Why do I need a rangefinder?

[JayBird]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was asked that question today on a work photo forum (Yammer).  My response was I don't need one. I want one. A Kodak Retina IIa was my first real camera. Since then, I have always preferred rangefinders to SLRs and DSLRs. I find the experience shooting with a rangefinder to be different. Primarily because of the focusing mechanism. I think in is one of those experiences that you either appreciate or you don't.

All I know is that I am glad to be using a rangefinder again after not using one for over 30 years.

[Advertisement]

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

[Leitz.]

IQ to body/lens ratio it’s the smallest system you can get I think. 

[Luke_Miller]

I love event photography where I am trying to take candid shots of interesting expressions, gestures, or groupings.  These are very dynamic, so I need to compose and focus quickly. I prefer manual focus and find the rangefinder allows me to achieve focus faster than any other manual focus system.

[rpsawin]

22 hours ago, JayBird said:

 I don't need one. I want one. A Kodak Retina IIa was my first real camera. Since then, I have always preferred rangefinders to SLRs and DSLRs. All I know is that I am glad to be using a rangefinder again after not using one for over 30 years.

Perfect response and enough said. Enjoy!

[JayBird]

5 hours ago, rpsawin said:

Perfect response and enough said. Enjoy!

Thanks.

[dpitt]

The RF view has no tunnel vision like with other systems. And it is the fastest way to do MF. It is also the most accurate way to focus wide angle lenses, or any lens at 1m- 5m distance. If you practice it will be faster and more straightforward to focus exactly what you want compared to a AF system.

[Knipsknecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 4 Stunden schrieb dpitt:

[…] If you practice it will be faster and more straightforward to focus exactly what you want compared to a AF system.

Faster and more accurate than pre-AF SLRs? Oh yes! Faster and more accurate than the latest AF-DSLMs? Almost impossible!

I would not try to compare my ability to focus manually with my RF-Leicas with a AF-DSLM. I know that in most cases I could never „beat“ an AF-camera, as long as I really try to achieve correct focus and as long as I don‘t use zone focussing - which is, of course, indeed faster than any AF (but today not to a relevant degree), but is just approximately on spot and works really good only on lenses like 35mm and wider.

Instead I prefer not to make futile comparisons but to focus on the delight of taking photos with a rangefinder. It’s just a different way of taking photos, and the sheer act of taking photos with a M-mount Leica provides joy and relaxation.

Looking at it this way, I can enjoy using an AF-Panasonic S5 besides my M-Leicas, too.

[dpitt]

59 minutes ago, Knipsknecht said:

Faster and more accurate than pre-AF SLRs? Oh yes! Faster and more accurate than the latest AF-DSLMs? Almost impossible!

I would not try to compare my ability to focus manually with my RF-Leicas with a AF-DSLM. I know that in most cases I could never „beat“ an AF-camera, as long as I really try to achieve correct focus and as long as I don‘t use zone focussing -

...

You are partially right. In most of the cases a modern DSLR is faster. But it is when the AF acts up and chooses the wrong subject for me that I struggle and lose shots. It is not always evident which subject I would like in focus to even an other person let alone a computer algorithm that needs to guess what I want.

That is were MF excels... way faster than adjusting settings and AF focus points, at least for me YMMV but I do not see how. It is the feeling of losing control over my shot I dislike most in AF shooting. The fastest things I shoot are playing children and pets, so I can manage that with MF.

[Luke_Miller]

In my event shooting I often use two bodies.  My SL2 with the 24-90mm zoom and the SL with a manual focus fast 50mm prime.  Invariably any missed focus shots will be in the autofocus ones from the SL2.  Not many, but some, and it is usually not clear why. Same with my Nikon bodies.  AF is much improved since it was first introduced, but still not perfect. Often, I find myself spending too much time managing the autofocus system and not enough on the subject.  It is an important tool and I use it when needed, but as I regain my pre-AF level of manual focus skill, I use MF (and my M bodies) much more often nowadays.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Luke_Miller

[dpitt]

17 hours ago, Luke_Miller said:

In my event shooting I often use two bodies.  My SL2 with the 24-90mm zoom and the SL with a manual focus fast 50mm prime.  Invariably any missed focus shots will be in the autofocus ones from the SL2.  Not many, but some, and it is usually not clear why. Same with my Nikon bodies.  AF is much improved since it was first introduced, but still not perfect. Often, I find myself spending too much time managing the autofocus system and not enough on the subject.  It is an important tool and I use it when needed, but as I regain my pre-AF level of manual focus skill, I use MF (and my M bodies) much more often nowadays.

Exactly! When I think back at my most regretted missed shots with AF they were always unnoticed while shooting, only when you see them on the monitor you realise the AF picked a meaningless subject to focus on rather than the one you wanted.

One of these is a shot with my 7 year old son sitting in the cockpit of a jet fighter at an air show. I focused on his eyes (AF) and took the shot. In a reflex pose he put up his thumb to show how happy he was... When I opened it on the monitor, it was clear his thumb was in perfect focus, his eyes are blurred. I printed it for my wife and his grandfather. They are happy with it, but I consider it a missed shot anyway. This would not have happened with the M9 (or any other MF system). Of course I could have locked AF but this is an extra distracting thought while shooting and I did not anticipate the thumb movement when focusing... Today's camera's would maybe cope with the face recognition setting, but this is just an illustration of the extra thought and time that goes into dealing with AF to take complete control of it. YMMV

Edited March 6, 2023 by dpitt

[mujk]

9 hours ago, dpitt said:

Exactly! When I think back at my most regretted missed shots with AF they were always unnoticed while shooting, only when you see them on the monitor you realise the AF picked a meaningless subject to focus on rather than the one you wanted.

