Oh my!

[Randy]

Read what THIS GUY has to say about rangefinder cameras.

[John Parry]

Hi Randy,

Just skimmed through it and I pretty much agree with what he says. He's just cutting through the BS. He also seems to quite like R/Fs doesn't he?

I've just bought a Yashica J for old time's sake, but I don't think I'll be using it for shooting much. Too restrictive now I've got used to (35mm !) SLRs. To get the best results from a R/F you had to really get to know it, working with it to get the best performance. You also had to know it's restrictions. The process is fun, but frustrating at the same time.

Mmm... Thinking about that last paragraph, that's true of any camera isn't it? You get more idea of the end result with a R/F than you do with a box Brownie. An SLR gives you more feedback to aid with the learning process. And a digital shows you what you've got then and there.

Take your pick folks !!

Regards - John

[kiev4a]

I too, tend to agree with the gentleman. I believe a lot of the alleged positives cited by RF advocates come from folks who really haven't worked much with slrs. My glasses may be a factor but I can frame a photo much more precisly with an SLR that any RF. The one area where I do prefer RF (and an area he noted) is with wide angle lenses because they are more compact. The RF mystic dies hard but most of it is, in my opinion, myth. If one feels more comfortable with an RF, go for it, But I would not be afraid to put what I can do with an slr, in any environment, up against the photos produced by an RF.

[PeterW]

Hi Randy,

Dante always loves to be a bit controversial, but he also talks a lot of sense. He's also a very accomplished and experienced photographer.

Peter

[vintageslrs]

Randy

being raised on SLRs....and being way more comfortable with SLRs than Rangefinders....I guess that makes me more of a SLR guy than a Rangefinder guy....
I find all the gentleman said to be reasonable and accurate.
for those whom prefer Rangefinders....I say good for you...enjoy.....and we all know it's not the equipment.....it's your mind and your eyes that really "see" and create the photograph...so whatever works for you......
just keep shooting....
at least one roll a week....to help keep film viable!

be well....have fun
Bob

[John Parry]

Just wondered Randy...

You seemed shocked (surprised ?) by what THIS GUY had to say. I know you like R/Fs, but what response did you expect to get from the members??

Regards - John

[Randy]

I wasn't shocked by what he had to say because after reading what he had to say several times now, I still don't know what he had to say. I posted this link to see what my friends here had to say. Maybe you folks are more enlightened than I am...I like Rangefinders after being turned on to them by some of you folks who are my friends. I've been using SLRs since 1965 when I got my first Spotmatic, and still prefer SLRs as to me they are much more versitile. I still take my Rangefinders out and shoot pics with them, in fact I have film in my Petri Pro 7 with about half the roll exposed. By the way, I was sure one of you would ask what I was up to by posting this link though. I hope I have proved my point and expressed my thoughts better than the author of the linked paragraphs did. ;D

[vintageslrs]

Randy

I think you did!





Bob

[Randy]

Thanks Bob. As we buy all these cameras we of course need to test them out. I like looking through the viewfinder on an SLR and knowing what I am seeing is pretty much what I'm going to get. You don't get that with a Rangefinder. I like being able to grab a zoom lens if I want to, I can't do that with a Rangefinder either. I showed not too long ago with those factory machine pictures I took that I can use a Rangefinder, but I had to do a forward and backward dance to compose each and every one of those pictures, and that wouldn't have been necessary with an SLR and the appropriate lens.

[Microdad]

I agree with the majority of what this photographer said in this article. Especially when it comes to the creativity of photography coming from within. Plus, it's hard to argue with someone that creates the fantastic images that he does.

A couple of holes I think: A few of the "myths" he addressed are (to me) really just opinions. "I find it easier to compose with a rangefinder." To me this is someone's opinion and if they want to believe it makes them a better photographer, maybe it does.

As photographers, we can look at the same thing through a viewfinder but we all see something different.

