What's the point of a digital rangefinder?

[oldwino]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Use what feels right to you. The reason there are so many cameras, of all types, is that there is no one "right" cameras for all. 

[adan]

The point of a rangefinder (short version) - Split-image manual focusing, now that most other cameras have abandoned it.

The point of a digital rangefinder (short version) - wasting less of my life on "process" and other unpleasant chores on the highway to getting what I saw into the minds of other people (See my signature). Which is the only important thing photography can achieve.

(longer version) The process was fun to learn as an adolescent, but that only took 6 years (between the ages of 16 and 22, when I got my Bachelor's in Cinema & Photography). After that it was just unpleasant (but necessary) busy-work - winding/rewinding film, messing with noxious chemicals, printing for hours (instead of minutes). I outgrew the excitement by about 1976 and it was no longer fun, just a boring repetition of the same-old same-old. (In fact I switched mostly to Kodachrome, to let someone else do the dirty work).

What I have never outgrown is the love of perceiving and expressing, and sharing my perceptions and expressions. And when digital came along in the form of the Digilux 2 and then the M8/9/10, my creative output simply exploded as the - distractions - of film vanished. Publishing pictures, winning (inter)national press awards, showing in a gallery, watching my pictures (my "kids") go out the door to become part of other people's lives. Talk about backups of my work - I have 25-100 copies of some of my photos scattered among patrons' homes.  

That was when the fun really began again - and now will never stop.

...............

What is that fun like? A bittersweet example:

Hanging around the gallery near my works during an open-house one evening last year, I noticed one woman with kids looking at one of my pictures (see below). Since that is what the gallery is for, I let them get on with it and didn't interrupt. Until I hear the youngest daughter ask, "Mommy, why are you crying!?"

Whereupon I drifted over to see if there was a problem I could help with. And the mother turned to me and said, "That picture is just so sad, but so beautiful! I wish I could afford it!"

I said "You can have it if you want", and took it off the wall and gave it to her. And got a hug like the one in the photo.

Reaching out and touching another mind and heart with my Leica digital rangefinder - now that's fun!

As to the "experience" of taking the picture (George Floyd riots, Denver, 2020), it was not especially fun. It involved running up and down the slopes around the Colorado Capitol on a 30°C spring night, in my Covid mask, keeping away from riot police and (less successfully) the tear gas that was later threatening the pair in the photo. At age 66.

HARD (and even painful) WORK, in other words. As is all of my photography, after which I am usually worn-out from both physical and mental exertion (I "relax" with a good book or old movie - after the photography).

But compensated for by the ending, which I hope most here will agree was just a little more significant and worthwhile "experience" than the feel of a wind lever, or anything else in the "housework" of photography.

The Gas is Coming, Leica M10 (converted to B&W), 50mm Summicron, ISO 10000, 1/60 sec.

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!

For the record, I do still shoot film in 6x6 format. With as minimal "housekeeping" as possible.

Because just as with digital, that is not the fun part - the fun still comes along much later, when someone takes the picture out the gallery door.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Mikep996]

As the old saying goes, the key to a great photo is "F8 and be there!"

 Whether a "great" photo was taken with a Leica, a Hassleblad, a pinhole camera or an iPhone, doesn't matter to the viewers of the photograph.  

 

 

[Steve Ricoh]

3 hours ago, adan said:

The point of a rangefinder (short version) - Split-image manual focusing, now that most other cameras have abandoned it.

The point of a digital rangefinder (short version) - wasting less of my life on "process" and other unpleasant chores on the highway to getting what I saw into the minds of other people (See my signature). Which is the only important thing photography can achieve.

(longer version) The process was fun to learn as an adolescent, but that only took 6 years (between the ages of 16 and 22, when I got my Bachelor's in Cinema & Photography). After that it was just unpleasant (but necessary) busy-work - winding/rewinding film, messing with noxious chemicals, printing for hours (instead of minutes). I outgrew the excitement by about 1976 and it was no longer fun, just a boring repetition of the same-old same-old. (In fact I switched mostly to Kodachrome, to let someone else do the dirty work).

What I have never outgrown is the love of perceiving and expressing, and sharing my perceptions and expressions. And when digital came along in the form of the Digilux 2 and then the M8/9/10, my creative output simply exploded as the - distractions - of film vanished. Publishing pictures, winning (inter)national press awards, showing in a gallery, watching my pictures (my "kids") go out the door to become part of other people's lives. Talk about backups of my work - I have 25-100 copies of some of my photos scattered among patrons' homes.  

