worlds.
I do not think that the RF concept is obsolete; it's just mostly forgotten.
HL
You should have hung on to your 5D! The Canon EF mount is far more accommodating to older manual lenses than Nikon. With adapters you can mount Nikon F, Leica R, Contax Yashica, and probably other old manual lenses, with the only linitation being stop-down metering.
photomoof
07-19-2008, 10:10
Some tools are remarkably resilient.
The typewriter rendered pencils obsolete 150 years ago. Word processing software made typewriters obsolete about 20 years ago.
Yet you can still purchase new pencils. And yes, even a Brother typewriter, although it's been retrofitted with software.
An interesting point.
Pencils have remained useful, as something we all use in some form (drawing, jotting down notes, laying out wood cuts -- while typewriters remain pretty useless, unless they produce a digital copy, and in fact typewriters can produce more work for the user if used improperly, much like film camera, imitating digital cameras can actually be more work.
Tools are best used for their intended purpose, or a new purpose, but are seldom truly useful when they are shoe-horned into awkward uses.
Dektol Dan
07-19-2008, 12:07
[quote=leicasniper;858933]Of course the rangefinder model is obsolete. My Canon 5D with an ST-E2 in the hot shoe will focus the fastest Canon EF prime perfectly every time in total darkness.
And just what is it focusing on?
The inherent problems with auto focus systems get better by increments, but they are far from being successful in all applications.
Recalling the shots I took at my son's wings graduation, my late model Canon Rebel couldn't discern the laurel hedge from my son standing in front of it. The hedge filled the rest of the frame and completely confounded the 7 point (or whatever it is) auto focus.
And, if its big, heavy and requires batteries, it's one step forward and two steps back in my book.
mabelsound
07-19-2008, 12:18
I use 'em for the small size, attractive design (IMHO), and little bitty lenses. I don't take better pictures with them than I do with my DSLR.
There are just too many great lenses out there for RFs to ever totally vanish. SOMEBODY will keep on wanting to shoot with them. I certainly do.
Man do I ever want an affordable digital RF. That would be amazing.
Saying that "auto-focus doesn't work" is like saying that anti-lock braking doesn't work. In some small number of cases it's true, but it hardly makes auto-focus or anti-lock braking inferior to the manual alternatives. In most cases, the camera/car is so much better and faster at that function than a human could ever be, and for those times when it's NOT true, any decent tool will have a manual override function. It's up to the operator to know when to turn off the automation. Insisting in the superiority of manual focus in all cases is an act of faith that can't be proved with photographic results.
It is easy for Dslr users with their latest electronic battery dependent cameras to dismiss Leica manual rangefinder cameras as "obsolete" but any battery dependent camera has obsolescence built in,and within a few years will be become "dustbin fodder".With the proliferation of battery types with each new Dslr, how many of these batteries will still be available in a few years time.
Think also of the many photographers who have used Leica manual rangefinder cameras in World War 11,the Korean conflict and Vietnam War.
I cannot think what results a modern Dslr used in these war theatres would have missed with no power source available on the battlefield or behind enemy lines. If David Douglas Duncan had been given a Dslr in the Korean War certainly his landmark book "This is War" would not have been produced due to battery recharging "not available" on the battlefield or any warzone for that matter.It is a pity that we cannot go back in time and put a war photographer behind the lines in Normandy in 1944/5 with a modern electronic battery guzzeling Dslr and and another war photographer with a Leica manual rangefinder and compare their portfolio's after spending 2 weeks on the battlefield.I know who my money would be on.
The Leica rangefinder camera is a true "miniature camera" whilst some of the top range Dslr cameras from Canon or Nikon are so large and cumbersome that they are outside the term "miniature cameras" which they supposed to be.
Any manual camera and particularly Leica rangefinders will still be around and used when most electronic wonders of this so called "throw away modern age" have long been despatched to the dustbin as "useless junk".
"Long live the dependable manual rangefinder Leica camera - over 50 years old and still going strong and a reliable photographic tool".
