>>4491816
Some are like P&S, some are like regular cameras
>looking at pics taken by them
Film cameras are just boxes, the only "look" comes from your lens and film stock
If you use a bad lens, it can look bad, if you use a good lens, it can look good

>>4491818
I 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.

>>4491819
It's just a different focus method, that's all
The bodies do allow for different lens designs though, plenty of excellent (and tiny) RF lenses out there
An RC would be like a P&S with viewfinder / manual focusing

File: PXL_20230607_143247886-1.jpg (814 KB)

814 KB JPG

>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.

>>4491854
he'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?

>>4491854
German 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

File: 9199 (1).jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

>>4492066
nice b8 m8

>>4491854
what 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.

>>4492351
Leicas aren’t about skill

They’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.

>>4492354
I would imagine most Japanese companies see this as a niche market compared to where they make all their money: wedding and event photographers.

>>4492370
You mean large agencies

For 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 newspaper

These 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?

>>4492541
Yes 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.

File: 20171026_shochiku_history7-4.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4491816
Is that the same camera Ozu was using in the picture? It looks very close but not 100%

>>4492987
No, that is a Nicca — you can identify it by the eyepiece.

File: brick.gif (87.1 KB)

87.1 KB GIF

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

>>4493097
for teh lulz

>>4491816
I 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.

>>4491816
Rangefinders 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?

>>4494333
Who 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.

>>4494350
just use an external lite meter

File: 1768540316.jpg (719.2 KB)

719.2 KB JPG

>>4494357
>>Shorter flange distance can mean sharper lenses
Lens technology itself has been improving so much. no reason to obsess about shorter flange back.

>>Less noise/vibration
There are the Global shutter, Electronic shutter. when sony finally starts to R&D for their sensors it can get fucked.

>>Being able to see your subject through the viewfinder before they are in frame.
Probably the only reason RF would survive in the future. And the one of two only reasons why i like range finder. there are definitely more things to be improved in range finder technology

>>Generally easier to work on
RF unit is probably the most annoying shit to handle in a camera.

>>4496061
>Lens technology itself has been improving so much. no reason to obsess about shorter flange back.
Of course, but assuming two lenses are equal in everything else, the one with the short flange distance should in theory be sharper.

>There are the Global shutter, Electronic shutter. when sony finally starts to R&D for their sensors it can get fucked.
Most of the time when people are comparing rangefinders against alternatives, they're talking about film cameras. There are no e-shutters on film cameras.

>RF unit is probably the most annoying shit to handle in a camera.
No way near as bad as a mirror return. The actual rangefinder mechanisms don't usually go wrong unless you fuck with them or damage them. Mirror returns can be subject to decay from perished dampers, and will also feature more wear parts.

File: 1768540331.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

>>4496063
Thanks for your feedback. I got learned a lot.

Not my camera btw.

File: hysterical_melancholy_533685047_18315201352245959_6048229366557137228_n.jpg (186.3 KB)

186.3 KB JPG

I really think there is a future of range finder system. The thing is, the japs will never take a risk and leica doesn't have the technology and forget about pixii their new camera is utterly shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PCq1wMqs3g