GeneW
Mentor
Bill, not to go too far off topic, but have you ever tried a Nikon F3HP? Many photographers who wear glasses say they can see the entire frame without difficulty with this model. It's also a fine SLR.
Now, back to RF.
Gene
NickTrop
Mentor
SLRS
- Close focus
- Interchangeable lenses (better system than RF imo)
- Portrait and tele focal lengths
- Zoom lenses
RF
- Ambient light photography (1/30 hand-held w/ all focal lengths - a key. SLR = shutter speed = 1/focal length. So, a 50mm = 1/60th, and in many instances that extra stop really matters.)
- quieter shutter
- still see w/ dark filters
- fill flash (w/leaf shutter) synch at all speeds
- can be smaller
- no black out when shutter fires due to mirror (not a big deal to me).
- better wa lens design for interchangeable systems
- many models of classic FLRF and FSUs, can be real bargains
- Fun to use, collect
- Close focus
- Interchangeable lenses (better system than RF imo)
- Portrait and tele focal lengths
- Zoom lenses
RF
- Ambient light photography (1/30 hand-held w/ all focal lengths - a key. SLR = shutter speed = 1/focal length. So, a 50mm = 1/60th, and in many instances that extra stop really matters.)
- quieter shutter
- still see w/ dark filters
- fill flash (w/leaf shutter) synch at all speeds
- can be smaller
- no black out when shutter fires due to mirror (not a big deal to me).
- better wa lens design for interchangeable systems
- many models of classic FLRF and FSUs, can be real bargains
- Fun to use, collect
arbib
Well-known
More Discrete
More Discrete
Mainly because they are quite small compared to most SLRs. and most people, because of they are not familiar with the older RFs, and don't think the camera can do good job over Digital...HA !!!
Plus, they are just as quite as a modern DSLR. Which are very quite compared to the SLRs of the 80s-90s.
More Discrete
Mainly because they are quite small compared to most SLRs. and most people, because of they are not familiar with the older RFs, and don't think the camera can do good job over Digital...HA !!!
Plus, they are just as quite as a modern DSLR. Which are very quite compared to the SLRs of the 80s-90s.
hjfischer
Texas Rangerfinder
On a recent visit to a very crowded Dubrovnik, Croatia I was always surrounded by people holding their didital P&S's at arms' length trying to see an image in the back of their cameras in bright sunlight. I could quickly look in my RF viewfinder, focus and shoot-a tremendous advantage. I could have had the same advantage with a DSLR but at up to twice the weight and size.
urban_alchemist
Well-known
It's just 'me'.
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
I selected "I am tired of high tech" because I have a Canon 1D (original 4.1 MP version) that cost (not me) $8000 Canadian 7 years ago... It still takes the same quality of pictures it did in 2001, probably double-trucked Sports Illustrated spreads and used in newspapers around the world. Today I can't submit a 4.1 MP image without getting laughed at, even if it will only end up on the web and 10-20 MP is overkill.
The rangefinder is my "play" camera. It's for me. I like not worrying about wether I am set to JPG or RAW, white balance (filters excluded), where my camera decides it's going to auto-focus, etc etc etc. I just want to worry about my composition and the exposure that I want. That's it.
I shot a football game this last weekend. I couldn't help but think how I would have shot with a RF. Forget about the action on the field and shoot the emotion on the bench and in the crowd.
The rangefinder is my "play" camera. It's for me. I like not worrying about wether I am set to JPG or RAW, white balance (filters excluded), where my camera decides it's going to auto-focus, etc etc etc. I just want to worry about my composition and the exposure that I want. That's it.
I shot a football game this last weekend. I couldn't help but think how I would have shot with a RF. Forget about the action on the field and shoot the emotion on the bench and in the crowd.
Sonny Boy Havidson
Established
To give a quick sum-up of my own approach:
- SLR/TLR: Composition, play with expressivity of the wide angles.
- RF: Catching what I see quickly or a decisive moment, being able to focus correctly in low light conditons (I am regulary out of focus for indoor shoting).
So on one side the graphic work, on the other the human aspect.
- SLR/TLR: Composition, play with expressivity of the wide angles.
- RF: Catching what I see quickly or a decisive moment, being able to focus correctly in low light conditons (I am regulary out of focus for indoor shoting).
So on one side the graphic work, on the other the human aspect.
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
Sorry, the point of mentioning the original $8000 price of that 1D camera is that they now go for about $500 used, despite being able to make the same images as 7 years ago. Investing in a new digital camera bodies just didn't make sense for me for my "play" camera.
italy74
Well-known
Well,
although I haven't any RF, actually, I'd like to have one and all the reasons are the "classic" and practical ones: light, discreet, excellent optically, quiet shutter, and above all its way to compose pictures etc. while the "old fashionable" doesn't add anything to me.
although I haven't any RF, actually, I'd like to have one and all the reasons are the "classic" and practical ones: light, discreet, excellent optically, quiet shutter, and above all its way to compose pictures etc. while the "old fashionable" doesn't add anything to me.
feenej
Well-known
My Voigtlander with 35mm f2.8 Color Scopar is small, light, pretty, has a huge bright viewfinder, and fantastic image quality. My favorite slr, the Minolta XG-9 with the 45mm Rokkor pancake and Grip-tac cover is just as nice, but brings less street cred with people who see me taking pictures.