The Jeep and the tank and the airplane in WWII and Korea were battery dependent.
Jeeps,tanks and aircaft were military equipment and dependent and limited to military supply lines and logistics.I can't see the military providing the means for photographers to receive battery supplies in preference to weapons,fuel or food in any future warzone or under war conditions.War photographers were and still are expected to look after and supply their own equipment and needs in these warzones, so your statement does not apply in these circumstances.
WWII photographers didn't have battery dependent cameras because battery technology hadn't reached the point to make it possible. Otherwise, they would have had them. They didn't use cameras with batteries because such cameras didn't exist, not out of choice. Modern war photographers use battery dependent cameras. I don't see your point.
I didn't say that WW11 photographers HAD battery dependent cameras in WW11 (READ MY 2 POSTS)and its a damn good job that they didn't as your argument that they would have been supplied batteries if they needed them in the warzone is rubbish.
Who the hell would have supplied them to war photographers in that onslaught.The allies were lucky to get equipment,ammunition,food or fuel in the Normandy campaign never mind thinking about getting batteries to War photographers if they HAD needed them.You should read up on what conditions were like for troops who had survived Omagh Beach and in the push through Normandy in WW11 before making ridiculous statements as per your quote above.
You stick to your Canon battery dependent Dslr camera and I'll come back to you in 10years time and see if your "all dancing electronic wonder machine" is still around,which I very much doubt and you will see that the Leica manual rangefinder (M2 - 50years old even now) that I use will still be fulfilling its function as a reliable photographic workhorse even then.
climbing_vine
07-19-2008, 18:50
Why not organize all human reproduction to be done via in vitro fertilization? It would surely be more efficient. However, I'm told that many people still prefer the obsolete, less efficient means of fertilization. ;-)
I know this was supposed to be humor, but (respectfully) that works better when our analogue is actually, well, true. The good old way of procreation is orders of magnitude more efficient and effective than any newfangled ways. If bonking is a rangefinder, in vitro is an early SLR with a mirror so dim you can't see what you're shooting.
caperunner
07-19-2008, 20:30
Getting back to the original proposition that RF cameras are obsolete-yes or no.
Answer = Yes
They were surpassed by SLR technology some years ago.
We all know this and in spite of the above fact still use RF cameras. ;)
In my case because they represent a quaint method of focussing a picture and in general had excellent lenses. I might even attract some kudos while doing so too, perhaps not.
Almost without exception the camera will be mistaken for a new kind of digital..
I saw a photog a little while ago in town using a plate camera with yards of black cloth into which he disappeared. I assume he took a photo! Kudos and quaintness to him. Wonder what he thinks about his camera? Certainly an attention getter!
I think that at least for me the fact that a rangefinder is not the latest in focus technology is what I like. It forces a slow down that is a great escape from the auto focus 9 frame per second world many of us live it to make ends meet. A rangefinder is, for me, the opposite of of a DSLR. I have often said that I love my rangefinder for what it can not do, not what it can do. With a rangefinder I do not have to check my work as I do it (yeah, I check my images from time to time when using a DSLR) and it keeps my love for photography alive. I get paid for work with my auto focus DSLR but I get joy from my rangefinder. Obsolete? Yes, and thank god it is!
Roger Hicks
07-19-2008, 23:48
They were surpassed by SLR technology some years ago.
You mean I'll get better pictures if I stop using my Leicas and go back to SLRs?
On focus speed, I'd add that often, I'll prefocus on a given spot and shoot when the subject is there. Or I'll focus at a given distance and shoot as the subject comes into focus. Either is quicker (from pressing the release to taking the picture) than any autofocus can be.
Then there's zone focusing...
Cheers,
R.
Harry Lime
07-20-2008, 00:34
You should have hung on to your 5D! The Canon EF mount is far more accommodating to older manual lenses than Nikon. With adapters you can mount Nikon F, Leica R, Contax Yashica, and probably other old manual lenses, with the only linitation being stop-down metering.
