TshawM8 Posted May 23, 2011 Share #41 Posted May 23, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ditto for rangefinders. They have no idea what a rangefinder is. To stretch this further and say "rangefinder = hobbyist" is wishful thinking. C) Compared to most TINY modern point and shoot digital cameras, Leica rangefinder cameras are enormous. If you want to create an intimidation scale, Leicas are way up there. Thank you for your input. I do not think I said that the general public would know what a rangefinder was, but they would most likely look at one today from the front and think it was an old film camera. This is because it certainly does not look like a digital camera, that is party of the beauty of Leicas. I think that is a logical conclusion. If you really believe that a Leica is just as, if not more so, intimidating than, for example, a Canon 5d Mark II with almost any lens, as almost all dslr lenses are bigger than Leicas, than I suggest you do a little test and see how close you can get to someone on the street and take a candid. Dollars to donuts the Leica will win. I don't disagree with you when discussing point and shoot cameras, but in terms of more serious and flexible photography, the majority of point and shoots done do the job. I am confused as to why that was even brought into the conversation, may I was mistaken when we were discussing why Leica may be better than DSLR's and Micro 4/3 cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Hi TshawM8, Take a look here Why is a rangefinder best for street photography?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
xalo Posted May 23, 2011 Share #42 Posted May 23, 2011 In this topic, another reason for using rangefinder cameras shines through. The types of photography that today are called "street photography" obviously were created by iconic photographers, many of whom we all know. Often using rangefinders as adapted and available tools, they created a photographic tradition that profoundly influenced our way to conceive, see and take pictures. They captured our imagination ("l'imaginaire"). Besides all practical advantages, I feel that there is much of this inspiring 'imaginaire' at work when one uses a rangefinder. Cheers, Alexander P.S.: There was a pdf-essay (deviantart.com, years ago — 2006/7?), "Street photography for purists", by Chris Weeks. I don't share it all, but he made a good point regarding the "artisanal tradition" of humanist photography. Perhaps of similar interest (haven't watched it yet), his video: Street Photography: Documenting the Human Condition - Part One of Three on Vimeo. P.P.S.: @ Steve: Yes, Ronis used a Pentax, after being too annoyed by parallax issues of his Foca... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 23, 2011 Share #43 Posted May 23, 2011 P.P.S.: @ Steve: Yes, Ronis used a Pentax, after being too annoyed by parallax issues of his Foca... Didn't Willy Ronis use a Pentax? Seems a pretty fine photographer to me. The AP obit shot shows a Foca? No shotter lag to speak off. Looks pretty old to me, perhaps he did swap later... But HCB or Ronis could have taken shots with hand tied behind back... Tributes to 'unique' photographer Willy Ronis news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 23, 2011 Share #44 Posted May 23, 2011 The AP obit shot shows a Foca? No shotter lag to speak off.Looks pretty old to me, perhaps he did swap later.. There's a mention here of his equipment being on display at the retrospective in Paris a few years ago... http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/printthread.php?t=22197&pp=25&page=2 Foca and then ME super with 50mm and consumer grade zoom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Holy Moly Posted May 23, 2011 Share #45 Posted May 23, 2011 here a very special 'Streetcam' Vivian Maier - Her Discovered Work: Unfolding the Vivian Maier mystery... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 23, 2011 Share #46 Posted May 23, 2011 There's a mention here of his equipment being on display at the retrospective in Paris a few years ago... http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/printthread.php?t=22197&pp=25&page=2 Foca and then ME super with 50mm and consumer grade zoom. Confirmed swapped over when he was 60, for retirement? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted May 23, 2011 Share #47 Posted May 23, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Confirmed swapped over when he was 60, for retirement? Noel I'll try to dig out the text at home, but there was an interview with Willy Ronis in "Réponses Photo" about two years before he passed away. There he referred to his reasons for the swap from Foca to Pentax. I recall that he mentioned the cited parallax issue — and since he never really retired... Actually, one of his most famous photos was taken with a Rolleiflex : le "Nu provençal" of his wife Marie-Anne. Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 23, 2011 Share #48 Posted May 23, 2011 Personally I believe the shutter lag of SLRs makes a difference for hardly anyone. I think anticipation and reflexes are far more important. In fact I was unaware that SLRs had a problem before I read about it on the internet - despite using SLRs for many years. And if the shutter lag makes street photography - with its (literally) pedestrian speeds - difficult, how come SLRs have been used by sports photographers for years with great success? Capturing someone walking down Oxford street may be difficult, but capturing the decisive moment in say a football match, seems far more difficult - to this photographer at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 23, 2011 Share #49 Posted May 23, 2011 I'll try to dig out the text at home, but there was an interview with Willy Ronis in "Réponses Photo" about two years before he passed away. There he referred to his reasons for the swap from Foca to Pentax. I recall that he mentioned the cited parallax issue — and since he never really retired...Actually, one of his most famous photos was taken with a Rolleiflex : le "Nu provençal" of his wife Marie-Anne. Alexander Hi Alexander Think he used the Rolli a lot... Think most of his shots that I liked were Rolli ones, he did not shoot much after he reached 90. I did not know until today he used a Foca. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Holy Moly Posted May 23, 2011 Share #50 Posted May 23, 2011 Here another Rollei shooter (in the past): Rolleiflex - a set on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 23, 2011 Share #51 Posted May 23, 2011 Personally I believe the shutter lag of SLRs makes a difference for hardly anyone. I think anticipation and reflexes are far more important. In fact I was unaware that SLRs had a problem before I read about it on the internet - despite using SLRs for many years. Id say it was a feature, the Canon Pellix (?) did not have mirror lag. And if the shutter lag makes street photography - with its (literally) pedestrian speeds - difficult, how come SLRs have been used by sports photographers for years with great success? Capturing someone walking down Oxford street may be difficult, but capturing the decisive moment in say a football match, seems far more difficult - to this photographer at least. Two things here i) what you are photographing ii) and perception delay The current DSLR are all probably using high res video 15 or 30 FPS? The Nikon F mid 60s allowed 200 or 400 mm lenses to get into action 4-8 FPS motor with 250x mag and yes the sports guys needed anticipation. e.g. G Best's volleys meant you shot as the ball came in to him, knowing he would either volley imediately or dribble past three defenders. When you look at something you are seeing it 300 ms after it happens, unless you are fatigued or not concentrating when it is longer in some people. You need 400ms of anticipation, typically to get transient action. George ws easy they got the ball to him and he would do something, random strangers, more difficult. Canon P 1/125 Canon 35mm f/2 type II @/5.6 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/152190-why-is-a-rangefinder-best-for-street-photography/?do=findComment&comment=1680466'>More sharing options...
xalo Posted May 23, 2011 Share #52 Posted May 23, 2011 Hi Alexander Think he used the Rolli a lot... Think most of his shots that I liked were Rolli ones, he did not shoot much after he reached 90. I did not know until today he used a Foca. Noel Hi Noel, True, it seems he did not take many pictures in his old age, but kept busy with exhibits, books etc. Not sure how long he used the Rolli, however. Will see what I find. Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 23, 2011 Share #53 Posted May 23, 2011 Hi Alexander Please see the 06:28 pm posts OT: Willy Ronis - Photo.net Leica and Rangefinders Forum Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted May 23, 2011 Share #54 Posted May 23, 2011 Hi Noel, Thanks for the reference photo.net. Actually, I was looking through that excellent book Derrière l'objectif — photos et propos just before opening my computer now! Great pleasure to see so many of Ronis' photos again and read his comments. Well, not much to add to the linked post, perhaps that Ronis used Foca lenses from 28mm to 135mm (with a turret finder) and Pentax zooms 28-50mm and 75-150mm. The longer focals served not to snipe, but to compress perspective (at one point to photograph nine bridges of Paris in one frame, with a 500mm mirror on a loan). No evidence re/rangefinder parallax in the book, and now I don't find the interview in RP I mentioned earlier... but another one, from 2004, where he said to have stopped taking pictures two years before, at 92! Oh, yes, and then he called his photography "sur le vif", "on the fly". Even if he hit the streets as long as he could. What an example! Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted May 24, 2011 Share #55 Posted May 24, 2011 That shutter lag myth, which came up here at some point is ridiculous. My M8.2 surely has more shutter lag or whatever lag, than my Nikon SLRs, but I never missed a shot due to something abstract as shutter lag with either the M8.2 or the Nikon's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 24, 2011 Share #56 Posted May 24, 2011 The issue for me is being comfortable with your gear, and being able to capture the spontaneity of the moment, if that's the sort of thing happening on the street you want to capture as an image. I've used a Hasselblad and SLRs for such photography, and they're fine - you just might get different images because of the reaction people have to such a huge camera, or because of your timing. I prefer a Leica because the settings are simple, the focus is direct, and the camera is modest. I have zero interest in photos of strangers - what's the point? Unless they are interesting or they're doing something interesting. In which case, be honest and front up. Don't hide behind something with a long lens and pretend you're not a voyeur. I hate the idea of stolen images, or exercising my right to photograph people in public. I find that mentality appalling, if the subject of your image is a person, have the courage to put yourself in the scene (I don't mean the image - I hate having my photo taken). Talk to the person, smile, engage them. Somewhere above, James commented: I agree that in most cases, if you ask permission first you'll end up with a posed photograph. I don't agree. What you'll get is that person's reaction to being photographed. That does not mean it's posed, in a negative sense. It simply means interaction between you and the subject - that's a good thing. If that interaction is positive, then it will show (think of HCB's image of the young boy carrying the bottle of wine - he's smiling at the camera). What I do find is that if I take a number of shots, I get people in a relaxed, unguarded moment. Similarly, if you talk to them, make them smile, you will get an image worth keeping. Then again, I guess it's a question of why you're taking "street", and what image you're wanting to capture. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share #57 Posted May 24, 2011 Ok.. here's my take on this: Leica got its reputation for street photography from the film days so we're talking fullframe here. So you get: 1.The fullframe look/ DOF.. more 3D 2.Fantastic viewfinder that you can see outside the frame. 3.Access to native Leica glass. Sure they can be used on other cameras like M43 but it's not fullframe DOF and it's a PITA to focus manually on the EP2. .. which brings me to... 4.Precise manual focus.. autofocus cameras are hit or miss. 5. Lightweight full frame... DSLR is not even close. So although tilt screens and long lenses would be nice for some things I agree Bill you do mostly need to be in there... I'm just trying to stir up some debate. I know it won't be popular but I would love to have a tilt screen on an M. I don't really buy off on the rangefinder being so much less noticed... People notice if there's a camera pointed at them and often don't like it .. even a P&S, SLR blackout? come on.. people don't really lose a shot from the milliseconds it blacks out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted May 24, 2011 Share #58 Posted May 24, 2011 …I don't agree. What you'll get is that person's reaction to being photographed. That does not mean it's posed, in a negative sense. It simply means interaction between you and the subject - that's a good thing. … Cheers John John, this is very true. I have a similar feeling about this. Primarily, I do seek images, where I am invisible and do not provoke any reaction of the subjects and scene to me or the camera. I shoot most my photographs as true candid photographs. Some photographs though, I shoot with a permission of a subject after a short eye contact, smile, gesture or even asking. Some photographs even are created not looking for a photograph in the first place, but out of a spontaneous idea of "why not taking a picture during a conversation, etc … Some of these photographs, where the subject knew, that she or he is photographed do not show immediate reaction of the subject or scene to the camera. To me, these are the most valuable photographs of a subject that are not candids. My first ethic in taking photographs is, to not alter the scene - this is very important to me. A photograph becomes untrue to it's being, if altered and therefore uninteresting to me. I do not persuade any further, after an alteration has been taken effect - ie, a subject notices me and reacts significantly, putting the scene, I envisioned out of balance or giving it a different (uninteresting) context. Only very seldom, such