>Tried rangefinder camera for the first time
>Yashica_Electro_35_GTN.jpg
>Felt absolutely like shit to shoot
>The shutter sound boring
>Felt awkward to hold
Remind me again why people like film rangefinder? Not to mention that my friend bought it used and the quality of the viewfinder itself is quite terrible. so like, why? Do I need to try Leica or something?

>>4451975 (OP)
Because they're marginally smaller and associated with new york street photography. Read up on the leica freedom train. Leica shuttled jews out of germany and gave them free leicas as a parting gift. Said jews and their kids who grew up with dad's leica then went on to work for the newspapers and did documentary snapping to pass time.

There's not much they do that an SLR doesn't besides be less obvious when worn under a coat.

>>4451976
tl;dr the jews behind this? huh.... interesting..

>>4451975 (OP)
rangefinders are for the experience...of feeling pain in the eyes.

>>4451975 (OP)
>>4451976
>>4451979
>>4451985
skill issues

>>4451988
>guys I tried driving a 1940s ford and didn't find it to be a pleasant experience, maybe older cars are just shit? It didn't even have power steering, idk...
>SKILL ISSUE GET GOOD

>>4451989
I mean, yes?

>>4451989
Car guys are gonna seethe but yeah older cars are just shit

>>4451988
normal LSR mogged the shit out of rangefinder, be for real bestie.

>>4451993
I am not disagreeing, but I mean. What were you expecting when using older technology? that is going to be as easy as new shit? of course a camera from 1950 is not going to handle like a snoy.

So temper your expectations or yes, understand that your skills for using old shit are going to be lower.

>>4451994
which means there is no reason to ever use old shit
it's like making a sword using 1400's technology vs using a state of the art modern forge
all that anyone cares about is the final product, nobody cares about your technical skills except you, it's literally just ego dick stroking

>>4451988
The user experience is laughable. a 2d focus for 3d subjects, if they move, you miss focus.
Or you can use f/64 and guess the distance, but that pretty much explains it's luck based not skill based.
Oh, you shoot rangefinders for the challenge?
Let me tell ya, you're still just pressing a button at the end of the day.

>>4451995
so dont use it m8, what is the problem? some people are going to enjoy using that shit for whatever reason, but if you dont like it why force it? there is some argument about being the best thing available at the time but now, like much of older tech is just used for funsies.
>people only care about the final product
there is people that enjoy the process and the final product is just an aftermath so again. yeah.
>>4451997
so what nigga. If you want your animal butthole tracking just use a snoy.Like anything if you want to shoot action with these you have to make compromises, like high speed film, pre focusing, and using a 28mm so you get most shit on focus. But not being a retard thats shoot everything at f/64 lmao

>>4451995
Using old shit is fun or just not appealing
Using new-ish substandard shit like a canon rebel or a gen 1 sony a7 is not fun or appealing and poorfags cope hard
Using the coolest new shit is fun

Every hobby works like this, but rangefinders are their own thing. An old SLR is "the old shit is fun" tier without being a horrid design like a rangefinder.

>>4451995
TRVTH NVKE

>>4452000
I can use manual focus, the original and trustworthy one of course. The more accurate. Pre-focusing is also guessing, so it adds to the luck part even more. And you basically have to limit yourself to a cellphone focal range with digital zoom. Can't even change lenses because will miss focus.
Look, a bird! Forget about it.
A moving car? It's tlo fast.
A person walking! They are cming towards me, so that's too difficult for me.
Uh, how about macro? The magnification is shit.
I guess you can photograph flowers then, if it's not too windy.

>>4451994
my problem with rangefinder isn't whether for the fact that it's difference, it's the fact that people who shoot rangefinder LOVE to brag about how good rangefinders are and often time act like it's the peak of film camera, which obviously isn't.
I blame Leica faggots for this.

Maybe if you are really skilled you could afford to photograph a rock at f2.8 if the texture doesn't change much, or else it will trick your eyes.

