RF cameras

[JackNib]

How about some articles, not just tests, about RF cameras and lenses and their use. Pop covers everything but that subject. Once, Herb Keppler wrote that he wouldn't trade his SlR for a hundred Leica M6s. Do I suspect bias?

[minoltaman]

I would not trade my SLR for a Leica. I would trade it for 100 Leicas and sell them for more lenses for my SLR. That said, I would like a Mamiya 7II, a medium format Leica, if you will. Everybody knows what they do. If not, here's a rundown:<BR>
<BR>
1. No mirror vibration.<BR>
2. No viewfinder blackout.<BR>
3. Very bright viewfinder.<BR>
4. Wide angle lenses are better quality as they are free to have elements as far back as the film.<BR>
5. Lenses are better/sharper because they are smaller.<BR>
6. Compact size (compared to same class SLR).<BR>
7. Sturdy (most).<BR>
8. Quiet.<BR>
9. Almost no shutter delay.<BR>
10. Many more I don't remember.<BR>
<BR>
Few dissadvantages:<BR>
<BR>
1. Most don't have TTL flash (except few Leicas).<BR>
2. You MUST remember to take off the lens cap.<BR>
3. Polarizers are very expensive.<BR>
4. Generally, the cameras and lenses are very expensive.<BR>
5. You cannot buy third party lenses instead of a $2400 brand name lens.<BR>
6. Forget a telephotolens unless you have $$$$$.<BR>
<BR>
Feel free to ad what you wish. /ibb/skins/default/emoticons/cool.gif

[Picture Guy]

I would add that the Leica has a very minimalist design philosophy. It has everything that a skilled photographer needs to take outstanding photos (within its range), and nothing else.<BR>
<BR>
SLR design has run hogwild adding additional gitzmos that are of dubious usefulness. They can't afford to have a competitor be able to say "But my camera has "MORE FEATURES". They would lose the sale.<BR>
<BR>
But since Leica has a sophisticated market that know EXACTLY what they need and where the Leica fits, they don't have to junk the camera up.

[Art]

And at the price - they don't have to sell as many.

[dilbertdroid2]

Sorry to see the thread degenerate almost immediately into a Leica -vs- the world fight. There has been a renewal of interest in rangefinders, and there is a good selection on the market including Leica, Konica Hexar RF and Cosina (Voigtlander brand) and medium format units like the Mamiya 7, Bronica 645 RF, and various Fuji models. There is also a very unique model from Fuji/Hasselblad that falls somewhere in between. The Xpan/TX1 shoots both standard 35mm frames and wide 24mm X 65mm panoramic frames. Don't forget the Russian Contax copies and exotic collector cameras like the Nikon S3. <BR>
<BR>
I own a number of rangefinder cameras and have used quite a few more, and find that there is a very wide range of features, quality, price and performance. There are some stinkers-- like the Voigtlander Bessa-L, and some that cost as much as a decent used car, like the Nikon S3. <BR>
<BR>
A comparison article from Pop would be fun and informative, but please, please don't let Herb Keppler do it. He has a very obvious bias against Leica, and would not be objective enough to produce anything of value in this area.

[Art]

It's funny that you see the comments as Leica vs the world. There were on 3 previous comments. None of which were really all that anti-Leica. The first just stated his preference to an SLR, but would like the same rangefinder capabilities in medium format. The second made favorable comments towards Leica. The third, mine, was a simple statement regarding their profit margin.<BR>
<BR>
I agree an article comaring the the qualities of SLR and Rangefinders would be interesting. Rangefinders are often misunderstood and unappreciated.

[twilomad]

I only see one thing when it comes to photography; the result in the print. I see no difference in the format of the tool. I have both: the SLR- Minolta X and RF- Konica Hexar RF system in my possession. I absolutely love them both for being so different. My Hexar is absolutely brilliant- I have many praising words to complement the RF system, but on the other hand my Minolta X is a tool with which I can slice a piece of "faraway" much easier. I think we should always remember that RF was the original system of modern world photography and praise its uniqueness.

[Landscaper]

<BR>
In all this discussion, which began with intimations that PopPhoto has a bias against Leicas, we've lost sight of the fact that the vast majority of serious photographers cannot afford to buy a Leica. Clearly, there's a place for rangefinders or they wouldn't sell. But I suspect that most serious amateurs (PP&I's target demographic) will buy an SLR if they can only have one camera. Thus, PP&I is simply catering to their constituency.<BR>
<BR>
Is Herb biased? Very likely, but as a columnist he's expected to be. Journalists with a regular column are expected to express their opinions. It's often more interesting reading than unbiased "just the facts, Ma'am" reporting, whether by Keppler or any other columnist.

<BR>
Don't forget that Herb writes the <b><u>SLR</u></b> column each month. Naturally, he would be leaning the way of the SLR. Landscaper made a good point about price, too. However, with the advent of the Bessa rangefinder, there is a more reasonable alternative to the high prices of the Leicas. Some might find this price to be a little more affordable introduction to interchangeable lens RF cameras. This is not to say that the higher price for an M-series body is not worth the extra cost. It just depends on your point of view.<BR>
<BR>
Jeff

[M@WLSH]

<BR>
I clip articles out of magazines and scrapbook them instead of having piles of old magazines around, and I can tell you that PP&I has reviewed every major Leica model release including a recent article on the MP and the M7 when it was released, and also regularly reviews Leica RF lenses, too. They've also reviewed other rangefinder bodies as well. Since rangefinders are a fairly small part of the market, I think the level of coverage is adequate.<BR>
<BR>
With Herb's admitted problems operating his film SLR's, including shooting all day with no film in the camera, I'm not surprised he's avoided using a Leica. Most likely he wouldn't be able to figure out how to load or operate it anyway. But since Leica won't give him a free one, all other considerations are moot.