I had an adapter that allowed me to mount my Leica-R glass on the 5D.
Stop-down metering isn't the end of the world if you are shooting landscapes or a still life, but it's not practical for normal work.
HL
mfunnell
07-20-2008, 00:43
Who the hell would have supplied them to war photographers in that onslaught.The allies were lucky to get equipment,ammunition,food or fuel in the Normandy campaign never mind thinking about getting batteries to War photographers if they HAD needed them.The US military and the battlefields they work on are, these days, very different and very high-tech places. If power is needed, if battery charging is required, the military has any amount of ability to supply those services, if only because they need 'em to support their own gagetry. Further, the US military runs a very slick media management operation, and knows full well that reporters need to be fed whatever they want, whenever they want it, even at the expense of troops, if good ink is to be generated. If embedded reporters want it, they're going to get it. Charged batteries are at the lower end of that difficulty scale; fresh lobster and caviar is at the high end but can be done for a sufficiently prominent "media personality" purporting to be a reporter (I am not making the latter up - though the particular individual I'm thinking of was operating in East Timor and the US military wasn't involved).
If feeding the egos as well as the bellies (and even the gadgets) of the press is required to get "good press" then they're to get whaever they want. No trouble or expense spared.
Outside any military-controlled "embed" system, however, logistics may be a little more difficult (often ranging quickly towards the impossible). Therein, I imagine, lies a real problem in journalistic ethics (for those who have some, rather than seeing it as the oxymoron it all to often is).
...Mike
mfunnell
07-20-2008, 00:48
Stop-down metering isn't the end of the world if you are shooting landscapes or a still life, but it's not practical for normal work.
For some, landscape and/or still life is normal work. Not my thing, generally, but there's nothing wrong with it.
...Mike
David Goldfarb
07-20-2008, 03:32
Stop-down metering isn't the end of the world if you are shooting landscapes or a still life, but it's not practical for normal work.
HL
I don't know about that. I use a handheld meter for most of what I do. Unless you're shooting in rapidly changing lighting conditions or moving in and out of the macro range, it isn't necessary to meter every frame, and I'd say it's usually better (more consistent frame to frame) to take one meter reading, set the camera, and leave it that way until lighting conditions change or you want a different aperture.
Even if lighting conditions are changing, it's often between two situations--sun and shade, or sun and clouds. In those cases, I take two readings, pay attention, and switch back and forth between them as needed.
Sunrise/sunset--then TTL metering and auto aperture lenses really are more convenient.
David Goldfarb
07-20-2008, 03:44
Harry Lime was talking about stopped down metering with manual lenses on an SLR. On a rangefinder it's different, because you aren't composing and focusing through the lens, so there's no advantage on those points to auto aperture lenses.
There is another issue though, in low light, that some SLR meters aren't entirely linear, and if you use stopped down metering, you might end up in the non-linear zone more easily. On the other hand, if you're doing it with a digital camera, you can also check the histogram to be sure.
This gets ridiculous, doesn't it, imaging all the hypothetical scenarios where ONLY a rangefinder camera can get the shot. Some of the arguments would be pretty convincing if it weren't for the overwhelming amount of high-quality photographic evidence that contradicts them: If Nachtwey's that good with a lowly Canon, just imagine what he could do with a Leica MP!
Use whatever camera that makes sense, or makes you happy, but leave the mythologizing to the advertising department.
Harry Lime
07-20-2008, 05:38
Harry Lime was talking about stopped down metering with manual lenses on an SLR. On a rangefinder it's different, because you aren't composing and focusing through the lens, so there's no advantage on those points to auto aperture lenses.
Exactly.
Shooting an SLR camera without an auto iris function is a PIA. If you have the aperture set to f16 on a sunny day, the view though the viewfinder is like looking through a pair of welders goggles.
None of the Canon adaptors support an automatic iris, as it is controlled electronically by the camera body. 3rd party lenses obviously do not talk to Canon bodies, nor do they have the linkage or other means for the iris to be manipulated.
