Landscapes with a 35mm RF?

[photophorous]

How many of you shoot nature or landscape photos with a 35mm rangefinder? I recently got an RF, mostly for street/candid people shots. I know it's not the best tool for landscapes, considering the small format, but with such sharp lenses, I can't help but be tempted to shoot some landscapes with it. I go on a backpacking trip about once a year and I'm thinking this is probably the best camera I own for that purpose. Just wondering if anyone here uses a RF that way and how satisfied you are with the results and limitations.

Thanks,
Paul

PS. Please don't tell me to buy a large format camera.

[iml]

I do it all the time. Easy to carry, lightweight wide lenses, a 35mm RF is an excellent landscape tool.

Ian

[MadMan2k]

There's no reason not to do it - unless you like using filters for landscape work. With a rangefinder you can't adjust a CPL through the lens, or a grad ND.

I prefer my Canon SLR for landscapes mainly for that reason, but it also has a built in meter so I can get correct exposures without bracketing when the light changes (I don't have a handheld meter yet, and my M3 doesn't have one)

[like2fiddle]

I shoot landscapes all the time...but I live in Vermont where there are more cows and trees to take photos of than people. Unless you intend to make posters out of the negatives, the RF does fine.

[drewbarb]

I actually have a show up right now, mostly of landscape work, shot with a Leica M3, which is my standard carry-around camera. The show is titled "Horse and Courses", and is a series of ten 16x20 prints of race horses, bluegrass pasture country and race tracks hanging in a gallery here in Louisville (this Saturday is the Kentucky Derby!...) The prints are actually about 13x19 inches, and they look great, IMO. They are all traditional silver prints, toned and mounted. I shot all of the images with a 35mm RF, hand held, nothing special. The images are sharp as tacks, and display good detail through-out.

Since RF's employ direct (non-prism) projection onto the film plane, they make for sharper pictures, all other things being equal. If you like sharp, shoot with RF's, what ever the subject. Enjoy!

[Sisyphus]

You should check out the book, "Magnum Landscapes," mostly rf cameras, wonderful and intense landscape photos as well urban landscape.

experiment, have fun, all you are going to do is burn a little film!

[FrankS]

Originally Posted by drewbarb

I actually have a show up right now, mostly of landscape work, shot with a Leica M3, which is my standard carry-around camera. The show is titled "Horse and Courses", and is a series of ten 16x20 prints of race horses, bluegrass pasture country and race tracks hanging in a gallery here in Louisville (this Saturday is the Kentucky Derby!...) The prints are actually about 13x19 inches, and they look great, IMO. They are all traditional silver prints, toned and mounted. I shot all of the images with a 35mm RF, hand held, nothing special. The images are sharp as tacks, and display good detail through-out.

Since RF's employ direct (non-prism) projection onto the film plane, they make for sharper pictures, all other things being equal. If you like sharp, shoot with RF's, what ever the subject. Enjoy!

Your logic/reasoning/facts here are flawed, but I agree with your overall view.

[Lemures-Ex]

Originally Posted by drewbarb

Since RF's employ direct (non-prism) projection onto the film plane, they make for sharper pictures, all other things being equal.

What Frank said.

I've never heard this before. Don't even know what it means.

RF's are sharper because the lenses are not retrofocus designs, meaning less glass and/or air-glass surfaces to distort the image. On top of this, the lens is closer to the film plane which means less distance for the light to travel and lose sharpness.

[raid]

I have extensively used 35mm SLR cameras, side by side with 6x9 RF and 6x6 TLR cameras. I used almost exlusively ISO50 slide film with occasional ISO100 slide film use. The results have to be looked at over a light table to better comprehend the differences between a first class 35mm camera and a first class MF camera. You see "things" in MF that you cannot see with 35mm film. Each type of camera has its advantages in applications, but there is no comparison when it comes to sharpness and details.

Am I wrong?

Raid

[Rob-F]

Sure, why not? I've been doing it for years, using Leica M right alongside my SLR's. Check out Brian Bower's Book, "Leica M Photography" for some examples of good RF landscape & architectural work.