shots turn out interesting to me, so I scram. Here is a shot, I did after permission granted (this is easy - just a look in the eye and a nod) - this shot easily could have been taken candid. I knew though, as I saw the scene, that announcing myself and my camera would be more relaxing and easier for me, to find the right moment with the right smoke and the right light and expression without any reaction from my subject. Sometimes, to get a unposed, real shot, you have to engage your subject and make sure, it is understood, what you are about to be doing. "grilled" on flickr This is a candid scene - a scene, where I knew that it was impossible, to remain unseen. I played on a interesting reaction on my presence and got, what I wanted. This is not staged, but a genuine expression. Would I have asked for permission or otherwise touched the scene, this could not have been shot the way, I wanted. "the godfather" on flickr Here is a photo, where any intrusion by the photographer would result in the scene disappearing. At the moment, I framed focussed and shot, my subject had no idea, I was there. The moment, he opened his eyes out of his daydream (more of a night dream actually, as I shoot at night usually), the scene was gone. "married ?" on flickr Permission? Not possible in this shot, I would say, it even is one of these examples, where I feel, I could not have possibly used a larger camera than the M, as I was close (mostly I am in such cases with a 35 or here 50 mm lens). If I would have asked or anyhow touched the scene, I never would have gotten this young gentleman, completely lost in his self in the mirror - the big print shows his true eye expression, which for me is the most important detail in this scene - impossible, to show on the internet. "mirror" on flickr I could go on endless, but these should illustrate some most typical encounters regarding candid and non candid scenes. I love the streets, I do have my own ethics and rules I follow strictly, I do not like the word "street photography", I do like using a Leica most for these kind of shots, I shoot mostly in the night, as I love the night. I always go with two cameras - one film M, one digital M with two different focal lengths (35 and 50). The rangefinder is ideal for this not only for it's immediacy, ease of use, view into the world, but of course, because of bulk, and weight. I sometimes go with a Nikon D3 and F5 pairing with one wide and one 50 mm prime - You can imagine, how different this is. The Leica is for me the ideal camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted May 24, 2011 Share #59 Posted May 24, 2011 I have zero interest in photos of strangers - what's the point? Unless they are interesting or they're doing something interesting. In which case, be honest and front up. Don't hide behind something with a long lens and pretend you're not a voyeur. I hate the idea of stolen images, or exercising my right to photograph people in public. I find that mentality appalling, if the subject of your image is a person, have the courage to put yourself in the scene (I don't mean the image - I hate having my photo taken). Talk to the person, smile, engage them. Somewhere above, James commented: I agree that in most cases, if you ask permission first you'll end up with a posed photograph I don't agree. What you'll get is that person's reaction to being photographed. That does not mean it's posed, in a negative sense. It simply means interaction between you and the subject - that's a good thing. If that interaction is positive, then it will show (think of HCB's image of the young boy carrying the bottle of wine - he's smiling at the camera). Cheers John I did say in most cases.........you cannot really take a candid shot if you ask first, unless you wait long enough for the subject/s to forget that you asked at all! The HCB image you refer to may well be a posed shot. There are the famous Kiss images, both of which are believed to have been posed. As I said, sometimes I will ask first, I may want the person to engage in the photo and be aware of the camera - I am at the office so can't post a couple of examples which would illustrate my point. It's nonsense to say that one should always speak/ask permission first before including people in a shot. It might be your preferred approach, and that's fine, but it's not a good technique to adopt as a standard for street photography of people in my opinion. I don't generally use anything longer than a 50mm lens for such images either, I am 'in the scene' as you say, but you can do that and still be relatively invisible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 24, 2011 Share #60 Posted May 24, 2011 Hi James, I agree. I was really referring to long lenses poking around corners. Candid shots? Sure. But I am very careful about what I'm photographing, and why. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.