Rangefinder style?

[max_fun]

I switched to doing most of my photography with the RF because of many things others

have brought up; small, quiet, intuitive and superb low light ability. I definitely believe that

my photography took on a different angle since leaving SLRs (not totally of course), and

even though you can probably emulate it with an SLR, and photos sometimes don't show

the difference, the experience is different. I really like to see outside of my framelines to

help with composition, and I really don't like the mirror slap at all. I use an R8 now for my

telephotos, when I can be bothered to bring it, but I don't enjoy it as much as my M6.

[chandos_michael_brown]

It's not a bogus issue, as many of the responses indicate, but I share the sense that one might mean by "RF style" photography is better captured, I think, by "documentary," "street" or other sorts of nominally candid work; I wouldn't use the phrase, and I certainly don't think, except in the most obvious way, that equipment has anything to do with it--perhaps "rf style" is a way of seeing the world; perhaps not.

<p> </p>

I made this image in 2002 with an M4-P and a CV 28/1.9, exposed wide open on T400CN

<p> </p>

<a href="http://cmbrow.people.wm.edu/photography/New/holly.htm">Holly</a>

<p> </p>

I made this image last Friday night with an Olympus E1, 11-22/2.8-3.5 at about the same focal length, with an ISO of 1600.

<p> </p>

<a href="http://cmbrow.people.wm.edu/photography/New/jim_and_teresa.htm">Jim and Teresa</a>

<p> </p>

I won't assume that these are exceptional photos, but they both capture pretty much exactly what I saw, and, more important, they translate into prints that show what I hope is a kind of continuity of intent. I'm not shedding any crocodile tears over the ascendency of digital. I've been using Leica for over 30 years, but I'm certainly getting pretty much exactly the effect I want and am acustomed to from a DSLR--whether it's "RF style" or not.

<p> </p>

Cheers,

<p> </p>

Chandos

[dumpster001]

Chandos, Holly shot is good.

[matt_m__toronto_]

"I agree, it means nothing. I can use a dSLR with a very noticeable zoom lens and a 35mm rangefinder

camera and take the same photos, except that the zoom is a lot more flexible." - jeff spirer

 

no way jose! :) those zooms, due to slow f stops, will require slower shutter speeds, and depending on light, you may have to live with some blur or movement in the frame. you will also not be able to re-create the depth of field that i will get using my rangefinder and 2.0 or faster lens.

 

not a gear debater, i just don't like the 'it's not the gear, it's the shooter...i could take that picture with a <insert camera here>' mentality. not only does it come across as arrogant, but in some cases (like your sentence above) it is completely false.

 

cheers,

[Spearhead]

Let's see, wide zoom at 2.8 and wide angle lens at 2.8. I'm having a hard time getting the same DOF with the wide zoom as the wide lens, aren't I?

[wai_leong_lee]

By better shots, I mean more keepers, which I've certainly seen from my switchover to an M4 from an EOS 30.

 

The tool forces you to use it that way. I have to deal with all kinds of issue before I even start. What focal length to use? What aperture? What shutter speed? All of which is determined by what I want to achieve with the photo, which forces me to think.

 

And because I don't have the luxury of digital, high speed 8 fps, etc. I have to work much harder to get the shot I want.

 

Kind of like Dirty Harry with his trusty (but slow) Magnum compared to a DSLR user (who has prob the equivalent of an Uzi).

 

It is a change in style. And if you are up to it (ie if you master the concepts of f/stops, focal lengths, composition and such), you will be forced to make better photos. For those who don't like it, they eventually sell their M gear to the rest of us on this board.

 

Is there evidence medium format shooters take better shots? Well, they'd better! 120/645 film is more expensive and has less shots per roll, so they really have to ensure that they don't waste a single shot. So it also forces them to become a better photographer, or give it up due to too many wasted shots.

 

I think the main difference is whether there is a diff in style between using an all-manual SLR (like a Nikon F2A) and a Leica M. Both have to make decisions on f/stops and shutter speeds and focal length, the main difference is looking thru the viewfinder and looking thru the lens. I think zone focusing is less distracting on on the M, making the shot easier and freer.