One of these is a shot with my 7 year old son sitting in the cockpit of a jet fighter at an air show. I focused on his eyes (AF) and took the shot. In a reflex pose he put up his thumb to show how happy he was... When I opened it on the monitor, it was clear his thumb was in perfect focus, his eyes are blurred. I printed it for my wife and his grandfather. They are happy with it, but I consider it a missed shot anyway. This would not have happened with the M9 (or any other MF system). Of course I could have locked AF but this is an extra distracting thought while shooting and I did not anticipate the thumb movement when focusing... Today's camera's would maybe cope with the face recognition setting, but this is just an illustration of the extra thought and time that goes into dealing with AF to take complete control of it. YMMV

Fully agree. AF is faster when speed is the only thing that counts, like a bird in flight with a long tele. If there is more time the rangefinder is at least as accurate and usually more deterministic. In addition, AF (and other automation as well) sort of adds a "layer" I need to understand how it works, which I find often reduces my engagement with the subject. Having a direct view through the OVF instead of looking at an image projected on the matte screen or sensor also improves this engagement, particularly when photographing people. 

[shanefking]

I like that I can shoot in near-total darkness, like portraits by the light of a single candle, and a RF allows me to shoot quickly an accurately, while any AF would struggle.

[Harout62]

The short answer !  It just feels good 

[Knipsknecht]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb shanefking:

I like that I can shoot in near-total darkness, like portraits by the light of a single candle, and a RF allows me to shoot quickly an accurately, while any AF would struggle.

... my eyes struggle in such a situation, too😁! To be honest, until now I haven't found a photographic system the allows me (!) to shoot in "near-total darkness" without any struggle😉. 

[Lee S]

As people have said, I don’t need one I want one to be more involved in the photo making process and use a tool that inspires me. 

When I need to use a camera with the worlds best autofocus, great low light and AWB  I use my iPhone, no joke it’s the best ever. I just don’t get the same satisfaction and creativity as when using a Digital M.

[Mikep996]

"When I need to use a camera with the worlds best autofocus, great low light and AWB  I use my iPhone, no joke it’s the best ever. I just don’t get the same satisfaction and creativity as when using a Digital M."

Yep...one of my best/favorite images was taken with my iPhone 11 Pro, converted to BW and printed at 16x20. 

I use a Leica M because I ENJOY using it more than any other camera.  I discovered that back in the film days when I abandoned Nikon/Canon/Pentax SLRs and switched to Leica M EXCEPT for (rare) long-lens, special use applications - safari in Africa, for example.

"IQ to body/lens ratio it’s the smallest system you can get I think. "

One of my favorite cameras prior to my switch to Leica was my Pentax MX.  I don't have one nowadays but I seem to recall it wasn't noticeably larger than my M6 - probably thicker but I don't think any wider/taller.  It was a welcome relief weight-wise from my Canon F1 though the F1 was an excellent anti-mugger weapon which it proved on one occasion...🤨

Edited March 10, 2023 by Mikep996

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

Why do I "need" a rangefinder?

My answer to that question would be along the lines of -

The human animal needs only air, water, food, medical care and shelter. 

If we strip our existence down to the bare needs, we will not be living but rather merely existing and it will be a barren existence.

A rangefinder camera improves the experience of photography for many photographers.  Photography improves the quality of life for most if nor all photographers and for some non photogaphers.  Therefore photography is not a need for survival but a quality of life issue.  A rangefinder camera elevates the quality of the photographic experience for some photographers.

People are allowed to have things that improve the quality of their lives - as long as they acquire them through lawful and ethical methods - aren't they?? 

Edited March 10, 2023 by Herr Barnack

[PhotogLeica]

I bought an M8.2 several years ago from a friend. I got hooked on Leica within a couple weeks. Its not easy to use at first, it can be frustrating, and cost is staggering compared to other gear. But.....Leica is mystical, it is mesmerizing to the soul....I can't explain it but I love my M10 and Leica lens and the joy I get from using them verses my other excellent gear. The more I used my M systems the better I get at controlling it, and the more I want to shoot. Its a little like playing the piano, got to learn the scales, chords, etc. before you start playing well enough to really feel the joy of music. I can shoot my canon all day without thinking, just auto focus, and shoot.

My Leica M10 however requires me to think about the framing carefully, the manually adjusted exposure triangle becomes a deliberate part of the creative process, and the M lens can create a look like no other when you nail the shot; its a thrill to get an image that excites you because everything just worked as you wanted.

I shoot events, environmental portraits, and general portraits, not as a job but as a hobby and service to others. I use my Canon when the event is fast moving or complex. If its anything I think I can handle with the M10 it goes. The M10 for portrait and environment portraits is aways my choice.

Photography is my hobby and joy so I do not measure the value of an M system based upon perfection of pixels (i.e. sharpness) or focus hit rates, etc... I measure it in terms of my satisfaction and ongoing challenge of improving with the amazing Leica tools I have. I could keep pontificating, but you get the point....Leica M system is not for everyone, but for those of us who are hooked its addictive. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by PhotogLeica

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M