>>4452006
>Look, a bird! Forget about it.
>A moving car? It's tlo fast.
>A person walking! They are cming towards me, so that's too difficult for me.

people took photos of all those with rangefinders, so yeah. Skill issues :^)

>>4452010
What people? The ones that got lucky?
Admit it to yourself the focus is very slow and inaccurate. It's an archaic technology from generations ago for a reason.

>>4452012
If you use zone focusing with 28 or 35mm you basically memorize 3 positions. Close, medium, and infinity. It takes about 1 second to switch between them. It's incredibly easy. Thats why the lenses have that little finger tab on them.

>>4452015
Yup and then you limit youself to those focal ranges and type of focus.
You can't preview what the blur will look like or use a telephoto for interesting compositions.
You are basically limiting youself to a few niches, is that the point of shooting rangefinder? To have a tool with as few features as possible?

>>4452020
>You can't preview what the blur
let me guess, you can't also rotate an apple in your mind huh.

>>4452020
Well they do have reflex adapters for rangefinders if you want tele lenses. Are you complaining about the limitations of all compact cameras?
Im sort of just addressing the point that it is slow and difficult to focus on a rangefinder. It isn't hard or slow if you use zone focusing.

You don't really need a aperture preview if you know roughly what your focal length + aperture already gives. You can always look at the DoF scale on the lens for that..

>>4451975 (OP)
Rangefinders are fun and offer a variety of pros and cons compared to typical SLR design
But they aren't for everyone, like every other camera isn't for everyone either
Lots of people force themselves to use them that probably shouldn't, but they can be ideal for a niche combination of shooting preferences

>>4451975 (OP)
Yeah pretty much. I found a cheap Canon VT Deluxe for parts and repaired it. The finder was so dim and the edges of the frame are so ambiguous, though that may be because of the focal length selector inside. I ended up trading it for a plain F2, which I like a lot better. Still one of the brightest finders ive ever used. I would go so far as to say I prefer having a view camera like a Nikonos, at least that finder is bright.

>>4451989
>>4451991
Yes. If they were harder to use but gave you better results when mastered it would be a different story, but this is not the case. There is a reason everyone except professional performative males switched to SLR's seventy years ago.
>inb4 flange distance
It's hogwash, compare Nikon S lenses to their F equivalents. Or Leica R versus M, or Canon L39 to R / FL. They produce the same images.

>>4451975 (OP)
Rangefinder is a stupid design. SLR and TLR supremacy

I enjoy using my rangefinders but I make no excuses or delusions about it being inferior to slr and clunky in comparison. That doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to like it though, and funnily it seems that’s what makes /pee/ sperg out the hardest, that you willingly choose to do something less-than-efficient.

>>4452036
this
just look at this sperg
>>4451995

>>4452036
There are certain people that have serious control issues.

>>4452038
>>4452036
People go fucking nuts on here if they're not allowed to choose your camera for you. As much as m43 is memed, go to one of their threads. People cannot help themselves. The fact that they ultimately have no control over which product someone has bought just shorts their little brains. It's such caveman brained behaviour.

>>4451975 (OP)
I tried a Contax II briefly and ,whilst it's a beautiful camera, I really don't get the appeal of rangefinders. They feel clunky to use and just generally have worse ergonomics.

I like the old simplicity of something like a Zeiss Ikon folder so I understand using something different. But why use a rangefinder over an SLR for practical reasons I cannot fathom.

>>4451975 (OP)
The blackpill is that if you like soviet crap you're basically stuck using rangefinders. As bad as zorkis and kievs are, Zenits are even worse.

>>4452036
>make no excuses or delusions about it being inferior to slr
It's only a delusion to think its only inferior
It can be inferior but still do certain things better, and delusion comes when those are denied

>>4452033
>They produce the same images
yeah, and the rf systems are smaller and look cooler. so i'll go with that

>>4452041
FED NUMBAH ONE

>>4452036
What makes /pee/ sperg out is when you start insisting you have some coveted skill or higher intelligence for a non-transferable and non-employable gimmick "ability"
>I crank start my studebaker. Couldn't figure it out, consumer retard? -some people

>>4452038
There are some people here, who, should they hear you're unhappy with your camera, will say
>DONT LISTEN TO THE GEARFAGS YOU JUST NEED TO LEARN! PROVE YOUR WORTH TO ME!

