You're absolutely right on every point (framelines, focus, etc). I still shoot a rangefinder because, to quote Tevia in Fiddler on the Roof: Tradition!
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite Absolutely. Micro, long distance, needing to change focal lengths fast (which I experienced as a starting photojournalist [after a while I could pick my assignments and work with my M6]) and required Zoom lenses are not for Leica Ms (R and now SLR though-I loved the R6 but could not afford it at the time or rather I had to make a choice between R6 and M6. So I have always stuck to my Nikons, just in case. I guess our experiences, although not in the same area of photography (I gave up sports when I had to use a telephoto lens as I did not want to invest in such expensive and cumbersome lenses), are interestingly close.
Those are nice cameras. I remember how excited the head photographer at the newspaper was when he updated to two new F2 bodies, and the new 135mm f2 lens.
There are a few cameras I wish I had kept as well.Most Photographers aren't collectors as they need the value of the old cameras to trade against the new one. Still there are a few I wish I'd have kept.
Well, that was a bit misleading. SLRs as such are known since the late 19th century, albeit only in large format cameras. In the 1920s the first SLRs in medium format were introduced, and 35mm SLRs became available in the 1930s (i.e. Kine Exakta). However, all those cameras had waist-lever finders. The first 35mm SLRs with Pentaprism came out in the late 1940s, the Italian Rectaflex and Zeiss' Contax S. I personally believe, that the importance of a viewfinder system of a camera to be enabled to make good photos is vastly underestimated. It is one of the few things at a camera, which actually can have direct impact on the quality of the composition of a picture. With an SLR, you can see the true cutout of the picture to be taken plus you can actually see the depth of field of it and better assess focus. The SLR viewfinder is simply a much better instrument to assess a picture before it is shot. The one advantage rangefinder cameras had in the early times was, that they were significant smaller and lighter than SLRs, what was the decisive factor for many rangefinder users. This changed in the 70s though, starting with the Olympus OM cameras.
So many great cameras over the years, and so little chance to go out and shoot with them. I've seen twin lens cameras that shot 4x5. Always thought they would be fun.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite One of the most fun old cameras: Kodak 3A from the 1910s and twenties. They were made for 122 film, which is not available anymore for more then 50 years now, but this cameras can be easily modified to a accept 120 film, producing 6x14 cm negatives. Fun fact: the best version of that camera not only had a Tessar lens, but to my knowledge was also the first camera with a coupled rangefinder. I have two of them regularly with me, one loaded with b&w film and the other with color film. Great for landscape, architecture and full body portraits. Even better as a conversation starter.
Great video. There are those who like a particular camera style for styles sake, and those who like the feel or how they look with a particular type of camera. But in the end, it is what works to produce the desired end result. If you can afford it, have both a rangefinder and an SLR, and realise that both do slightly different jobs.
Don't disagree with any of this but, when it comes to film loading, I would like to give a shout-out to the little Canonet with its Quick Load system. With its ca. 40mm lens it's my go-to walk around camera.
I believe it all depends on your own thing, I find rangefinders more effective for street shooting (at least for myself :) and it looks friendlier like a tourist camera! Pointing my yashica SLR is quite intimidating for some people I photograph. I use SLR for family trips and stuff since it can focus closer than my Canon 7. Use whatever gear you want! Great video! I've been loving this channel 👍🏻
My Yashica TLR with waist level finder, not only has you looking down not pointing a camera at them, makes not a sound instead of folks annoyed at you taking their picture, they ask about the camera. Non stop "cool camera" or I had one of those back in the day. Let them look thorough a large, bright ground glass and they are willing if not eager to have their photos taken. TLR s were good enough in the street for Vivian Maier's wonderful work.
It's important to be comfortable when shooting on the street, and keep the subject comfortable as well. Don't get me wrong, I still shoot with rangefinders.
@mrca2004 Cool! I've been wanting a TLR, but I'm a bit turned off. It looks like they have more of a fragile inner working than rangefinders, is the Yashica TLR reliable? I want to get a Yashica Mat 124g. I haven't seen any reports regarding reliability issues, though, but I'm still not sure...
I fully agree an each topic you mentioned. I have Nikons from F to F5. They work wonderful and they have in my oppinion the same "charme"of tradition as the Leicas. I have a Leica M10, too. But this is only for having that rangefinder-feeling and slowing down the process. If I would have to decide I would always prefer the Nikon SLRs. Thanks for your very well video. Congrets
I changed my Leica M3 with a 50 and 90mm for a Nikon F2As with a135, 50, 28 and became a totally different type of photographer. It was quicker, gave me all the advantages you mentioned, but nowadays I enjoy even the old Leitz lenses on my Nikon Z6ii ,,, techniques may have changed, but my photographic eye did it as well. I became older (1956 born) and wish no more than a new Nikon Zf and for lust an old Hasselblad to use Tri-x in a proper way....
Agreed, I've come to the same conclusion, I now shoot 35mm on a free Rebel XS and (cheap) canon EF mount lenses. I see these cameras everywhere and they often come with a lens for next to nothing and like you pointed out, having good metering, accurate viewfinder, the choice of focal length and many other in camera advantages are hard to ignore.
I bought my first M6 in 1984, the second lens was a 35mm f2 (the version made in Midland, Canada. My current M7 has a 58 viewfinder which I bought hoping it would work well with the 28mm but found it fantastic with the 35mm so tend to use that mostly. Currently I have two Zeiss 35mm lenses, the f2 and the f1.4. I use the f2 the most.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite Hey we are that close. I got my M6 in 1989. It replaced my battered bought-very used M2. At the same time I also got a 35 mm summicron, a focal length I had been mostly using with my Nikon since 1983 and that has become 90% of my photography (even with medium format cameras I have looked for that angle of view). However the "King of bokeh" is not that great in the corners and with digital I have upgraded first with an asph. Summicron and also with a TTartisan f 1.4 (surprising bargain but as cumbersome as the Summilux 1st generation aspheric and in fact a physical copy of it) and now with a Voigtlander f 1.5.
Exactly the reason I only used Nikon and Hasselblad while the Leica was within my reach back in the 90s..good video..Leica now is a lifestyle accessory..$$
The benefit of the old rangefinders is you don't sound like the paparazzi has arrived. I agree the cheap lenses are quite good. Even the cheapest Canon EF, the 50mm f1.8, is fantastic.
I love "unsharp" lenses on film, but somehow on digital, my tolerance for imperfection goes out the window and I need every edge and corner to be as sharp as the centre. It's so weird.
Well, Pixelpeepers are not being photographers...never watch at 100%, or even more, some like to look for optical imperfections at 200%, even 400%. Perhaps when you grow older, you appreciate a so called "character" lens, and not being a pixel-pooper (no pun intended) anymore... I dislike the typical, clean & boring, all sharp, uber-sharp, clinical picture...simply no soul, no character...YMMV. 🙂
@@marcp.1752 Photographers can be pixelpeepers and pixelpeepers photographers. These two labels are totally unrelated. Asking quality from your equipment is just basic if one cares for one's work and production. You can always degrade your images (and give them "character", your "character" I guess rather than just the optical flaws of a particular lens over which you have no control) [even "clinical" pictures] but you can never make a photograph taken with a flawed lens look clean, sharp or clinical. Who can achieve the best can also produce the worst, the opposite is impossible. Using older and flawed (with "character" [what a joke! ;o)] ) lenses just limits what you can achieve with them, that simple. Just say you love their look without opposing better and more modern lenses, or you do not see the point of spending such amount of money as you already have lenses... these are the only real, reasonable arguments. I do not think that opposing older and not as well-performing tools to better and newer ones can go anywhere interesting, whatever the field considered. Just use the tools you want and that you have at your disposal, you not need to assert your choices in irrational way against the rest of the world.
