>>4378181
Yes, but the average person on this board is a poorfag and will never be able to afford one, so they will say they are not worth it.

>>4378184
Several anons have one

>>4378187
name 50

>>4378193
>several anons
>name 50
I don’t know if you know what anonymous means

>>4378197
yeah well i don't think you understand the shitposting nature of this website

>>4378184
dont want != cant have

File: Screenshot_2024-10-15-12-(...).jpg (625 KB, 1080x787)

625 KB JPG

I've had a Kiev 4M and a Fed 3 and the Kiev is worth it if you get it for 20 bucks or so, the fed is not so its lens now sits on my leica.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android KB2003_13.1.0.582(EX01)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	787
Unique Image ID	e91dc49a-16c5-46c6-a070-7bf379f0f292

Oh wait i misunderstood the question entirely.

Yeah they take comparable photos, because its the photographer that takes them.
(The clear leica finder helps tho teehee)

>>4378198
Yeah well I don’t think you know why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch

>>4378181
i've heard the are but im too poor to have ever touched one

yes and yes

>>4378181
Buy chinese rangefinder lenses, they are made with the same quality as legendary memed up leica lenses, and then the photos look the same

>>4378181
>take comparable photos
they take I D E N T I C A L photos if you use the same lens
leica handles much nicer though and leatherette >>>>>>> whatever cumrag zorki and fed uses

>>4378273
>they take I D E N T I C A L photos if you use the same lens
You clearly have not used a real Leica if you think a $20 camera is even comparable in photographic creativity output.

I can't imagine carrying around $10,000

>>4378273
>leatherette >>>>>>> whatever cumrag zorki and fed uses
Older Zorki/FED models are covered in a nicely textured and solid-feeling vulcanite, instead of the horrible scratchy nylon covering that later models use. A lot of people shit on soviet cameras, but the earlier ones (circa 1955 especially) can be quite nice.

As long as the shutter works properly it's only the lens and the film stock which determine the quality of the image. Even then the film and lens attributes are a matter of taste. I've never shot old Soviet rangefinders, do they often have reliability issues? Is there good variety and availability in compatible lenses? Flickr is great for seeing many example images for specific lenses.

>>4378361
Some models have reliability issues, a lot dont.

Basically go for the leica and contax copies, when they started dreaming up """"improvements"""" thats when they got unreliable

File: 1728529545711690.png (485 KB, 792x768)

485 KB PNG

>you will never be a qt Asian girl that shots Soviet shit
Why live

No, they are not.

>>4378181
A plastic Nikon F55 beats it in all technical categories, for 15 bucks.
>TTL metering
>Autofocus
>Modern glass
>VR support
>Auto-winding
>Auto-progressing
>Higher FPS
>TTL flash
>Good ergonomics
>Digital top display and viewfinder display
>PSAM
>Can adapt any old glass, if you want the "character"
>Lighter
>Faster shutter speeds
>SLR viewfinder shows what you actually shoot
Etc.
Leicas are just toys for hipsters.

>>4378462
Funny, I bought an F55 for exactly 15 bucks yesterday and my leica, hell, even my fed 3 beats in the rangefinder-having category.

>>4378463
A rangefinder is an objective downgrade to an actual viewfinder. What do you even mean?

>>4378464
>objective
There are pros and cons to either, it's mostly subjective preference

>>4378181
I would like to find her range if you catch my drift

>>4378465
No, there really arent.
Please enlightened me as to the pros of rangefienders over TTL SLR viewfinders.

