New to Rangefinders. Question about image quality.

[MaximusM3]

My opinion...forget about the gear. I shoot street with my Leica M3 and I have a full arsenal of lenses BUT, I can do just the same with a Contax T2 or a Rollei 35T...and very few notice. Get yourself a beat up but working camera (yes, you can find a good, clean, old Leica with lens for $800 if that's your choice), load it with Tri-X, forget the meter, sunny 16 all the way and learn the light and how to compose. Pick a developer or two and fine tune your style. Some people say that there is a Leica/rangefinder look and I say it's all about the photographer. Rangefinders do bring one to shoot a little differently and, while certain lenses do have a unique signature, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[clayne]

The "look" the OP describes is in my opinion mostly film, focal length, aperture, and circumstance. Of course lens construction and coatings contribute qualities, but the idea that someone could look at a print and say categorically that it came from rangefinder is hooey.

J is totally on the money here. While I do agree with Ian that Leica glass is special, it won't make or break said "look" here. It'll add to it, but it's only a 5% thing.

The majority of it is Tri-X, light, and moment.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Nicholas, the light falloff of the noctilux is what makes it not that great a lens in my opinion.

Pretty much all lenses have light fall-off problems wide open. It increases the price of a lens to over-size the elements so there is no fall off, and with a lens that is already as huge and expensive as a Noctilux the cost of mitigating fall off is likely prohibitive.

But, hey, people buy Dianas for the funky fall off -- why shouldn't a $12,000 Noct share the same great look?

 

[MaximusM3]

Pretty much all lenses have light fall-off problems wide open. It increases the price of a lens to over-size the elements so there is no fall off, and with a lens that is already as huge and expensive as a Noctilux the cost of mitigating fall off is likely prohibitive.

But, hey, people buy Dianas for the funky fall off -- why shouldn't a $12,000 Noct share the same great look?

...the Noctilux..the most misunderstood Leica lens. I don't have a .95 since I need a new car instead but I do have a f1. It's hard to justify a lens that is basically the same as a Summicron passed f1.4 but let me tell you, it's not called the NOCTIlux for nothing. All I see is people shoot that lens wide open at every chance they get just because it's cool, when in effect, the widest aperture with low light/no light is what the lens was born to do. I load my camera with TMZ or Delta 3200 and @ f1...let there be light!! Most people don't realize how powerful f1 is and for it's intended use, light fall off or vignetting is a total non-issue.

 

[elekm]

I think of the Noctilux as a specialty lens, although it certain can be used as the "normal" everyday lens. I think the price puts it into the specialty category.
Other specialty lenses include some of the superwide optics, as well as fisheye lenses,

But hey, we're not the Taliban, so you're free to combo any lens with any matching body. Whatever works for you.

 

[Bill Burk]

When you shoot with an SLR, you see everything except the picture you got. I used to think rangefinder decisive moments were hogwash until I picked up an easy to shoot rangefinder (Canonet QL-17 GIII). The number of snapshots I was happy with jumped more than I expected. This makes me think there is a real difference between rangefinder and SLR when it comes to capturing a fleeting moment. It's subtle but I believe it's there. This was comparing to traditional manual-focus SLR - Pentax SM, Olympus OM - not some slow to respond system.

 

[blockend]

It depends. For street photography using high speed film and pre-focussed wide angle lenses there's not much between an SLR and a rangefinder. I suspect it's more about keeping both eyes open as you make the shot. Some rangefinders certainly feel better in the hand than a typical SLR and that aspect shouldn't be underestimated as a motivation to shoot.
For composition alone I find the 'sportsfinder' window in the hood of a TLR a real advantage, as there's nothing but fresh air between you and the subject but the weight and handling a minus.

 

[2F/2F]

I find that my SLR pix are more technically sound, carefully and precisely composed, and "serious", and that I often shoot rangefinders more in the style of a point and shoot camera, i.e. not caring so much about the technical aspects and just having fun shooting loosely. I get many more keepers that are exactly how I intended them to be with SLRs, and I have more fun shooting lightheartedly with rangefinders.