This comparison between rangefinder and slr cameres is correct, as far as their basic usability features are concerned. That's why the SLR came along, as a more practical evolution made on the rangefinder which, in turn, had been an evolution over the huge medium and large format. But nowadays, analogue photography is niche, leaving mass photography to digital, and then all this SLR practical superiority is no longer so much relevant, because 35mm is slow shooting, where we have the image itself, but also the pleasure of the small rituals of camera operation, slow framing or ensuring that everything is at the right point, is one of the fundamental aspects of opting for 35mm. The Tesla may be much more practical than a classic from the 70s or even the 90s, but it's a diferent story (pleasure) when we go for a ride on a classic car. I would say, each one in its own moment. Very good channel you have, most interesting and informative. A pleasure to watch
I like how much quieter the M3 is, no mirror lets me shoot a lower shutter speeds. I also like the experience. I also have a F100 and like that baby too. Know your tools know why you choosing your tools.
My Breitling watch and 50 year old this year Mamiya RB67 with negatives 5x a 35mm. I do miss driving a 4 speed which doubles as an anti theft device with the young empty skulls of mush who can't drive one. Raced a 240z in the early 70's and I wonder if I can still heel and toe double clutch coming into a turn.
A huge print of the Afghan Girl is the largest and most prominent photograph at the Leica Factory Gallery and Store in Wetzlar. Just sayin’… Lots of good advice. I love both my Leica and my Nikons.
Steve is using Leica now that his world has switched to digital. So as a Leica ambassador it doesn't surprise me that they have his most famous photo on display. He is a Leica user now.
Yes, the nikon fm2 with nikon 105mm f/2.5. My fm2n is fully mechanical, no battery needed for complete operation, handy then in foreign lands with no batteries available. @@sergiodematostube
Great video! I agree with everything you are saying and I very much prefer my Nikon SLR's. However, there is one big counterargument: Ease of uses and flexibility is not the main goal when shooting film these days. A mirrorless digital camera would be even more convenient. So, maybe rangefinders, like SLR's, are mainly about nostalgia and the experience one is looking for.
"So, maybe rangefinders, like SLR's, are mainly about nostalgia and the experience one is looking for." Indeed, but that being the case why not just admit it. There is nothing wrong with that standpoint. It's one of the reasons I still shoot film on my SLR's or my grandfathers' old Voigtlander Vito II folder. It's the waffle about how Leicas are superior or special which is a bit ridiculous.
@@richardhale9664 Oh, I didn't mean to say there is anything wrong with this. I fully admit that my Leica M3 is there to give give me joy, rather than performance.
I had a Leica M4-P (not sure the exact def, but it was the Canadian build) and an M6 TTL and found the bottom load a real pain and though the 72% coverage was real, it wasn't as limitinbg as it seemed. Prices were insane and are only more so now. I loved the Zeiss ZM lenses but were I to do this over again - and you think of it from time to time because some of the (color especially) photos were wonderfu..... I'd never try longer than 50mm. Actually, for 35mm ONLY it is okay. For anything else, an SLR just works better - especially at the long end. And it's only when I remind myself of how the rangefinder fails with a 90mm that I remember why I dumped the Leica. Do I miss it? Sure. Am I happier with an SLR? Absolutely 200% (if that were possible). So I started with a Nikon FM2N for manual focus - which is what I insisted on back then. But with grand children, AF just becomes handy the way their constant motion just makes manual focus a joke. Traded out the MF lenses for AF-D's and the Nikon FM2N went for a Nikon F100 which eventually gave way to an F4. I used the same lenses on my F4 as I did on my D750 (digital) and that was okay for a while. Then Nikon killed the F lens convenience by moving to the Z line up. I kept the F4 but went back to Fujifilm X cameras for digital - even tried a GFX, but decided that was just too pricey a system for a hobbyist and.... GAS can be an endless disease, right? FWIW, I miss the FM2N as a small camera, and I absolutely adored the 135mm manual lens with the built in lens shade. I guess one of the things I've learned is outside of the 85mm portrait lens, I just don't like lugging around heavy glass. MF kind of pushes the scales the other way but I prefer to have only 1 maybe 2 MF lenses on a carry.
I’ve been using SLR since I’m interested in and started photography. I’m now considering for trying some rangefinder cameras for Street Photography. I was told they’re smaller, lighter, quieter and less noticeable. I used to eagerly cropped the way I wanted it to be exact and same angle of what I see what I get (no parallax) in the viewfinder on SLRs for composition, but then most of the time: I lost pleasure moments after making sure everything is in the right place. It’s difficult to capture the decisive moments. I now have weighed out that the decisive moment is far more important than the composition while taking a picture with the camera and it can always be fixed in the darkroom (giving in some image quality from a small enlargement). What do you think? 😅
It’s interesting when Garry Winogrand was speaking at Rice University back in the late 1970’s, he was adamant about using rangefinders. He said he didn’t like the mirror slapping up and down in a SLR. I have both the rangefinder’s and SLR’s and will admit that the SLR is far more advanced.
Mirror slap will attract attention in street photography. However, many SLRs had mirror lock up which kills most of the sound, and rangefinder users often shoot from the hip anyway. Or put a viewfinder on the flash shoe.
I'm not sure if Garry Winogrand needed a rangefinder... he put the camera right in your face anyway, not sure he was working in a 'silent mode', more in your face. lol
One more advantage of an SLR is the ability to adapt weird lenses. Last weekend I shot with a 1973 Sears TLS M42 camera with an adapted "Soldier's Camera" 1915 Vest Pocket Kodak lens mounted on billows with Ortho film to be authentic. It focuses from infinity down to about 6 inches. The entire setup cost me $50. If I put the original 55mm f1.4 lens back on and shoot it wide open, I get the "Leica Glow". My next project is to adapt a $90 Leica Colorplan projector lens (90mm f2.5) to the SLR. Again, using billows. Try that with a rangefinder camera...
I, like you have been around a while. I started professional photography around 1980 and the SLR was well developed by then. Not having unlimited budgets I bought and sold cameras and lenses. It is an addiction. I remember owning three or four Leica's, two iii's and a couple M-6's. I also owned a couple "look-a-leica's" All were slow and clunky. While I could afford a body and a lens, any additions were too expensive. None of my friends ever owned more than one body and one normal lens. I bought the 135mm Hector. What a piece of junk. What is that F5.6 or 8 wide open? Good luck using that in the real world. Any time I owned one, I sold it off quickly to get back to the SLR as it was just much more practical to use. Durning the 90's I was friends with a man who worked outside sales at a camera store. He spent his time visiting the doctors and dentists selling them Leica's. That was and is their target market.
That will be my next one. When I started with Nikon the FM had just come out so I bought that. It's gone years ago but the FM3a looks great. I think it's a bit lighter than the F3 as well.
