An irrational liking for rangefinders?

by Posted in Camera Collecting, Cameras, Thoughts Leave a comment
rangefinders-1

I recently came across this useful post on 35mmc: What is a rangefinder camera, and is one right for you?. It does a terrific job of explaining the advantages and disadvantages of rangefinder cameras.

I have an emotional attachment to rangefinder cameras. My first serious camera was a rangefinder. It was given to me by my wife early in our relationship and I used it for many years. When I started to collect cameras it was an easy decision to start with rangefinders. I’m also a big fan of Henri Cartier-Bresson and perhaps subconsciously could see myself as the almost invisible photographer flitting around taking pictures of all and sundry (if you haven’t seen Cartier-Bresson at work see: Henri Cartier-Bresson Documentary: Pen, Brush and Camera).

The problem is that I just don’t take that kind of picture. I rarely take pictures of people and my usual subjects (buildings, objects, still life, landscapes etc.) are pretty static. So the usual benefits of rangefinders (small, discrete, reduced camera noise, reduced camera shake etc.) don’t seem to be too much of an advantage to my kind of photography. Also I find that as I get older it becomes more and more difficult to make out the rangefinder patch – especially with the compact non-interchangeable lens rangefinders that I favor.

But then In another post (The Viewfinder effect – and why I choose to cripple myself with an offset viewfinder) Hamish notes:

During a chat on the phone with a friend a few days later I happen to mention this difference in framing and he explains how he once had a similar realisation, by coincidence, also through shooting with a Leica. We concluded that the difference in framing comes from a completely different way that the camera is used. With an SLR the tendency is to frame with the camera to the eye; with the viewfinder. The camera shows the photographer depth of field and perfect framing. What results is a reliance on the camera, the camera almost finds the shot for the photographer by giving him or her the extra levels of information about the end result before the photo is taken

It seems to me that he has a point here. The rangefinder experience is different, but until reading this post I’ve never been able to figure out exactly how. But, at least in my case, Hamish is spot on. When I use an SLR I tend to look through the viewfinder a lot more. With a rangefinder I tend to look around with the camera down and only raise it to frame when I want to take the picture.

Hamish concludes with:

The problem is, there’s more to what makes rangefinder cameras attractive or otherwise than the more obvious pros and cons. As I talked about in the couple of paragraphs about frame lines, and indeed the couple of posts I link to, shooting a rangefinder is very different experience to shooting an SLR. For me – and actually I suspect most rangefinder camera photographers – this mostly comes down to the experience of using a camera with an offset viewfinder and frame lines. The experience of being able to see what’s just about to come into the frame verses the more accurate framing an SLR brings might seem like something quite small, but in practice there’s so much more to how this difference impacts on the process of taking a photo.

Chains

by Posted in Camera Collecting, Cameras, Film, Olympus Infinity Stylus Epic Zoom 80, Olympus Mju II Zoom 80, Things Leave a comment
chains-1

Taken at Muscoot Farm with an Olympus Infinity Stylus Epic Zoom 80.

I’m not entirely sure why I find this so appealing. Maybe something to do with the three upright posts with the chains hanging from them. It asks the question: what are the chains for? I also found it interesting that each of the posts has a small patch of greenery below it, while the rest of the ground is largely dirt. Why does this patch of green remain under each of the posts? There’s also something about the elegant, curved lines of the the chains themselves that I found attractive.

Sunset Drinks at 3 Westerley part II

by Posted in Camera Collecting, Cameras, Film, Landscapes, Olympus Infinity Stylus Epic Zoom 80, Olympus Mju II Zoom 80 Leave a comment
ossiningwaterfront-1

It’s interesting to compare this with a similar shot posted earlier: Sunset Drinks at 3 Westerley. Where this picture was taken with a film camera, the earlier one was taken with a digital Sony RX-100. The earlier shot was also taken about an hour later, when the light was much more interesting.

Taken with an Olympus Infinity Stylus Epic Zoom 80.

The UniveX Story

by Posted in Camera Collecting, Reading Leave a comment
univexstory-

The acquisition of my Mercury II (see: New Acquisition – Universal Mercury II CX) led to a desire to know more about the Universal Camera Corporation. Browsing around I quickly came across this book: The UniveX Story by Cynthia A. Repinski. I ordered a copy, little knowing that I would be getting it from the author herself, and with an autograph no less.

It’s a very thorough book. She clearly did a lot of research and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I thought the section relating to binoculars would be a bit boring (I’m not really into binoculars) but, surprisingly, it wasn’t. I came across this review on Amazon.com which pretty much sums up my views:

I have owned this book for about ten years. I am an avid camera collector, and I (like the author) have been enamoured of UniveX cameras since I first got one as a child. For those who are interested in the origin and history of items they collect, this type of reference work is a godsend. Most people have no idea of the Universal Camera Company’s impact on amateur photography in the U.S. This book helps to remedy that situation.

Ms. Repinski has addressed the primary topics that interest most collectors. First, she presents a very comprehensive history of the company. Second, she describes the various products of the company, providing chronology, original pricing (in some instances), competitive circumstances, and actual photos from her extensive collection. Third, and especially interesting for a book of this type, she makes use of the extensive papers of the company’s Chief Engineer to describe the manufacturing processes and challenges involved in designing the products, compiling and listing all the patents awarded to Universal throughout its existence. Fourth, she describes the business in detail, showing yearly income statements, and more importantly, describing the strategic decisions that were made by the company’s management that ultimately led to its demise. Fifth, she addresses the needs of the collector, rating all the products according to relative scarcity, defining the differences between various models and versions of each product. Although the competitive and marketing aspects of the company’s history are sometimes given short shrift, this volume will likely stand as the definitive study of a very interesting and influential company.