MP Guy
06-10-2005, 19:48
It was the final sail of the fall, the crisp New England breeze slapping my face as I tacked across the lake, the glorious Vermont foliage afire in the afternoon sun. After all these years, this day still works a certain magic on me - a "holiday" ranked up there with Halloween and opening day of the fishing season. With the sailboat put away for winter storage, my wife, Luisa, and I strolled along the local Main Street. She was absorbed with the quaint window displays. I was more interested in the autumn colors reflected on the glass itself, rather than what was inside, and how they lined up in my M3's framelines. You know the feeling.
It was on the leisurely drive back home through the familiar backroads of my town that I decided to test the waters. "Honey, maybe it's time we got a digital SLR..." When one contemplates a purchase that would considerably deplete the communal bank account, one must first plant the seed. As opposed to "Honey, look what just arrived from B&H..."
"Why, don't you like the pictures from your Leica?" Hmmm. Such a simple, yet poignant, counteroffensive.
But that question got me thinking. Yes, I do like them. I have a couple of SLR's at home (where they usually stay), but 90% of my photos were taken using rangefinders. I asked myself, "Lemme see... how can I justify another SLR?"
I think it would be easier to start by listing the things that I couldn't have done with a rangefinder. Mind you, I am purely an amateur and can speak only for myself.
1. Bird photos? Nah. Despite the famed Leica Cloak of Invisibility I don't think I can pull that one off.
2. Sunset photos with the sun filling 1/3 of the frame, preferably with the ubiquitous New England lighthouse in silhouette? How fast can you say, "Hole in the shutter?"
3. Let's go to the other extreme. How about a flower macro with a bee captured at the decisive moment of pollination? Well, I guess someone out there actually uses a visoflex. Not me.
4. Rapidfire at 8fps (or even 2) as the white-and-blue Lola whizzes by at the Lime Rock vintage car race? Fuggeddabowdit.
5. Did someone say Zoom? I am not a big zoom fan, so I will leave it at that.
Now, the opposite column: Why do I like using rangefinders? To answer that question, you need to ask yourself what kind of pictures do you (mostly) take. Here are mine:
Travel. This is a biggie. You see, twelve-hour workdays are the norm for me. And one in four weekends. Not much time left after you factor in other things like, ahh... the wife and kids. For the sake of health and sanity, however, we try to take at least 3 or 4 trips a year. Of course I sneak in a roll or two on the weekends, but I have to admit that most of my film is burned when I travel. Rangefinders are my weapon of choice here: a body or two with a 21, 35 or 50, and 90mm in a small messenger-type bag. A package capable of first-rate results, but light enough not to interfere with the enjoyment of the trip. I once made the mistake of bringing along on a tour to Europe a pro SLR, 28-70mm and 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkors (with all the necessary paraphernalia). When we got back, I ended up visiting not only the local camera store to check out a lighter alternative, but also my chiropractor.
Candid people shots. My wife and I have a deal. She gets one shot per roll, where I have to take the cheesy tourist photo of her standing in front of the monument du jour. I otherwise mostly take "people" shots, environmental portraits, and generally try to retell the "story" or "spirit" of the place and locals. Advantage: rangefinder. People are not intimidated as I look just like any other tourist with a P&S. They don't mind my taking a photo of them. Since we are closer and have more interaction, I actually end up with more candid, meaningful, and "real" photos. And a few more friends.
There are times, however, when it is best to be discreet and unnoticed. Among film cameras, rangefinders, as a group, have the quietest shutters. Trust me, a kissing couple will sneer at you when they hear your SLR click and whirrr. At the very least, you will learn how to say cuss words in different languages.
Street photography. I frequently find myself in the middle of a busy street, and find the RF viewfinder easier to compose with. I manually select an alternative frameline, and decide if, say, a wider lens would be better, without having to change lenses. The ability to see objects outside the framelines helps me see if something outside looks better included in the picture.
I am sure that most of us have taken a photo with an SLR in which someone walks into the frame just as the shutter trips. Although not foolproof, a rangefinder helps avoid this. Of course, there are times when this is exactly what you want, the decisive moment, the Holy Grail of HCwannaB's. The rangefinder view helps. Emphasis on "helps."
Available light. Another biggie. Many people argue the point, but in my experience, the lack of a slapping mirror helps me handhold at slower speeds. More so with leaf shutters, where there is hardly any mechanical movement. Coupled with fast lenses, often optimized for shooting at wide apertures, rangefinders are legendary. It seems the bright viewfinders and the simplicity of the focusing method were devised with this in mind. With the present technology, I guess the only thing that comes close is a 50mm or 35mm f/1.4 on a Minolta 7D, with built in anti-shake. Hmm... something to think about.
I am sure there are many other salient points, but these to me are the most important. Of course, everyone has his own list, but reviewing mine, I realized that, for most of my shooting, the rangefinder fits the bill. What about a digital rangefinder? The R-D1 is an excellent concept. However, I have, after all these years, gotten accustomed to my lenses, and "seeing" in their respective focal lengths. I am afraid that with the current requisite crop factor, I will too often find myself standing in the wrong spot. Perhaps a full-frame sensor R-Dx? Ha! I'll have to start planting the seeds for that one pretty soon...
