Confession: I'm not getting that RF vibe

[Max Power]

I'm thinking that I must be missing something, maybe someone can give me a hint here...

I have been working with my own darkroom for about a year now, and my two workhorse cameras have been an X-700 with a good range of lenses and a C220. After lurking here for a while, I decided to pick up a QL17 GIII and give it a test run. It worked quite well until it was stolen, so I decided that it might be time to try something different and go to an interchangeable lens RF. I picked up a FED 5 as well as a J-9 and a J-12.

So, apart from the fact that the FED is slightly smaller and lighter than the X-700 (due to the smaller primes) there just doesn't seem to be that much of an advantage to using an RF. I suppose that I was weaned on WYSIWYG in an SLR (even fully manual), and the whole need for an aux finder for teles and wides as well as a lack of parallax correction makes the size less of an advantage. I'm starting to think that my dream of a Bessa R2A is maybe misplaced

So tell me, what am I missing here? Is my problem due to the FED, or is it the case that even the best RFs suffer from these basic problems?

Thanks all,
Kent

[FrankS]

It may just be that rangefidnders don't "do it" for you. That's okay. Everyone is different. Some people get a real kick out of digital. It does nothing for me. That's okay too. Some people get off on trains or guns or RC airplanes. That's okay.

[back alley]

rf's are not for everyone and more so depending on what kind of shooting you do.

what kind of shooting do you do?

joe

[cp_ste.croix]

you've probably saved yourself some gas! I'm envious...

[TPPhotog]

Hi Kent, I tried a FED 5 after many years using an SLR and it didn't do anything for me either. However once I picked up a QL17 was was hooked completely. It could just be that the FED isn't for you the same as we all have our likes & dislikes for certain makes of SLRs

[FrankS]

... and some people even like cats!

[dmr]

I know I sometimes speak as a heretic here, and I will again.

I own one rangefinder (soon to be 2, don't ask) and use it quite a bit and love it, but I don't believe that the rangefinder is the universal hammer for everything that looks like a nail.

The rangefinder has several advantages over things like the point&shoot and the SLR, but it also has shortcomings compared to them. One is the WYSIWYG for such things as zooms and polarizers.

For everyday snapshooting, I'll use the Olympus Stylus. Yes, there are some times where I don't want to be concerned with focus or setting exposure.

For most of my serious stuff, I'll still use the SLR. The zoom has me spoiled.

But the rangefinder has become my main low-light camera. It's quiet, smooth, reliable. It's razor sharp even when opened wide up and I can reliably hold it at 1/30, sometimes at 1/15. I also think I can focus this (GIII) more accurately than the SLR (K1000) with the normal lens in lower light. Jury is still out on that one, however.

To question is the answer. The emphasis on this system here is rangefinders, but you'll find that many of the people here use all other types, from pinholes to digital SLRs.

Think critically! What is the best tool for the job? Experiment! And don't be afraid to change your mind.

[Roman]

Hi Kent!

I own a FED-5 among my extensive RF collection, too, and while it is not bad as a user camera, it is not the best choice if you want to decide whether rangefinders are for you, or not - it simply is much too bulky and heavy for an RF (most regular SLRs are smaller), and it does not even have frame lines for the normal lens, let alone others - and I agree, auxilliary finders is a hassle that kills a lot of the joy of using RFs...

I personally love to use SLRs (and especially ones with AF, zoom lenses, flash, all the bangs and whistles) - they are simply so convenient for quick'n'dirty photography, like fast moving objects (read: kids), or for using long telephotos, or macro work, or...
And I love using TLRs - larger negative format = better quality; they are simply nice to use because of ergonomics, composing on that large screen is great, etc.