As a result of all of this, I am more prone to snap away with a rangefinder, and I burn through film something fierce. With no technical feedback, such as seeing that something is fuzzy or not engaging the edges of the frame just how you might want it to, I am more likely to just take the shot without "editing" or "manipulating" it as much. SLRs lend themselves to a more designed approach to images, at least in my own shooting.

In short, I like using rangefinders because they feel like the ultimate-quality point-and-shoot. I hate using them for precise work. They just don't fit with that sort of approach to me.

All this being said, these are just my natural tendencies when using SLRs and rangefinders. The thing is that I can do anything I can do with a rangefinder with an SLR, but I cannot do anything I can do with an SLR with a rangefinder. It is not about the camera. It is all about attitude. I take rangefinders not just when I want to shoot loosely, but when I want to not be bothered by a bunch of technical details and equipment, and just shoot and see what happens. I can do this with an SLR, but it requires more work (heavier, larger, more precise, etc.) Using a rangefinder streamlines the process of shooting loosely for me.

However, none of this has to do with light, contrast, lenses, etc. It has to do with choosing the right tool for the desired shooting experience and/or result.

 

[Xmas]

Hi

You have stirred up the gear heads.

Street shooting needs a fast reliable camera, an Olympus OM1 SLR or Canon P rfdr would be ok, HCB used a Leica cause he could afford one. A beaten up M2 or M4-2 is cheapest Leica option, but even a Canonet f/1.7 QLIII will cut the mustard.

If you get a Leica a CV 3.5 cm or 5 cm f/2.5 will murder all but the latest Leica lenses at 5.6 or 8 for performance/$, you might detect the difference in 1 in 100 shots, but a $ difference x4, is more noticeable

HCB took most of his shots in good light at f/8 or smaller aperture. Shooting in available light rather more difficult.

If you are using a manual camera and that may be the best to train with then a monochrome C41 film like Ilford XP2 will capture more high light and shadow.

This can be processed in a mini lab and scanned to CD in 20 mins for a premium $.

Then you need to photo shop or wet enlarge for the look you want, HCB used amazingly good fine art printers.

The last is the most difficult, if you want the highlights , shadows and mid tones you seem to like.

Noel

 

[r.benari]

Good advice, no matter where it comes in the thread. There is, though ( for me ) real value in the strong opinions. Something of commitment comes out in these discussions, and a true sense about what people are after in their work. In a world that wants for true commitment to seeing, it kind of refreshing and reaffirming. Thanks.

 

[r.benari]

rbenari, I was only referring to the noctilux which is actually just not tha great a lens.

Oops. Sorry.

When you pull your tri-x out of the tank and see the negs everything will come full circle and you'll understand entirely.

Don't forget the most important aspect of all: the light.

This is real sound and good to remember. Thanks again- (terrific pictures over on your flickr acct, which are also quite helpful to see. Thanks.)

 

[Ian Grant]

To the OP: you're overthinking it.

Any standard M body, any summicron, and tri-x will get you the tonality and "quality" you desire.

IMO I disagree, (not not about the quality of rangefinder lenses or that there are very subtle differences between lenses from certain manufacturers) But I'd bet you a print that I can match the "look" on a print as far as a rangefinder beyond minor signatures that few would notice, using my Canon or Exacta SLR. The "look" the OP describes is in my opinion mostly film, focal length, aperture, and circumstance. Of course lens construction and coatings contribute qualities, but the idea that someone could look at a print and say categorically that it came from rangefinder is hooey.

That's just my opinion. The only thing I think that is really off the mark here is saying everyone else is wrong. It generally isn't smart to speak in absolutes when discussing qualities that carry as much subjectivity as a "look".

There are great reasons to use a rangefinder and it sounds like the OP has discovered them, but ascribing skin tones to a particular kind of camera isn't something that I personally consider valid beyond the most nuanced of nuance.

There is school of opinion that thinks that Leica lenses do have a "look" and an effect on the feel - tonality and sharpness.

How much we agree is subjective but there's a large number of people who subscribe to that view and there's plenty of threads that debate the virtues of Leica lenses compared to Canon/Nikon etc on this forum & others.