[Spearhead]

I would add that what makes my photographs "the same" is the particular style and vision I impart to my photos. I figure the style can be influenced slightly by the choice of equipment, but that's about it. My photos are about what it's in my head when I look at something, not what particular piece of hardware is in my hands.

[icuneko]

<This is one Leicaphile who says you are all a PITA.>

 

 

Post an honest question and get such a caustic response. Ain't this a zany world?

[max_fun]

Jeff, I think our personal style and how/what we shoot doesn't change with the equipment, but it does have an influence. Personally, a lot of it is because of viewfinder. The tunnel vision SLR finder forces me to compose my shots before puting the camera to my eye (don't use zooms that much), whereas the M finder allows me to compose in a different way. Likewise, when I look down into a MF waist level finder, because I'm not staring ahead, I find it easier to distance myself from the subject, which somehow affects my style as well.

[maria_s.]

Well, Holga or pinhole would change anybody's style & vision. Let's keep some balance here -- I'm happy with my Nikon F3 but would change it for a Leica because it's quieter and I could see and notice much more with its finder. But the price is out of my range and, unless I am a pro and shoot for Magnum or zomething like that, I don't see why I should give up on my Nikon. And, if I ever buy a DSLR -- it will be for posting to this forum because it's faster and easier and I could save $$ on film. However, I got into photography because I love the darkroom and chemicals (red wine especially) -- it's a different world, different kind of satisfaction & pleasure. Printing or shooting digitally takes away what to me is most sexy in photography -- its craftsmanship, the pleasure of doing things with your own hands, the satisfaction of making my own decisions and understanding the camera and the whole process -- to put it as the crow flies, it is about control, gentlemen. I have no clue what's inside a dig cam -- do you? So, maybe rangefinder style today stands for the world we used to understand and control. Let's admit it -- change is always a bit scary and not everyone will embrace it. But I wouldn?t worry so much because dinosaurs make for a likeable cartoons. So, try to smile and ? always look at the bright side of life.

[boris_chan1]

"I got into photography because I love the darkroom and

chemicals......."

 

I know exactly where you're coming from. I found I could never go

back to cocaine after snorting my first couple of lines of D76.........

[maria_s.]

cocaine sucks in comparison

[boris_chan1]

You might be ready for one of my ID11/Hypam/Diafine

speedballs.......

[maria_s.]

as an appetizer, perhaps. i got my priorities. heh.

[Brad_]

Changing a bit of Maria's post to: Printing or shooting digitally <S>takes away</S>

<I><B>provides</B></I> what to me is most sexy in photography -- its craftsmanship,

the pleasure of doing things with your own hands, the satisfaction of making my own

decisions and understanding the camera and the whole process -- to put it as the crow

flies, it is about control, gentlemen. I have no clue what's inside a dig cam -- do you? <P>

 

Not surprisingly, I can make the same argument with my tools and it is just as valid. And I

do know what's going on inside my digi-cam, to the extent I need to know. Perhaps you

are a chemist and can also write, in equations, the chemical reactions and processes that

occur with a film cam during capture and processing?

[maria_s.]

i inhaled too much, nite Brad.

[travis1]

it's your style that's important.

 

the rangefinder is just to find distance.

[magumi]

After three years with a manual-focus SLR, I also bought a rangefinder camera, the good old Canonet for $40. It is pocketable, cheaper than most point and shoots, drastically cheaper than any digicompact and you can focus it and set the exposure at your will.

 

Of course, any camera is only worth the film you run through it, but that does not mean that all cameras have the same capabilities. I guess you know all about the technical differences between a rangerfinder and a SLR, so let's just stick to the things that I find relevant when deciding whether to use one or the other.

 

1) Due to the rangerfinder-style focusing and a short focus throw of the lens, as well as thanks to the not-so-precise exposure meter, I tend to shoot more carelessly with Canonet, especially at middle to long distances. Often I just put the focus at around 4 meter mark, use the incident meter to set the exposure, the sunny 16 rule to compensate and check on the settings, and shoot away. With a prime lens you soon learn where to stand and what to look for. As with every lens, I did some test shots, writing down the distance at which the camera records a head and shoulder, a full figure vertical and a full figure horizontal, which is all you need to know for fast-paced people photography focus-wise. Surprisingly, the exposure and focus do not suffer too much as a result, but I would not feel comfortable shooting slides in this way.