Some say rangefinders are old-fashioned. Well, that brings us back to sailing. To simpler times, and simple pleasures. For me, a good part of the enjoyment is in the journey, and not only in the final destination. The feeling that I, and not a microchip, make the creative decisions. The deliberate slowing down. Sometimes, old-fashioned is just the ticket in the midst of today's frantic pace. But that's just me. I just shoot for fun.
It was on the leisurely drive back home through the familiar backroads of my town that I decided to test the waters. "Honey, maybe it's time we got a digital SLR..." When one contemplates a purchase that would considerably deplete the communal bank account, one must first plant the seed. As opposed to "Honey, look what just arrived from B&H..."
"Why, don't you like the pictures from your Leica?" Hmmm. Such a simple, yet poignant, counteroffensive.
But that question got me thinking. Yes, I do like them. I have a couple of SLR's at home (where they usually stay), but 90% of my photos were taken using rangefinders. I asked myself, "Lemme see... how can I justify another SLR?"
I think it would be easier to start by listing the things that I couldn't have done with a rangefinder. Mind you, I am purely an amateur and can speak only for myself.
1. Bird photos? Nah. Despite the famed Leica Cloak of Invisibility I don't think I can pull that one off.
2. Sunset photos with the sun filling 1/3 of the frame, preferably with the ubiquitous New England lighthouse in silhouette? How fast can you say, "Hole in the shutter?"
3. Let's go to the other extreme. How about a flower macro with a bee captured at the decisive moment of pollination? Well, I guess someone out there actually uses a visoflex. Not me.
4. Rapidfire at 8fps (or even 2) as the white-and-blue Lola whizzes by at the Lime Rock vintage car race? Fuggeddabowdit.
5. Did someone say Zoom? I am not a big zoom fan, so I will leave it at that.
Now, the opposite column: Why do I like using rangefinders? To answer that question, you need to ask yourself what kind of pictures do you (mostly) take. Here are mine:
Travel. This is a biggie. You see, twelve-hour workdays are the norm for me. And one in four weekends. Not much time left after you factor in other things like, ahh... the wife and kids. For the sake of health and sanity, however, we try to take at least 3 or 4 trips a year. Of course I sneak in a roll or two on the weekends, but I have to admit that most of my film is burned when I travel. Rangefinders are my weapon of choice here: a body or two with a 21, 35 or 50, and 90mm in a small messenger-type bag. A package capable of first-rate results, but light enough not to interfere with the enjoyment of the trip. I once made the mistake of bringing along on a tour to Europe a pro SLR, 28-70mm and 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkors (with all the necessary paraphernalia). When we got back, I ended up visiting not only the local camera store to check out a lighter alternative, but also my chiropractor.
Candid people shots. My wife and I have a deal. She gets one shot per roll, where I have to take the cheesy tourist photo of her standing in front of the monument du jour. I otherwise mostly take "people" shots, environmental portraits, and generally try to retell the "story" or "spirit" of the place and locals. Advantage: rangefinder. People are not intimidated as I look just like any other tourist with a P&S. They don't mind my taking a photo of them. Since we are closer and have more interaction, I actually end up with more candid, meaningful, and "real" photos. And a few more friends.
There are times, however, when it is best to be discreet and unnoticed. Among film cameras, rangefinders, as a group, have the quietest shutters. Trust me, a kissing couple will sneer at you when they hear your SLR click and whirrr. At the very least, you will learn how to say cuss words in different languages.
Street photography. I frequently find myself in the middle of a busy street, and find the RF viewfinder easier to compose with. I manually select an alternative frameline, and decide if, say, a wider lens would be better, without having to change lenses. The ability to see objects outside the framelines helps me see if something outside looks better included in the picture.
I am sure that most of us have taken a photo with an SLR in which someone walks into the frame just as the shutter trips. Although not foolproof, a rangefinder helps avoid this. Of course, there are times when this is exactly what you want, the decisive moment, the Holy Grail of HCwannaB's. The rangefinder view helps. Emphasis on "helps."
Available light. Another biggie. Many people argue the point, but in my experience, the lack of a slapping mirror helps me handhold at slower speeds. More so with leaf shutters, where there is hardly any mechanical movement. Coupled with fast lenses, often optimized for shooting at wide apertures, rangefinders are legendary. It seems the bright viewfinders and the simplicity of the focusing method were devised with this in mind. With the present technology, I guess the only thing that comes close is a 50mm or 35mm f/1.4 on a Minolta 7D, with built in anti-shake. Hmm... something to think about.
I am sure there are many other salient points, but these to me are the most important. Of course, everyone has his own list, but reviewing mine, I realized that, for most of my shooting, the rangefinder fits the bill. What about a digital rangefinder? The R-D1 is an excellent concept. However, I have, after all these years, gotten accustomed to my lenses, and "seeing" in their respective focal lengths. I am afraid that with the current requisite crop factor, I will too often find myself standing in the wrong spot. Perhaps a full-frame sensor R-Dx? Ha! I'll have to start planting the seeds for that one pretty soon...
Some say rangefinders are old-fashioned. Well, that brings us back to sailing. To simpler times, and simple pleasures. For me, a good part of the enjoyment is in the journey, and not only in the final destination. The feeling that I, and not a microchip, make the creative decisions. The deliberate slowing down. Sometimes, old-fashioned is just the ticket in the midst of today's frantic pace. But that's just me. I just shoot for fun.