Switching to RF photography

[julien_boudreau]

<p>I'm still waiting for my first rangefinder to arrive from CLA. A Leica M6. I have a 50mm Rigid Summicron as well. Prior to this, I mostly shot Nikon and have an FM2n and FE2 with 3 AI-S lens.</p>

<p>This being said, I also want a 35mm for the M6, but I can't afford one. For those of you who eventually got a RF, did you keep your SLR gear? If you only have a RF, do you find you sometimes wish you had an SLR? What do you find to be the biggest shortcomings with your RF gear that your SLR gear did much better? I mostly walk around with my camera - street, coffee shops, travel, etc.</p>

<p>Contemplating selling my Nikon gear, just to purge and simplify things here.</p>

<p>J</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>I have a CV Bessa R, a Leica IIIf, and 5 screwmount lenses. I use them when I want something small, lightweight, and unobtrusive. Most of the time I still use my digital SLRs. If I'm shooting extreme telephoto, macro, or sports then I'll stick with my SLR and AF lenses. I'm sure someone will tell you how great the Visoflex is but I see nothing wrong with multiple cameras, formats, or recording mediums.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>I'd recommend keeping your Nikon slr equipment for a while until you see that you won't be using it any more. It won't bring in much money and you may regret having sold it. As for the 35mm RF lens a nice Summicron would be good if you can find a good one for a reasonable price, but in the new market you can do well with the CV 35mm Color Scopar P Type II 2.5 for $379 a great buy or the very fine Zeiss 35mm 2.0 that gives up nothing to the Summicron for around $1k. Why not take your time and shoot with just the 50mm for a while and see where that takes you. Good luck! <big><big><strong></strong></big></big></p>

[SCL]

<p>Keep your SLR gear. RF cameras are great for some things and SLR cameras are great for others. Don't get sucked into marketing hype and think one solution fits all...yes it can be done, but cost and convenience definitely come into play after you get past merely snapping general purpose shots.</p>

[lilly_w]

<p>How about keeping the Nikons if for no other reason than to have at-the-ready film options? My M4 and several Nikon SLRs have been around equally long but the latter see far more use, esp under rough or hazardous shooting conditions, including risk of theft when travelling.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Sometimes people switch and find that RF shooting isn't their cup of tea. Wait and see how you adjust before losing the Nikons.</p>

[eoinmurphy]

<p>It takes a while to get used to the Leicas. Be especially careful loading the camera. If the rewind knob does not turn when you advance the film, it is not loaded right. Shooting is more difficult in the studio, tends to be easier on the street. I keep one Nikon for macro & studio portrait shoots, for both of which the Leica is not the best tool.</p>

[josh_carr]

<p>I got rid of the SLR gear. I really don't like them now - the clack of the mirror, the murky focusing screen and the attention-grabbing looks.<br>

What I can't understand is why a pentaprism, mirror and shutter are required on a digital SLR. Why not just have an eyepiece (using a screen on the back is a recipe for camera shake) with an LCD display behind it and a fully electronic image capture? No moving parts, smaller size, no vibration at all.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Roger, it sounds like you should get a Panasonic GH2 or similar body or perhaps the new pellicle based Sony.</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Roger,</p>

<p>I suspsect this will be the way forward, with micro 4/3 going mirrorless.</p>

<p>I want a Summicron 35mm, but the Zeiss F2 is also nice. The problem is that they're both so expensive, and I just purchased an M6 and 50mm Summicron - no more camera $$$ for a while (I actually have a box that I keep adding money until I can buy things, lol). I'm also planning on doing a one year, one camera, one lens and one film when I get the M6. So my SLR gear will be useless, but so would a 35mm M lens!</p>

<p>Maybe I'll just wait and see. However, so far, my only type of shooting has been street and/or travel, so nothing a RF can't do exceptionally.</p>

<p>J</p>

[geoff_r1]

<p>I have rarely used my SLR since I bought a rangefinder about three years ago. For my use, the short focus throw and big viewfinder without the SLR 'tunnel vision' were a revelation, though some people find a rangefinder is not for them. For 'normal' photography, a rangefinder has many advantages over an SLR, but they are not a camera for all purposes, namely close ups and long lenses. </p>

<p> </p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>The thing is, I don't think I've ever taken a picture that wasn't suited for RF cameras. I don't do macro, sports, nature, etc.</p>

<p>J</p>

[jerry_lehrer1]

<p>Julien,</p>

<p>My Leica M outfits and my Nikon F2AS have co-existed successfully since Pontius was a pilot.</p>

<p>I use them where and when their advantages are shown. Neither is favored over the other<br>

for "emotional" reasons.</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Julien,</p>