File: da gear.jpg (4.33 MB, 4608x3456)

4.33 MB JPG

less than 5k euro altogether

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4378468
How often do you use those anon? I feel with anything more than I single point and shoot + full frame and I'm just hoarding shit that sits on the shelf

>>4378468
all broken btw

>>4378467
No blackout when shooting, and everything is in focus all the time (nothing lost to bokeh)
You can see what's going on beyond the frame, which helps with timing and composition
You can use the frame lines to preview composition at different focal lengths, awesome as a scouting camera
You can make use of ND or color filters without affecting visibility
It's also helped me think about focal lengths differently, the ovf I look through is the same size and magnification all the time, so all I'm really picking is how wide or narrow I'm framing within that window

There are cons too of course, but I'd take rf ofv over slr ovf most of the time

>>4378473
>oh no someone has a different perspective
peak /p/
These are the memes that come from my own experiences with rf
I could give pros about SLR ovf and cons about rf ovf too, I got no problem seeing pros and cons with either
Just don't use objectively worse if you just mean you don't like something

>>4378471
>No blackout when shooting
Lmao, when you've hit the shutter it's done, Anon. The choice is made.
Also the "blackout" lasts a fraction of a second.
>everything is in focus all the time (nothing lost to bokeh)
Yeah... Except in the actual shot, of course. Not having a bokeh preview is not a feature, you massive retard. The F55 dors have a bokeh preview button, by the way.
>You can see what's going on beyond the frame
Entirely depends on what glass you have got attached. Use a wide angle and you don't even get the full picture.
>You can use the frame lines to preview composition at different focal lengths
As opposed to just literally seeing your actual composition (with optional guidelines) at any focal length...
>You can make use of ND or color filters without affecting visibility
Lack of preview is not a feature. It's a lacking feature.
>It's also helped me think
Did it though? You don't seem to be thinking at all.

>>4378475
Everything you mentioned is subjective, so thank you for confirming it's not simply objectively better
It's fine if you don't like them, fine if you can't comprehend the value, not everyone "gets it" sometimes, and that's okay, there are lots of cameras for all types of people

>>4378464
It still has it, and the F55 doesnt, so therefore the F55 is worse in that regard.
:A)

Moot used to own a Leica and posted about it here once

>>4378469
the pentax and m2 sees a fair bit of use whenever I'm in sub-zero climate. when I go out I always have two cameras with me, unless I'm using a medium format, which I exclusively shoot B&W with.
most of these cameras see weekly use except the mamiya
>>4378470
only the XA2 misses focus sometimes. i forgot it on a car roof when I was jumping in and it flew off. survived surprisingly well
>>4378472
less than

>>4378476
>>4378478
Just glue a little magnifying glass on a real camera, if you miss the option of looking through a disconnected, unrelated glass. You hipsters are fucking retarded.

>>4378459
It wasn't her camera I just let her use it as a prop

Asian girls all shoot Fuji x100 or crop Sony

File: 1714176020146038.jpg (126 KB, 1024x1024)

126 KB JPG

>>4378203
this. could own one if i wanted to, but don't care enough about 35mm film or their 'meh' digital lineup to warrant getting one, plus I'd rather use the funds on a holiday or a new car or something (im talking if i were to buy brand new, out of the shop where it would be $20-30k+)

I bought a Canon Canonet to scratch that rangefinder itch and see what it was all about, and honestly, I get it. I get why people love rangefinders, if people had the means and drive to buy a nicely built one like a Leica, hell yeah, more power to ya, but the ones who start the pissing contest should know, (and this goes for any and all brandfags out there) the rest of us don't really care

>>4378483
Nah i like the rangefinder focus.

>>4378491
There is no such thing as rangefinder focus

>>4378499
kek

>>4378501
You are free to have that opinion, even if its wrong :3c

>>4378499
It's fine to simply say no viewfinder blackout doesn't matter to you at all, but you shouldn't then assume it shouldn't matter to anyone else
Like I said, I have other cameras for other things, but none give me as much joy in operation as my rf
>>4378501
lol, rf describes specifically the focus mechanism in the name

>>4378503
>>4378515
But it doesn't actually show the focus of the actual lens. It's just objectively worse in every respect.

