Rangefinder Toughts from a Long Time SLR User

[Lamar]

After my first 3 months of using a rangefinder exclusively after almost zero previous experience I wanted to share my thoughts to see how they compared to everyone else's.

- I can get two bodies, lens coverage from 35mm to 135mm, and all necessary accessories in one small bag.
- Framing is slower and more difficult than an SLR, but I'm using a Zorki so this my not be the case with all.
- Close focusing is just not possible unless you use a very wide lens or very small aperture and it makes the framing problem above more difficult.
- Long lenses (135mm) are hard to get correctly focused wide open or at close distances (close is relative in this context, close for this lens seems too far away to me).
- People will stop you and ask about your camera. (Zorki specific?)
- I think I can focus faster in low light. For some reason it seems a little easier getting that patch to match up in lower light than finding the correct focus on my SLR focusing screens. Jury is still out though.

 

[frank]

Tank you for your toughts!

(Sorry couldn't elp myself.)

In a more helpful vein, you can buy an external viewfinder for the lens focal length you are using on your RF, and it will provide a lovely view.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I'm coming from a similar place - longtime SLR user in my newspaper job. A few years ago I went to an M6 -- focusing to me is slower and a little harder than an SLR, but not tremendously so, and it's getting easier.
The low-light use is a good point. It sounds overblown sometimes, but you really are perceived differently with a smaller rangefinder than a huge (relatively) SLR body and lenses.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I find that I love using the rangefinder. Over the last three years that I've had one, I work faster with it than my regular SLRs.

For close-up shots, the fastest Leica shooters set the distance, and physically move the camera to focus, which is faster than turning the knob.

It's so compact and elegant, and with a nice leather on it, and a bigger shutter release button, it works with my very large hands.

If I had to keep one single camera, it would be the Leica.

 

[snapguy]

rf

I love rangefinders. The fact that you are limited to a small number of lenses, or just one, is a bonus. It helps to focus your thinking and helps you master the thing. You never master lenses from 19mm to 500mm as I have for my SLR, although I sometimes need the short and long lenses. The right rangefinder becomes one with the shooter and using film make you think more, and better, as well.

 

[John Koehrer]

You've probably figured out that each has it's place. For me the SLR is for close and telephoto.
RF for quiet, quick & unobtrusive.

 

[cliveh]

If you want to use a lot of different lenses then you may be better off with a SLR. Also if you have spent years using a SLR and then switch to a RF, it is going to take you time to get use to it. But in terms of speed of use it is just a question of practice.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have always shot with both rangefinders and SLRs, in 35mm, MF and LF, my first good camera was a Kodak Retina III in 1966 which I still have. After I bought a Pentax Spot in 67 I carried both for several years until I able to move to Leica/Canon and Nikon. Although I no longer have a Lecia I still shoot with my Retina or Canon IIIG. Rangefinders and SLRs just do differnt things well.

 

[Blacksofa]

I love Rangefinders, they are very fun to use. The only thing about switching back and forth from SLRs and RFs for me is that sometimes I forget to uncap the RF lens ahah.

 

[cliveh]

I love Rangefinders, they are very fun to use. The only thing about switching back and forth from SLRs and RFs for me is that sometimes I forget to uncap the RF lens ahah.

Then don't use a lens cap.

 

[essvaun]

I've had an RF a year or so now & enjoy the whole process, with all it's attendant highs (when it all works) & lows (user error usually).
Spend zero time looking at the LCD although to begin with I would catch myself looking at the back of the camera in anticipation, old habits die hard I guess!
I found focus tricky at first as did the OP, my eyesight is a little dodgy & my old slr rarely ever missed so I thought the first thing I should calibrate were my eyes. Ended up with new nikon lenses, but in my specs, now -4.0 both eyes.
I like the deliberate approach, I really enjoy the size & weight, I get one or two bodies, change up lens, meter & film in a light shoulder bag & there's a lot to be said for using a camera thats less obtrusive than the bazooka that my D700 with an 80-200 was.
The simplicity of the equipment is probably what has won me over quickly, but not because it makes it simple - getting the result I want requires full engagement of my meagre brain power. I just think it's made me more involved with making the picture & it's to me, more fun fwiw.

 

[darkosaric]

sometimes I forget to uncap the RF lens ahah.

This is one of pluses to have build in light meter: it will remind you if cap is on the lens .

