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/s...658#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]

Originally Posted by FrankS

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

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/s...658#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]

Originally Posted by 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..

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/foru...ad.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.

[Sjixxxy]

Originally Posted by Solinar

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

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