>>4378542
Yeah thats why its a jewelry scam like mechanical watches now
>BRO LE FINEAT SOULFUL ENGINEERING JUST LIKE THE GOLDEN AGE OF PATRIARCHY AND EMPIRES
>$300 of chinese machined parts tuned and fit by some half blind swiss fag and sold for $12,000
>still only as accurate as a casio f91w and jogging or golfing wearing it will destroy the mechanism, which needs rebuilt every 5 years or accuracy plummets on the order of minutes per week
Does it sound like a leica? Calibrate your RF and keep an eye on those shutter curtains, the horizontal cloth type lasts a few thousand shots

>>4378542
And some people like it it like that.

>>4378542
It does show what the lens is focused at though
>objectively worse
You keep using that word, it's still subjectively better for how and what I shoot
Of course there are pros (and cons) to traditional viewfinders, as I've said several times

Just saying it sucks over and over isn't really adding anything of value to conversation

>>4378569
It shows where the rangefinder mechanism is aligned hopefully relative to the focusing scale on the lens that may or may not be accurate at the moment

Which is why the majority of leicatography is at small apertures with wide angle lenses. There are no pros to rangefinders at all except not smashing jew noses against the backs of cameras
>cant actually frame with a lens that doesn't have corresponding framelines lmao
>cant use wider than 24 without goggles unless you want random frame periphery
>cant use longer than 70 without goggles (not even 85...) unless you want OOF and maybe janky framing

mechanical watches are an apt comparison
absolutely inferior technology with not one single upside, only being kept alive by people who only differ from steampunk nerds in their parents wealth, so they can pretend its tradition instead of vanity and collector autism.

>>4378181
join the plunge and start doing 4x5. lecias are ass and so are most 35mm cameras and stocks

>>4378572
>It shows where the rangefinder mechanism is aligned hopefully relative to the focusing scale on the lens that may or may not be accurate at the moment
If we're going to get that pedantic, SLR's also have the same problem. You aren't seeing what the actual film/sensor will capture, you are seeing what the lens projects on the mirror, which also may or may not be accurate. Modern SLR's have AF tuning for a reason.
>Which is why the majority of leicatography
Hardly, plenty of people, myself included, often shoot at wider apertures. I honestly consider my r more reliable for f1.2 focus than an mf SLR, it's much easier to visualize how far "off" of focus you are, making it easier to nail correct focus quickly.
>There are no pros to rangefinders
To you, because of your subjective preferences. I already listed several pros for me here >>4378471

For the 4th? time, yes, rangefinders can't do everything, which is why they make so many different cameras. We can invent any number of hypotheticals for any camera where it wouldn't be the most optimal choice. What a useless endeavor.

Just realized this board is like a watch forum for peasant neets.

>>4378592
watchfags are peasant neets.
>archiuxury lmao

>>4378589
finally someone admits mirrorless is superior

I own Soviet, Jap and Leica RFs

The Soviet ones are cheap for a reason. They need Capitalism to work right, but they are fun. If you can find one that's already been gone through by someone like me, they're good.

The Leica is expensive for a reason, it's like shooting a Mauser or a bolt-action Springfield. Everything is made well and the fit and finish is awesome. All of the lenses just work and they're good, except for the 135 Hektor and if you stop it down to 11 it's fine.

The Canon 7 is a nice in-the middle solution. Works well, feels good, big huge ass viewfinder. Quiet shutter, advance lever. Has the Leica-style rangefinder coupling so you can use any LTM lens on it, mine has a full set of Soviet glass.

>>4378572
Bro is NOT having a second point of view. (VERY SAD)

>>4378598
I like how you faggots always pretend Nikon doesn't exist.
If you INSIST on a basic manually operated clunk camera, then Nikon has got every single imaginable corner cornered for you.
These are all made before the end of the 60's, but even then they had started getting TTL AE and shutter priority modes down
>Nikon 1
>Nikon S
>Nikon M
>Nikon S2
>Nikon SP
>Nikon S3
>Nikon F
>Nikon S4
>Nikon S3M
>Nikkorex 35
>Nikkorex F
>Nikkorex35/2
>Nikon F Photomic
>Nikonos
>Nikkorex Zoom 35
>Nikon Auto35
>Nikon F Photomic T
>Nikkormat FS
>Nikkormat FT
>Nikkormat FTN
>Nikon F Photomic TN
>Nikonos II
>Nikon Photomic FTN

>>4378604
there are maybe 4 good cameras on that list and they're overpriced. everything else is landfill

>>4378606
There are NO good cameras on that list.
Just like there are NO good Leicas of that kind.
Wait until the 90's and the 2000's, and you get the F80, F100, F5 and F6, all of which piss and shit all over Leica blocks.