 

[Steve Roberts]

Sorry, may I be struck down dead for saying it, but I can't see what all the fuss about rangefinders is for! I have a few - Leica IIa, Yashica 35, FED and Kiev and sure they are fun and quirky to use, but as for making me take better photos, I think that would take more than squinting through a small window! Low-light focussing? Any half-decent SLR with a split image focussing aid works admirably. Size? Yes, they tend to be smaller, but a Pentax MX with the f1.4 Pentax M isn't big by any stretch of the imagination, and it's not even very noisy, especially with the bottom half of the case on. If you want to get smaller the 40mm pancake lens makes for a very compact package.
Come on! Surely the argument in favour of rangefinders is on a par with that saying how much better the sound is from LPs than from CDs! And yes, I do have a large stack of LPs that I play, but I'd prefer them without the snap, crackle and pop!
Best wishes,
Steve (Looking out for a string of people with burning torches advancing on my house tonight!)

 

[essvaun]

Come on! Surely the argument in favour of rangefinders is on a par with that saying how much better the sound is from LPs than from CDs! And yes, I do have a large stack of LPs that I play, but I'd prefer them without the snap, crackle and pop!
Best wishes,
Steve (Looking out for a string of people with burning torches advancing on my house tonight!)

Since you asked (you didn't) I'd add meccano over lego & using my thumb on the end of a hose rather than sprinkler attachments. I think troglodyte is the word you were after, I for one resemble that remark.

 

[darkosaric]

fuss about rangefinders

I look at this same as iphone vs. android thing. Doing same thing, little different user interface. Not so different as people think.

Thanks to digital - we can have bunch of SLRs and rangefinders for small amount of money. Best thing digital ever done is putting prices of good equipment down .

 

[frank]

Sorry, may I be struck down dead for saying it, but I can't see what all the fuss about rangefinders is for! I have a few - Leica IIa, Yashica 35, FED and Kiev and sure they are fun and quirky to use, but as for making me take better photos, I think that would take more than squinting through a small window! Low-light focussing? Any half-decent SLR with a split image focussing aid works admirably. Size? Yes, they tend to be smaller, but a Pentax MX with the f1.4 Pentax M isn't big by any stretch of the imagination, and it's not even very noisy, especially with the bottom half of the case on. If you want to get smaller the 40mm pancake lens makes for a very compact package.
Come on! Surely the argument in favour of rangefinders is on a par with that saying how much better the sound is from LPs than from CDs! And yes, I do have a large stack of LPs that I play, but I'd prefer them without the snap, crackle and pop!
Best wishes,
Steve (Looking out for a string of people with burning torches advancing on my house tonight!)

What works for some does not work for all. Put another way: if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't mean that it can't work for others.

Before you lock down your final answer, you should at least try a RF camera with a decent viewfinder or use an external viewfinder on the cameras you have.

 

[Jim Jones]

The small viewfinder image on the earlier Leicas was a minor handicap, even when shooting Kodachrome for projection without fine tuning the framing. The compact camera size was a valuable asset. If I had to choose between Leica and Nikon systems for all 35mm photography, I'd have to chose the Nikon for the occasional telephoto or macro shot. However, more of my photography was done with a Leica for convenience and the joy of using such a well-engineered camera.

 

[Fixcinater]

Sorry, may I be struck down dead for saying it, but I can't see what all the fuss about rangefinders is for! I have a few - Leica IIa, Yashica 35, FED and Kiev and sure they are fun and quirky to use, but as for making me take better photos, I think that would take more than squinting through a small window! Low-light focussing? Any half-decent SLR with a split image focussing aid works admirably. Size? Yes, they tend to be smaller, but a Pentax MX with the f1.4 Pentax M isn't big by any stretch of the imagination, and it's not even very noisy, especially with the bottom half of the case on. If you want to get smaller the 40mm pancake lens makes for a very compact package.
Come on! Surely the argument in favour of rangefinders is on a par with that saying how much better the sound is from LPs than from CDs! And yes, I do have a large stack of LPs that I play, but I'd prefer them without the snap, crackle and pop!
Best wishes,
Steve (Looking out for a string of people with burning torches advancing on my house tonight!)

1- Not struck dead, but we may lob some LTM lenses your way.
2- All of your options given (except maybe the Yashica) are fun and quirky. Try a Leica M or late model Canon (7 is a good example) and it becomes a lot more usable in a working sense than your squinty viewfinders. I thought the same until I tried the bigger/brighter/newer viewfinder models.
3- Sure the SLR works admirably, but if you've got a bright viewfinder RF, it can work just as well or better, given the situation.
4- Lots of folks don't compare Pentax SLRs which are indeed small, but compare the sometimes significantly larger models out there. Have you seen how big a Canon 50/1.4 SSC is, or even worse, a new Sigma 50/1.4 for EOS cameras? Huge.
5- Get a record cleaning system. There's no reason LPs in good condition can't be quiet.

