Are rangefinders just point-and-shoot snapshitters with slightly more adjustability? I'm entertaining the idea of a smaller film camera but looking at pics taken by them and what they offer they seem like a glorified p&s. Am I missing something here?
>>4491816Some are like P&S, some are like regular cameras>looking at pics taken by themFilm cameras are just boxes, the only "look" comes from your lens and film stockIf you use a bad lens, it can look bad, if you use a good lens, it can look good
>>4491818I am looking at a Olympus RC for sale near me. I have a OM series SLR and like Zuiko lenses. Maybe the articles I've seen were shot by snapshitters but a lot of the pics I've seen just kinda look like normal vacation snaps if that makes sense.Rangefinders seem like a more portable setup than the SLR with more adjustability than a p&s that's cool with me. I was just wondering if there was something extra I wasn't taking into account.
>>4491819It's just a different focus method, that's allThe bodies do allow for different lens designs though, plenty of excellent (and tiny) RF lenses out thereAn RC would be like a P&S with viewfinder / manual focusing
>Are rangefinders just point-and-shoot snapshitters with slightly more adjustability?Yes. A local 35rc would be a great grab if the price is reasonable. The 'better' version would be a 35sp if you're shopping around online.
>>4491854he's about an hour away and is charging $125 for a working one that looks to be in good condition. If he'd take under $100 I'd consider it.
My only complaint with the SP would be the increased size, it seems closer to the OM rather than the RC. The faster lens is obviously a plus thought. Do you know if both Olympus cameras have light meters built in?
>>4491854German cameras are so gorgeous
Rangefinder shooter here.Yes and no. Stuff like my Canon 7s and Zorki-5 1958 version, or my Leningrad are absolutely not snapshitter cameras, and to some extent, my Leica. They're big and demand perfect rangefinder adjustment because of the type of lenses that get used on them.Now on the other hand, my FED-2, total point and snap camera. It has the collapsible I-26 lens in OP's post and fits in my pocket. The Leica is the same if I take the strap off and stick a 15 or 20mm lens on it
>>4492066nice b8 m8
>>4491854what would be a good price for one?
I was thinking about that, but going with a canon seems more logical to me. Canon, Nikon or the cheapest Leica. The cheapest Leica here costs 400U$ (new).
I am not skilled enough to justify spending over a grand on a Leica and I assume most people are the same if they're being honest with themselves.
>>4492351Leicas aren’t about skillThey’re about preserving traditional hobby photography instead of handing pros of ever decreasing aptitude cameras of ever increasing automation. Their high price is because everyone wants this but everyone in japan is too dumb and soulless to deliver it competently.
>>4492354I would imagine most Japanese companies see this as a niche market compared to where they make all their money: wedding and event photographers.
>>4492370You mean large agenciesFor example the AP buys sony bodies by the crate. They dont care if they break early, not like we care. They expect to break them early if they don’t break first. A failure rate is baked into the contract and sony makes a killing on service. They dont care about artism and ergos, colors and shit like photographers would because they shoot for the newspaperThese are the most profitable customers in the biz and they only really buy to keep the warranty current. Hence sony releases every camera twice.
I've seen a lot of people recommend the Canon QL17 and the Olympus 35SP. Are fixed lens rangefinder solid?
>>4492541Yes and the 45mm focal length lends itself to framing with your eyes, as in what you see standing where you are is what you're gonna get.
>>4491816Is that the same camera Ozu was using in the picture? It looks very close but not 100%
>>4492987No, that is a Nicca — you can identify it by the eyepiece.
why are so many old fixed lens rangefinders listed for over $100 on ebay with crusty light seals, non-working light meters, and funky lenses
>>4493097for teh lulz
>>4491816I recently bought a Canon P because it was really cheap and I already know how to fix them (they're easy to work on). It's such a beautiful camera, both to look at and to work on, but I dunno, I think I just don't like rangefinder cameras. I only got a few shots into a roll and ended up rewinding it and finishing it in another camera. I just find an SLR so much easier to work with.
>>4491816Rangefinders are a fucking joke and I laugh hard at boomers who claim it's "real" photography.Nigga, you can't even SEE THE REAL FRAMING of your shot
I bought a 35SP and the light meter isn't working. I tried to fix it but had no luck. Should I try to get it fixed or should I just go with vibes-based lighting?
>>4494333Who is claiming that only rangefinders are real photography? There are a few benefits of using a rangefinder:>Shorter flange distance can mean sharper lenses when compared with SLRs, though this also depends on the specific lens. >Less noise/vibration when taking a shot than some (especially older) SLR's. The vibration from mirror slap can reduce sharpness in photos, especially on older SLRs where dampers for the mirror may not be present or have deteriorated, see Nikon F. This is not an issue rangefinders suffer from. Also a quieter shutter can be useful in some circumstances.>Being able to see your subject through the viewfinder before they are in frame. Obviously this only applies when using focal lengths narrower than the outer-most frame lines in your finder, so it's not always applicable. >Generally easier to work on, fewer moving parts than an SLR due to not having the mirror mechanism. Everything else is either the same or a downside.