[brachal]

I use my Bessa R for landscapes all the time, and I've never been disappointed. Took some wonderful shots (I'll try to get those digital) of the Napali coast of Kauai a few months ago using the CV 28mm f/3.5 Color Skopar.

[andreas]

Hi Photophorous,
landscapes and nature are what i seem to shoot most with my M6. I think rangefinders are an excellent tool for this domain, because they are light and compact. My set of camera and about 4-5 lenses fits neatly in my small "Lowe pro Orion mini" belt bag. Perfect for hiking in the Alps. If you love the rangefinder experience, there is no obstacle not to do this. The good and often cheap wide angle choices are a big plus too. If you`re after maximum detail and minimum of grain, you should look at the bigger format cams (then, you might sacrifice portability, speed and handheld options) . But, (despite of Ansel Adams), this is not a must to capture the soul and spirit of nature. Not everything`s about sharpness
Enjoy what you have,
andreas


www.myspace.com/tiredmusik

[Tuolumne]

Here is an example of an urban landscape shot with an R-D1s and 25mm Biogon lens. Shot through a dirty office building window, too. Converted to B&W in Picasa with a red filter applied to enhance contrast.

/T

[richard_l]

I mostly use RFs for landscapes.

[dazedgonebye]

I very nearly got rid of my CV21mm because landscapes are not what I bought a RF camera for.
In the end though, I don't want to take multiple camera systems with me everywhere I go and the addition of that tiny lens multiplies my capabilities.
In the absence of something truly superior (larger formats, tripods, etc...) a RF camera is a great way to go for landscapes.

[drewbarb]

What I meant to say was non-prsim VIEWING. I left an important word out of my above post. Not that it matters how you view to compose, of course, but my point is about lens design. By and large, lenses designed for direct-view cameras (ones that don't have TTL viewing while they are loaded with film, such as rangefinders and most view cameras) are sharper than retro-focus designs, such as what's required in SLR's, where the lenses have to project across the mirror box.

Of course there are some phenomenally sharp lenses made for plenty of SLR systems, too, but I'm making a general statment here which I stand behind; the facts of optical design do too. I'm not making claims that 35mm is better (or even as good as) medium or large format. Much of my shooting is large format, which is partly why I was suprised to find myself hanging a show of 35mm landscape work.

[FrankS]

Yep Drew, THAT makes more sense! Just a communication problem. (I was worried that there could be such a major misunderstanding of how cameras work.)

[Bryce]

I'm with Raid- the choice shouldn't be between 35mm RF vs. SLR, but 35mm film vs something large enough to capture better detail and tonality.
That said, many good landscapes have been shot with 35mm gear. The only times it would really matter whrether slr or rf is using polarizing or split density filters, or when exact framing is necessary.
I routinely shoot architecture and such with RF gear, but usually medium format.

[pvdhaar]

I see no reason to stay away from rangefinders for landscape photography. To get best depth of field, I set the lens to hyperfocal or infinity, and close down as much as possible. It's at this point where depth of field preview on an SLR gives such a dark view that there's no need for through the lens evaluation anyway.

What I'm working on at the moment, is wether you can do landscape with an RF loaded with B&W.. now that's a challenge to get right..

Bess-T with CV25/4 and neopan1600 just before dawn..

[FrankS]

Originally Posted by pvdhaar

I see no reason to stay away from rangefinders for landscape photography. To get best depth of field, I set the lens to hyperfocal or infinity, and close down as much as possible. It's at this point where depth of field preview on an SLR gives such a dark view that there's no need for through the lens evaluation anyway.

What I'm working on at the moment, is whether you can do landscape with an RF loaded with B&W.. now that's a challenge to get right..

Bess-T with CV25/4 and neopan1600 just before dawn..

Peter, you clearly can! Nice one.

[louisb]

Using my R-D1 for landscape shooting has worked out fine for me:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...8&ppuser=11109

LouisB

[pvdhaar]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Peter, you clearly can! Nice one.

Thanks for your comment Frank!

[photophorous]

Thanks for the comments, everyone. It's good to hear others have had some success doing landscapes. I'll probably be going backpacking this summer, and hopefully I'll be able to pick up a 21mm before I go.

Paul