OT New to this rangefinder 'thing'. Thoughts & questions.

[terry_rory]

Less than a week now into the rangefinder adventure and no chance

to shoot anything until next week, so I am here on a long nightshift

pondering this new thing in my camera bag.

 

What it will let me do that the DSLR will not? What it will let me

do better than an SLR/DSLR? And what is just daft to even attempt on

a rangefinder when a DSLR (or even a Leica CM) is to hand?

 

OK its the same type of kit (Rangefinder/50mm) that HCB and many

other 'greats' used because it liberated them from cumbersome and/or

heavier gear. It gave theme 36 exposures on 1 easy to handle roll,

it was discrete and quiet.

 

Well, I am NOT a 'great' and we live in a world where tiny, quiet,

discrete cameras abound. So my rangefinder will not 'liberate' me in

terms of weight/size/noise/ease of use in the same way as the Leica

I & II did for another generation. 36 exposures on a roll is a

limitation and not an advantage nowadays. (Especially when my D70

with a 1gb CF card is also within reach!)

 

Low light advantages compared to my DSLR? Not many compared to my

D70 with ISO 1600, 50mm f/1.4D AF and white balance options.

 

Noise? The R3A is slightly quieter than the D70 and louder than the

Leica CM. So no great advantage gained. (Or sought)

 

Discrete? Not as discrete as the Leica CM.

 

Lens quality? I would need to use a heavy tripod and remote release

and ISO 100 film and and big enlargments of perfectly exposed shots

to even begin to detect any slight difference in ultimate quality

between the CM (Summarit 40mm f/2.4) and the Summicron 50mm f/2.

There is only a cigarette paper between them.

 

Why did i get an R3a and a Summicron? Why did you buy a rangefinder?

 

All I know is that I am really looking forward to using it again

next week (after these night shifts). It's because I have something

new to learn which is always very nice. Part of the reason I like

the D70 is that I am enjoying learning digital photography. Also it

has something the D70 and CM do not offer and that is getting right

back to manual camera basics. Never a bad thing to do occasionally.

 

Well I have spouted enough in a sort of "end of a long night shift

should go to sleep" sort of ramble.

 

Lets have your thoughts and ideas on what makes the whole

rangefinder 'thing' work for you?

 

Does it still work for you?

[abufletcher]

Trevor, if you're like me you got a rangefinder primarily to try something new,

something that might -- just maybe -- promote a different way of looking at the

world and a different way of making photographs, after many years of

shooting with other cameras. My as-yet-still-limited rangefinder experience

has taught me to be more spontaneous, to react more intuitively to the world

around me. For the most part I could have done this just as well with any

manual focus, manual exposure SLR -- like my much loved FM2. Or even a

$15 Holga. Anyway, having learned this lesson thanks to my M (and a Bessa

R2 before that), I find I'm also able to use my D70 a bit more intuitively.

 

I think you're right that many of the historical reasons that photographers of

the past chose the small rangefinder have been eclipsed. Today there are

very strictly logical reasons to shoot with a 35mm rangefinder. You have to

believe in the almost zen-like experience of using a RF vs. SLR style

viewfinder. Rangefinders also still have a slight edge for low-light, wide-open

style photography. On the other hand, one of the newest generation DSLR's

will do wonders at f2.8 at 1600 ISO.

 

In the end, I have and use a rangefinder for only one real reason: I enjoy it.

[wai_leong_lee]

During HCB's time there were no quality point and shoots, thus the Leica became the thing to use. With the options we have now, perhaps HCB would have got by with a Leica CM (since he rarely used anything other than a 50 mm, he did not care too much for the interchangable lens capability of a Leica).

 

There is nothing that can only be done by a rangefinder that cannot be physically done by an SLR. Quite the contrary-- SLR's can do sports, wildlife, etc. which is damn hard for a Leica M. However, an SLR is definitely more bulky, noisy, intimidating and vibration-prone which can affect your ability to get certain shots.

 

I use an M because it's a real joy to use, so small yet so high quality pictures come out of it. It is also to simplify my life: just three controls-- aperture, shutter speed and focus-- determine everything.