That was when the fun really began again - and now will never stop.

...............

What is that fun like? A bittersweet example:

Hanging around the gallery near my works during an open-house one evening last year, I noticed one woman with kids looking at one of my pictures (see below). Since that is what the gallery is for, I let them get on with it and didn't interrupt. Until I hear the youngest daughter ask, "Mommy, why are you crying!?"

Whereupon I drifted over to see if there was a problem I could help with. And the mother turned to me and said, "That picture is just so sad, but so beautiful! I wish I could afford it!"

I said "You can have it if you want", and took it off the wall and gave it to her. And got a hug like the one in the photo.

Reaching out and touching another mind and heart with my Leica digital rangefinder - now that's fun!

As to the "experience" of taking the picture (George Floyd riots, Denver, 2020), it was not especially fun. It involved running up and down the slopes around the Colorado Capitol on a 30°C spring night, in my Covid mask, keeping away from riot police and (less successfully) the tear gas that was later threatening the pair in the photo. At age 66.

HARD (and even painful) WORK, in other words. As is all of my photography, after which I am usually worn-out from both physical and mental exertion (I "relax" with a good book or old movie - after the photography).

But compensated for by the ending, which I hope most here will agree was just a little more significant and worthwhile "experience" than the feel of a wind lever, or anything else in the "housework" of photography.

The Gas is Coming, Leica M10 (converted to B&W), 50mm Summicron, ISO 10000, 1/60 sec.

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!

For the record, I do still shoot film in 6x6 format. With as minimal "housekeeping" as possible.

Because just as with digital, that is not the fun part - the fun still comes along much later, when someone takes the picture out the gallery door.

But what you’ve described could be done with any camera, a rangefinder is just one of many.

[adan]

5 hours ago, Steve Ricoh said:

But what you’ve described could be done with any camera, a rangefinder is just one of many.

Probably true of 90%+ of photographs.

But name another camera that meets the specific intersection of capabilities involved here - split-image focusing, along with the picture specs (ISO 10000, 1/60s, f/2.0 under night time street lighting).  

[Steve Ricoh]

58 minutes ago, adan said:

Probably true of 90%+ of photographs.

But name another camera that meets the specific intersection of capabilities involved here - split-image focusing, along with the picture specs (ISO 10000, 1/60s, f/2.0 under night time street lighting).  

I’m not interested in camera technology, and as said below it’s the image that most matters.

6 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

As the old saying goes, the key to a great photo is "F8 and be there!"

 Whether a "great" photo was taken with a Leica, a Hassleblad, a pinhole camera or an iPhone, doesn't matter to the viewers of the photograph.  

 

 

In answer to the original question, a digital RF has as much relevance as one relying on photosensitive film. The latter has a high running cost, that’s about it.

[malligator]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, adan said:

The point of a rangefinder (short version) - Split-image manual focusing, now that most other cameras have abandoned it.

The point of a digital rangefinder (short version) - wasting less of my life on "process" and other unpleasant chores on the highway to getting what I saw into the minds of other people (See my signature). Which is the only important thing photography can achieve.

(longer version) The process was fun to learn as an adolescent, but that only took 6 years (between the ages of 16 and 22, when I got my Bachelor's in Cinema & Photography). After that it was just unpleasant (but necessary) busy-work - winding/rewinding film, messing with noxious chemicals, printing for hours (instead of minutes). I outgrew the excitement by about 1976 and it was no longer fun, just a boring repetition of the same-old same-old. (In fact I switched mostly to Kodachrome, to let someone else do the dirty work).

What I have never outgrown is the love of perceiving and expressing, and sharing my perceptions and expressions. And when digital came along in the form of the Digilux 2 and then the M8/9/10, my creative output simply exploded as the - distractions - of film vanished. Publishing pictures, winning (inter)national press awards, showing in a gallery, watching my pictures (my "kids") go out the door to become part of other people's lives. Talk about backups of my work - I have 25-100 copies of some of my photos scattered among patrons' homes.  

That was when the fun really began again - and now will never stop.

...............