So it's very valid to highlight that fact

My own experience from using a Summicron for around 20 years, and Pentax lenses for 36 years, is that there are tonal differences compared to my Pentax & Canon lenses and there's also less harsh micro contrasts between areas of different tones, the resulting prints have a more rounded tonality (subjective term), maybe a smoothness is a better description. The fact that non serious photographers could spot the subtle differences rather surprised me.

Printing controls can't match the differences, changing film developers might slightly. However my experience is based on the same films in the same developers and shooting a wide variety of subjects from nudes, to weddings and landscapes, with some street style work thrown in as well

Interesting that you mention Exacta as their Zeiss lenses are the closest I've come across personally to Leica (Leitz) lenses for tonality. Some of the best 35mm prints I've made were shot with 35mm, 50mm & 135mm CZJ Zeiss lenses on an Exacta that belonged to a friend (they were his images).

Ian

 

[Xmas]

Tis true that there are differences between lenses, and lots of people prefer the single coated lenses of yesterday to the modern multi coated lenses, Cosina make several of their lenses in either SC or MC to cater for this demand, and yes non technical people can detect and like the difference.

But if you are street shooting unless you stage your shots like Capa's 'Death of a republican' you need as much tolerance to flare as you can get. I got shots that are all (or only) flare even with multicoated lenses

A type I or type II cron is not recommended, even with a barn door hood...

You also need to remember to always remove the lens cap with a rangefinder, shots of HCB, while he was uaware show him palming a lens cap on a lanyard, Note I think he was using his fav type I cron, donno how he dealt with the flare...

Noel

 

[Ian Grant]

Noel, I'll hold my hands up and admit I was very anti pre-Multi Coated lenses. That was based on some terrible Sigma & Hoya lenses supposedly MC but only a few of the air / glass surfaces were, and some Russian lenses

My early 50's Summicron has never given flare/contrast problems, and I use a similar vintage 150mm fr4.5 Tessar all the time.

Ian

 

[dacookieman]

I agree, I have a Rigid Summicron and it has never given me flare problems at all

 

[premo]

FWIW, I use a FED-2, and Argus C3 with their lenses and I shoot on Kodak 400 speed c-41 film, and like the results I get. So use whatever you like, and be happy

 

[Venchka]

What can I say that hasn't already been said? Probably not much. That won't stop me.
1. Lenses: If you want character, or a different look, seek out Canon and Nikkor lenses from the 50s. I own 3: Nikkor 50/1.4 & 85/2.0 and Canon 35/2.8. They are fabulous lenses considering their age and hold up well against modern counterparts. Each imparts it's own special "look." The same can be said for older Leitz lenses. My 50/2.0 Dual Range Summicron and 90/2.8 Elmarit from the 60s are near and dear to my heart. My modern lenses are from Konica. You would have to look long and hard and pay a lot more to find better.
2. Film: Arista Premium 100 & 400, a.k.a. Plus-X and Tri-X, will save you a lot of money. I have been very partial to Plus-X from my beginnings many moons ago. I haven't used the 400 yet but plan to soon.
3. Developer: I cut my teeth on Plus-X and D-76 1:1. I have since switched to Xtol 1:3. It doesn't get any better in my book.
4. Ask 100 photographers for advice on lenses, film & developers and you will get 100 squared answers. Find the combination that works for you.
The important constant: Have fun!

 

[Richard Jepsen]

What I've noticed: that each format and each technology has its own signature, and this is certainly true of rangefinders. Most of the pictures I've studied across most makes, models and films are rich in grain and, with rare exception, print natural light flat. No matter how balanced the contrast, variation of skin tone, say, is fairly even.

Medium format properly exposed usually has better tonality and sharpness. However, I have images from a 1956 cron, 40mm Rokkor, and several 1968/1970s Minolta 50 - 58mm optics which produced great skin tones. FP4, light, proper exposure, and not over-enlarging the small format negative are keys. If your looking at street photos from the 60s and 70s shot with Tri-X and enlarged to 8x12 you may not see the tonality you want. It has nothing to do with what camera or even often what lens as long as the glass is of good quality. Its about the photographer and quality of light.