For years, I shot Nikon F, F2, F3, and F4 SLRs. My Nikon lens inventory ranged from 14mm to 1000mm. My Nikon system enabled me to capture about 90% of the images I needed. When I needed to shoot quietly and discretely, I put my SLR in a sound deadening blimp. However, I eventually purchased a Leica M6 with 21/35/90mm lenses to use instead of 24/35/85mm lenses I had been using with my SLRs. Yes, I could dump my Leica and return to using only my SLRs; but I would miss the status, prestige, and rangefinder focusing that the Leica provides.
I learned with my father’s Contax IIa in 1969. During the early 70s I was anxious to have a Canon FT SLR and a 200mm tele. Still have the Contax, but anything requiring critical framing, focus, agility… DSLR
The Italian Rectaflex and the East German Zeiss Contax S (later Pentacon) were the first pentaprism SLRs, in the late 1940s. Also, the first Pentax (an Asahiflex with an eye-level pentaprism) was introduced in 1957. This is all well-documented.
I think the Pentax was the first of the modern models, with an SLR like we know them now. I thought it came out in 1952, with updates in 54 and 57, but I'm likely wrong.
Guess you are. Between Exacta and Praktica and Practina, the Japanese came in on the tail of that and America didn't seem to catch up with that or the budget new Russian SLRs which followed. @@stillshootinginblackandwhite
The Panasonic LC-5 is the best point snd shoot rangefinder ever made. I keep wishing Panasonic would bring it back. A true classic now unobtanium because everyone wants one. 😊
couldn't agree with you more, I've got some 20 leica, nikon, contax and canon rangefinders they are good in the collection,but when I want to get the job done I'll take any (D)slr over the best rangefinder. When I want some fun (look cool like a hipster) and results don't really matter I might take one of the rangefinders, they're a great conversation starter if you're in to that.
Bottom line: To each its own. Many of your points, while valid, come from a pragmatic technical viewpoint. Many of us left SLR for Leica M because we want to slow down, be more involved in the photo making process with the camera. We don’t mind parallax error and many of us don’t shoot sports, wildlife, or fast paced journalism, so we don’t need more than 135mm. As for the lenses, we like the non-aspherical and older glass with its imperfections. As this adds an older time look to your photos. It carries more of an artistic character. Super sharp like you get with the modern lenses are more clinical and maybe please photographers like you that are looking more for technical perfection and efficiency over an artistic feel . There is a big movement in the photography community where we are embracing the older retro cameras, along with their flaws and using that platform to advance our creativity. Some of your argument to me is like going up to a classic car person and saying “why do you drive that old gas guzzler gilopy? You can drive a new car and have better gas mileage, more safety features and be a more efficient mode of transport”.
Fixed lens rangefinders is quite another world though. They have some real advantages. Flash sync to 500. Matched lens and body, viewfinder frames and lens film gate. Much, much cheaper. Quieter. Easier to use a shade with and still have a good view through the finder.
Not all rangefinders a Leicas with awkward loading. An SLR is more conveniant for sure but photography is more or else I would just use my phone. I like using a variety of cameras as I don't do this for a job.
I would add that apart from the CL, Leicas are not even compact. Also you problem of viewfinder cut off with faster lenses and poor minimum focus distance too. Let's face it Leicas are limiting. Ah! But that's the point we hear. If that is the case, just get a Olympus 35 RC or Ricoh 500G with their fixed lens or even an old folder like a Voigtlander Vito with no ranger finder. Or get even better IQ with a folding Zeiss 645 camera. Save some dough and have a more compact machine still capable of excellent results.
Regarding the mythical 'Leica glow', I read an article in (British) Amateur Photographer which described Leica enthusiasts calling the same phenomenon as 'lens plasticity'. I laughed out loud of course.
Anyone who can afford one or more Leica M bodies won't have to dump them - they can just get any SLR they want in addition. At least, that's what a true Leica man would do... ;)
I agree with your observations and really all these cameras are just different tools for different jobs. Nowadays you have choices and can just go mirrorless and use all your SLR or rangefinder lenses with silent shutters in very low light which was the true advantage of the rangefinder’s years ago. So with the new stuff we can still use the old stuff because they were much better made and built to last. Especially because of the new mirrorless cameras also have IBIS so all these old lenses are now stabilized. That’s why I bought a Nikon Z5 and it works great with all my old lenses. Glad you made all these comparisons to bring all these Leica worshippers back down to earth.😄Regards Gerry
Ha… nice. I’ve done the opposite. After years of Hasselblads, heavy film slr’s & dslr’s it’s back to Leica for me. M11P, best camera I’ve owned. Mad image quality. “The Leica glow”… 😅 lol… I’ll be avoiding that shizzle!!!
If you're on the street shooting you take a rangefinder. If you don't have time to focus, the view through the pentaprism eats up too much time, and it's not sharp yet. You don't have any advantage with an SLR, you have no time carefully composing through the finder, you gotta know in advance where the frame is. So you might as well take a rangefinder and be quick. And this mirror slap is loud. So you have to manage interactions differenly. You can do it with an SLR, but you need to do it differently. Also, I use the SLR for Macro, Telephoto and flashlight work if I'm not using the view camera. So don't ditch a thing. Use them all!
I like shooting street with a rangefinder, but at a recent gallery show, I showed street portraits taken with a 4x10 view camera, and the show before that was more traditional street, and I used a Pentax 645 a fair bit for that show. Use them all.
Would have to be the new mirrorless digitals, the old SLRs were so loud mothers would run and grab their children off the street when you fired the shutter.
Well, I was wondering because I'm genuinely interested in taking your advice -- but I shoot street and quiet shutter is important. That's why I still use a rangefinder on the street. Motordrive, lens flexibility, and metering aren't super important to me. Framing is though, and shooting a Leica with glasses makes it super difficult to get the framing right.
A quiet shutter is only important if the subject doesn't know you're taking the photo. If they do know, then it doesn't really matter. Rangefinders are quiet for sure.
@@jd87a Look at the Canon EOS 7s (I think it's called the 30V in other places). It's very quiet for an SLR. I think it has some sort of superior dampening of the noise because there no slapping sound.
That's such a great kit. When I first went to Cambodia for Doctors Without Boarders years ago, I took those four lenses, but I had a pair of M6 bodies. You can sure get a lot of great images with that set-up!!
I see what you are doing there, stirring the pot ;) To play devil's advocate, I have to say I like the images I make with a rangefinder better then then ones I make with my SLR's. Something more cinematic about them. No mirror slap/black out allows for uninterrupted connection with the subject,, frame lines allowing to see what's coming in and out of the frame...it's a feeling. Technically inferior but more inspiring, at least for me!