On an RF camera it obviously doesn't matter that the lens doesn't have an auto-iris, because you are not looking though the lens.
I rarely use the built in meter in any camera. 99% of the time I use a handheld meter, even when I am shooting with a digital body.
tmfabian
07-20-2008, 08:20
M2user, you have completely lost me. Who is supplying batteries to modern photographers in wars? In the documentary "War Photographer," James Nachtway is shooting an EOS 1, a totally battery dependent camera. Where was he getting batteries and recharging them in bombed out countries? My 1DsMkIII will shoot the equivalent of almost 200 36 exposure rolls on a single charge. How many rolls of film did Bob Capa have in his pocket when he stormed a beach?
I'm confused.
Hold on there cowboy....you have a 1dsMkIII that ACTUALLY focuses?
My wifes has been back to canon 5 times and it still can't get a focus lock.
tmfabian
07-20-2008, 08:34
Actually, that was the 1D that had that problem under some circumstances and it was taken care of long ago. Never has been a problem with the 1Ds. Why doesn't she just return the camera?
I sure wouldn't accept an $8,000 camera that that wouldn't focus.
Sorry, you were correct, it's her 1D3 not her 1DS3 that's going back...I'm a bit on the hungover side this morning and I always forget the whole d vs ds.
But no...they won't replace the camera because they keep claiming they can fix the thing, and under the warranty they're fully allowed to chose whatever method they want to resolve the problem.
Back on topic however...of course the RF focusing method is obsolete, that doesn't mean though that it doesn't do a spectacular job at what it does.
Even modern DSLR focusing methods are obsolete considering the current research being done into flexible lenses that will focus in much the same way as the human eye does.
Just because something is obsolete doesn't mean it's useless, it just means that there's no need for it, but needs and wants/preferences are 2 totally different things, I personally prefer the obsolete RF method but i'm not delusional in thinking that it's the best way for everyone, it's just the best way for me.
photomoof
07-20-2008, 08:49
I personally prefer the obsolete RF method but i'm not delusional in thinking that it's the best way for everyone, it's just the best way for me.
It may not even be the best way for you, change is often more difficult than staying with what we think we like.
I know I stick with all sorts of things in my life I should probably abandon, or at least look at alternatives.
I have an M6 TTL and an R3A as well as an R8 and I use the R8 much more than either of the other two because there are numerous circumstances which require at least my 135mm Elmarit-R lens or my 180mm APO-Elmarit-R lens and I can focus R lenses faster than the M lenses. But there are also circumstances wherein I need the quieter shutter of the M6 TTL because I am stealthily capturing images of adults and children and don't want them to know I am capturing anything. In fact, two days ago I was doing just that and none of the adults and children were able to detect I'd even pressed the shutter release button on my M6 TTL (with the 90mm APO/ASPH lens attached). Additionally, with its smaller body I was able to quickly focus on the people and, if they looked at me, I could quickly aim a bit to the right or left to make them think I was aiming the lens at something else, then quickly aim back at them and fire away silently. So, rangefinder and SLR bodies continue to have their distinct benefits and with the aforementioned equipment (and dozens of Leica lenses that I have) I feel completely equipped to capture reality around me with today's outstanding films, especially black and white.
photomoof
07-20-2008, 09:58
Don't forget Fred that a lot of younger users have come to rangefinders from slr or digital origins.
I think that was more a statement to myself, when I say "I know I don't want to lug around a 6x9, even if it does take larger negatives," sort of thinking.
For years I would not even hear of trying anything but Nikon, to the exclusion of Olympus, which I now love almost as much.
I won't even bring up raw fish... :D
tmfabian
07-20-2008, 10:04
I started out with a 4x5, then moved to medium format, then moved to SLRS, and now use RF's.
Of all the systems, I honestly enjoy the RF experience the most, I never really enjoyed using SLRS, they were just a means to make money when I was a sports shooter, and of course in that field there's really only one game in town and that was SLRS because of their lovely telephoto lenses, and I admit to still owning a DSLR for that very reason, in fact the only lens I have for my D3 is an 80-200/2.8 VR. Try rocking one of those kinds of lenses on a RF and you have to modify the entire system so that it becomes an SLR and in that field an RF is completely useless. But that only covers a very small percentage of what I use my cameras for....hence the whole RF is best for me dealy.
