How many of us use rangefinders?

[netdog]

Like everywhere, we mostly see posts here debating the merits of Canons and Nikons. Both manufacturers make fine cameras but there really isn't much between them

Just wondering if we have much of a rangefinder community here shooting either digital or film.

M8 and M4P here.

[luminosity]

Though Leicas certainly aren't the only rangefinders still out there, they're the best known ones, and also extremely expensive. For the price of an M8.2, you can buy a D3 and some great glass to go with it.

[firestarter]

I'm an ex-rangefinder user. I used to use a Fuji 670GWIII (probably my favourite camera of all time - 6x7 medium format and a fantastic 90mm lens).

For me, I don't find the Leica or Epson digital rangefinders attractive (too expensive, too limited compared to lightweight DSLRs).

I am looking forward to the expansion of the Olympus/Panasonic micro four thirds format. I don't know if you'd consider these to be rangefinders - although they are similar (reflex mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras). I'll probably wait to see what Olympus release in the format, rather than going for the Panasonic G1.

[jpfisher]

I've used the M8 as my primary camera for a little over six months now... also have a DSLR (Pentax), 35mm SLR (also Pentax) and a medium format film SLR (Hasselblad) for use when needed...

[RainForRent]

I shoot a Minolta 7s on occasion for kitsch retro awesomeness.

[rouxeny]

I have an old one, but I don't use it much. It's film and ancient (well, relatively). Digital seems so much easier....

[Dfndr90]

Leica M6 and Konica Hexar for me. But they dont get much use now that I am shooting with the D200.

[atlanticza]

Still using (occasionally) my Hasselblad X-Pan for panoramic shots.

[wittegijt]

I use mainly rangefinders (all film): A Bronica RF645 is my favorite camera. I also own a Contax G2 set, and some Russian Leica/Contax copies.
No digital rangefinders for me, they are way overpriced in my opinion.

Wittegijt.

[Kebabselector]

I occasionally dust off my old Fujifilm GA645zi, still got a fair amount of film in my freezer, should go out and use it!

[-hh]

My underwater camera, a 35mm (film) Nikonos V, is a rangefinder.

Probably due the the UW application, it doesn't have any short of range-focus assistance (eg, split screen to allign, etc) in the viewfinder.

Instead, there's range markings on the lens. On the 3rd party lenses, its a simple knob with values and a tickmark, but on the genuine Nikkor lenses, it has two "pointers" that are hooked into the f/stop: as you go to a higher f/number, the pointers move apart, indicating the total depth of field.

You can get a decent view of this system at this webpage (http://underwater-photography.org/equipment.htm).

In the above URL's second photo (orange body) looking at the front face of the lens, the top scale (silver) is for focus range (and has two orange pointers) and the bottom scale (black) is f/stop.

The current setting is f/22 and a range of roughly 5 to 7ft (red numbers), or 1.5 to 2 meters (black numbers)...call it roughly 6ft focus distance with +/- 1ft worth of depth of field.

FWIW, with the 15mm wide angle at roughly 0.7m at f/8, the depth of field is roughly 10 inches to infinity.



-hh

[John T]

The main "advantages" of range-finder cameras over SLR's are (1) size/weight - the former being smaller/lighter and (2) the lack of shutter noise - SLR's are not always ideal in "quiet" situations such as the theatre where mirror-slap can be a problem.

[netdog]

You can get a decent view of this system at this webpage (http://underwater-photography.org/equipment.htm).


Very cool page.

[OreoCookie]

Back in the film days, I was often taking out my dad's Zeiss Ikon Contessa LK (he's the first owner and it's still in perfect working order!). The camera has a very different feel to it than the slrs I was used to, but I was usually never very good at estimating the distance to the subject. I've always shot bw with it. Perhaps I'll ask them to give it to me permanently and continue to shoot film every once in a while.

[Padaung]

Leica CL and 28, 40 and 90mm lenses, but it is rarely used now. My life has gone digital! Would love an M8, but will be getting a D700 first...

[Knomad]

I use an old Leica M4 far more than my DSLR. Compact size, light weight, exquisite balance, amazing lenses... and a whole different way of seeing. A rangefinder allows editing things both in and out of the frame, no more looking through the tunnel. It makes a difference in composing.