Considering if we should "dump our leica" is not a problem me, my little Canon AE-1 Program, and the my little olympus superzoom point and soot, have to worry about 🤣
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite Oh, you bet, it's 100% fun! I am very *very* new to all of this, and UA-cam knows I think because channels like yours are showing up in my feed! The point and shoot is my mom's old camera from the 90's. Many pictures of my childhood were taken through this thing. I put new batteries in it and shot a few rolls to it, but was frustrated because it would automatically prefer to use a flash indoors. I was familiar with my canon DSLR and the more manual modes. I found a AE-1P for very little money, with a nifty 50, and a 75-200 telephoto. Very recently picked up a 28mm f/2.8. A wide angle I find very neat. It's not the most impressive camera, and I know that beside looking cool, it's also mostly plastic. But still I love how this thing feels in the hand, I like the split prism viewfinder, manual focus with those FD lenses and this camera seels a lot easier than on an EOS (which the whole point of that system is autofocus anyway). Thankfully it has no electronic problems, but it did need the little bit of oil, as it was a bit squeaky... It works very well and I like the silver plates. Those Canon lenses are very nice, so if I need to get a new body I probably will look more at the A-1 or the F-1. The only thing I wish that AE-1 Program did would be Aperture Priority, but the way it's light meter works it express the exposure it would like to do as the f-stop it's gonna use in shutter priority on the side so I can wrap my head around that. The fact that B&W is easy to process at home was very interesting to me (I am a bit of a nerd, the chemistry by itself I find is extremely cool!) so very soon after that I got a bottle of Rodninal and of Ilford Rapid Fixer. I am learning about this stuff as I go, but I have been enjoying the look of gritter grains and high contrast. I did stand development at first because it seemed very simple, but I have backed off from that and use it "normally" at 1+25 dilution. I have been testing a number of film stock, and did some push development of Kentmere 400 and Fomapan 400, trying to learn what I like and also trying to *not* spend all my money on this... And I now have a lot of very unremarkable pictures of my dog and the most random things 😜
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite I used SLR of all kinds from 1979 to 2007, I do NOT think it is fun to use analog ! I see Mirrorless Cameras as modern "SLR" !!!
Agreed. True digital rangefinders are expensive and they’re made by Leica and Epson. DSLRs, mirrorless and bridge have taken over the market because of cost, availability and ease of use.
Stupid rangefinder!! Send me that M6, I’ll get rid of it for you to save you the trouble… I do love both and enjoy using them, Nikons are my favorite film SLR and Leica best rangefinder. Hoping to add a Nikon SP this year and a Leicaflex to mix it up.
??? This is an interesting and somewhat paradoxical video. What is exactly its target audience? Leica M owners that have never used an SLR? ...and that do not know about the difference between a Leica M and an SLR or DSLR??? In 2024 (or even between 1960 and 2000 for that matter)? I think most photographers buy Leica Ms knowing what they are getting into. Mostly they want to use 28 to 90 mm mostly 28 to 50 mm and an uncomplicated uncluttered camera. Exclusive Newsflash: (D)SLR are far more complex to use than Leica Ms. Let us face it Leica Ms are cameras for photographers that know what they are doing and want a simplified way to photograph (and have no need for zooms, telephoto and macro lenses, agreed, ...but let us face it again most photographs are not taken under those conditions). If you are not one of these, just stay away for a little while. The title should have been "advantages of SLRs" or "Why an SLR?", the "Dump your Leica" is just ridiculous and misleading. Now regarding the "unsharp" Leica lenses, out of honesty, put this in the context of the years they were produced and compare them to the then competition (Nikon E lenses for instance ;o) I know, not exactly the same price ;o). Would you say such things about the latest 28, 35, or 50 mm Summilux, of course not. Please do not mislead the naive, unexperienced part of your audience (although I would question whether these are Leica M owners indeed, thence the issue of the target audience).
This is one of the dumbest videos I’ve ever seen. Try focusing a 20mm on an SLR indoors in a dimly lit room. The rangefinder is more accurate at wide angles while the SLR is more accurate past about 100mm. Surely this guy knows all this if he really has the experience he claims.
You're absolutely right on every point (framelines, focus, etc). I still shoot a rangefinder because, to quote Tevia in Fiddler on the Roof: Tradition!
Then Tevia had it right. That's a good reason. (Even if his daughter is in love with someone from another ethnic.)
It's far from being the only reason why many photographers use Leica M: reliability, simplicity, discretion, lenses, compactness... and pleasure ;o)
I like Leica's for the user experience but admit they only work well for certain types of photography.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite Absolutely. Micro, long distance, needing to change focal lengths fast (which I experienced as a starting photojournalist [after a while I could pick my assignments and work with my M6]) and required Zoom lenses are not for Leica Ms (R and now SLR though-I loved the R6 but could not afford it at the time or rather I had to make a choice between R6 and M6. So I have always stuck to my Nikons, just in case. I guess our experiences, although not in the same area of photography (I gave up sports when I had to use a telephoto lens as I did not want to invest in such expensive and cumbersome lenses), are interestingly close.
And it does make tons of (more) fun, then just seeing flashing AF points into your viewfinder, a split second before you hit the shutter...
This is easily in the top five channels for film photography. Absolutely awesome, useful content!
In the end, it's about the 'user experience'!
I'll never get rid of my Nikon F2. Beast of a camera!
I feel the same way with my F2A
Those are nice cameras. I remember how excited the head photographer at the newspaper was when he updated to two new F2 bodies, and the new 135mm f2 lens.
There's a few film cameras I wish I had kept. Nikon F3 HP being one and Leica M6 another. Classics!
There are a few cameras I wish I had kept as well.Most Photographers aren't collectors as they need the value of the old cameras to trade against the new one. Still there are a few I wish I'd have kept.
Well, that was a bit misleading. SLRs as such are known since the late 19th century, albeit only in large format cameras. In the 1920s the first SLRs in medium format were introduced, and 35mm SLRs became available in the 1930s (i.e. Kine Exakta). However, all those cameras had waist-lever finders. The first 35mm SLRs with Pentaprism came out in the late 1940s, the Italian Rectaflex and Zeiss' Contax S.
I personally believe, that the importance of a viewfinder system of a camera to be enabled to make good photos is vastly underestimated. It is one of the few things at a camera, which actually can have direct impact on the quality of the composition of a picture. With an SLR, you can see the true cutout of the picture to be taken plus you can actually see the depth of field of it and better assess focus. The SLR viewfinder is simply a much better instrument to assess a picture before it is shot. The one advantage rangefinder cameras had in the early times was, that they were significant smaller and lighter than SLRs, what was the decisive factor for many rangefinder users. This changed in the 70s though, starting with the Olympus OM cameras.
So many great cameras over the years, and so little chance to go out and shoot with them. I've seen twin lens cameras that shot 4x5. Always thought they would be fun.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite One of the most fun old cameras: Kodak 3A from the 1910s and twenties. They were made for 122 film, which is not available anymore for more then 50 years now, but this cameras can be easily modified to a accept 120 film, producing 6x14 cm negatives. Fun fact: the best version of that camera not only had a Tessar lens, but to my knowledge was also the first camera with a coupled rangefinder. I have two of them regularly with me, one loaded with b&w film and the other with color film. Great for landscape, architecture and full body portraits. Even better as a conversation starter.
They sound like fun to use.
True; SLR's started with Exakta. In those days Exakta was really big and many famous lens manufacturers made lenses for the Kine Exakta.
Good to know.
Great video. There are those who like a particular camera style for styles sake, and those who like the feel or how they look with a particular type of camera. But in the end, it is what works to produce the desired end result. If you can afford it, have both a rangefinder and an SLR, and realise that both do slightly different jobs.
That's true ... and we're just trying to have some fun anyways.
Don't disagree with any of this but, when it comes to film loading, I would like to give a shout-out to the little Canonet with its Quick Load system. With its ca. 40mm lens it's my go-to walk around camera.
Yeah, Canon had a quick load system that really worked.