What is that fun like? A bittersweet example:

Hanging around the gallery near my works during an open-house one evening last year, I noticed one woman with kids looking at one of my pictures (see below). Since that is what the gallery is for, I let them get on with it and didn't interrupt. Until I hear the youngest daughter ask, "Mommy, why are you crying!?"

Whereupon I drifted over to see if there was a problem I could help with. And the mother turned to me and said, "That picture is just so sad, but so beautiful! I wish I could afford it!"

I said "You can have it if you want", and took it off the wall and gave it to her. And got a hug like the one in the photo.

Reaching out and touching another mind and heart with my Leica digital rangefinder - now that's fun!

As to the "experience" of taking the picture (George Floyd riots, Denver, 2020), it was not especially fun. It involved running up and down the slopes around the Colorado Capitol on a 30°C spring night, in my Covid mask, keeping away from riot police and (less successfully) the tear gas that was later threatening the pair in the photo. At age 66.

HARD (and even painful) WORK, in other words. As is all of my photography, after which I am usually worn-out from both physical and mental exertion (I "relax" with a good book or old movie - after the photography).

But compensated for by the ending, which I hope most here will agree was just a little more significant and worthwhile "experience" than the feel of a wind lever, or anything else in the "housework" of photography.

The Gas is Coming, Leica M10 (converted to B&W), 50mm Summicron, ISO 10000, 1/60 sec.

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!

For the record, I do still shoot film in 6x6 format. With as minimal "housekeeping" as possible.

Because just as with digital, that is not the fun part - the fun still comes along much later, when someone takes the picture out the gallery door.

This response is going to be rude. I understand that, but please believe it’s nothing personal against you @adan .  It’s my subjective opinion about photography as an art form.

The film process is both part of the art (for me) and a filter through which images are passed to determine if they deserve being worked on. 
 

My problem with digital is that the images are so numerous as to be worthless. You can take any mediocre image, convert it to B&W, give it a dramatic title and put it on a gallery wall. 
 

If I saw the quoted image in my contact sheet I’d never even consider printing it, let alone displaying it. If you’re going to name a photo “the gas is coming” there should be sense of imminent doom. There should be no hope of escape from the oncoming gas. You shouldn’t be able to casually walk away from it.

The head growing out of the back of the guy on the left should be concerned. The guy with the big smile behind him should be concerned. The guy messing around on his phone behind the guy on the right should be concerned.

No one cares so neither do I and I have a hard time believing anyone in a gallery cared enough to cry. 

[Steve Ricoh]

14 hours ago, malligator said:

This response is going to be rude. I understand that, but please believe it’s nothing personal against you @adan .  It’s my subjective opinion about photography as an art form.

The film process is both part of the art (for me) and a filter through which images are passed to determine if they deserve being worked on. 
 

My problem with digital is that the images are so numerous as to be worthless. You can take any mediocre image, convert it to B&W, give it a dramatic title and put it on a gallery wall. 
 

If I saw the quoted image in my contact sheet I’d never even consider printing it, let alone displaying it. If you’re going to name a photo “the gas is coming” there should be sense of imminent doom. There should be no hope of escape from the oncoming gas. You shouldn’t be able to casually walk away from it.

The head growing out of the back of the guy on the left should be concerned. The guy with the big smile behind him should be concerned. The guy messing around on his phone behind the guy on the right should be concerned.

No one cares so neither do I and I have a hard time believing anyone in a gallery cared enough to cry. 

Given the title (‘the gas is coming’) it would be helpful for the viewer to see some actual gas, similar to images we see on the news and in the papers. To satisfy our curiosity even further we may like to see who was responsible for the gas, such as someone in disguise throwing a gas canister, or maybe the police attempting to disperse an unruly crowd. As it is we have to take the photographer’s word for it.

If gas was coming towards me I think I would be moving sharply in the opposite direction. 

I’m sorry to have to say this, but I would not part with my money to have this on my wall, principally because the picture is meaningless to me. 

[adan]

Well, I'm always willing to learn and grow.

Can you two show me examples of your pictures, that have brought people to tears, or sold out editions to the public (or even been seen by the public)?

[Steve Ricoh]

In my mind I have pictures of riot police trying to contain disruption on the streets, bricks being thrown from one side, police with shields firing tear gas from the other. The brave and talented photographers bearing witness take picture to show the melee with evidence of projectiles being dispatched amongst the atmospheric smoke. 
Don McCullen produced many images in war zones, but I’ll leave you to do your own research. From memory, I don’t think the titles said anything more than where the disruption was taking place. He didn’t say the bullets are coming or the gas is coming because his pictures showed clearly what was happening.