[Knomad]

Though Leicas certainly aren't the only rangefinders still out there, they're the best known ones, and also extremely expensive. For the price of an M8.2, you can buy a D3 and some great glass to go with it.

There are still a lot of 40-year old M4's in everyday use.

D3's are good cameras. But how many do you think will still be around in three years? These days, DSLRs are obsolete in a year and a half.

[taylorwilsdon]

There are still a lot of 40-year old M4's in everyday use.

D3's are good cameras. But how many do you think will still be around in three years? These days, DSLRs are obsolete in a year and a half.

Actually, I have a buddy who still beats the crap out of his Nikon D1 and D1x bodies. They were bought in early 2000 if I recall, so that's 9 years of service. "Obsolete" doesn't mean useless - the M4 is completely obsolete too.

[jacobsen1]

I would love to use a rangefinder, but the price for what you get is just absurd these days. The epson would have been great if they continued improving it. The leica is into the nose bleed territory for me, especially considering my old 5D could beat it optically. Yes, I'd prefer the body of a rangefinder, but when it's loses in terms of budget and features I just can't do it. I've also been drooling on a bessa r4m for a while now, but scanning film is enough of a pita I avoid it.

For me, I have what I need right now. For 35mm film I have my old canon A2. For 645 I have a Bronica ETRSi. For a DSLR I have a 5Dii. It covers the bases.

I agree that I'm waiting to see what olympus brings to the micro 4:3s table. It's not technically a rangefinder, but it's got the principle and won't break the bank... I'm also looking at the LX3 right now, but I'm wondering if I should wait for the spring show to see if Olympus has something by then? The G1 is close, but why'd they put an EV on it? :confused:

[jacobsen1]

D3's are good cameras. But how many do you think will still be around in three years? These days, DSLRs are obsolete in a year and a half.

"Obsolete" doesn't mean useless - the M4 is completely obsolete too.

exactly. If a D3 beats film today (let's not go there) it still will in 3 years. Sure, the D4 or 5 will be better by then, but that doesn't mean the D3 stops taking great images.

I had a 1D until late last year. It's hunger for batteries is what made me finally sell it. Damn CCD sensor.

[Cliff3]

D3's are good cameras. But how many do you think will still be around in three years? These days, DSLRs are obsolete in a year and a half.

All of them, most likely. I am still using a D2X. Its greatest limitation is me.

[gkarris]

Maybe someone can answer this for me...

I love rangefinders, but using the "finder" in P&S and in some of the Rangefinder Cameras I looked at - it felt kinda "wierd" having your nose and face plastered against an LCD display screen and controls on the camera back.

Is there a decent digital rangefinder that doesn't have that?

Thanks.

[harinezumi]

Leica M8 or M8.2 might be what you are looking for.:)

[luminosity]

There are still a lot of 40-year old M4's in everyday use.

D3's are good cameras. But how many do you think will still be around in three years? These days, DSLRs are obsolete in a year and a half.

In three years? There will be a ton of D3s in use three years from now, with many of them having passed from the hands of cutting-edge professionals to amateurs who will by then be able to afford the lower prices of the D3 (compared to a D4 or something similar).

An F5 isn't any less great than it was in 1996, but it now costs perhaps a sixth of what it did then.

D3s are very well put together, and will still see a lot of service as the years go by. The shutters are made of kevlar, and the body is made of metal. The megapixels provided are plentiful and the onboard image processor is top-notch, and won't suddenly produce poor images three years from now.

Pros who dump their D3s will be putting them in the hands of people like me.

[Sesshi]

Sorry to drag up a thread, but I walked into a camera store recently intending to buy a P&S - which I did, but also came out with an M8.2.

I had fond-ish memories of my old film Leica, on which I got some excellent shots... but playing with the new one for a while, I have a nasty feeling that it may all have been a fluke. Recalling how I used to use it, I really had no idea what I was really doing in the moment that I took the shot. I just pointed, did the technical basics and hoped for the best.

Maybe I need to be in a similar situation, but the shots are not coming out as I thought they might. I think some informal tuition may be in order. Does anyone know if this sort of thing can be done online, or if there's some sort of class for it?

