should I RF?

[ethany]

am intending to move out of SLR to try something different, RF seems interesting enough, especially with the seemingly portable systems i see on threads here...

may i ask why you guys are so into RF? is it the manual focusing which you enjoy?? (i assume there isn't much AF options for RF cameras)...

how different is the experience in getting the right settings for the shot you want? SLR vs RF... (i'm in Av mode most of the time, fully manual for night shots)

last but not least, where should i start? Bessa? M6? whats a decent body to start with?


cheers
nx

 

[serial_lain]

First of all.. there are many reasons why people choose RF.. these are mine:
1. Extremely portable, and a good option for street shots.. people get uncomfortable if they see a big gun SLR camera which mega huge lens pointing at you.. they shun away.. a rangefinder is small and sneaky.. you'll be able to get away with taking sneak candid shots.. either that or people will think you are just an amateur with a shitty small cam and wont bother about you. thats exactly what i want. Also because of light weight.. i am able to fit 2 cameras and a lens into my F-5XA, the smallest domke bag option.. you dont feel like a weightlifter.
2. This point is related to point 1. The small size and conspicuous nature of RFs makes me want to take it out and shoot. Its always slung around my neck.. I would never do that with a huge SLR. Ill just keep it at home or put it in my big 'plofessianal' bag and never use it
3. I can never shoot 50mm on an SLR.. but 50mm on a RF is just nice.. because you get the framelines.. so you can see outside of the picture you are making. This helps in composition alot and you can see which elements are coming in and out of the picture, as well as what you would get if you change focal length, because most cameras have manual frameline selectors. This for me is the most important point that made me switch to RF.
4. Film is just more fun. The process sometimes beats the product.
5. Every tom dick and harry carries an SLR nowadays.. be different and own a rangefinder.. you will not regret.

Ok this is just my opinions hope i dont offend any SLR users! SLRs do have their uses ill admit.

My recommendations if you cant do without Av mode is get a Hexar RF. It is solid build quality coupled with aperture priority and high shutter speeds at an attractive price point.. plus it has auto frame advance. IF you want something with Av mode but cheaper a Bessa R2A is even more affordable, or even R3A and R4A. If you are lazy like me you can get the son of point and shoot mother and rangefinder father.. the Konica Hexar AF.. 35mm autofocus camera that is simply the best point and shoot you can find. Another AF option is the Contax G series of rangefinders..

For old school cool.. nothing beats the famed leica M series of cameras coupled with VC meter for exposure measuring..

 

[lokewl]

In my opinion get a affordable rangefinder like the Bessa R or a Zorki first and give it a go at it to see if Rangefinder photography is for you.

Once you are comfortable with it then go get a Leica M to carry on your hobby.

 

[kktan88]

does all Rf uses film??

singma dp1 uses sensor.,

sorry for my ignorance

 

[lokewl]

I do not consider a Sigma DP1 a RF camera.

Just there are limited digital model of RF camera available, they are the Leica M8 and the Epson R-D1/R-D1s

 

[kktan88]

may i know why??

 

[lokewl]

This is a quote from Wikipedia

" A rangefinder camera is a camera fitted with a rangefinder: a range-finding focusing mechanism allowing the photographer to measure the subject distance and take photographs that are in sharp focus. Most varieties of rangefinder show two images of the same subject, one of which moves when a calibrated wheel is turned; when the two images coincide and fuse into one, the distance can be read off the wheel. Older, non-coupled rangefinder cameras display the focusing distance and require the photographer to transfer the value to the lens focusing ring; cameras without built-in rangefinders could have an external rangefinder fitted into the accessory shoe. Earlier cameras of this type had separate viewfinder and rangefinder windows; later the rangefinder was incorporated into the viewfinder. More modern designs have rangefinders coupled to the focusing mechanism, so that the lens is focused correctly when the rangefinder images fuse. "

 

[chiif]

Hi Ethany,

Before u look for a RF, I think you should ask yourself this question, could you live with film? If you haven't tried film before and started photography with digital only, then I suggest that you get some SLR film camera (easily available) and play with a while and see whether you can live with non-instant gratification. If you can, then you can check out RF and invest in a Bessa R.

Compact PnS film camera, though pretty close to RF concept, still lacks the manual over-ride that you can get from the full manual focus fully manual (some with AE) RF bodies. But going straight to Leica is a little "extravagant".

Hope that helps. If you want to take a look at the Bessa R or any of the Bessa bodies, R2, R3 or R4, you can let me know.

