Best rangefinder with 1:1 viewfinder

[David William White]

Why is a 1:1 VF even important? With anything other than a 50mm lens on a 135 format SLR, the VF isn't even close to accurate magnification-wise. I highly suggest you borrow an M6 and shoot with it for a week or so. Then come back and lend us your revised thoughts.

With a 1:1 there is no magnification of the viewfinder: It's like looking through a straight window, or with both eyes open, like looking without a camera in front of you obscuring your vision. Panning with magnification then seems 'unnatural'. It's sort of something you have to experience to get. Every SLR user I've shown this to has the same epiphany.

But I agree the viewfinder magnification is not the only thing to consider, and as I said earlier, the visual effect only works from 40mm up. So if you want to shoot wider, then this requirement needs to get tossed.

 

[BetterSense]

With anything other than a 50mm lens on a 135 format SLR, the VF isn't even close to accurate magnification-wise.

Exactly. That's why I thought rangefinders would be better, because I thought ALL of them had 1:1 viewfinders, just with superimposed framelines. This sounded really nice to me, but then I found out most of them have reducing magnification on the viewfinders so you can use wide lenses and still see the framelines.

I bought a Canonet and although I like the camera itself, the .6 viewfinder is too squinty for me to use with both eyes open. I feel like I might as well be using an SLR with a 40mm lens, then at least it's WYSIWYG as far as composing.

I'm thinking an R3a or R3m would be best for me, I'm just torn between the R3a whose automatic mode might come in really handy (for the wife etc) versus the R3m that needs no batteries. Maybe I'm a sloppy composer, but it seems like it would be doable to use wider lenses and just still use the 1:1 VF, knowing that you have a lot more around the edges. And there is always an accesory finder.

 

[clayne]

Exactly. That's why I thought rangefinders would be better, because I thought ALL of them had 1:1 viewfinders, just with superimposed framelines. This sounded really nice to me, but then I found out most of them have reducing magnification on the viewfinders so you can use wide lenses and still see the framelines.

I bought a Canonet and although I like the camera itself, the .6 viewfinder is too squinty for me to use with both eyes open. I feel like I might as well be using an SLR with a 40mm lens, then at least it's WYSIWYG as far as composing.

Why go against the grain here? Just focus with one eye closed and create photographs like the rest of us. This cyborg like invisible camera over the eye idea is not practical and inherently limiting.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Well, if you're really fixated on the idea of 1:1 viewing on all focal lengths (within reason) try using one of these. <http://www.ikodot.com/takealook.html>

 

[BetterSense]

Why go against the grain here? Just focus with one eye closed and create photographs like the rest of us.

That's probably what I'll do. But I'll be doing it with the SLRs that I already have, rather than buying a rangefinder to do the same thing.

 

[clayne]

That's probably what I'll do. But I'll be doing it with the SLRs that I already have, rather than buying a rangefinder to do the same thing.

The advantages of a rangefinder have very little to do with the viewfinder itself - in my opinion. There are differences of course that are advantageous and disadvantageous, but there are plenty of other reasons to use one. Almost instantaneous shutter response is a big one. Small size and generally good ergonomics are another.

The viewfinder in a RF is just a tool and isn't even accurate magnification or *angle of view*-wise once you start going wide or long.

All cameras are inherently supposed to not get in the way and the more you use a given type the less you keep thinking about how to use it. One just uses it.

SLRs are advantageous once you go very wide or very long. RFs are generally best wide to short telephoto. If it means anything I usually use both a RF and SLR at the same time. The approach is pretty much the same - get close, move something until the focus locks in how you want it, press the shutter.

 

[RobertV]

The advantages of a rangefinder have very little to do with the viewfinder itself - in my opinion. There are differences of course that are advantageous and disadvantageous, but there are plenty of other reasons to use one. Almost instantaneous shutter response is a big one. Small size and generally good ergonomics are another.

The viewfinder in a RF is just a tool and isn't even accurate magnification or *angle of view*-wise once you start going wide or long.

All cameras are inherently supposed to not get in the way and the more you use a given type the less you keep thinking about how to use it. One just uses it.

SLRs are advantageous once you go very wide or very long. RFs are generally best wide to short telephoto. If it means anything I usually use both a RF and SLR at the same time. The approach is pretty much the same - get close, move something until the focus locks in how you want it, press the shutter.

All valid points why to make a choice for a RF camera. Where IMO the RF camera has more strong points in the W.A. range.
One of the reasons I bought years ago the M7 0,58. I like to work with 28mm very much so only this M will give a good frame on 28mm. My smallest tele is the Summarit 2,5/75mm which is the latest M lens I bought. It's already a compromise on an 0,58 but not too bad at all.

When having used SLR on AE mode the switch to M7 in AE is neglectible. In practice it's easy to take a small bag with a few lenses and relative low weight. It's a pity I did not make this decision 30 years earlier.

 

[babaluma]

Voigtlaender Vito CLR

I have bought one for about 10EUR.

This camera really does have a brilliant real size viewfinder and you can use it keeping another eye open.
Lanthar Lens is also superb.

 

[M.A.Longmore]

I have bought one for about 10EUR.

.
Wecome To APUG Babaluma !


Ron
.

 

[Morinaka]

I have a Zorki 4K sitting here and the viewfinder 1:1 with any 50mm lens, look through the viewfinder with on eye, with the other open and i can't see any difference between my eyes, it doesn't even have any frame lines in the viewfinder, lovely and clear. Uses 39mm thread mount so you could use some old Leica glass on it, if you are so inclined.

 

[John Shriver]

Though quite uncommon, the Topcon 35S, 35L, and 35JL all have 1:1 finders. The first doesn't have "EV" coupling on the lens, the latter two do. First two have f/2 lenses, third has an "economy" f/2.8 lens.

Finder has Albada framelines that are quite bright, with parallax correction.

The Topcor lens, like most Topcors, is excellent.

The construction of the body is excellent, wonderful finish, a "tank" like most Topcon cameras. Top-quality Seikosha shutter. It's a two-stroke wind lever, with an odd thunk on the second stroke.

Not common, price is unpredictable.

 

[Timestep]

I still use a restored Nikon S2 with 50mm, and am accustomed to the 1:1 finder, I need nothing else. Bessa's are junk.

 

[stevebrot]

I still use a restored Nikon S2 with 50mm, and am accustomed to the 1:1 finder, I need nothing else. Bessa's are junk.

And that would make my Zorki 4K??...


Steve

 

[Xmas]

Hi

'Even Cheaper junk' to a Nikon rfdr user.

Note I have a Zorki 4k as well.

Noel

 

[Grif]

Sport Finder/Wire Frame

Not to hijack the thread, but I saw the cute little wireframe finder a few messages back. Leading me to wonder,,, what ever happened to the sport finder? Did the SLR kill it off?

Thinking back,,, I actually used one quite a bit on a tlr in the 60's, but now seem totally fixated on the focus ring to the exclusion of all things rational when I'm shooting my 35.

Hummm,,, Makes my brain hurt. I wonder if that's not part of the quality of photographs that one seems to "feel"? Getting rid of all that extra stuff in the finder frame.