[netdog]

When you've grown accustomed to auto-focus auto-exposure DSLRs, your inner photographer gets a bit flabby.

Use the camera as much as possible for a month and you'll find that you are learning to ride again.

What glass did you get?

[Sesshi]

The 35mm for now. Seemed like the logical choice for an uber-P&S.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Have two main kits right now; my Leica M8/M6TTL and my Nikon D90 and D60IR. The Nikon kit is when I want fast and easy... the Leica kit when I want to take things slower and smaller.

[peskaa]

M7 TTL and an MP. Love them to pieces.

[toxic]

Sorry to drag up a thread, but I walked into a camera store recently intending to buy a P&S - which I did, but also came out with an M8.2.

I had fond-ish memories of my old film Leica, on which I got some excellent shots... but playing with the new one for a while, I have a nasty feeling that it may all have been a fluke. Recalling how I used to use it, I really had no idea what I was really doing in the moment that I took the shot. I just pointed, did the technical basics and hoped for the best.

Maybe I need to be in a similar situation, but the shots are not coming out as I thought they might. I think some informal tuition may be in order. Does anyone know if this sort of thing can be done online, or if there's some sort of class for it?

an $8000 rangefinder is quite different from a $200 point-&-shoot.... if you just want to, well, point and shoot, a rangefinder isn't for you. a rangefinder is more or less a miniaturized SLR, and that entails learning everything you would if you had an SLR, and some more since the viewfinder and lenses function differently.

and just to be clear, an LX3 or similar does not qualify as a miniature SLR. you can't swap lenses and the "film" (sensor) is far too small, leading to lack of resolution and little DoF control.

[Sesshi]

an $8000 rangefinder is quite different from a $200 point-&-shoot.... if you just want to, well, point and shoot, a rangefinder isn't for you. a rangefinder is more or less a miniaturized SLR, and that entails learning everything you would if you had an SLR, and some more since the viewfinder and lenses function differently.

and just to be clear, an LX3 or similar does not qualify as a miniature SLR. you can't swap lenses and the "film" (sensor) is far too small, leading to lack of resolution and little DoF control.

Thank you Captain Frackin Obvious.

As I said, I did get a P&S - a D-Lux 4, aka the LX3 - and the rangefinder. You couldn't call me a professional photographer and most of my photo moments tend to be of the P&S variety. I just can't justify the bulk of a DSLR even when I'm prepared to take better pictures.

[toxic]

Thank you Captain Frackin Obvious.

As I said, I did get a P&S - a D-Lux 4, aka the LX3 - and the rangefinder. You couldn't call me a professional photographer and most of my photo moments tend to be of the P&S variety. I just can't justify the bulk of a DSLR even when I'm prepared to take better pictures.

unless i missed something, you didn't say you got an LX3. you just said you intended to get a p&s, and walked out with a rangefinder.

you also asked about learning how to use it. as i said, it's similar to an SLR. you need to know how to meter and get the exposure you want, what focal length to use, etc. the major difference is how to read the viewfinder.

[Sesshi]

Use the camera as much as possible for a month and you'll find that you are learning to ride again.


Yeah - I'll see how it goes. I just don't have the ability to reflexively come up with the magic settings anymore. Perhaps I think too much these days. As you say, it is probably about familiarisation. The rest may still be luck but I guess I'll find out.

There isn't really a sort of journalist-lite photography class with a bent towards rangefinders, is there?

[jpfisher]

Which 35mm did you get? The Summilux ASPH hood blocks part of the viewfinder, which may be leading to some frustration if you are looking for careful, precise framing.

My advice would be to work slow with the camera at first. Take your time, work with some still subjects (architecture, sleeping hoboes, whatever tickles your fancy), use a tripod, and compare what you're seeing within the framelines to the image you're capturing. Get a feel for how accurate they as you focus at different distances.

Once you get that down, the rest should fall into place. I generally shoot with the shutter dial set to 'A' and my auto ISO ranging from 160 to 1250. If I'm working in extreme lighting conditions or if I'm working a bit slower I'll set all that manually.

[NightGeometry]

Strange this popped up, I've been seriously considering getting a Contax G2 over the past couple of days (wanted one for a couple of years, and now the want has turned into a definite hunger...)

Anyone got any experience with a G2?