Why is a rangefinder best for street photography?

[bpalme]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You hear this a lot. So I was wandering. Why not a long lens so you can be across the street or be close up, autofocus from the hip instead of guessing with zone focusing. Sure autofocus can miss but usually gets what you aim it at from the hip... or eye level .. Either way. Tilt up screens like the NEX seem ideal since you don't have a camera up on your face where it's obvious to a subject you're aiming at them. Quiet shutter.. Ok I get that one.

Seems like DSLR, NEX and rangefinder each have great ways to be discreet.

So what's your opinion... is the rangefinder the discreet street shooter of choice and why?

[bill]

This is a matter more of personal choice and philosophy than of physics - or dogma. Ultimately you can use any camera to shoot "street" - whatever that is.

 

Long-lens street photography smacks of cowardice; you are sniping at fish in a barrel rather than swimming among them. Autofocus? The moment has gone. Tilt screens? The modern equivalent of those daft 90-degree mirror lenses that enabled you to "shoot around corners without being seen!"

 

Street photography is about being part of the flow, of using a tool that neither makes you stand out nor imposes its way of working upon your visualisation. You are both observer and participant, influenced by the same conditions as your subjects. The rangefinder - film or digital - is light, discreet, unencumbered by excessive automation or complexity. It provides a direct view of your subject and does not get in the way.

 

Just my view - feel free to differ

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Xmas]

Some people use TLRs, some can use Contax G1 or G2, whatever you want.

The perspective of a 25mm at 4 feet is different from a 20 foot shot, you are in with the subject, not stood off in the distance.

 

Noel

[bpalme]

Ok.. Just looking to hear peoples opinions one way or the other.. Just for fun. I disagree with most of that but I realize it's an opinion (sorta).

If you're in the barrel with the fish.. most likely they know you're there... not exactly discreet.

[bill]

"...sorta..."??

 

Have you not heard of hiding in plain sight?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[bpalme]

Some people use TLRs, some can use Contax G1 or G2, whatever you want.

The perspective of a 25mm at 4 feet is different from a 20 foot shot, you are in with the subject, not stood off in the distance.

 

Noel

That's is very true....so I can see where a quiet shutter would help there just as much as being able to aim from the hip... or autofocus..

[bpalme]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the link Bill.. I learned some tips there. But ... nothing really specific that says a rangefinder is better.

I can stand still like a cougar just as easily with my EP2.

[Xmas]

That's is very true....so I can see where a quiet shutter would help there just as much as being able to aim from the hip... or autofocus..

 

When the shutter fires the photo is in the can, all the subject can do is plead or threaten. They can hear a film M at four feet unless ambient noise is very high. Most people dont bother.

 

I never use a rangefinder, always scale, sometimes a M2, more frequently Canon P, which sounds similar to your M8, metal shutter.

 

A fast 2nd shot is very valuable...

 

Noel

[Peter H]

This is a matter more of personal choice and philosophy than of physics - or dogma. Ultimately you can use any camera to shoot "street" - whatever that is.

 

Long-lens street photography smacks of cowardice; you are sniping at fish in a barrel rather than swimming among them. Autofocus? The moment has gone. Tilt screens? The modern equivalent of those daft 90-degree mirror lenses that enabled you to "shoot around corners without being seen!"

 

Street photography is about being part of the flow, of using a tool that neither makes you stand out nor imposes its way of working upon your visualisation. You are both observer and participant, influenced by the same conditions as your subjects. The rangefinder - film or digital - is light, discreet, unencumbered by excessive automation or complexity. It provides a direct view of your subject and does not get in the way.

 

Just my view - feel free to differ

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

I entirely agree with this view.

 

And there's also the question of background, or context, which is very often (to my mind virtually always) an crucial element of "street" photography. Otherwise its portraiture, albeit long-distance, clandestine portraiture, sometimes of a very high standard!

 

But it is a personal preference. There are clear and obvious differences between rangefinder and telephoto photography, but which you prefer is up to you.

[bpalme]

When the shutter fires the photo is in the can, all the subject can do is plead or threaten. They can hear a film M at four feet unless ambient noise is very high. Most people dont bother.

 

I never use a rangefinder, always scale, sometimes a M2, more frequently Canon P, which sounds similar to your M8, metal shutter.

 

A fast 2nd shot is very valuable...

 

Noel

Ok that would be a solid argument for a manual use lens.

Side question:

Is it true the scales are not accurate unless it's on a full frame?

[elgenper]

...

Is it true the scales are not accurate unless it's on a full frame?

 

No truth at all. One could make a point about DOF markings being misleading on a reduced size sensor (which would start an argument about 378 posts long...), but certainly not the distance scale itself.

[xalo]

Well, besides looking at being discrete, take the (range)finder and compare it to any digital screen. If you want to see the fleeting expressions of people's faces and gestures and photograph them while they move on, the direct view and pre-focussed lens will help you doing that quicker than an electronic interface and autofocus. As to SLRs, depending on focal length, the finder will usually show the image with a smaller zone of focus (the lens is wide open), and show you less field of view than a rangefinder. All distances are sharp in that finder, and you see what is not (yet) in the frame. Some of my reasons to prefer an RF.

