I think for me, it’s whether it does the job accurately, and I’m finding the lack of compositional and edge of frame accuracy to be too vague.
I use the rangefinder on those cameras for focusing and the frame lines as a sort of an imprecise indication of the borders. Composition is done through visualization of the scene on film - not peering through the viewfinder.
I prefer using rangefinders. I find composing through the viewfinder more natural than through an slr, which blurs everything except what's in focus.
1. I feel detached from the precise framing of the F2AS I own. These rangefinders lack versatility and I get quickly bored of the restrictions.
2. I am far from enjoying composition with the 7S 50mm frame lines, the VT’s rotating viewfinder prism is better. I bought a 35mm to end this on the 7S, but the lens was a eBay Japan dud so I’m stuck with frame lines until I get a 35mm.
RF is ancient technology, in which the restrictions force you to think thrice.
For me this is kind of the point, taking pictures without seeing them perfectly is very liberating
People either like rangefinders, or they find they just don’t work for them. I don’t see any point in trying to force yourself to enjoy using them.
If you’re looking for accurate framing in camera I would not recommend rangefinders. Those who use rangefinders need to be ok with cropping.
People either like rangefinders, or they don’t. I don’t see any point in trying to force yourself to enjoy using one.
I think for me, it’s whether it does the job accurately, and I’m finding the lack of compositional and edge of frame accuracy to be too vague.
I too was interested in the smaller size of these cameras, but I’m struggling with the slow pace, although I have a hot shoe meter.
I certainly don’t think there’s anything girly about them, haha.
I think my biggest draw is that I really like the look of them. They handled really well and they seem to call me onwards to take good photos. But that’s where the experience takes a nose dive. I just find myself disconnected, fussing and fumbling.
Can you expand on this? I don't understand what you mean.
I am trying to say that, through experience, it is possible to look at a scene, once you know the field of view, to think about how it will look on film. You need to think about composition, including how the light falls on the elements in the scene. An artist does that when he/she puts paint to the canvas of a scene.I use the rangefinder on those cameras for focusing and the frame lines as a sort of an imprecise indication of the borders. Composition is done through visualization of the scene on film - not peering through the viewfinder.
You have good reasons to move on from Rangefinders, there was a reason SLR replaced rangefinders. I have both SLRs and rangefinders, when a working PJ I carried a Nikon SLR and a Leica IIIG or Canon 7S, the rangefinders were most often were fitted with a 35 or 28mm, Due to wear and tear I eventually replaced the Leica and Canon with a second SLR, cant say that I missed them. I still have a Retina IIIC big and a couple of fixed rangefinders that I use when I want to travel light, in dim lighting I see better though the rangfinder than with a SLR. But 90% of the time I use a SLR.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?