 

As Dante Stella said, it's your father's light saber-- a more elegant weapon from a more civilised time.

[travis1]

hey why's this OT?

[scott_mcloughlin]

Great viewfinder. Compact with interchangeable small (relative to SLR) lenses. Manual focus/exposure control. There you go. Keeps me coming back.

 

The only SLR rival to my M6TTLs (now plural, egad!) by these criteria is my FM3a with the 45P. But then, all the other AIS lenses I have are giant beasts compared to my Leica and CV lenses.

 

My Rollei AFM35 P&S is smaller and quieter than my Ms and has a nice lens. But the VF sucks relative to my RF gear and the manual controls are limited compared to good old shutter + aperture + rf manual focusing.

 

For a carry along most anywhere kit, an M mount RF body and a few lenses seems "just right."

[huw_finney]

I sold/gave away all my old SLR (35mm and 645) gear when I got my Leica, kept the Linhof though. I started with an R2 and would probably done the same after a few weeks if I hadn't dropped it in week 2 of owning it and immediatly bought a Leica, but that's another story.

 

I suppose it's the small fast quality camera thing for me, I have loads of lenses from 15mm to 135 and too many bodies, but you will usually find me with the M6 and CV40/1.4 or the 50 'cron attached. And how big would an SLR Xpan be. When it's sunny taking the old IIIb out with it's original Elmar and taking photos with something nearly 70 years old knowing the results will beat any P&S is a hoot.

 

P.S. fixed the R2 eventualy, repaired the broken bottom plate and 'un-bent' the shutter mechanism, all fine now apart from finding a matching paint for the olive.

[andy_aitken]

Until recently I have been using my Leicas for my own "serious" photography and either an Olympus Mju 2 (aka Stylus Epic) or Canon Ixus v3 (aaka something else in the US) for family "snaps". Then the Olympus packed in and I also realised I wasn't getting many nice shot out of the digital Ixus largely due to it being a pile of steaming, well you know.

 

Anyway, around the begining of December I loaded some 400 asa colour film into my CL (gasp, I don't think the camera even knew what colour film was) and stuck an old Pentax AF160 flash ("hey, what's that on the roof!

" said the CL) on the top, somteimes using a longish shutter speed and a touch of flash. Wow, what a difference! Sharp, snappy pictures that all captured the intended moment - unlike the f%$@#ng Canon - everyone that saw our christmas family snaps raised an eyebrow to the quality (I'd already converted all my friends and family onto the Mju 2). And that's a 30 year old budget Leica and lens and a 20 year old cheapo flash. I can only imagine what you could do with an M6TTL, 35mm ASPH etc.

[djl251]

No batteries, no viewfinder blackout, no camera shake, no shutter delay, no auto focus,no

auto exposure, no excuses.

[andy_aitken]

BTW my CL isn't talking to me anymore.

[anthony_brookes5]

Trevor - I went through this experience of switching from SLR - an R5 - to an M6 some four years ago. It is absolute freedom. No one seems to notice my camera now and the rangefinder is so quick and clear. The controls on the camera become second instinct quite quickly. I think you will really enjoy it but don't expect instant familiarity. The M6 has no equal in any format so you are using the best and your photos are already good. Good luck

[dennis_couvillion]

Trevor, I'm going in another direction. Rather than acquiring more gear, which only collects dust when not in use or favor, I am engaged in an ongoing effort to pare my photographic gear down to the bare essentials only. I've found that by merely taking mental images of things I can tremendously lighten my load of camera gear... sometimes by 100%! I find it the fastest and most intuitive method of creating images. No busy viewfinder, no shutter lag and tremendous low-light capability. Sharpness, however, may be limited by alcohol or drug intake. Nevertheless, I have been told that acid is the equivalent of heavy photoshop manipulation. (As usual, stuffy traditionalists always quibble about image manipulation and the methods used.) While I was previously an advocate and defender of rangefinder photography my eyes have been opened. Mental imaging is where it is, Trevor.

 

P.S. Get some sleep...

[Karim Ghantous]

"Low light advantages compared to my DSLR? Not many compared to my D70 with ISO 1600, 50mm f/1.4D AF and white balance options."