But I also love using RFs - yet, not for everything, this type of camera has its special uses where it is better than others:
- low light photography - it is so much easier to focus with an RF in 'available darkness' - even with the FED 5 it will be much easier than the TLR or the SLR (esp. with a wide-angle lens or slow zoom); plus, it is easier to hand-hold RFs at slower shutter-speeds tahn an SLR (1730 is no problem at all, even 1/15, and occasionally 1/8 are doable).
- sneaky photography - most RFs (your FED 5 excepted) are much smaller, and much quieter than most SLRs (OK, TLRs are pretty quiet, too...).
- carrying a small, yet verastile equipmetn: most RFs may not be that much smaller than a small SLR (my Bessa R is bigger than my Pentax MX), but with the lenses it is a big difference - most RF lenses are much smaller than SLR lenses.
So, RFs are not for everyone - other cameras are better for landscapes, animals, small stuff, and a few other things, but if you like to shoot inconspiciously, and/or in the dark, and/or on the fly, with not a lot of heavy & bulky equipment to carry, RFs might be a good choice (and your FED-5 might not be a representative sample, even though it is a nice camera for its price).
Oh, and I firmly belive that every RF user should also own some kind of SLR (and possibly a TLR or some other kind of MF format camera) for photo ops where RFs are not the top choice...

Roman

[JoeFriday]

RF's are designed more for 'grab shots'.. inconspicuous shooting.. and the old school techniques such as 'shoe leather zoom'.. it's not for everyone.. RF guys often think "what can I do to take this picture?" rather than "what will this camera do to take this picture?".. the emphasis being on your creativity, rather than the options that the equipment allows.. but if you know how to use your Minolta, that's great, too

still, it might just be that a FED doesn't blow your skirt up.. I have a Zorki that does nothing for me.. but I often look for excuses to use my Kiev because I just love how it works

[Brian Sweeney]

My RF shots can catch my daughter in mid-air on a swing, and I can associate the "Click" with the expression seen through the finder. The latency of the SLR and the "black-out" period work against such shots. The RF also has less vibration, making long-exposure shots in low-light do-able.

[Socke]

My Zorki 4 and Kiev 4 don't see much use, too and I don't like the Yashica 35GX much.

Setting shutterspeed is not easy on the Zorki and changing the aperture is daunting on the Kiev. The Yashica just doesn't handle like I want it and it's AE system is confusing me.

I use a Contax G2 which does what I want and the controlls are second nature to me by now. I usualy have it on manual exposure and change the shutterspeed to my liking as I can see it in the viewfinder, aperture is easyly set by counting the clicks.

I still have my Rollei 35TE but if it needs to be small I use a Contax TVS.

I tried a Leica M at the Photokina in 2002, it fell into my hand and all the controlls were where my hands expected them, no brain needed, and the test roll I shot came out pretty good, apart from framing and fokusing errors :-)

Since then I'm saving for a M like camera with a 35mm lens first and a 50 later and the Zorki and Kiev are only a stopgap on my way to a M6 or ZI :-)

[dmr]

Originally Posted by FrankS

... and some people even like cats!

Hey!

I resemble that remark!

[TPPhotog]

Originally Posted by dmr436

Hey!

I resemble that remark!

MEOW I have a cat and a dog, does that make me a diplomat or just indecisive

[FrankS]

Tony, I think that makes you bi. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[dmr]

Originally Posted by TPPhotog

MEOW I have a cat and a dog, does that make me a diplomat or just indecisive

"Meow!", said the dog, "Everybody should learn a second language!"

[richard_l]

Originally Posted by Max Power

I'm thinking that I must be missing something, maybe someone can give me a hint here...

I'm thinking that you just don't need a rangefinder.

[impact07]

Personally, I use everything I can. RF, SLR, TLR, toy, old, new, bellows, 35mm, Medium format, large format. Whatever. I am obsessed with cheap, utilitarian, proletariat cameras, but my main squeeze is a Leica MP. This weekend I shot with my Zero Pinhole, and I am planning some portraits with my Graphic. I'm also really excited about the new rokkor 35 I got for my X-700. On the other hand, I don't much care for digital, AF, plasticams. All feel like crap to me. Different strokes for differnet folks my friend. Try a different RF if you can. Maybe you'll like one.