That is changing now. People in thier 20's and younger have no idea. They ask me if my Minolta XG's are digital. (Yeah, I have a small digicam slr with chrome over brass construction).
That is changing now. People in thier 20's and younger have no idea. They ask me if my Minolta XG's are digital. (Yeah, I have a small digicam slr with chrome over brass construction).
Last edited:
bryank
Newbie
A fully manual rangefinder forces me to focus on what im trying to do and think. While it can sometimes be frustrating i find greater satisfaction then when i use my DSLR.
Its the nostalgia associated with going fully manual. Its like camping in the woods when you have a nice soft bed at home.
Its the nostalgia associated with going fully manual. Its like camping in the woods when you have a nice soft bed at home.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I like the fact that I can get as high quality of photos as a huge Nikon D80, yet have something is a lot smaller.
I think as everyone rushes to get digital and automatic, they are leaving behind a wealth of possibilities. Sometimes I browse on Yahoo Answers. /the problems that they have could easily be solved with a nice rangefinder (or older film SLR).
I appreciate the workmanship more with a manual camera.
I like the aspect of doing something that not everyone else is doing. I also think it's kinda cool to use the same camera (or type of camera) my grandfather used decades ago.
Film in general makes me think about my photos more.
I think as everyone rushes to get digital and automatic, they are leaving behind a wealth of possibilities. Sometimes I browse on Yahoo Answers. /the problems that they have could easily be solved with a nice rangefinder (or older film SLR).
I appreciate the workmanship more with a manual camera.
I like the aspect of doing something that not everyone else is doing. I also think it's kinda cool to use the same camera (or type of camera) my grandfather used decades ago.
Film in general makes me think about my photos more.
tmfabian
I met a man once...
it's the form factor for me...it's small and comfortable in my hands and my bag. I also enjoy a viewfinder with no "tunneling" that slrs have. That's pretty much it...it's just more enjoyable to use for me.
ajuk
Established
"Better Way of Seeing My Shot." Surly that statement must mean compared to a compact rather than an SLR?
astroman
-
I decided to get off the digital roller coaster.Have owned two dslr in the last few year.You spend $1600-$2000 within 6-8 months the newest and greatest camera you just spent your hard earned money on is now out of dated and obselete.I went back to film and always wanted a rangefinder camera so took the plunge.There is just something about shooting film again with a solid built camera,not a minature hand held computer.I still use my dslrs mostly for wildlife photography where the digital really excells.
Last edited:
craygc
Well-known
Although the original statement this responds to wasn't mine, I could have easily made it as well. And yes, I would say "better" than an SLR. But "better" is one of those words. Lifting an SLR to my eye, I find what Im looking at changes into a well framed segment of what I was originally seeing. I find a rangefinder much more fluid in moving from seeing to shooting. It allows me to maintain the same visual relationship with the subject. Im also sure this differs depending on what you shoot but with people in candid and dynamic environments maintaining continuity as I move to the viewfinder is important - albeit as a trade off for all that auto stuff
sirius
Well-known
The hardest thing I find about rangefinders is the parrallax error. It affects how I frame thing in unexpected ways. When I am using an object to frame my subject (i.e. something large and close in the foreground), the difference between what I see in the view finder and what the lens sees can be dramatic.
retro
-
I shoot both RF and SLR but, for me, SLRs only add convenience
when I'm using a zoom lens or a lens outside the 28-135mm
range or a macro.
Most "street" shooting is done with 35-90mm lenses and I
find an RF to be just fine. Also, I think an RF camera is dismissed
by most people which can help the stealth and candidness of street
shooting.
One other advantage to an RF: I sometimes like to shoot
hand-held, long exposures on slow film in low light while following
a moving subject. I can't really do that with an SLR and its mirror
blackout.
when I'm using a zoom lens or a lens outside the 28-135mm
range or a macro.
Most "street" shooting is done with 35-90mm lenses and I
find an RF to be just fine. Also, I think an RF camera is dismissed
by most people which can help the stealth and candidness of street
shooting.
One other advantage to an RF: I sometimes like to shoot
hand-held, long exposures on slow film in low light while following
a moving subject. I can't really do that with an SLR and its mirror
blackout.
Ruvy
Established
I enjoy the form and size factor very much. Can also idetify myself with those liking it for immediacy but there are two things I don't understand in this thread.. how can accurate manual focusing be faster (in most lighting situation) that modern autofocus? and is better image quality a mater of objective or subjective judgement? after all, image quality is a result of optics and build quality - assuming optic and mechanics of a camera are at the same level how can one camera produce better images than other?
sojournerphoto
Mentor
I can't focus as fast as my dslrs, and I've yet to find a film that can match for overall image quality interms of making big, sharp and detailed prints. There is a different aspect ofquality - i.e. the nature of the image, that is different with (35mm) film and I enjoy hvaing it in the toolbox. Also enjoy the small size and different approach to shooting with the rf.
Mike
Mike