But if we're all honest, every system has it's own inherent weak points and you chose the tool that works for you most of the time, heck I even use one of those olympus crushproof p/s cameras from time to time (notably when i'm going out to get completely trashed, i would really hate to drop my m's or my d3)
And I have to say I feel sorry that poor old leicasniper here has to keep defending the fact that modern AF doesn't magically focus for you, with these new cameras AF is fast and completely in your control, I honestly like RF focusing for the tactile quality of it....not because it's an advantage in low light (come on IR grid beam focus assist has been around for ages and it does a spectacular job.) not because I want to be in control of the focus (once again modern af puts you in control) and not because it's more accurate (they both get the same job done i different ways, neither is better or worse) I just enjoy the experience of focussing a smooth leica lens...
Life is too short to bicker about better or worse, use what you ENJOY, obsolete or cutting edge, as long as it gets the job done it's still relevant.
Out of interest, are there well known p/js still using [film]rangefinders all the time?
Good point. What about teru kuwayama?
Do the words 'obsolete', 'obsolescent' or 'anachronistic' have any meaning in art, or in the tools used to produce art?
Cheers,
R.
Exactly. Ironically the 'obsolete' procedures were the main procedures in art photography (museum stuff, not journalism) during the XX century.
But, for news and media the rangefinder concept is obselete. And it remains obsolete from the 80s. So, nothing new here.
Hi Bill Pierce,
I don't know if you have gotten what you asked for, but I am sure you may have got more insight about the RFF crowd, if not about the relevance of the RF camera today.
Are we obsolete thinkers ? :)
Cheers,
Ruben
I'll never spend a penny on digital gear, but I just paid good money for a newly made RF lens that "looks like it fell off a 1970's slr". I'll probably buy more RF gear in the future.
Though when my kids get to be camera gear buying age chances are, well, uh, zero, that they will feel that way, ha. They might like rangefinder cameras though.
I would rather think that the rangefinder process may have run into a format of photography that will not justify development as a focusing tool.
Now if a consortium of interested parties, say one million people, each donating $10, were to get together and contact one of the premier manufacturers to develop a rangefinder digital from scratch, they may be able to lay down enough money for a retainer to get the project started.
Jim Evidon
11-15-2008, 15:24
It's all about the right tool for the right job. Some jobs take a screw driver and some take a hammer and nail. Both methods make a hole and fasten things together. But each has a different application.
Since I returned to RF photography (M8 and a nice pretty M4P) I am enjoying it immensely without the bulk, menus and other sophisticated but sometimes cumbersome refinements. They are simply nice to carry around, and shoot, especially in dim light, and produce wonderful images.
But next Tuesday, our camera club is going to an orchid and exotic plant farm, and I am using my D300 Nikon DSLR, macro lens, Expodisc, and ball head tripod. The live view feature should prove very useful. For that shoot, I wouldn't think of using either Leica RF's.
Both types are cameras, produce wonderful images, but each has a different application.
While film may not be survive the future, range finder cameras will probably survive, either with digital technology or some new and different imaging process that has not even been thought of yet.
NickTrop
11-15-2008, 15:58
Konica Auto S3. Nice RF, can focus in any lighting condition. "17 megapixel" resolution. Simple controls. Great glass, takes great pics. Virtually silent. Very fast operation. Battery lasts for years - no recharging required. Best of all? Fits in the palm of my hand. One of many examples. Load it up with black and white Arista (Tri-X), $2 a roll. Send it off to Dwyane's (that's what I've been doing with 35 lately, process my own MF only...) Better results - still, than digital with black and white, which is what I shoot 95% of the time. Camera cost $100 bucks, serviced. (Yes, a nice deal...)