>>4378181
I don't think there is a single rangefinder that is worth the price. The cheap ones are absolutely horrendous and the good ones are thousands of dollars and just objectively worse than most $20 entry level SLRs from the 70s and 80s.

>>4378607
Why would you get an autofocus nikon? Most non-retarded people can autofocus faster (and quieter lol) than an f5 or f6.

>>4378609
can manual focus*, rather

>>4378593
>finally someone admits mirrorless is superior
yes, rangefinders (which are mirrorless) are superior

File: 1717844692797007.jpg (163 KB, 1242x1361)

163 KB JPG

>>4378610
>this is what laicacuck hipsters actually believe

>>4378609
>Most non-retarded people can autofocus faster (and quieter lol) than an f5 or f6
F5 and F6 both support moder F-mount glass with quiet and fast internal autofocus motors. Even supports VR.

File: DSC_2312.jpg (1.13 MB, 998x1500)

1.13 MB JPG

>>4378653
Zone focusing is faster than any AF because you're already in focus :A)

Real talk though, I think a lot of people here get hung up on specs as if that's the only metric to gauge a cameras qualities.
If someone wants an old piece of shit then an old piece of shit will be better than any of the latest space ship offerings.

Anyway have a DSLR photo because I love my D700 as much as I love my M8.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	794
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	80 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:27 14:25:38
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	80.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	998
Image Height	1500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4378653
I don't shoot leicas, I just shoot cheap manual SLRs.

>>4378659
This is a nice way of hiding nikon colours, however it still looks like a phone photo

>>4378659
The problem is that leicacucks pretend leicas are anything other than potato cameras which have been outspecced for half a century.

File: DSC_2321.jpg (1.68 MB, 1500x1071)

1.68 MB JPG

>>4378663
It's only a problem as long as you're getting upset over it.
Do you get upset over retarded people being retarded? Do you try to fix retarded people? I wouldn't, that's an impossible task. So why get upset over brandfags spouting bullshit.

>>4378662
Thanks, I'm the best.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	794
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	80 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:27 14:25:41
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	80.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1071
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: f5.png (389 KB, 700x595)

389 KB PNG

>>4378604

Confirmed for newfag underage get b@ and v@, I'm the biggest Nikon Boomer on this board I just don't care for the Contax style RF

I already have a Photomic and Prism F, F3, two Nikonos II's, FTN, F5, Df, D800 and 700, D60, D300 IR, FA and black body FG

>>4378609

Confirmed for having never shot an F5, shits instantaneous I couldn't believe how quick the F5's AF is. They were the staple of sports photogs and were aimed square at Canon after their 1N-RS took a giant shit on the F4, really it's a fantastic camera I recommend trying one, they're cheap now.

>>4378670
You are such a fucking faggot tripfag. That should be bannable in and of itself.

>>4378572
>its the jews fault that: i cant afford a 2k camera, cant manual focus, cant calibrate my own rf, cant frame properly, have to rely upon technology to do all the work for me
got anything else i should add?

>>4378572
>Someone with money fucked the girl I orbit.

>>4378670
>insists on making himself as unlikable as possible by bragging about trivial bullshit every chance he gets
You only just got the F5 too, just stop it ffs. Unless you actually enjoy the negativity and looking really insecure and reactionary all the time in which case have fun I guess. I don't get it though, you go through these weird phases

>>4378473
Did you ever consider the possibility that common knowledge is in fact fucking common, dickhead?