Here's a good project: Shoot 10 different images of the same thing.

Steve

[kiev4a]

What would the photo world be without different tastes in cameras. Try to tell committed Leica M used that any other camera is worthy of the name!
I do like to take my Zorki or FED 1 with a Jupiter 12 with me when I just want to make sure I'm covered if something "photographic" happens. But if I go somewhere intending to photograph something that may not occur again, I'm gonna take my tried and true SLR with a proven track record for reliability, sharpness and WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). Others might believe their rangfinder fills that criteria. As noted earlier, my eye glasses are probably a big factor in my preference for SLRs

Actually, I'm rather surprised so many folks on this fourm have similar opinions.

[paulatukcamera]

I can only speak from my experience.

I went from a non-rangefinder camera (Agfa Silette) to an SLR for one reason - I couldn't guess distances very accurately! So a Topcon SLR solved that problem.

Fast forward fourteen years or so. I now own a Pentax ME and have my first child. Until Michael walked, I didn't realise I needed a rangefinder, then I acquired my Retina lllC (tale told in another thread)

Having bought it, I had to use it and made a discovery.
All pictures of children playing were sharper than when I used the SLR!

Why? Simply using a manual SLR you rack back and forth to get the most accurate point of focus. With a rangefinder you naturally pre-focus - two images merge - click!

Yes, you can pre-focus on an SLR, but the tendncy is not to do it. Why? Haven't a clue. Honestly now, do any of you prefocus?

So until recently, I went on holiday carrying two cameras, a Retina with a standard lens & a Nikon FE with a 85mm. Horses for courses really.

Personally I still think the Retina is a faster acting camera - ready for action in a trice. I think this has also to do with a "read off" meter. You point it at a grassy bank, say light value 14 or whatever and leave it at that. With the wavering needle in the FE I find I am making small & probably pointless alterations. I think the same also applies to the focusing.

If you haven't tried a rangefinder before, I recommend you do - it opens up a new world.

I know surrrounded by Fujica fans, the following will not go amiss.

However can I recommend an unloved and oft neglected Fujica the Compact de Luxe f1.8 lens, smallish, very well made and the fastest focusing camera I have ever used. (Its got a thumbwheel)

I'll post a picture tomorrow - rare, but not that expensive. far, far higher quality construction than the 1970s Minoltas & Konicas Stephen Gandy raves about.

Don't confuse it with the ordinary compact which doesn't have a rangefinder or a f1.8 lens

Paul

[herron]

I've been a devoted SLR user for a long time...that is, if you overlook the period when I thought the best thing going was a 120 back on my 4x5...but some of my best pictures ever came while using a rangefinder.

Go figure!

I've mentioned it here before (once mis-quoting it so badly that I embarrassed myself)

But Alfred Eisenstadt (a devoted Leica rangefinder man) a long time ago commented to me (as part of a group of students), when asked what the best camera equipment and lens would be, that he could take the kind of pictures he wanted with any camera (and I'm paraphrasing here again, so I will re-read this several times before I post it ;D) because the best lenses he had were the ones on either side of his nose!

Randy said it again.

it's not the equipment.....it's your mind and your eyes that really "see" and create the photograph...so whatever works for you......
just keep shooting....

The camera merely records what you tell it to (at least the old ones did, before auto everything came along). The photographer is still the one who takes the picture...and I suppose a lot of how you go about it is all a matter of what you get used to!

[Just Plain Curt]

I think you said it all Ron. I always have at least 2-6 cameras in my bag with me on a shoot. At least 1 SLR, three or four lenses, a RF or two and usually a scale focus oldie or two. Ok, once in a while an autofoceus I picked up under 10$ or a toy camera I want to try too.

[GeneW]

My shooting is split fairly evenly between SLR and RF. I like both for different reasons. SLR's for careful compositions -- RF's for fast, casual shooting. I like to 'change gears' by switching from one to the other every so often.

Gene