Family snaps mostly. Throw them on the table when there's company - "Oh - I love black and white". And the genuinely do. No need for a computer or technology to view them. (Scan the few I want to send/post with a cheap Epson...)
This is obsolescence? How?
charjohncarter
11-15-2008, 16:23
Is the P&S obsolete? In fact, I think the DSLR is more so than the RF. The buying public just doesn't realize it yet.
waileong
11-19-2008, 22:56
That's like writing with pen and paper is obsolete because of computers. In fact, in Singapore people are complaining that the new generation of kids have awful writing because they hardly write with pen and paper any more, they're doing powerpoint slides by 3rd grade.
But no, pen and paper isn't obsolete, it's necessary and it's the most convenient and most basic way of communication short of talking. It works without electricity.
So the rangefinder is just another way of focusing, it works without batteries too. Yes, there's better technology around, but just like pen and paper won't disappear, I doubt rangefinder focusing will disappear.
We've been talking a lot about the limitations of the M8. But, could it be that the rangefinder model is becoming obsolete? After all, it's just one way of focusing. Once upon a time there was scale focusing, groundglass focusing and rangefinder focusing. But now there are several ways to autofocus, one of which could be made to focus very high speed lenses accurately if the subject had sufficient contrast and brightness. Some of the DSLRs come very close to that already. (And their very high speed lenses do well with groundglass focusing, also.)
The brightline finder on today's rangefinders are great. So much so that a lot of folks are slipping them in the accessory shoes of little cameras ranging from Minilux to Canon G9. And, by the way, it's not such a stupid thing to slip them into the accessory shoe of an SLR or DSLR - two good viewing systems in one body. I equipped my old Nikon F's that way and was thought of as, initially, totally crazy and, then, not so dumb.
I don't think the rangefinder is going to be replaced unless its manufacturers choose to cease producing. But, I'll keep my reasons to myself until after the first screams of outrage from my fellow forum members for even suggesting such a thing.
Bill
Yesterday afternoon I attended a seminar, hosted by an educator who is Taiwanese-born and is proficient in the use of the abacus, to teach grade-school educators in central New Mexico how to use the abacus, and how to teach the use of the abacus in their classrooms. Although the abacus, as an ancient calculation device, is considered obsolete, it sees common use in some Asian countries as a "gateway" device to interest students in math, and the abacus method is also useful for the teaching of Anzan, which is mental arithematic calculation. We saw a video where grade-school-aged children were multiplying and dividing numbers greater than 10 digits in length, using mental abacus math, in less than 30 seconds.
What's this have to do with rangefinders being obsolete? They're tools for making pictures. I agree that there are certain good aspects to the SLR method of viewfinding, as well as the rangefinder method of viewfinding, depending on one's needs. I also suspect we'll begin to see novel methods of viewfinding, such as what has been described as being offered in the new Panasonic micro-four-thirds camera, where a hybridization of both SLR and rangefinder methods is beginning to happen.
Personally, I have no preference other than what's useful to me as a tool. I like optical 1:1 viewfinders for their transparency of use; but for previewing DOF effects and being able to accurately discern manual focus effects neither the SLR nor the rangefinder (in their traditional form) are ideal for all situations. We may be on the cusp of a revolution in new camera technology that will obsolete both.
~Joe
photomoof
12-12-2008, 11:55
Yesterday afternoon I attended a seminar, hosted by an educator who is Taiwanese-born and is proficient in the use of the abacus, to teach grade-school educators in central New Mexico how to use the abacus, and how to teach the use of the abacus in their classrooms. Although the abacus, as an ancient calculation device, is considered obsolete, it sees common use in some Asian countries as a "gateway" device to interest students in math, and the abacus method is also useful for the teaching of Anzan, which is mental arithematic calculation. We saw a video where grade-school-aged children were multiplying and dividing numbers greater than 10 digits in length, using mental abacus math, in less than 30 seconds.
If it does not teach them how to code, it might just make them into good Walmart checkout clerks -- which given our overdrawn economy might be wise. :D
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.