 

2) The number of keepers is the same for me, whichever camera I use. When I am in a good mood, I can get 12 to 15 usable photos in a roll, on a bad day I can work the image as hard as I can and the contact prints still look disgusting anyway I look at them.

 

3) I feel (much) more in control when shooting with a SLR. With Canonet, I am never quite sure of what I am going to get. Sometimes that is a good thing, but I would not want to shoot a paying job with that camera.

 

4) The Canonet is not much useful in the low-light situations, as the viewfinder is dim and the focus patch hard to discern. Leica might be better, but I don't think I would spend $6600 to find out (the cost of a new M7 with 35/1.4 Summilux in my country).

 

5) The tonality of the Canonet lens is different than that of my Contax Zeiss lenses. Classical B&W emulsions combined with the Canonet give me a lovely 1970's retro look with proper printing. Of course, this does not apply to Leica either, it's just a thing to mention.

 

6] The capability of seeing outside the viewfinder crop is overemphasized in my opinion. I often shoot with both eyes open with my SLR to see what's going on outside the viewfinder and it works too. Please note, however, that I wear glasses, I am left-eyed and I have a big nose, which is why I never see the entire viewfinder field without moving my eye a little bit even when looking through the viewfinder of my Contax Aria, which is one of the best in the 35-mm SLR world.

 

 

Hope that helps,

 

M.

[Barry Thomas]

Going back to the original question: <i>I've seen lots of images that could have been identically produced with both RFs and SLRs</i>

<p>To what does the phrase "rangefinder style" refer - is it the process or the photographs? If it is the process then it is only relevant if the results of using that process can be found in the images - could this image have been produced <i>only</i> by using a rangefinder?

<p>My guess is that anyone with a RF and an SLR who is good with both could put up a hundred shots and people wouldn't be able to tell which was which - unless by the particular FOV/distortion of the lenses used etc, but that isn't about the body, it's about the lens.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> To what does the phrase "rangefinder style" refer

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Keeping interest in this forum, mostly. If this were a Leica-M-only forum, participation

would decline significantly.

[mangydog]

It's a funny thing, but you get a couple of guys saying why they like rangefinders, they give their reasons, presumably those that come from experience, and then you get the guys that can't take it.

 

Seems like it's always the same to me. The Jeffs and the Brads and the Grants sound like schoolkids desperate to make us hear them - our equipment's just as good - we can do that too - look our photos are better than yours - we can make cool photos with anything, cos it's our vision stoopid - we're soo cool.

 

Well, really!

[Barry Thomas]

<p><i>and then you get the guys that can't take it.</i>

<p>I don't think the question was dogmatic or offensive and in the main the responses have been thoughtful, but someone disagreeing with your point of view doesn't mean you are being attacked - it's just a disagreement. If you put up your view and someone disagrees, either argue your point or walk away, but don't try to turn it into a fight. None of this is very important at the end of the day - sometimes we find other people have an opinion too.

[matt_m__toronto_]

jeff, i was talking 2.0 and faster. as for characteristics of a zoom at 28 compared to a prime, i'm sure we would also see some differing distortional characteristics.

[Brad_]

<I>and then you get the guys that can't take it.</I><P>

 

And then you get lame-Os that that have nothing interesting to say and post under

pseudonyms. Where are YOUR pix?<P>

 

<I>The Jeffs and the Brads and the Grants sound like schoolkids desperate to make us

hear them - our equipment's just as good</I>

<P>

 

Don't believe I've had much to say about my cam - I just use it. Ditto Jeff/Grant.<P>

 

You seem like an angry person. Why? Something about your "equipment," maybe?

[Guest]

Yes, there is a rangefinder style, or styles. It's a loose, gestural shorthand for "the sort of stuff, you know, of HCB and people like that" as opposed to large format style or styles, "that kind of stuff Ansel Adams, Stephen Shore and the Bechers do." Who are all pretty different from one another, of course.

 

Again, loose, gestural. Shorthand. Just describing a tendency that some people associate with the advantages of particular types of equipment. No more accurate, no more useless than talking about candid or street photography or portrait. Just an imperfect way of beginning to talk about the billions of photos knocking about without having to describe each one individually.

 

Why does everyone have to rat on it?