 

[naeroscatu]

I love Rangefinders, they are very fun to use. The only thing about switching back and forth from SLRs and RFs for me is that sometimes I forget to uncap the RF lens ahah.

+1
Have to admit that I didn't feel very smart after I developed my first film taken with my newly aquired Leica M6 and noticed lots of blanks due to shooting with the cap on. I just found a 39mm UV filter that will allow me to use the lens without worrying about stuff that can land on the lens surface. I hope I can find the time to print some of the shots and post here.

 

[cliveh]

For me the overriding reason for using a RF instead of a SLR by a zillion% are the bright-line finders within the viewfinder. This aids composition of the image by allowing you to see above, below, left and right of your framing, rather than the Cyclops view of an SLR.

 

[fretlessdavis]

5- Get a record cleaning system. There's no reason LPs in good condition can't be quiet.

Get a Zerostat, all the dust will come right off of records. Negatives, too! The massive amounts of dust here are no match for a Zerostat and rocket blower.

I like the simplicity and size of rangefinders, but there seems to be a pretty big gap in price for the Leica M series vs other high end 35mm systems. I'm sure they're sharper, but 10x as expensive sharper? I know that Rangefinder shooters typically tout their 2-3 top quality lenses, and no need for more. One can take the same approach for Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, or anything, and assemble a kit of high-end sharp lenses. Just because you have an SLR doesn't mean you'll have ALL the lenses.

My 35mm kit, when it does come out with me, is an MX, Super Tak 35mm, 50mm, and 135mm. Don't need anything else, and it's a pretty small kit.

However, for very wide angle stuff, I think RF's have a huge advantage. Ultrawides for SLR's are beastly, heavy, expensive, and full of distortion. Quite the opposite on a tiny little RF.

However, I could buy my entire current kit 2 more times, and still have spent less than a used 21mm Elmarit...

 

[Curt]

The Fuji GA645zi covers 99% of what I consider necessary. Closeup and tele. It has a 55-90mm zoom. This camera is 120-220.

 

[miha]

For me the overriding reason for using a RF instead of a SLR by a zillion% are the bright-line finders within the viewfinder. This aids composition of the image by allowing you to see above, below, left and right of your framing, rather than the Cyclops view of an SLR.

And then there is the Leicaflex SL camera which allows the user to shoot with both of their eyes open and still be able to focus easily with its unique focusing screen. Only really possible with a 50mm or 60mm lens attached though.

 

[thuggins]

Sorry, may I be struck down dead for saying it, but I can't see what all the fuss about rangefinders is for! I have a few - Leica IIa, Yashica 35, FED and Kiev and sure they are fun and quirky to use, but as for making me take better photos, I think that would take more than squinting through a small window! Low-light focussing? Any half-decent SLR with a split image focussing aid works admirably. Size? Yes, they tend to be smaller, but a Pentax MX with the f1.4 Pentax M isn't big by any stretch of the imagination, and it's not even very noisy, especially with the bottom half of the case on. If you want to get smaller the 40mm pancake lens makes for a very compact package.
Come on! Surely the argument in favour of rangefinders is on a par with that saying how much better the sound is from LPs than from CDs! And yes, I do have a large stack of LPs that I play, but I'd prefer them without the snap, crackle and pop!
Best wishes,
Steve (Looking out for a string of people with burning torches advancing on my house tonight!)

As has been pointed out before on threads like this, an SLR will do anything a RF will do, but not vice versa. After giving various RF's exclusive use for several years, they went back into their cases and I went back to my OM's with a new-found appreciation. The biggest drawbacks were not the limited FL's (as I usually shoot between 35mm-50mm), the small viewfinders (the viewfinder on a 35SP is huge), or even metering limitations (not an issue with the 35SP). But the 35SP and its brethern are larger and heavier than an OM with the equivalent lens and the lack of close focus capability is extremely limiting, expecially when close-ups are a significant portion of your work. The worst part was trying to hold the camera still during the long, stiff shutter release. And if you don't know how "trapped needle" metering works, please do some research before making uninformed comments about RF shutter release vs SLR's.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

When shooting small format I use a Leica because its small and I can focus faster, especially with a wide optic. I picked up a small range of used modern optics and a 50mm with classic character. Try a Minolta CLE 40 vs the Cron 35/2. A clean collapsible 50/2 has great resolution and smooth background blur.

I like my SLR Minolta bought in 68 for composing but for convenience use rangefinders for both medium and small format.

It will be hard to give up a RF645 but using the Leica and enlarging with a Valoy II is pure fun with surprising image quality.