I believe it all depends on your own thing, I find rangefinders more effective for street shooting (at least for myself :) and it looks friendlier like a tourist camera! Pointing my yashica SLR is quite intimidating for some people I photograph. I use SLR for family trips and stuff since it can focus closer than my Canon 7. Use whatever gear you want! Great video! I've been loving this channel 👍🏻
My Yashica TLR with waist level finder, not only has you looking down not pointing a camera at them, makes not a sound instead of folks annoyed at you taking their picture, they ask about the camera. Non stop "cool camera" or I had one of those back in the day. Let them look thorough a large, bright ground glass and they are willing if not eager to have their photos taken. TLR s were good enough in the street for Vivian Maier's wonderful work.
I think the advantages of MF is a rant for another day. Most MF cameras beat most 35mm cameras for photo quality.
It's important to be comfortable when shooting on the street, and keep the subject comfortable as well. Don't get me wrong, I still shoot with rangefinders.
@mrca2004 Cool! I've been wanting a TLR, but I'm a bit turned off. It looks like they have more of a fragile inner working than rangefinders, is the Yashica TLR reliable? I want to get a Yashica Mat 124g. I haven't seen any reports regarding reliability issues, though, but I'm still not sure...
I've never used one but Bruce Bennett used one for years. He's the head of NHL Photography at Getty and used it for the team photos.
I fully agree an each topic you mentioned. I have Nikons from F to F5. They work wonderful and they have in my oppinion the same "charme"of tradition as the Leicas. I have a Leica M10, too. But this is only for having that rangefinder-feeling and slowing down the process. If I would have to decide I would always prefer the Nikon SLRs. Thanks for your very well video. Congrets
Thanks, sounds like you're having fun shooting.
I changed my Leica M3 with a 50 and 90mm for a Nikon F2As with a135, 50, 28 and became a totally different type of photographer. It was quicker, gave me all the advantages you mentioned, but nowadays I enjoy even the old Leitz lenses on my Nikon Z6ii ,,, techniques may have changed, but my photographic eye did it as well. I became older (1956 born) and wish no more than a new Nikon Zf and for lust an old Hasselblad to use Tri-x in a proper way....
Everything changes quickly, we seem to change much slower, but we still change. Have fun.
Agreed, I've come to the same conclusion, I now shoot 35mm on a free Rebel XS and (cheap) canon EF mount lenses. I see these cameras everywhere and they often come with a lens for next to nothing and like you pointed out, having good metering, accurate viewfinder, the choice of focal length and many other in camera advantages are hard to ignore.
Plus there are so many great lenses to choose from.
Just a question? Have you ever used an M model with a 35 mm? Which one? For how long?
I bought my first M6 in 1984, the second lens was a 35mm f2 (the version made in Midland, Canada. My current M7 has a 58 viewfinder which I bought hoping it would work well with the 28mm but found it fantastic with the 35mm so tend to use that mostly. Currently I have two Zeiss 35mm lenses, the f2 and the f1.4. I use the f2 the most.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite Hey we are that close. I got my M6 in 1989. It replaced my battered bought-very used M2. At the same time I also got a 35 mm summicron, a focal length I had been mostly using with my Nikon since 1983 and that has become 90% of my photography (even with medium format cameras I have looked for that angle of view). However the "King of bokeh" is not that great in the corners and with digital I have upgraded first with an asph. Summicron and also with a TTartisan f 1.4 (surprising bargain but as cumbersome as the Summilux 1st generation aspheric and in fact a physical copy of it) and now with a Voigtlander f 1.5.
At least there are a lot of options to choose from. I've been considering a Voitlander 75mm but can't justify a new lens right now.
I like „unsharp“ photos !
Well I've taken my share of them.
Exactly the reason I only used Nikon and Hasselblad while the Leica was within my reach back in the 90s..good video..Leica now is a lifestyle accessory..$$
You might be right!!
The benefit of the old rangefinders is you don't sound like the paparazzi has arrived.
I agree the cheap lenses are quite good. Even the cheapest Canon EF, the 50mm f1.8, is fantastic.
They sure are quiet compared to a slr!!
I love "unsharp" lenses on film, but somehow on digital, my tolerance for imperfection goes out the window and I need every edge and corner to be as sharp as the centre. It's so weird.
I'm the same.
Well, Pixelpeepers are not being photographers...never watch at 100%, or even more, some like to look for optical imperfections at 200%, even 400%. Perhaps when you grow older, you appreciate a so called "character" lens, and not being a pixel-pooper (no pun intended) anymore...
I dislike the typical, clean & boring, all sharp, uber-sharp, clinical picture...simply no soul, no character...YMMV. 🙂
At least there are options to make everyone happy.
@@marcp.1752 Photographers can be pixelpeepers and pixelpeepers photographers. These two labels are totally unrelated. Asking quality from your equipment is just basic if one cares for one's work and production. You can always degrade your images (and give them "character", your "character" I guess rather than just the optical flaws of a particular lens over which you have no control) [even "clinical" pictures] but you can never make a photograph taken with a flawed lens look clean, sharp or clinical. Who can achieve the best can also produce the worst, the opposite is impossible. Using older and flawed (with "character" [what a joke! ;o)] ) lenses just limits what you can achieve with them, that simple. Just say you love their look without opposing better and more modern lenses, or you do not see the point of spending such amount of money as you already have lenses... these are the only real, reasonable arguments.
I do not think that opposing older and not as well-performing tools to better and newer ones can go anywhere interesting, whatever the field considered. Just use the tools you want and that you have at your disposal, you not need to assert your choices in irrational way against the rest of the world.
I never tested a lens for sharpness until I had digital. it just didn't matter but somehow on digital it matters a bunch. I'm not sure why.
This comparison between rangefinder and slr cameres is correct, as far as their basic usability features are concerned. That's why the SLR came along, as a more practical evolution made on the rangefinder which, in turn, had been an evolution over the huge medium and large format. But nowadays, analogue photography is niche, leaving mass photography to digital, and then all this SLR practical superiority is no longer so much relevant, because 35mm is slow shooting, where we have the image itself, but also the pleasure of the small rituals of camera operation, slow framing or ensuring that everything is at the right point, is one of the fundamental aspects of opting for 35mm. The Tesla may be much more practical than a classic from the 70s or even the 90s, but it's a diferent story (pleasure) when we go for a ride on a classic car. I would say, each one in its own moment. Very good channel you have, most interesting and informative. A pleasure to watch
Thanks for your comments.
Dude, I’ve been using the same Nikon F3HP since I bought it new in 1986. Works perfectly.
Great to hear!!
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept”
― Henri Cartier-Bresson
But besides of that, as a leica m owner i absolutely agree with you.
Glad you enjoyed the show
I like how much quieter the M3 is, no mirror lets me shoot a lower shutter speeds. I also like the experience. I also have a F100 and like that baby too. Know your tools know why you choosing your tools.
Those are very nice film cameras, enjoy shooting with them!!
Great photography advice from an experienced professional photographer!
Glad it was helpful!
It's like the difference between wearing a Rolex and an Apple Watch. Both are good. Which one sings to your heart?
It's all about the user experience.
My Breitling watch and 50 year old this year Mamiya RB67 with negatives 5x a 35mm. I do miss driving a 4 speed which doubles as an anti theft device with the young empty skulls of mush who can't drive one. Raced a 240z in the early 70's and I wonder if I can still heel and toe double clutch coming into a turn.
My kids all learned how to drive stick, since I had a jeep with no roof, and no doors, it was the coolest car they could drive.