[Picture Guy]

<BR>
<BR>
To rehash opinions stated on earlier posts, I think that the RF really shines within a limited lens range: 35mm, 40mm, 50mm. Outside that, the SLR offers better viewing. (Yeah, I know all the yada, yada, yada exceptions.)<BR>
<BR>
(I think that 40mm is the BEST perspective EVER!!!)<BR>
<BR>
But basically, that's it. These lenses are those that offer the BEST (in terms of natural perspective) correlation between subject and background. If that is your goal, to avoid distortion (wide angle) and isolation (telephoto), then the RF is for you.<BR>
<BR>
Outside this narrow range, the SLR kicks butt, particularly for telephotos.<BR>
<BR>
I currently have a Bessa R2 with Voightlander Ultra f/1.7 35mm, and early 1950's Canon Serenar 50mm f/1.8. (Plus five old fixed lens RF of the Canonet variety. Canonet ROCKS!)<BR>
<BR>
If I hit the lottery, I'll buy at least three NEW Leicas (MP, M6, M7), plus the BEST glass. AND THE MAMIYA 7II!!! If no lottery, fuggeddabboutit! <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>

[Stephen]

----------------<BR>
On 1/29/2004 7:56:40 PM M@WLSH wrote: <BR>
<BR>
I clip articles out of magazines and scrapbook them instead of having piles of old magazines around, and I can tell you that PP&I has reviewed every major Leica model release including a recent article on the MP and the M7 when it was released, and also regularly reviews Leica RF lenses, too. They've also reviewed other rangefinder bodies as well. Since rangefinders are a fairly small part of the market, I think the level of coverage is adequate.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
With Herb's admitted problems operating his film SLR's, including shooting all day with no film in the camera, I'm not surprised he's avoided using a Leica. Most likely he wouldn't be able to figure out how to load or operate it anyway. But since Leica won't give him a free one, all other considerations are moot.

[aj37]

I'm as loopy a rangefinder fanatic as anyone. Currently I own not a single film SLR, but do own a Bessa R2 and Canons P, VI-T and 7s (all of which I use at least occasionally) plus a Leningrad and a Kiev 5 (which I've at least TRIED to use a few times.)<BR>
<BR>
But other than the occasional test report (about which PPI has been very reasonable -- they've reviewed all the M Leicas, Bessas, and this month the Bessa-clone Rollei) I'm not sure what KINDS of articles "about RF cameras" I'd want to see in the magazine.<BR>
<BR>
Or to put it another way -- If a PPI editor were to contact me and say, "Hey, you use oneathemthar rangefinder cameras -- write an article about it that will be of interest to the <u>general reader</u>"... I don't think I'd know what to write.<BR>
<BR>
Sure, all of us fanatics know what we like about RFs, but they don't let you take any pictures that, in a pinch, you couldn't take -- if less conveniently or less elegantly -- with an SLR, or possibly even a point'n'shoot. The advantages of an RF are subtle and intangible... maybe TOO subtle and intangible to convey in a short article that would engage the average photographer.<BR>
<BR>
One thought did occur to me: many relative photo newcomers have never owned ANY kind of serious camera except an SLR (or, increasingly, a digital camera) so they might be interested in an article about the "other" kinds of cameras they might run across in a store's used-equipment case: say, fixed-lens RFs and TLRs.<BR>
<BR>
But then I realized that in stores in my area, you DON'T see those kinds of cameras in the used case any more. They're either in the clammy mitts of user-collectors (like myself) or changing hands on eBay at fairly serious prices... a trend we RFniks would NOT want to encourage via further publicity!<BR>
<BR>
(Dontcha pine for the days when you could walk into any decent-size camera store and stand a fair chance of bagging clean Canonet GIIIs, Konica Auto S3s, Olympus 35SPs, etc., for a fast $25-$50 apiece, while earning the proprietor's gratitude for taking a slow-moving item off his hands? Those days are pretty much gone...)<BR>
<BR>
So while I'm attracted to this idea of someone giving some positive press to our oppressed minority of RF shooters, I'm stumped for what types of specifics I'd suggest. Anybody? Got an idea for an RF-themed article that would be appreciated by mainstream photographers, rather than just us??? If so, this is probably a good place to trot it out...<BR>

[ProfessorLynn]

Hi folks,<BR>
<BR>
In some ways I agree with my old friend, Mr. Keppler, however I love my 1961 Nikon SP and some really fine lenses for them. I sold my first photo to a national magazine in 1947 with an Argus C3, have made several others in that aproximate time frame with that camera as well as Bolsey and Kodak RF35 (both truly excellent lens quality), Leica IIIc, and Leica IIIf although I wasn't thrilled with their high speed lenses and replaced them with Nikkors. The Elmars, Hektors, etc. were excellent. Over the years I've used lots of both RF and SLR cameras, 35, medium format, and large format. <BR>
<BR>
I like what works best under the circumstances. The cameras that naturally fall into my hands are the Nikon SP, the Nikon F2, and the Rollei SL66.<BR>
<BR>
Lynn

[UniQ]

I'm going to pass on the Leica debate.....but I want to add my vote that Pop Photog should perhaps do a series on RF cameras. I think they are just about the most fascinating "new" thing in photography...."new" only because of their recent increase in mainstream popularity. I think my next camera will be an RF and I'd love to see a few more articles on the subject...not just the cameras, the lenses too.

[Narsuitus]

One rangefinder feature that I like is the ability to flash sync at higher shutter speeds than my SLRs. This feature is very useful when using fill flash in bright sunlight.

[rover]

Check out the little blip on page 16 of the March issue. The Nikon SP2, only if...