If you are worried about cost and if luxury items are worth is then the the simple answer is no, no they wouldn't be worth it to you. If you are worried about money don't buy a Leica. If bang for buck is your consideration then this isn't the system for you. If you are worried about money and really want the Leica look then buy cheaper Leica R lenses and adapt it to your mirrorless camera. You can pick up a nice portrait lens Leica Elmarit R 90mm f2.8 in near mint condition for about US$500-600 dollars for a premium copy. Throw in another $25 for a meatal adapter (don't get shit 3d print ones).

>>4378675
he is a 40 years old fat fuck that still post here. What did you expect

>>4378675

I've had the F5 for about a year and have put 20 rolls through it, I haven't exactly just got it. I dropped every AF 35mm camera I owned after I got the F5, shits just that good. No need to sperg out just let people enjoy shit. The F5 is just that good, as long as you don't mind the weight.

>>4378671

Deal with it homie, I ain't going nowhere as long as I live rent-free in your head. My very existence makes no-photos seethe and as a result my dick gets hard over it, stay mad fagtron. Another Sugar Thread is coming so I hope your butthole is ready.

>>4378716
>>4378670
a canon t80 would blow this niggas mind

>>4378739

Why not a T90? I have one.

>>4378851
because the t80 autofocuses faster than modern nikonshit lol

>>4378864

Wait, you're serious?

Very clearly trolling, good day sir.

>>4378342
Too bad because you bring your organs with you everywhere.

>>4378573
This. People arguing over cameras that use roll film is kinda insane.

File: flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1(...).jpg (79 KB, 750x1000)

79 KB JPG

>>4378900
>>4378573
t.

>>4378184
fpbp

>>4378181
yes

>>4378181
Any box that has a working shutter and can fit a good lens on it will take comparable photos to a Leica.

>>4378181
It's not the hammer, it's the carpenter.

>>4378181
>soviet rangefinders
all broken or soon to be broken

>>4382201
My Kiev 4 will outlive you

>>4378572
you've already been btfo by half the thread but I want to also pin here a comparison in weight and portability, my film RF and DSLR both with 50mm lenses are 1.7 lbs. vs. 4 lbs., also your retarded

>>4382219
>if i compare a soft as fuck lens on a point and shoot to premium professional camera with an ultrasharp cinema grade prime
Yeah because the DSLR is full of macro, UWA, telephoto, autofocus, autoexposure, and digital capability and the leica scamera is not.

Compare to an om1n with a zuiko 50mm f1.8 and suddenly it’s the same. Compare to a sony a7c and the exact same lens can do a lot more.

>>4382229
>comparing his jap crap to Teutonic excellence
l m a o

>>4382219
Its fine to admit that rangefinders are just for fun. I love mine because its super comfy and thats it.

>>4382236
An om1n is a better camera than any leica. Pure photographic excellence.

>>4382238
and ching chong to you too, subhuman

>>4382249
Look at how hostile you got because i called your pre-ww1 camera design dumb.

A rangefinder is a large sensor PNS. They are worse except at peripheral FOV and rule out a lot of focal lengths and basically every zoom, but you can get better pancake lenses and collapsible optics. That’s it.

>>4382236
Leicas are made by albanians, nice try yid

>>4378181
more importantly, w2c a cute girl to take a picture of pointing a rf at me?

>>4382356
>he doesn't know

>>4382359
I matched her on a dating app and just asked her to do some modelling

I bought a Leica because these fucks here said I should and it was a broken piece of shit so I'm buying a 500CM

File: R1-07107-0020.jpg (833 KB, 1800x1200)

833 KB JPG

>>4382451
ehhh not worth polluting my psyche with a dating app just for a photo op
>>4378471
even just the seeing beyond the frame point is sufficient to qualify rf above strictly worse than slr. for me, the drawbacks simply don't affect me day-to-day and i have more fun with rf so i use that most of the time and when i bump up against the limitations, then i'll swtich to the slr or digital

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:17 01:05:41
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4378467
Personal choice, I simply find focusing trough a rangefinder much more accurate and faster, and seeing outside the frame is nice, not to mention how smaller the lens and body can be when you dont have a mirror