 

Not so fast! (Hey, I'm pro digital but there is something to be said here). If you think that your D70's finder is as bright and as easy to focus as the Leica's - or that it doesn't matter - then fine. However I think you're right regarding the ISO part - film at ISO 400 looks like a DSLR at 1600.

 

"Lens quality? I would need to use a heavy tripod and remote release and ISO 100 film and and big enlargments of perfectly exposed shots"

 

Bollocks! ;-) You don't need a tripod to take advantage of other lens qualities such as general rendering quality whether in-focus or out-of-focus.

 

Though I love Nikons the lenses are larger than rangefinder equivalents. However you can afford to lose and replace more Nikkors than you can Leica M lenses.

 

I know you have a Bessa, but for the moment no DSLR can match the discrete, quiet *click* of an M body. Mind you, my D1 isn't *that* noisy either...

[kevin m.]

A month ago an M6TTL with a 35mm Asph Summilux was my primary camera/lens combo. It has been replaced with a Canon d20/24mm f1.4L. The Canon is bigger, louder, has a dimmer finder and the 24mm L isn't quite as sharp as the 35 'lux , but none of that matters as it can capture images in low light that still make me shake my head in amazement. It can find focus and deliver a printable image in light levels and color temps that would render the Leica virtually useless.

 

I'm keeping the Leica because I love using the floating framelines of a rangefinder, its quietness, and because Kodak's BW400CN has the B&W look I like dialed in right out of the camera. But it's the 'specialty' camera in my bag now.

[andrew_lee2]

<i>but none of that matters as it can capture images in low light that still make me shake my head in amazement</i> <p>

Post some pix, Kevin?

[h._p.]

I think it was said above but I'd say the viewfinder's the thing with the M cameras. Instead of looking 'at' the view on a screen you look 'through' the bright line, which I find gives a totally different result. Your mileage may well vary.

 

Incidentally, I sympathise with Trevor on his night-shift, I'm sitting here downloading modules from CPAN and those who know what that's about, will be aware that it makes watching paint dry seem like a fascinating experience. Those who don't know what it's about needn't bother asking - the answer would only bore them silly!

 

:-)))

[tom_burke3]

I had a go at the 'rangefinder thing' a few years ago. I bought an M2 and a Summicron 50,

having decided that my EOS 3 was just too big, too heavy, too everything.

 

After a couple of years I stopped using the M2. I just couldn't hack it. I was constantly

worrying - had I got the exposure right? (generally, no...); was it focused? (let's check

again and twiddle the lens to confirm); did I actually take the lens cap off for that HCB-

esque 'decisive moment' shot? (all too often, no....)

 

I sighed, admitted I was a photographic failure, and went back to EOS-land, with a 600

that I'd acquired along the way. It's a lot bigger than the M2, it depends absolutely on

batteries, and I recognise that the lenses aren't the equal of Summicrons & Summiluxes,

but I felt (and still feel) a whole load happier using it (and the newer EOS that has

succeeded it) than I ever did using the M2. Yes, there was a satisfaction in using

photographic machinery that was 40+ years old, but the results I was getting were

disappointing. And I freely admit that that's my fault, not the equipment's.

 

One thing has stayed with me from my visit to rangefinder-land: I do now prefer to use

primes rather than zooms (depending on situation, of course). I've acquired a collection of

EOS primes (24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm) that seem to match the standard Leica

focal lengths pretty closely. And while the lenses aren't the equal of Leica glass, neither

are the prices: I bought all the wide-angles s/hand, mainly on eBay, for a total of about

500 GBP.

[abufletcher]

I have to agree that a DSLR is now the ultimate low-light machine. I was just out shooting this evening and noticed the guy in the tatami-repair shop was at work (under a single florescent tube). Had I been shooting film (particularly color film), I would have just kept on walking and made a mental note to come back when the light was better. But instead I just dialed in ISO 1600 on my D70 (in auto WB) and shot away. No to say that those "better light" shots wouldn't have been somehow -- well BETTER but I can still go back. In fact, I was specifically invited back!