 

[Bangles]

Ive used the RF for about 1.5years now - a convert from a digital SLR system, so I can share with you my experience with both. In short, I find myself choosing different camera systems for different types of shots. For example:
1. when i try to capture a cityscape, i would invariably use my RF. Its light, small (therefore not intimidating as mentioned in the earlier reply), and produces great shots in low light situations which are the type of scenes i am most fond of capturing on film. (e.g. inside a smoky cafe, the interior of my hotel room, dusk / dawn shots).
2. when i try to capture landscapes or require different focal lengths, i find that nothing beats the good old daigital SLR system with its zoom lens capability. this is good say for example, holiday shots in a scenic locations like nz. (can take as many photos as i like, then delete later).
3. for portraits, medium format is just great.
If you ask me which i am most fond of out of the 3 options above, id say RF handsdown. After almost 5 years of photography, i think ive found the system that fits my interest the most.
Hope this helps.
B

 

[ethany]

My recommendations if you cant do without Av mode is get a Hexar RF. It is solid build quality coupled with aperture priority and high shutter speeds at an attractive price point.. plus it has auto frame advance. IF you want something with Av mode but cheaper a Bessa R2A is even more affordable, or even R3A and R4A. If you are lazy like me you can get the son of point and shoot mother and rangefinder father.. the Konica Hexar AF.. 35mm autofocus camera that is simply the best point and shoot you can find. Another AF option is the Contax G series of rangefinders..

For old school cool.. nothing beats the famed leica M series of cameras coupled with VC meter for exposure measuring..

thanks for the recommendations!


is it hard to focus on a range finder? i had problems focusing on split prisms mainly due to the low light nature of my subjects... relied on AF much of the time. would i be taking the fun out of RF if i were to AF??

 

[ethany]

In my opinion get a affordable rangefinder like the Bessa R or a Zorki first and give it a go at it to see if Rangefinder photography is for you.

Once you are comfortable with it then go get a Leica M to carry on your hobby.

will definitely consider the Bessa R as a first RF

 

[ethany]

Hi Ethany,

Before u look for a RF, I think you should ask yourself this question, could you live with film? If you haven't tried film before and started photography with digital only, then I suggest that you get some SLR film camera (easily available) and play with a while and see whether you can live with non-instant gratification. If you can, then you can check out RF and invest in a Bessa R.

Compact PnS film camera, though pretty close to RF concept, still lacks the manual over-ride that you can get from the full manual focus fully manual (some with AE) RF bodies. But going straight to Leica is a little "extravagant".

Hope that helps. If you want to take a look at the Bessa R or any of the Bessa bodies, R2, R3 or R4, you can let me know.

had been shooting on film before moving on to a PNS digital cam and became a shutter whore - press-first-think-later....

would prefer shooting a roll with perhaps 10 keepers rather than 200 digital images and spend another 5 hours to make 10 keepers out of them


thanks for the Bessa recommendations, will keep them in mind!

 

[ethany]

Ive used the RF for about 1.5years now - a convert from a digital SLR system, so I can share with you my experience with both. In short, I find myself choosing different camera systems for different types of shots. For example:
1. when i try to capture a cityscape, i would invariably use my RF. Its light, small (therefore not intimidating as mentioned in the earlier reply), and produces great shots in low light situations which are the type of scenes i am most fond of capturing on film. (e.g. inside a smoky cafe, the interior of my hotel room, dusk / dawn shots).
2. when i try to capture landscapes or require different focal lengths, i find that nothing beats the good old daigital SLR system with its zoom lens capability. this is good say for example, holiday shots in a scenic locations like nz. (can take as many photos as i like, then delete later).
3. for portraits, medium format is just great.
If you ask me which i am most fond of out of the 3 options above, id say RF handsdown. After almost 5 years of photography, i think ive found the system that fits my interest the most.
Hope this helps.
B

thanks for sharing....

i guess the size of RFs seem to have won the hearts of many

 

[benny]

There are digital options for Rangefinders too. The Leica M8 and the now defuncted Epson R-d1/R-d1/s are two consideration if you want to try rangefinder, but don't want to shoot film.

Cheers,

 

[azzurri]

thanks for the recommendations!


is it hard to focus on a range finder? i had problems focusing on split prisms mainly due to the low light nature of my subjects... relied on AF much of the time. would i be taking the fun out of RF if i were to AF??

Not at all, as the same suggests, you essentially just set the distance and shoot. If you're really good at estimating the distance, you don't even need to look into the viewfinder and some would swear that estimating the distance is one of the things that makes rfs so interesting.

