Struggling With Rangefinders

[DavidClapp]

I bought a Canon 7S and a VTDeluxe and a 50mm f1.2 LTM. I’ve been a professional landscape / travel photographer for 20 years, so I’m highly experienced.

The whole rangefinder experience has turned out to be a detachment for me creatively but I’m trying to like this format.

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.
3. I use my 50mm f1.2 LTM digitally with my Canon R3 to great effect so I’m certainly keeping this beautiful lens. I have to say this lens is the only really good thing I have taken from this rangefinder experience.

Should I rethink my strategy with this kit?

Any help gratefully received!

 

[albireo]

Whatever floats your boat Sir.

I only have one rangefinder (a 6X9 Texas Leica) and the rangefinder experience is ... Just a means to an end I guess. I'll do it to get those negatives. I must admit I've never owned a Leica though and I am curious about the whole 1:1 viewfinder experience and what it would allow me to do. Also fascinated by a small, semi pocketable camera with tiny well performing lenses.

But peoples tastes vary. I've met Nikon/Canon SLR fans online who love the feeling of a big chunky heavy reflex in their hand and would never pick up a rangefinder up not because of the experience, not because of the ergonomics but because...a small camera in their hands makes them "look effeminate" and doesn't convey an idea of big badass seasoned pro. Go figure!

 

[RezaLoghme]

My first rangefinder was a Leica M246 and it took a long while until I got it right. My best experience was a M4, despite the busy viewfinder with all its framelines. I have yet to explore the M2 and M3 viewfinders but something tells me that they will be "it".

I second Albireo's comment about "effeminate" rangefinders. Personally, I love the tiny Summicron-Ms and think that the M bodies have the delicate haptics of a medical measuring instrument. But YMMV and many people enjoy Texas Leicas, R8/9 behemoths, and modern DSRLs with those matte grey/beige super-tele lenses.

 

[DavidClapp]

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.

 

[Don_ih]

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.

If that's a stumbling block, the rangefinder is probably not for you. There will always be an offset between what the lens gets and what the viewfinder gives you. The cameras are designed to minimize that but it will always be there. You can gain familiarity with what you can expect and adapt to using it - that will normally amount to not composing to the very edge (since one of those edges will likely not get on the film) but remaining within the lines.

I prefer using rangefinders. I find composing through the viewfinder more natural than through an slr, which blurs everything except what's in focus. But there are definite strengths the slr offers that are difficult to match with a rangefinder - such as close focus and truly accurate framing). So maybe, if you want to use the rangefinder, you should try to find the proper situation where it will satisfy you.

 

[Besk]

I too have Nikon F2's and Leica's and like the F2's for their accurate frame lines.

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.

With the F2 (and groundglass viewing of other cameras) it is tempting to compose in the viewfinder - which has pitfalls as have been discussed many times over the years.

 

[albireo]

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.

Can you expand on this? I don't understand what you mean.

 

[DavidClapp]

I prefer using rangefinders. I find composing through the viewfinder more natural than through an slr, which blurs everything except what's in focus.

I find the exact opposite. I want to see and avoid all my potential mistakes, what to include / exclude especially on the edges, explore visual dynamics, highlight my creative focus and blur. I find rangefinders to be a total disconnect with all these important criteria.

If I’m just walking about in a city, or just snapping, then not much of this above is as important. The moment I start to try something more creative, rangefinders makes me feel as though I’m back to being a complete amateur again.

 

[halfaman]

Rangefinders demand some adjustment to anybody coming from the SLR or TLR world, specially because you don't see what you get anymore. At best you can see what you are framing, if it has good frame lines, but you never know how it looks like which was frustrating for me in the beginning. I still prefer a SLR type of camera, but I am able to manage some rangefinder cameras with some conviction (Voigtlander Bessa R2M, Konica Auto S3) . In exchange you get smaller cameras and lenses.

 

[brian steinberger]

If you’re looking for accurate framing in camera I would not recommend rangefinders. Those who use rangefinders need to be ok with cropping.

 

[loccdor]

It took me a while to get used to them and there are still things I don't prefer them for.

They are nice for IR or strong ND filters, and the lenses sometimes have less compromises.

They've never crossed my mind as girly. That's funny though. Anyone care for jelly beans?

 

[titrisol]

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

 

[RezaLoghme]

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

Thats how Leica made their model 262 (M-D) so successful. People seemed to find it "liberating" that they were "forced" not to chimp. Some people argue that a half-case or gaffa tape (or self restraint) would have had the same effect.

But for what its worth, a Leica M1 (without rangefinder), or even the 1960s MD (without viewfinder) still sell for some robust $$$, so some people (not merely collectors) see a point in using gear with such liberating limitations.

 

[retina_restoration]

People either like rangefinders, or they don’t. I don’t see any point in trying to force yourself to enjoy using one.

 

[RezaLoghme]

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.

And that probably applies to all kind of cameras, from Ebenezer Scrooge large format mahagony beasts to Minox spy cameras, pinhole cameras made from Heinz cans and 1970 hairy chested SLRs.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I think it depends entirely on the type photographic work you do. I had a Nikon F2AS and it was the best 35mm SLR I have ever owned period. I've also own several Leica screwmount and Leica M cameras. If I were into serious closeup stuff or even portraits the F2AS would be all I'd need. If I were a photo-journalist or street photographer I'd grab the Leica M2 (was my favorite rangefinder camera) and click away. A carpenter or auto mechanic has different tools in his tool box doesn't he? Photographers have the same option. It also has to do with what you get used to. If you are right handed and try eating with you left hand expect to poke yourself in the lip a few times, but after a while you'll be able to hit your mouth pretty good. Being used to the F2AS and then going rangefinder is like eating with your left hand.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

This^ (or these ^^)

Other than that (those), the Canon 7S is a swell camera!

 

[aw614]

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.

The Olympus Pen F's design is something I would have loved to have seen in 36x24 format over the prism hump SLR look as you get that rangefinder slab look, but with the focusing of an SLR. But I would assume would be a design nightmare given the complexities of the Pen F's viewfinder design

 

[Besk]

Can you expand on this? I don't understand what you mean.

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 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.

 

[AnselMortensen]

View attachment 416140 View attachment 416141

WOW...not my cup of tea...but as a Canon P user, I can appreciate it.

I use a Canon P with a 50mm Summicron, and use it like a view camera...careful composition.
I'm looking for a reasonable 35mm lens for it.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[RezaLoghme]

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.

I own several RF and SLR Leicas, and whenever I a using one, then I think "the other system would be better now". You can never win...

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

I appreciate the convenience using my M2 over my likewise beloved Olympus OMs. As a 'right eyed' it's much easier to use a finder on the left of the camera than one in the middle and I can cock the shutter without taking the camera from the eye.

 

[MattKing]

SLRs vs. RFs - they are sufficiently different to make it a mistake to have exactly the same expectations of them.
I only use a small number of non-SLR or TLR cameras - some P&S with auto focus, some scale focusing and some with a rangefinder - and the strengths of the non-SLR cameras include their size, weight, in most cases relative quiet and low vibration and in many cases the ability to see outside the image frame when using the viewfinder.
So I would suggest playing with them in situations where those potential advantages may be valuable. And then, if you like the results from your play, consider using them when the needs are more serious.

 

[Pieter12]

One of the advantages of RF cameras is that they are generally smaller, lighter and much quieter than the equivalent SLR. Less obtrusive can be key in certain situations.