[Mikep996]

The difficulty with evaluations such as this that it is TOTALLY subjective and has nothing to do with whether another person sells/doesn't sell or is/is not a professional. Either we like something or we don't.  For example,  I respect/appreciate the skill and talent of jazz musicians but it is never my choice of music to listen to or perform.  

Same with photos - there are many "famous" photos, often used to illustrate a certain style of shooting that say nothing at all to me.  Typically they fall into the street-photography genre.  Yet someone else looks at the same photo and finds it fabulous.   And...some people cry when they hear a certain song; other people the same age don't even 'notice' when it's playing.

I have to admit I take issue with, "Can you two show me examples of your pictures, that have brought people to tears, or sold out editions to the public (or even been seen by the public)?"  That's saying that if the 'disliker' is not also a professional with equal "credentials," he/she has no right to dislike something you have created.  Clearly, that doesn't work in the real world; everyone has an opinion and different taste and as the old saying goes, they usually vote with their wallet - I don't buy jazz recordings; my wife does.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Mikep996

[adan]

1 hour ago, Mikep996 said:

I have to admit I take issue with, "Can you two show me examples of your pictures, that have brought people to tears, or sold out editions to the public (or even been seen by the public)?"  That's saying that if the 'disliker' is not also a professional with equal "credentials," he/she has no right to dislike something you have created.  Clearly, that doesn't work in the real world; everyone has an opinion and different taste and as the old saying goes, they usually vote with their wallet - I don't buy jazz recordings; my wife does.

Naturally, everyone has a right to an opinion.

Of course, that means there are 8 billion opinions out there in this world (actually probably a lot more - my cats have opinions!),** so 1) any one opinion is a commodity of extremely limited value and importance, unless backed up by something more than the mere opinion itself, and 2) one has to filter them in some way, unless one wants to spend three lifetimes considering them all.

In asking for some examples of photographic work, I am simply trying to find out if the particular opinions expressed were backed up by any experience, skills or work. Not by any means limited to professional, but preferably "in the world" and not just in the limited confines of the mind.

Person A has an opinion about photography - in their work, how has that opinion expressed itself? Does the work persuade me that the opinion is more useful than the other 7,999,999,999 out there?

3 hours ago, Steve Ricoh said:

Don McCullen produced many images in war zones, but I’ll leave you to do your own research.

Research done long ago, my friend - I first saw his work in The Concerned Photographer 2, published the year I entered college.

Which does raise the question, though, of how you discovered his work - perhaps because it was published or exhibited somewhere? And made sales?

________________

** my own wording on opinions in general is "Opinions are like farts - an exudation of warm air, occasionally noxious, that any human body can produce. Their value is highly overrated, except when backed up with evidence."

[Jeff S]

The buyers of a photograph have opinions; is the value of those opinions diminished if they can’t similarly produce and sell their own work?  And what about the opinions of all the people who looked at the displayed work but chose not to buy it; equally valued? 

Jeff

Edited February 12, 2023 by Jeff S

[Al Brown]

On 2/9/2023 at 12:18 PM, gabrielaszalos said:

So I decided the SL2-S will serve all purposes:

Once you’re clear on your strengths (shooting a true analog M) play to your strengths — don’t waste your time trying to improve on your weaknesses (buying a SL2 as a crutch do-it-all "buffer" camera). I use digital much more than analog these days now that I have found my perfect M camera of the hour - the M10-R. I realized with own example any other approach was self-defeating.

 

[pop]

On 2/9/2023 at 12:18 PM, gabrielaszalos said:

It just didn't stick with me. I like the fact of being able to use the same lenses on a digital body, but the experience is not the same at all. It's not an M-body (like the mechanical film ones). It felt like vegan meat. Beer without alcohol. It felt fake. Why even use the rangefinder, when you could have an EVF?

There are at least two sides to this question, and they seem to be mutually exclusive.

One side is about fondling cameras. Rejoicing in the purring of the well-kept clockwork and the well-tuned optomechanics of bygone times. If this is what you're looking for, use an M3 or an M2 or a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad or some other period piece. Don't even think of substituting with modern technologies such as digital sensors or laser rangefinders. Only the real thing will give you the real experience.