A huge print of the Afghan Girl is the largest and most prominent photograph at the Leica Factory Gallery and Store in Wetzlar. Just sayin’… Lots of good advice. I love both my Leica and my Nikons.
That's surprising, that was shot on an FM2 if I remember correctly
made that comment before seeing the end of the video lol
Steve is using Leica now that his world has switched to digital. So as a Leica ambassador it doesn't surprise me that they have his most famous photo on display. He is a Leica user now.
Yes, the nikon fm2 with nikon 105mm f/2.5. My fm2n is fully mechanical, no battery needed for complete operation, handy then in foreign lands with no batteries available. @@sergiodematostube
Yeah, they're great!
Great video! I agree with everything you are saying and I very much prefer my Nikon SLR's. However, there is one big counterargument: Ease of uses and flexibility is not the main goal when shooting film these days. A mirrorless digital camera would be even more convenient. So, maybe rangefinders, like SLR's, are mainly about nostalgia and the experience one is looking for.
It's all about the user experience now, otherwise just shoot digital. I agree.
"So, maybe rangefinders, like SLR's, are mainly about nostalgia and the experience one is looking for." Indeed, but that being the case why not just admit it. There is nothing wrong with that standpoint. It's one of the reasons I still shoot film on my SLR's or my grandfathers' old Voigtlander Vito II folder. It's the waffle about how Leicas are superior or special which is a bit ridiculous.
@@richardhale9664 Oh, I didn't mean to say there is anything wrong with this. I fully admit that my Leica M3 is there to give give me joy, rather than performance.
Yes, more joy over performance... that's a great point.
I had a Leica M4-P (not sure the exact def, but it was the Canadian build) and an M6 TTL and found the bottom load a real pain and though the 72% coverage was real, it wasn't as limitinbg as it seemed. Prices were insane and are only more so now. I loved the Zeiss ZM lenses but were I to do this over again - and you think of it from time to time because some of the (color especially) photos were wonderfu..... I'd never try longer than 50mm. Actually, for 35mm ONLY it is okay. For anything else, an SLR just works better - especially at the long end. And it's only when I remind myself of how the rangefinder fails with a 90mm that I remember why I dumped the Leica. Do I miss it? Sure. Am I happier with an SLR? Absolutely 200% (if that were possible).
So I started with a Nikon FM2N for manual focus - which is what I insisted on back then. But with grand children, AF just becomes handy the way their constant motion just makes manual focus a joke. Traded out the MF lenses for AF-D's and the Nikon FM2N went for a Nikon F100 which eventually gave way to an F4. I used the same lenses on my F4 as I did on my D750 (digital) and that was okay for a while. Then Nikon killed the F lens convenience by moving to the Z line up. I kept the F4 but went back to Fujifilm X cameras for digital - even tried a GFX, but decided that was just too pricey a system for a hobbyist and.... GAS can be an endless disease, right?
FWIW, I miss the FM2N as a small camera, and I absolutely adored the 135mm manual lens with the built in lens shade. I guess one of the things I've learned is outside of the 85mm portrait lens, I just don't like lugging around heavy glass. MF kind of pushes the scales the other way but I prefer to have only 1 maybe 2 MF lenses on a carry.
Like most of us, there are too many options.
I’ve been using SLR since I’m interested in and started photography.
I’m now considering for trying some rangefinder cameras for Street Photography. I was told they’re smaller, lighter, quieter and less noticeable.
I used to eagerly cropped the way I wanted it to be exact and same angle of what I see what I get (no parallax) in the viewfinder on SLRs for composition, but then most of the time:
I lost pleasure moments after making sure everything is in the right place. It’s difficult to capture the decisive moments.
I now have weighed out that the decisive moment is far more important than the composition while taking a picture with the camera and it can always be fixed in the darkroom (giving in some image quality from a small enlargement). What do you think? 😅
Watch the video that comes out Wednesday!!! All about Leica's.
It’s interesting when Garry Winogrand was speaking at Rice University back in the late 1970’s, he was adamant about using rangefinders. He said he didn’t like the mirror slapping up and down in a SLR. I have both the rangefinder’s and SLR’s and will admit that the SLR is far more advanced.
I guess there's a time for both.
Mirror slap will attract attention in street photography. However, many SLRs had mirror lock up which kills most of the sound, and rangefinder users often shoot from the hip anyway. Or put a viewfinder on the flash shoe.
I'm not sure if Garry Winogrand needed a rangefinder... he put the camera right in your face anyway, not sure he was working in a 'silent mode', more in your face. lol
Nice video! You can always use a visoflex for longer focal lengths.
Yes, but than you end up with a very clumsy SLR.
Yes, but there are easier ways to do things.
That’s what I did to my Leica M3 years ago with a 125 2.5 Hector lens. Nice lens but the package weighed 8 pounds like he says a clumsy SLR.😆
Might be the heaviest M3 out there. lol
I really enjoy your videos. You have a fresh realistic point of view.
Thanks. It's been fun.
One more advantage of an SLR is the ability to adapt weird lenses. Last weekend I shot with a 1973 Sears TLS M42 camera with an adapted "Soldier's Camera" 1915 Vest Pocket Kodak lens mounted on billows with Ortho film to be authentic. It focuses from infinity down to about 6 inches. The entire setup cost me $50. If I put the original 55mm f1.4 lens back on and shoot it wide open, I get the "Leica Glow". My next project is to adapt a $90 Leica Colorplan projector lens (90mm f2.5) to the SLR. Again, using billows. Try that with a rangefinder camera...
Looks like you're having more fun then the rest of us. lol
I, like you have been around a while. I started professional photography around 1980 and the SLR was well developed by then. Not having unlimited budgets I bought and sold cameras and lenses. It is an addiction. I remember owning three or four Leica's, two iii's and a couple M-6's. I also owned a couple "look-a-leica's" All were slow and clunky. While I could afford a body and a lens, any additions were too expensive. None of my friends ever owned more than one body and one normal lens. I bought the 135mm Hector. What a piece of junk. What is that F5.6 or 8 wide open? Good luck using that in the real world. Any time I owned one, I sold it off quickly to get back to the SLR as it was just much more practical to use.
Durning the 90's I was friends with a man who worked outside sales at a camera store. He spent his time visiting the doctors and dentists selling them Leica's. That was and is their target market.
You might be right about that.
The Nikon FM3a, maybe the best SLR ever made. I love it in 2024
That will be my next one. When I started with Nikon the FM had just come out so I bought that. It's gone years ago but the FM3a looks great. I think it's a bit lighter than the F3 as well.
For years, I shot Nikon F, F2, F3, and F4 SLRs. My Nikon lens inventory ranged from 14mm to 1000mm. My Nikon system enabled me to capture about 90% of the images I needed.
When I needed to shoot quietly and discretely, I put my SLR in a sound deadening blimp. However, I eventually purchased a Leica M6 with 21/35/90mm lenses to use instead of 24/35/85mm lenses I had been using with my SLRs.
Yes, I could dump my Leica and return to using only my SLRs; but I would miss the status, prestige, and rangefinder focusing that the Leica provides.
It's fun to have both. I enjoy using both.
I learned with my father’s Contax IIa in 1969. During the early 70s I was anxious to have a Canon FT SLR and a 200mm tele. Still have the Contax, but anything requiring critical framing, focus, agility… DSLR
Well said!
