MP Guy
06-10-2005, 19:46
Ever since I was a boy, about 40 years ago depending on your definition, I have had an inexplicable attraction to the Leica camera. At first this was simply camera-envy since I could not nearly afford one. My budding efforts at photography had to begin at a more modest level. I could then afford a used Minolta rangefinder and this camera kindled my everlasting attraction to the rangefinder camera. Over the years, as my purchasing power improved, I have repeatedly strayed to premium level SLR’s. Their auto-everything and film-burning motor drives were an irresistible if passing attraction for me. I have used Minox subminiature and 4x5 view cameras too, always trying to find that sacred path to better photography. Finally, I did buy a used M-3 with a 50mm Summicron lens and continue to use this camera and lens today. I still have and use SLR’s, both film and now digital also, but I keep returning to the old Leica when a certain mood and spell overtake me. It isn’t easy to characterize this unconscious urging which I get when selecting equipment from a shelf-full of 35mm and medium format cameras in my home studio, but I will try to dissect out these particular attractions.
The Leica (and X-pan and Mamiya 6 that I now own) are Spartan in function and design. For the same reason I am fond of driving stick-shift roadsters having a firm feel of the road, tight steering and responsive braking, I simply enjoy the feel and uncomplicated function of the rangefinder camera. Even works without batteries! The lack of auto focus gives you the control to choose what should be in or out of focus. You are also more likely take a little extra time to ponder the creative selection of shutter and aperture combination rather than letting the camera take over control on “auto” mode.
The soft and immediately responsive “ker-lunk” of the shutter. I know this is not really important in 90% of the photography that I do where the decibel level of the shutter doesn’t matter, but the sound may be likened to the purr of a well-tuned engine. No slap-in-the-face “ka-chang” of the SLR’s picture-delaying swinging mirror when you trip the responsive shutter of the RF camera. I dislike using tripods and because of the absence of a mirror bounce, the RF can be generally handheld at slower shutter speeds than the SLR. Most subjects can’t even tell when a picture is taken. The camera is discrete.
What you see is more than you get. The rangefinder allows you to compose your image within the surrounding environment. It urges you at times to back up or change your viewpoint when other elements in the shot would otherwise be missed by the tunnel-vision view of the SLR. The feel you get with the RF is that you are looking directly at the subject as opposed to an image of the subject reflected in the pentaprism of an SLR. The RF is more intimate that way.
So who should not get an RF as their primary camera? If you plan to do sports photography and are going to be using rapid frame rates, auto-focus, through the lens flash exposure and zoom lenses, definitely look for an SLR to meet these needs. If you can live without a zoom lens, plan to do more contemplative, travel or fine-art photography, the RF may be for you. These cameras are great for street photography where quick handling and small size will call less attention to the photographer.
The decision regarding digital versus film media is becoming less of an issue as digital rangefinder and SLR cameras evolve to have similar features as their film brethren. The digital RF camera provides a through-the-lens image on an LCD screen as an alternative to the viewfinder. This feature is particularly useful when doing close-up photography but is lacking in the SLR due to the interposition of the mirror. Owners of prized M-mount lenses may find new application with the Epson digital RF camera released this year and perhaps more to come from Leica or Voightlander.
As I am now moving from middle age toward senior status, I continue to experience a skipped heartbeat when I pick up a well-balanced and finely made RF camera. My fully-packed camera bag with RF camera and a few lenses is one half the size and weight of my SLR kit. My arthritis is appreciative of this too. One other thing a rangefinder camera does for its bearer is to provide entrée to a special society of photographers. When I owned an MGB roadster during college days there was a tradition of waving to other drivers of two-seater ragtops when passing on the road. I have found that a similar kinship is often sparked when users of fine rangefinder cameras encounter one another on the street.
The Leica (and X-pan and Mamiya 6 that I now own) are Spartan in function and design. For the same reason I am fond of driving stick-shift roadsters having a firm feel of the road, tight steering and responsive braking, I simply enjoy the feel and uncomplicated function of the rangefinder camera. Even works without batteries! The lack of auto focus gives you the control to choose what should be in or out of focus. You are also more likely take a little extra time to ponder the creative selection of shutter and aperture combination rather than letting the camera take over control on “auto” mode.
The soft and immediately responsive “ker-lunk” of the shutter. I know this is not really important in 90% of the photography that I do where the decibel level of the shutter doesn’t matter, but the sound may be likened to the purr of a well-tuned engine. No slap-in-the-face “ka-chang” of the SLR’s picture-delaying swinging mirror when you trip the responsive shutter of the RF camera. I dislike using tripods and because of the absence of a mirror bounce, the RF can be generally handheld at slower shutter speeds than the SLR. Most subjects can’t even tell when a picture is taken. The camera is discrete.
What you see is more than you get. The rangefinder allows you to compose your image within the surrounding environment. It urges you at times to back up or change your viewpoint when other elements in the shot would otherwise be missed by the tunnel-vision view of the SLR. The feel you get with the RF is that you are looking directly at the subject as opposed to an image of the subject reflected in the pentaprism of an SLR. The RF is more intimate that way.
So who should not get an RF as their primary camera? If you plan to do sports photography and are going to be using rapid frame rates, auto-focus, through the lens flash exposure and zoom lenses, definitely look for an SLR to meet these needs. If you can live without a zoom lens, plan to do more contemplative, travel or fine-art photography, the RF may be for you. These cameras are great for street photography where quick handling and small size will call less attention to the photographer.
The decision regarding digital versus film media is becoming less of an issue as digital rangefinder and SLR cameras evolve to have similar features as their film brethren. The digital RF camera provides a through-the-lens image on an LCD screen as an alternative to the viewfinder. This feature is particularly useful when doing close-up photography but is lacking in the SLR due to the interposition of the mirror. Owners of prized M-mount lenses may find new application with the Epson digital RF camera released this year and perhaps more to come from Leica or Voightlander.
As I am now moving from middle age toward senior status, I continue to experience a skipped heartbeat when I pick up a well-balanced and finely made RF camera. My fully-packed camera bag with RF camera and a few lenses is one half the size and weight of my SLR kit. My arthritis is appreciative of this too. One other thing a rangefinder camera does for its bearer is to provide entrée to a special society of photographers. When I owned an MGB roadster during college days there was a tradition of waving to other drivers of two-seater ragtops when passing on the road. I have found that a similar kinship is often sparked when users of fine rangefinder cameras encounter one another on the street.