[solane]

for me, RFs reintroduced me to the joys of manual photography. the more automated my shooting experience becomes, the less i seem to enjoy it.

yes, for work-stuff, the dSLR is what i need -- quick and to-the-point. but for my personal work and for improving my eye, learning to see through the RF and manually setting my aperture makes me feel more aware of what i'm doing. like driving a manual shift car or a scooter, i know what gear i'm in and i'm full involved in the experience.

[Kin Lau]

I don't _need_ an RF either, but I have about a dozen. I also have a X-700 kit... actually 2 with a boat load of lenses and I love using that also (but the XD-11 is still my fav). We also have 2 DRebs in the family, semi-permanently attached to 400mm & 500mm lenses.

I like them all. Each with it's own distinctive advantages. Sometimes, it's _not_ the best tool for the job, but it fun, and for me, photography is a hobby, so being fun helps. That's why I'm going to try to get a roll thru the Argus C3 this week.

[phototone]

If you are not experienced with RF photo techniques, and have shot mainly with SLR or TLR type cameras, there is a learning curve to using RFDR cameras. The FED and ZORKI type of RF cameras are rather primitive, with no bright frames, and requiring auxiliary finders for any lens other than the 50mm, and this takes some getting used to. I consider using these types of primitive RF cameras a challenge, and I get great delight when I get great results, which I do, more often than not.

The Canon QL17, on the other hand has just about all the bells and whistles (or you may call them "improvements") that typify modern RF style cameras, including auto or manual exposure, rapid wind lever, rapid rewind crank, parallex corrected bright frame, and a stunningly sharp lens that you can confidently use wide open, or almost wide open. This opens up a new field of low light candid photography just not easily possible with SLR's with their slow zoom lenses and heavier weight and ka-thwack louder shutters, and if you have a motorized SLR, it is Ka-Thwack, Whirr.

It is easy, once you get used to it, to get accurately framed, well composed photos with RF cameras, you just have to practice, and you can take them into situations where a larger louder SLR would call attention to yourself.

Just practice and give yourself time to get used to RF techniques, ask questions on this forum, and shoot lots of film, and eventually you WILL get that RF Vibe.

[aizan]

ditto joe's question. hand held, available light, snap shot, candid...if you don't do any of that, you won't miss rangefinders.

[Solinar]

An Argus........... and I thought I was a bit off the reservation by using my $1 box camera, an Agfa Synchro Box, over the weekend.

Yep, rangefinders are an acquired taste. Great for when you can get by with just the essentials and want to get that grab shot.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Max Power

So tell me, what am I missing here?

Happiness is a Leica + Summitar.

[RML]

Well, what can I say.... I, too, never got "the buzz" from using an FSU rangefinder (either my FED2, FED 5 or ZORKI 4), though they are nice little cameras and make very nice displays.
My Bessa R does give me a buzz, and my CL does as well but in a different way (it's smaller, less conspicious, hangs sideways and makes nice hip shooter). My Leica M2 gives me less of a buzz, though I'm getting the hang of using it (since I got an external meter, that is). My new R-D1 is also sweet but I'm still breaking it in so the buzz is not there yet.

So, I gues things depend entirely on the camera you're using and under what circumstances you use it and for what shooting purpose. If you feel you're more at ease and produce better work with anything but an RF camera than don't feel bad. It's perfectly normal. It's us RF maniacs who are nuts, not you.

[pvdhaar]

Originally Posted by Max Power

I'm thinking that I must be missing something, maybe someone can give me a hint here...

..
So tell me, what am I missing here? Is my problem due to the FED, or is it the case that even the best RFs suffer from these basic problems?

Thanks all,
Kent

I've suffered a momentary lapse of affection for RFs as well. Initially, when I first picked one up, I was thrilled and convinced that they were the best thing since sliced bread. I sold off all the AF-SLRs and bought one. But after a while, I found that it wasn't well suited to some approaches, and I thought "why am I forcing myself into so constrained a camera?".

But then I mentally made the switch not to obsess about the limitations, but instead think about the possibilities of the RF. This has changed my photos, agreed, although in my case for the better.