 

With a little more careful post-processing than usual (I use Velvia Vision, overlay, and Intellisharpen II) the results are outstanding even at 1600. I'll wager they are a good deal better in all ways than color film shot at 1600. I'll post a couple when I'm back in the office.

 

BTW, here was a situation where camera noise just wasn't an issue at all since I first ask if it would be alright for me to photograph him working. The old guy even commented that Nikon was a good camera and that he had one too. I probably shot about 60 frames as he worked (with a Tokina 20-35/2.8 and around 1/30-1/90)

 

It might have been possible to shot BW film with my Leica in this situation but for color the DSLR yielded better results by far.

 

This is why I say that RF's and particularly the M is no longer just about low-light. You have to need the intersection between low-light, wide-open apertures for slective focus, and need for near silent operation. An example of the later was a couple of months ago when I was allowed to photograph some local Japanese GO players. Go players are a lot like chess players and don't tolerate much noise so the M was perfect. On the other hand my Coolpix 5000 is a lot quieter than the M but -- and this is the BIG BUT -- the small sensor on the CP5000 would have rendered almost front to back DOF and I wanted to be able to concentrate attention on the player's faces and on the placement of "stones" on the board. So the CV 35/1.7 allowed me to do just that.

 

But Peter A has a point. Because I happened to have had the M6 with me that day, I made the photos I did -- and I'm convinced they would have been hard to make with any other camera/lens combo. On the other hand, had I had the Coolpix instead I would have certainly made a different set of perhaps equally interesting (but different) photos -- that again could only have been made with THAT camera!

 

Now if I took these ideas to their logical conclusion I would actually carry around three different camera/lens combos instead of the multiple lenses I used to schlep around in my SLR hayday. In the bag would be:

 

1. Leica M with CV 35/1.7 (or a 35 lux if I could afford one)

2. D70 with 20-35/2.8 (and maybe also my 12-24/4)

3. Coolpix 5000 with wide angle adapter

 

I'd then pick my body the way a golfer chooses a club and the way I used to select from a set of SLR lenses -- each one for what it's best at. Oh, and while some SLR manufacturers do make exotic lenses like a 20/1.8 or 24/1.4 they cost an arm and a leg and usually huge. For the price of the lens alone I could get a Coolpix that would allow me the added ability to shot overhead and at low camera angles.

 

They are ALL specialty cameras.

[abufletcher]

Edward Weston cautioned photographers never to wait around for something to happen because they were probably missing something happening elsewhere.

 

We could make the same argument regarding cameras. Every time you shoot with an M you've missing out on those shots that you would have made had you had a DSLR. And vice versa. Moral? Just be happy with whatever you have and use that.

[huw_finney]

ISO 1600 is ISO 1600 no matter what camera it is in, I can hold a Leica steadier than a DSLR. I can also push film to ISO 12,000 or more. Low light, film still rules. Then add the extra stop or two with that steady hold, 'lux, and M+film THE low light king. OK you can't change ISO on the fly, I want a 'lux.

[huw_finney]

And then I suppose you want colour too!

[huw_finney]

Another couple of stops, meurcury hypersensitising (sp?), maybe a bit of pre flash. That black cat in the coal cellar becomes takeable, just a glint from an eye for focussing.

 

Hey I could probably meter the shadows with my SEI!

[icuneko]

<You have to believe in the almost zen-like experience of using a RF vs. SLR style viewfinder. >

 

 

I ran this by my guru, Swami Leicananda, and her comment was, "Huh?"

[terry_rory]

Thanks everyone for some very thoughtful responses. Sorry I didn't join in again until now. (I have to sleep during the day this week.)

 

Lots of good stuff to read later. (Have to eat now.)

[kevin m.]

"I can also push film to ISO 12,000 or more. Low light, film still rules."

 

This is misinformation. Borrow a new DSLR and shoot a few frames at 1600 asa, then report back.

I saw the movie "Eurotrip" and thought "I gotta get a Leica"

 

In all seriousness, the appeal of Leicas for me in the beginning was the quietness and the lenses' mystique. Whether the lens quality is myth or not is meaningless to me. The pictures I take with my Leica lenses have a definite 'look' to them. Bokeh or whatever.