The other side is about tools that assist you in taking your photographs in exactly the way you want to have it. There you would like to decide between tripods vs image stabilizers, available light vs. artificial illumination, fixed focus lenses, hyperfocal shooting or any of the many ways available to focus your lens.

The rangefinder as built into the M camera is useful only within a fairly limited set of circumstances such as the focal length, the distance range, the brightness of the scene and so on.

When used within that set of restrictions, the rangefinder in a Leica M has a set of advantages over many other kinds: it is very accurate, even with poorish eyesight, it does not use any attachments or consumables, it does not use any controls that you wouldn't use anyway and it's so simple that you see right away whether you will be able to accurately focus in any given situation. Since it's that simple, it doesn't really distract you from other task such as framing or timing the shot.

This is the kind of advantage to be had. It's nothing to do with color or black and white work, or with digital or analog imaging.

[adan]

19 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

The buyers of a photograph have opinions; is the value of those opinions diminished if they can’t similarly produce and sell their own work?  And what about the opinions of all the people who looked at the displayed work but chose not to buy it; equally valued? 

Jeff

Every one of my gallery buyers starts out equal, and on a binary system.

I assume that if they fork out $200 for a print, their opinion was that it was at least that good - and that's the value of their opinion to me, also. Ta very much, and hope to see you again soon.

If they don't fork out $200, I'll probably never know (nor care, especially). The co-op gallery is selling our art 270 hours a month, and I'm generally only there for 10-15 of them. And everything sells sooner or later.

If they break down in tears (whoever they are), I count that as extra payment to be treasured beyond diamonds.

To get to your point, though....

If they would happen to be a renowned photographer (or picture editor, or museum curator - say Don McCullen, since his name came up already) who likes my work, and I know who they are, that will also be a prize beyond diamonds. You betcha an opinion like that counts for a lot more.

If they would happen to be a renowned photographer (or picture editor, or museum curator) and don't like my work, and tell me so, I will definitely consider their opinion(s) very carefully. Because the quality of those opinions is already proven and respected. Although I'll still feel free to "take them under advisement" or categorize them as "duly noted" - depending. In the end it has to be my work.

I've only had one instance of face-to-face negative opinion - a woman complaining that a photo of mine of a gay couple kissing was clearly depicting unwanted sexual assault! I thanked her for the feedback - and then re-joined the real world. Where no-one else saw what she was seeing.

I have a comment book, but the comments are pretty generic: "Luv your STUFF!" or occasionally just gobbledegook.

I do track which pictures are selling out fastest (I sell from editions of 25 or 50, so just check the current impression number). Not a lot of help there, except that social justice people photos (like of the one I posted above), usually B&W, are my best-sellers.

Now, that's just the gallery. People who bought my pictures for publication, independently, had a different dynamic. As did selling my skills full-time on a corporate payroll (bi-weekly paycheck, annual "performance reviews." Which was where the opinions of others - and yes, very senior, photo-experienced others - came in).

[lmans]

On 2/12/2023 at 12:13 AM, Mikep996 said:

As the old saying goes, the key to a great photo is "F8 and be there!"

 Whether a "great" photo was taken with a Leica, a Hassleblad, a pinhole camera or an iPhone, doesn't matter to the viewers of the photograph.  

 

 

Yes… stay at F8 and you can’t be overly astray 

[Steve Ricoh]

18 hours ago, adan said:

Well, I'm always willing to learn and grow.

Can you two show me examples of your pictures, that have brought people to tears, or sold out editions to the public (or even been seen by the public)?

Adding pics to this type of thread would be showboating, so no. Anyway, the OP’s question has been adequately answered by @pop 
 

[Steve Ricoh]

5 hours ago, lmans said:

Yes… stay at F8 and you can’t be overly astray 

Yes, if you don’t mind compromising control of depth of field.

I believe f8 and be there was partly misunderstood. It is said that Capa meant to get close in the sense of understanding the subject, to interact etc. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Mikep996]

I always just thought it meant that the most important thing is to BE there WITH a camera at the proper moment.  The "moment" could refer to action, or lighting, or some other variable that makes the difference between a throw-away picture and a keeper.  It implies that the type of camera or its settings are of no importance compared to being at the right place at the right time.  The follow-on, somewhat related saying is "the best camera is the one you have with you."  Nowadays, that's probably a smart phone.