The Italian Rectaflex and the East German Zeiss Contax S (later Pentacon) were the first pentaprism SLRs, in the late 1940s. Also, the first Pentax (an Asahiflex with an eye-level pentaprism) was introduced in 1957. This is all well-documented.
I think the Pentax was the first of the modern models, with an SLR like we know them now. I thought it came out in 1952, with updates in 54 and 57, but I'm likely wrong.
Guess you are. Between Exacta and Praktica and Practina, the Japanese came in on the tail of that and America didn't seem to catch up with that or the budget new Russian SLRs which followed. @@stillshootinginblackandwhite
I usually am. lol
The Panasonic LC-5 is the best point snd shoot rangefinder ever made. I keep wishing Panasonic would bring it back. A true classic now unobtanium because everyone wants one. 😊
There sure are some nice cameras out there.
I shoot 35mm 6x4.5mm 6x8 etc. I have absolutely no problems shooting my Leica M7 with the APO 75mm and APO 90mm at all.
Those are nice lenses.
couldn't agree with you more, I've got some 20 leica, nikon, contax and canon rangefinders they are good in the collection,but when I want to get the job done I'll take any (D)slr over the best rangefinder. When I want some fun (look cool like a hipster) and results don't really matter I might take one of the rangefinders, they're a great conversation starter if you're in to that.
Although I'm out shooting a fair bit, it's rare that I run into anyone else shooting film, and usually when you see them they're using a K1000. lol
Most folks won't notice a Leica, but a twin lens reflex gets me stopped 3 or 4 times every outing.
I'm sure it does.
Thanks for your voice of informed reason!
My pleasure!
Counterintuitive genius - probably! Thanks!
Glad you liked it!!
It's great to get the perspective of a real and accomplished Pro!@@stillshootinginblackandwhite
lol
Bottom line: To each its own. Many of your points, while valid, come from a pragmatic technical viewpoint. Many of us left SLR for Leica M because we want to slow down, be more involved in the photo making process with the camera. We don’t mind parallax error and many of us don’t shoot sports, wildlife, or fast paced journalism, so we don’t need more than 135mm. As for the lenses, we like the non-aspherical and older glass with its imperfections. As this adds an older time look to your photos. It carries more of an artistic character. Super sharp like you get with the modern lenses are more clinical and maybe please photographers like you that are looking more for technical perfection and efficiency over an artistic feel . There is a big movement in the photography community where we are embracing the older retro cameras, along with their flaws and using that platform to advance our creativity. Some of your argument to me is like going up to a classic car person and saying “why do you drive that old gas guzzler gilopy? You can drive a new car and have better gas mileage, more safety features and be a more efficient mode of transport”.
Good points.
Ditto, and you can see your subject at the moment of exposure.
yes, that's true
I think to use both types of camera’s is the best of both worlds. You are as always correct - some of those Leica lens are not sharp in comparison.
I think you're right. As long as we're having fun out there.
I agree with you for the most part. Where I disagree is with the quality and resolution of Leica optics, you can’t beat them-especially wide open.
I love their lenses, and mine are all great, but some were not that great in the past.
Fixed lens rangefinders is quite another world though. They have some real advantages.
Flash sync to 500.
Matched lens and body, viewfinder frames and lens film gate.
Much, much cheaper.
Quieter.
Easier to use a shade with and still have a good view through the finder.
yes, that's all true.
Thanks for this informative video. I’ve been thinking of a change but now I’m content with my Olympus om2 and Mamiya 645 pro tl.
Great to hear!
Not all rangefinders a Leicas with awkward loading. An SLR is more conveniant for sure but photography is more or else I would just use my phone. I like using a variety of cameras as I don't do this for a job.
As long as we're out there having fun, that's what counts.
I would add that apart from the CL, Leicas are not even compact. Also you problem of viewfinder cut off with faster lenses and poor minimum focus distance too. Let's face it Leicas are limiting. Ah! But that's the point we hear. If that is the case, just get a Olympus 35 RC or Ricoh 500G with their fixed lens or even an old folder like a Voigtlander Vito with no ranger finder. Or get even better IQ with a folding Zeiss 645 camera. Save some dough and have a more compact machine still capable of excellent results.
Leica's are great for a couple types of photography, and a pain for the rest.
All true. But still, with a Leica M you can use modern glass, wether it‘s Leica, Zeiss, Voigtländer or others.
Yes, the modern glass is great. I would love to have some of those new super fast lenses.
Voigtländer make some very nice modern SLR lenses now.
for nikon that is
Yes, I saw that.
Regarding the mythical 'Leica glow', I read an article in (British) Amateur Photographer which described Leica enthusiasts calling the same phenomenon as 'lens plasticity'. I laughed out loud of course.
That's a good term for it. Unsharp is too mean/direct/insulting.
I shoot Canon VT Deluxe Rangefinder film cameras for black and white and Nikon DSLRs for color. Works for me.📷👍
Sounds like a fun combo!
Anyone who can afford one or more Leica M bodies won't have to dump them - they can just get any SLR they want in addition. At least, that's what a true Leica man would do... ;)
I think you're right.
Like so much of UA-cam photo posts, this is not about photography. It is about buying stuff. What matters here is not practice, it's purchase.
So far you're right.
Steve signed with Leica last week:-). And the burning question is why you use all the LEICAS:-)?
I'll explain it all next week.
I agree with your observations and really all these cameras are just different tools for different jobs. Nowadays you have choices and can just go mirrorless and use all your SLR or rangefinder lenses with silent shutters in very low light which was the true advantage of the rangefinder’s years ago. So with the new stuff we can still use the old stuff because they were much better made and built to last. Especially because of the new mirrorless cameras also have IBIS so all these old lenses are now stabilized. That’s why I bought a Nikon Z5 and it works great with all my old lenses. Glad you made all these comparisons to bring all these Leica worshippers back down to earth.😄Regards Gerry
Thanks. I think the mirrorless camera has saved a lot of these old lenses from the back shelf since they can all be used again.
Ha… nice. I’ve done the opposite. After years of Hasselblads, heavy film slr’s & dslr’s it’s back to Leica for me. M11P, best camera I’ve owned. Mad image quality. “The Leica glow”… 😅 lol… I’ll be avoiding that shizzle!!!
The M11 is wonderful for sure.
If you're on the street shooting you take a rangefinder. If you don't have time to focus, the view through the pentaprism eats up too much time, and it's not sharp yet. You don't have any advantage with an SLR, you have no time carefully composing through the finder, you gotta know in advance where the frame is. So you might as well take a rangefinder and be quick. And this mirror slap is loud. So you have to manage interactions differenly. You can do it with an SLR, but you need to do it differently. Also, I use the SLR for Macro, Telephoto and flashlight work if I'm not using the view camera. So don't ditch a thing. Use them all!
I like shooting street with a rangefinder, but at a recent gallery show, I showed street portraits taken with a 4x10 view camera, and the show before that was more traditional street, and I used a Pentax 645 a fair bit for that show. Use them all.
you are right ..... why would anyone want an antiquated Leica range finder .... I would be glad to take it off your hands for you for some lunch money
Thank you for the wonderful offer, I'll keep that in mind.
I’ve had to do with bridge cameras because sadly these days, mirrorless is well beyond my budget.
I have a Sony bridge camera. The telephoto is fantastic with it.
Which Nikon / Canon SLR has the quietest shutter?