<p>Unless you need the money right away, I would keep your SLR gear for now.</p>

<p>Also, consider purchasing a LTM 35mm Summaron f3.5 to have fun with until next year. Performance is surprisingly good and the lens is tiny. They are reasonably priced and you will get your money back when you sell it. You will need to get an M mount adapter for it which are cheaply available in aftermarket form on eBay.</p><div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Love my rangefinders, but don't dare touch my SLRs, love those rangefinders though. They are quite different tools. I use both.</p>

[HarryBaker]

<p>For me the choice wasn't between SLR and RF, it was between film and digital. I love my M6 and my Hexar RF. Compact, quiet, robust, relatively inconspicuous (though increasingly being stared at as they are unusual). But for me, digital is so much better than film. I stress that this is my experience. Even fairly expensive colour film processing has been very disappointing in this part of the world. So, I tried to get the best of both worlds by buying an M8, even though there was a factory recall for the first batches. For me, this camera is great for B&W but not for colour. The Canon 5D blows it away. This will bring down the wrath of the forum! My advice is..if you have been happy with your SLR setup, then keep it. If you are happy with film then you will have to get used to the RF. RF is great but is not so versatile as SLR (no close-ups, limited telephoto, no real zoom, etc.)</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Harry,</p>

<p>Interesting perspective. I sold all my digital gear to purchase film cameras and have never regretted it. I spend all day on a computer at work, and have no desire to spend my evenings on one. The Dark Room process is fulfilling to me, and I love printing on fiber. I really can't see myself going digital yet. DSLR's are just too big, and feel like plastic toys. When the time comes (full frame sensor in 1500$ small body that takes M glass), I'll get a digital. I suspect this will be in a few years to come. I might get a micro 4/3 to mount my M glass for now.</p>

<p>I like small unobtrusive cameras. My Nikon D300 was neither.My FM2n and FE2 are small, and mostly unobtrusive.</p>

<p>J</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>When you view through the viewfinder of an SLR, what you see outside the frame is BLACK; for RF it is LIFE. I feel cramped to look through SLRs. I feel like carriage horses who have blinds NOT to see sideways.</p>

[paddler_b]

<p>I think it is a mistake to sell the equipment that you enjoy to fund another piece of equipment. Wait and save your money for the new stuff. For price of about 250 lathe at a coffee shop you can have a zeiss 35mm/f2. That is less than a year :-)</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>If you have a .72 viewfinder on the M6 you will be limited to 28mm thru 135mm lenses without adding an additional viewfinder. For the .72 the 135mm lens is very difficult and you are often guessing on the outcome unlike the SLR. Also, the 90mm lens is a little tricky. If you have .85 viewfinder then the 90mm is much better but you loose the 28mm framelines and the 35mm is difficult. What I am saying is if you want to use a 24mm or 135mm or above the SLR will be the way to go. In addition Leica and Zeiss (not CV)lenses for anything beyond the 50mm are very costly. The Ai-S lenses are very good lenses, especially the 105 & 28. Jus to note Zeiss makes an extremely good manual focus 35mm f2.0 but it is pricey. But, then again all of Leica is too. What I am saying and recommending is that if you were to immediately sell all your SLR equipment you would be limiting yourself to just a 50mm lens until you added additional glass.</p>

[geoff_r1]

<p>I have to disagree with you on the wide angles Steve, yes, an accessory viewfinder will be necessary, but I've never found this to be a big deal. If focusing accuracy is needed, a wide on a rangefinder is much easier to focus precisely. If not, a wide lens has enough DOF to scale focus, I often guesstimate and just look through the accessory finder. </p>

<p>Possibly the most significant advantage is the lack of distortion, a super wide is a useful lens on a rangefinder for more than just novelty perspectives. And then there's the size and weight, I can fit my 2.8/21 in my pocket! </p>

[david j.lee]

<p>I keep my slr bodies because I know I will do macro again soon, but enjoy M leicas much more. They are small,solid and silent.</p>

[bill_young]

<p>About four months ago, I purchased a Leica MP and 35 mm Summicron, both used. I'd been interested in RF photography and Leicas for a long time, and finally took the plunge. I have a Canon IV - and yes, I still use film, both for the "look" and relative ease of use of film compared to digital prints and processing digital files, at least to my sense of things.<br>

I enjoy the MP a lot, although it's a slower and more deliberate process. It's not as flexible as the IV certainly, but the small size, lighter weight, and portability of the Leica make it an easy choice when I'm packing for a trip and more casual photography. I'll keep the IV, mostly because there are some things that it does that cannot be done well by the Leica (athletic events, for example), but it is a heavy thing.<br>

And, of course, the prints from the Leica, at least to my eye, have a feel and "look" that's different and distinctive. That's part of the pleasure, also.<br>

Bill Young</p>

[dan_b.4]

<p>Just wondering why you didn't stick with Nikon for the rangefinder? The SP and S2 are great cameras and Nikkor made great lenses. A whole kit costs a lot less that Leica.</p>