>>4452046
>a non-transferable and non-employable gimmick "ability"
what are you, a jew? who the fuck cares m8,its a hobby.

>>4452051
I don't care if you have the "skill" or not but it's a special kind of retarded to act superior for it.

>>4452046
Literally never happens. It's more like someone has fun with something and shares it, then the cavemen gets incredibly angry because they don't have fun doing the same thing or can't get the fun thing even if they want it.

>>4451975 (OP)
The range of conceivable benefits for rangefinders is that
>they have smoother operation than an SLR as there's no mirror flapping around
>that your viewfinder image isn't interrupted as the image is taken
>that you don't see the meme that is depth of field so your images will be composed with more consideration for the background
>that you can see beyond the frame borders in the viewfinder, and thus compose more selectively
>wider angle lenses are focused more accurately at middle distances with a well calibrated viewfinder (the only actual technical benefit)
The Yashica is junk tbf, so don't tar them all with the same brush, but they're definitely more suited to some styles of shooting than others, and it takes regular use to "get it".

>>4452021
>>4452022

Too much compromises imo. I might just use zone focus with my regular camera and get the same experience.

>>4452104
Totaly doable! Without the little finger tab thingy it will be a bit slower, but definitely good enough. Try using tri-x pushed to 800 or 1600 for the smallest aperture possible and that classic street photography GRIT! XX @ 800 is also a superb choice!

>>4452073
>they have smoother operation than an SLR as there's no mirror flapping around
You can handle some noise and a slightly vibration, lmao
>that your viewfinder image isn't interrupted as the image is taken
It loterally takes 0.1s
>that you don't see the meme that is depth of field so your images will be composed with more consideration for the background
So limit yourself to landscapes at f/32
>that you can see beyond the frame borders in the viewfinder, and thus compose more selectively
You can also do that with an SLR
>wider angle lenses are focused more accurately at middle distances with a well calibrated viewfinder (the only actual technical benefit)
I have no issue with manual focus on a regular SLR.

Too little benefits, too many drawbacks.

>>4452106
I personally use HP5+ @800, is tri-x a much better option for street?

>>4452107
>Too little benefits, too many drawbacks.
For you
Maybe one day you'll learn different people have different preferences

>>4452111
I see you prefer to use it... But I'm yet to understand why.
Perhaps the limitations is what you find interesting.

>>4452114
People even in this thread have explained many of the pros of RF
If you don't care about them, or they don't really apply to how you shoot, nothing wrong with that
For me, they are the best way to shoot certain things

>>4452116
In fact I care and own one. But at the end of the day, what matters is the resulting photo you'll look at and the quality was much worse.

>>4452121
>But at the end of the day, what matters is the resulting photo you'll look at and the quality was much worse.
incorrect, what matters is the process and having fun with development. if the only thing that matters is photos i have many other cameras i can use. what you're saying is basically
>why drive any classic car, just use the electric goypod it goes to the same place anyway

>>4452121
To each their own again, my RF is the highest quality camera I own, and I use it for all kinds of stuff

>>4451975 (OP)
lena paul reminds me of my ex.. love the female irish phenotype.

>>4452128
I see, so you enjoy the fact you are pressing a button, but the resulting snapshits don't matter.
My SLR is also a joy to use, full-manual and fantastic user experience.

>>4452108
Just different looks ya'know?

>>4451975 (OP)
>Do I need to try Leica or something?
for me, it's the chatgptfinder.

>>4452107
You know when I said
>the range of conceivable benefits
I meant that as
>no matter how slight or imaginary

But per the last point; you actually cannot focus a 28mm or wider more accurately than an rf without using magnified live view on digi. You don't think it's a problem because you are not a critical user.

RF's are an antiquated meme, but they aren't entirely without justification. If you don't get it, that's great, move on and have a happy life without them.

i just think they're neat.