Would have to be the new mirrorless digitals, the old SLRs were so loud mothers would run and grab their children off the street when you fired the shutter.
Well, I was wondering because I'm genuinely interested in taking your advice -- but I shoot street and quiet shutter is important. That's why I still use a rangefinder on the street. Motordrive, lens flexibility, and metering aren't super important to me. Framing is though, and shooting a Leica with glasses makes it super difficult to get the framing right.
A quiet shutter is only important if the subject doesn't know you're taking the photo. If they do know, then it doesn't really matter. Rangefinders are quiet for sure.
@@jd87a Look at the Canon EOS 7s (I think it's called the 30V in other places). It's very quiet for an SLR. I think it has some sort of superior dampening of the noise because there no slapping sound.
That might work well.
I have just as much fun with a Leica IIIc with four lenses (28/35/50/90) as I would with an expensive M4 etc.
That's such a great kit. When I first went to Cambodia for Doctors Without Boarders years ago, I took those four lenses, but I had a pair of M6 bodies. You can sure get a lot of great images with that set-up!!
I have both.
Yeah, me too.
They still make slrs?
lol, I'm not sure that they actually do!!
Just found your channel and subscribed 😊
Welcome!!
Brilliant... and thank you!!!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I see what you are doing there, stirring the pot ;) To play devil's advocate, I have to say I like the images I make with a rangefinder better then then ones I make with my SLR's. Something more cinematic about them. No mirror slap/black out allows for uninterrupted connection with the subject,, frame lines allowing to see what's coming in and out of the frame...it's a feeling. Technically inferior but more inspiring, at least for me!
I think 'youtube' is all about stirring the pot. My favorite photos are mostly done on the M6 if I was shooting 35mm film.
awesome slr
Glad you enjoyed it!!
Range finder in this day and age is lazy engineering, and if digital had been invented first film would never have existed
I think you're right. But film's been fun, and takes you away from the computer and into the dark.
Considering if we should "dump our leica" is not a problem me, my little Canon AE-1 Program, and the my little olympus superzoom point and soot, have to worry about 🤣
As long as you're having fun, keep going.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite Oh, you bet, it's 100% fun! I am very *very* new to all of this, and UA-cam knows I think because channels like yours are showing up in my feed!
The point and shoot is my mom's old camera from the 90's. Many pictures of my childhood were taken through this thing. I put new batteries in it and shot a few rolls to it, but was frustrated because it would automatically prefer to use a flash indoors. I was familiar with my canon DSLR and the more manual modes. I found a AE-1P for very little money, with a nifty 50, and a 75-200 telephoto. Very recently picked up a 28mm f/2.8. A wide angle I find very neat.
It's not the most impressive camera, and I know that beside looking cool, it's also mostly plastic. But still I love how this thing feels in the hand, I like the split prism viewfinder, manual focus with those FD lenses and this camera seels a lot easier than on an EOS (which the whole point of that system is autofocus anyway). Thankfully it has no electronic problems, but it did need the little bit of oil, as it was a bit squeaky... It works very well and I like the silver plates. Those Canon lenses are very nice, so if I need to get a new body I probably will look more at the A-1 or the F-1. The only thing I wish that AE-1 Program did would be Aperture Priority, but the way it's light meter works it express the exposure it would like to do as the f-stop it's gonna use in shutter priority on the side so I can wrap my head around that.
The fact that B&W is easy to process at home was very interesting to me (I am a bit of a nerd, the chemistry by itself I find is extremely cool!) so very soon after that I got a bottle of Rodninal and of Ilford Rapid Fixer. I am learning about this stuff as I go, but I have been enjoying the look of gritter grains and high contrast. I did stand development at first because it seemed very simple, but I have backed off from that and use it "normally" at 1+25 dilution. I have been testing a number of film stock, and did some push development of Kentmere 400 and Fomapan 400, trying to learn what I like and also trying to *not* spend all my money on this... And I now have a lot of very unremarkable pictures of my dog and the most random things 😜
Keep having fun. Dog's are always popular because they can't say no.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite And he's very cute 😁
lol
Drop you Leica, drop your SLR. drop your DSLR and get a Mirrorless digital Camera !
They take great pictures, but I don't find them much fun to use.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite I used SLR of all kinds from 1979 to 2007, I do NOT think it is fun to use analog ! I see Mirrorless Cameras as modern "SLR" !!!
You might be right.
Agreed. True digital rangefinders are expensive and they’re made by Leica and Epson. DSLRs, mirrorless and bridge have taken over the market because of cost, availability and ease of use.
I like Sony as far as Mirrorless goes, great video, great AF, great lenses, and I was a national manager with Sony North America for 14 years.
Asahiflex? 😂 I own a SLR camera called Exakta from 1936
Great, I'm sure it's fun to shoot with. I love those older cameras.
Stupid rangefinder!! Send me that M6, I’ll get rid of it for you to save you the trouble… I do love both and enjoy using them, Nikons are my favorite film SLR and Leica best rangefinder. Hoping to add a Nikon SP this year and a Leicaflex to mix it up.
Funny you would say that. I was looking at SP's last night on ebay.
??? This is an interesting and somewhat paradoxical video. What is exactly its target audience? Leica M owners that have never used an SLR? ...and that do not know about the difference between a Leica M and an SLR or DSLR??? In 2024 (or even between 1960 and 2000 for that matter)?
I think most photographers buy Leica Ms knowing what they are getting into. Mostly they want to use 28 to 90 mm mostly 28 to 50 mm and an uncomplicated uncluttered camera. Exclusive Newsflash: (D)SLR are far more complex to use than Leica Ms.
Let us face it Leica Ms are cameras for photographers that know what they are doing and want a simplified way to photograph (and have no need for zooms, telephoto and macro lenses, agreed, ...but let us face it again most photographs are not taken under those conditions). If you are not one of these, just stay away for a little while.
The title should have been "advantages of SLRs" or "Why an SLR?", the "Dump your Leica" is just ridiculous and misleading.
Now regarding the "unsharp" Leica lenses, out of honesty, put this in the context of the years they were produced and compare them to the then competition (Nikon E lenses for instance ;o) I know, not exactly the same price ;o). Would you say such things about the latest 28, 35, or 50 mm Summilux, of course not. Please do not mislead the naive, unexperienced part of your audience (although I would question whether these are Leica M owners indeed, thence the issue of the target audience).
Most likely you're right. Just giving another point of view.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite Fair point.
I think we're just trying to have fun anyways.
I’ll never sell my M7 lol
Yeah, I like mine too.
Let us know when your going to sell all your Range finders
Sounds like a plan.
PREACH.😊
lol, thanks.
Get ‘an’ SLR
Thanks.
Not to mention if you are left eye dominant like me, your nose is in the way 🙂
Very good point, and it's easier to switch cameras, then switching noses!!
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Thanks.
The talking show 🤭
Thanks.
This is one of the dumbest videos I’ve ever seen. Try focusing a 20mm on an SLR indoors in a dimly lit room. The rangefinder is more accurate at wide angles while the SLR is more accurate past about 100mm. Surely this guy knows all this if he really has the experience he claims.
I think I said rangefinders where good to focus with wide angles, just not accurate viewfinder lines. As long as we're having fun out there.
👊👍
Thanks.
WYSIWYG. Can't be beaten as a general use camera
I think you're right.