 

[serial_lain]

in my experience.. focussing with a split prism is slower and harder than focussing a rangefinder.. and like i said. if youre lazy.. there are pseudo auto focus rangefinders like the konica hexar AF with 35mm lens.. and the contax g system..

 

[brian]

Not at all, as the same suggests, you essentially just set the distance and shoot. If you're really good at estimating the distance, you don't even need to look into the viewfinder and some would swear that estimating the distance is one of the things that makes rfs so interesting.

True RFers practice their brain rangefinding all the time. In a coffee shop? Guess how far the counter is... 5m. Outside? How far is that pole from you? 3.5m. Once you get it almost right, and you get your depth of field theory right, like what azzuri says, you can hit 90% of the time. Of course you can look into the viewfinder and match the 2 images too...

Too bad RF lenses are usually so good you'll want to shoot wide open most of the time, instead of the usual f5.6-f11 sweet spot on most SLR lenses, then the success rate goes down because of the thin depth of field with large apertures. But the main attraction of pure RF is that you are back to basics. For added challenge, forget the battery to the meter and guess the light too.

 

[peepeedog]

First of all.. there are many reasons why people choose RF.. these are mine:
1. Extremely portable, and a good option for street shots.. people get uncomfortable if they see a big gun SLR camera which mega huge lens pointing at you.. they shun away.. a rangefinder is small and sneaky.. you'll be able to get away with taking sneak candid shots.. either that or people will think you are just an amateur with a shitty small cam and wont bother about you. thats exactly what i want. Also because of light weight.. i am able to fit 2 cameras and a lens into my F-5XA, the smallest domke bag option.. you dont feel like a weightlifter.
2. This point is related to point 1. The small size and conspicuous nature of RFs makes me want to take it out and shoot. Its always slung around my neck.. I would never do that with a huge SLR. Ill just keep it at home or put it in my big 'plofessianal' bag and never use it
3. I can never shoot 50mm on an SLR.. but 50mm on a RF is just nice.. because you get the framelines.. so you can see outside of the picture you are making. This helps in composition alot and you can see which elements are coming in and out of the picture, as well as what you would get if you change focal length, because most cameras have manual frameline selectors. This for me is the most important point that made me switch to RF.
4. Film is just more fun. The process sometimes beats the product.
5. Every tom dick and harry carries an SLR nowadays.. be different and own a rangefinder.. you will not regret.

Ok this is just my opinions hope i dont offend any SLR users! SLRs do have their uses ill admit.

My recommendations if you cant do without Av mode is get a Hexar RF. It is solid build quality coupled with aperture priority and high shutter speeds at an attractive price point.. plus it has auto frame advance. IF you want something with Av mode but cheaper a Bessa R2A is even more affordable, or even R3A and R4A. If you are lazy like me you can get the son of point and shoot mother and rangefinder father.. the Konica Hexar AF.. 35mm autofocus camera that is simply the best point and shoot you can find. Another AF option is the Contax G series of rangefinders..

For old school cool.. nothing beats the famed leica M series of cameras coupled with VC meter for exposure measuring..

what he said

I just picked up a Konica Hexar RF the other day and i'm sold to my rangefinder for life. I bought the Domke F-5XB and basically, it's with me everywhere i go. In fact i just did a tiny review. You can read it here. I don't think anyone brings their SLRs everywhere they go unless it's really small like the olympus E410 :dunno:

fixed focal length really puts things in perspective and the frame lines really do help composition.

film is expensive though, especially BW, but if you play your cards right i.e. develop and scan yourself, it becomes really really cheap. and that's the fun of it.

i'm just worried that if my hexar breaks down, i don't know who to turn to to get it repaired

 

[excelglsi]

Sorie guy just wan to check is Praktica n a contact T2 a RF?:embrass:

 

[bahibo]

what he said

I just picked up a Konica Hexar RF the other day and i'm sold to my rangefinder for life. I bought the Domke F-5XB and basically, it's with me everywhere i go. In fact i just did a tiny review. You can read it here. I don't think anyone brings their SLRs everywhere they go unless it's really small like the olympus E410 :dunno:

fixed focal length really puts things in perspective and the frame lines really do help composition.

film is expensive though, especially BW, but if you play your cards right i.e. develop and scan yourself, it becomes really really cheap. and that's the fun of it.

i'm just worried that if my hexar breaks down, i don't know who to turn to to get it repaired

Wahaha i just saw your blog, we use the same bag, same colour, our camera both got gaffe tape , and we both have moleskinne in our bag ( mine is a sketch book moleskinne through )

To excelglsi Contax T2 is not a RF but a compact but i heard the lens and build quite good.