 

Best,

 

Alexander

[bpalme]

I entirely agree with this view.

 

And there's also the question of background, or context, which is very often (to my mind virtually always) an crucial element of "street" photography. Otherwise its portraiture, albeit long-distance, clandestine portraiture, sometimes of a very high standard!

 

But it is a personal preference. There are clear and obvious differences between rangefinder and telephoto photography, but which you prefer is up to you.

Saying a camera is quiet is a solid positive for a camera... it allows you to be more discreet.

Saying you're a coward for shooting at a distance ... That really doesn't make an argument that a rangefinder is a better street shooting camera. It just means you should get in close for some shots... which could be done more discreetly with a quiet shutter camera.. or it could be done better with a tilt screen camera.

[bpalme]

Well, besides looking at being discrete, take the (range)finder and compare it to any digital screen. If you want to see the fleeting expressions of people's faces and gestures and photograph them while they move on, the direct view and pre-focussed lens will help you doing that quicker than an electronic interface and autofocus. As to SLRs, depending on focal length, the finder will usually show the image with a smaller zone of focus (the lens is wide open), and show you less field of view than a rangefinder. All distances are sharp in that finder, and you see what is not (yet) in the frame. Some of my reasons to prefer an RF.

 

Best,

 

Alexander

I can buy that one.

[bocaburger]

 

Long-lens street photography smacks of cowardice

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

In my case it was just introversion. It might have been therapeutic for me to have used a rangefinder with a 50 or even a 35, but I couldn't bring myself to get in a stranger's face with a camera, because I wouldn't have liked some street photographer taking my picture. That whole Golden Rule thing that I was brought up with that seems to have been left behind in the mid-20th century.

 

Nowadays though, I'll readily admit my use of long lenses and hip-shooting is motivated by cowardice. I'm not as strong nor can I run as fast as I used to, and people today (around here at least) tend to be less reluctant to use violence than in the past. Cut someone off in traffic accidentally around here, and you can get yourself shot at the next stoplight. Take someone's picture who doesn't want it taken (especially someone's children) and you run a risk of getting physically attacked. Sure I have a legal right to photograph people in public, sure they can be prosecuted and/or sued (assuming they have any assets) if they attack me. Not interested in getting beaten for the sake of art, sorry.

[Peter H]

Saying a camera is quiet is a solid positive for a camera... it allows you to be more discreet.

Saying you're a coward for shooting at a distance ... That really doesn't make an argument that a rangefinder is a better street shooting camera. It just means you should get in close for some shots... which could be done more discreetly with a quiet shutter camera.. or it could be done better with a tilt screen camera.

 

Well, I agree, and its not really anything to do with cowardice either.

 

I was agreeing with the sentiment expressed by Bill though - I certainly believe its harder to convey the essence of what's going on when you're far removed from it. The quietness of the shutter is a small element of that, but much, much more important is the question of immediacy, proximity, being part of what's happening, with as little technology and distance between you and the subject as possible - you get the drift!

[Washington]

Beats me. I still don’t know what ‘’street photography’’ is.

[NZDavid]

There is an art to being unobtrusive when taking pictures. Blending in, not looking like a pro in a camouflage jacket toting 20Ib of gear. Sometimes simply asking and smiling helps. A smaller camera is definitely less intimidating. It doesn't have to be a rangefinder. A compact like the D-Lux 5 is also very fast and discreet. One advantage of the rangefinder is control over DOF -- sometimes you want lots of it, sometimes you don't. Mount a 50, shoot wide open in low light and you can concentrate on your main subject with a lovely defocussed background.

[Peyton Hoge]

You hear this a lot. So I was wandering. Why not a long lens so you can be across the street or be close up, autofocus from the hip instead of guessing with zone focusing. Sure autofocus can miss but usually gets what you aim it at from the hip... or eye level .. Either way. Tilt up screens like the NEX seem ideal since you don't have a camera up on your face where it's obvious to a subject you're aiming at them. Quiet shutter.. Ok I get that one.

Seems like DSLR, NEX and rangefinder each have great ways to be discreet.

So what's your opinion... is the rangefinder the discreet street shooter of choice and why?

 

It's whatever works for you. It's as simple as that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[PBatemanJ]

Beats me. I still don’t know what ‘’street photography’’ is.

 

I think everybody has their own definition.

For me, "street photography" is almost equal to "shooting stranger in street" regardless discreet or not.

If there is no people or distance with people in the photo, I called "city scape".

 

And for topic, rangefinder is excellent to take stranger within 10 feet and reasons are already mentioned by everyone such as less intimidating, fast and accurate focusing.

More than that distance, there are not much difference between rangefinder and DSLR in shooting.

 

For long-lens street photography, or shoot from the hip, they might be easy to shoot strangers but I think it is very difficult to make good photo with his/her signature. Only some talented photographer can make really good photos by long-lens, or shoot from the hip.

Just my thoughts:)

SATOKI