Rangefinder vs SLR, winter thoughts

Generally speaking I err towards rangefinder or viewfinder cameras, but this time of year I abandon them for an SLR. The reason being at these latitudes the sun hangs low in the sky, and I need to know exactly where light hits the lens.

Moving my shading hand a fraction is the difference between a soft, flare covered image and a sharp one. With a rangefinder my viewing lens may be perfectly shaded and the lens in bright sunlight, or I think my hand is outside the frame, only to find it encroaching the image. The reflex view avoids this error. A lens hood isn't the solution because tolerance between shade and sun are so tight when the sun hugs the horizon.

I went with mobile, SLR and RF. During winter weekend. By the time I crawled to the winder waterfall... mobile phone was dead and SLR batteries crapped out as well. My M4-2 took one frame and then film was done.

I'm not sure I have problems with framing similar to yours. I have sun where I need it with M series rangefinders. Kiev (Contax) RF was not giving me this accuracy.

Mostly I shoot medium format. I love Fuji 6x9 rangefinders. I have several. If I could only have one camera by some horrible fate this is what I would have. I hope it never comes to that

I have a couple Hasselblad cameras with the Acute-Matte screens, beautifully bright especially with standard 80 2.8. Black and white ,and 6x6 slides.

I still take a Nikon F5 on trips. If I'm not flying I take a 50 and 85 both 1.4 lenses. Sometimes I bring 180 2.8. I like to shoot Fujichrome, and use auto bracket feature.

I can't stand 35mm zooms even the fast ones, aren't fast enough and are huge. If I'm shooting a SLR I need to be able to see to frame the shot, fast primes do that for me.

I have a nice Leica M6ttl, I don't use it as much as I should. Mine has the 0.85x finder so 35 and 50 are all the lenses I need.

Digital is fun. But no slides, no lasting record. I stalk my Cats with a 1st generation Nikon AF-I 400 2.8 and a Nikon DSLR, great fun. Make a few inkjet prints.

The Leica is hands down the easiest to focus manually, in really dim light.

In my humble opinion, the rangefinder technology still has something to offer with mid/large formats as it keeps the size of the camera small and the weight low. Folding mid format cameras are unbeatable under these aspects, and I wish they were still being manufactured. Conversely, a 4x5'' SLR camera would be basically unusable.

I will now be hanged by Leica fanatics, but instead when it comes to 35mm cameras I can see no real reason to prefer rangefinders over SLRs. SLRs win hands down under most aspects, and those where rangefinders have some advantage (shutter noise, non-retrofocus wideangles, etc) are so negligible when compared to the outstanding SLRs advantages to be nearly pointless. Okay, enough said. Now let me please smoke my last cigarette.

I totally shift mental gears when I put down an SLR and pick up a rangefinder. I tend to slow down and study the subject matter more closely, which usually pays dividends. I'm definitely not in a hurry when I'm shooting with a rangefinder -- and it isn't because of any sort of difficulty in using one. It doesn't really take much of a mental shift of gears to align the two images, but because there is no exposure information in the viewfinder, I have to double check the settings and check them against my hand-held meter, or if it's a sunny day, I can guess pretty closely what correct exposure is. But that's all part of the process when I'm using one of my rangefinders, a process I enjoy really.

As far as winter thoughts go, I live in Houston Texas and we usually have mild winters here. This year and last year have been exceptions -- we've actually had a lot of cold weather -- for Houston, at least, but we almost never get snow here -- and it rarely even gets below freezing. As for the sun being at lower angles, I can appreciate keeping the sun out of the field of view, but I can't honestly say that I've had any problems with shooting with a rangefinder during the winter. The last time I had a rangefinder out when it was really cold out -- below freezing even -- I was shooting with my Moskva 6x9 -- and the sun wasn't an issue with the shots I was taking. They came out great, too.

Marco Gilardetti said:

In my humble opinion, the rangefinder technology still has something to offer with mid/large formats as it keeps the size of the camera small and the weight low. Folding mid format cameras are unbeatable under these aspects, and I wish they were still being manufactured. Conversely, a 4x5'' SLR camera would be basically unusable.

I will now be hanged by Leica fanatics, but instead when it comes to 35mm cameras I can see no real reason to prefer rangefinders over SLRs. SLRs win hands down under most aspects, and those where rangefinders have some advantage (shutter noise, non-retrofocus wideangles, etc) are so negligible when compared to the outstanding SLRs advantages to be nearly pointless. Okay, enough said. Now let me please smoke my last cigarette.

Click to expand...

You should definitely give up smoking, whether you use an SLR or a rangefinder

For me, a big point of difference in 35mm is not seeing a ‘yellow world’ when i use a yelllow filter, this is a big plus for a rangefinder but in a smoky room, the truth clouded is hmm.

Where I live, winter=gloves. Therefore, a camera with easy to grasp controls. While I prefer my rf cameras for 35mm because they are small and easy to handle, when wearing fur lined gloves of bitterly cold days I use a Leicaflex or Nikon F. Also, both can be used without batteries. Smaller SLRs have no advantage over rf when wearing heavy gloves.. Other than severe winter temperatures I use whatever...rf, folders,MF, and even LF.

Ko.Fe. said:

I'm not sure I have problems with framing similar to yours. I have sun where I need it with M series rangefinders. Kiev (Contax) RF was not giving me this accuracy.

Click to expand...

There's always a parallax difference between a viewfinder and the taking lens. With a low sun pointing directly onto the front element, which is the case for around 60 degrees of the 180, the difference between it being evident on the Fresnel screen and not, is tiny. That's why cinema cameras have flags to eliminate light sources exactly. It typically begins with a few shafts of light in one corner, and quickly develops into flare which kills contrast. On an outstretched hand you're talking millimetres of movement.

Although I mostly use lens hoods, they are very conservatively designed. I discovered this when adapting a 28mm manual lens to a digital APS-C camera, which gives an angle of view equivalent to a 42mm lens. With a 50mm lens hood there was no vignetting whatsoever at any aperture. Not a hint with 8mm of view difference. So expecting a hood to cut out the last millimetre of light is optimistic even before parallax difference. Of course some people enjoy flare effects, and the latest digitally designed multi-coated lenses suffer from flare to a much lesser degree. Older manual uncoated and single coated glass can grey out an image completely and MC lenses aren't free of flare. That's why the SLR comes out in winter sun.

OP, if you are talking film, I concur. Digital with the screen allows for both.

c41 said:

You should definitely give up smoking, whether you use an SLR or a rangefinder

Click to expand...

I never smoked in my entire life. I thought it was internationally well known that soldiers sentenced to death were allowed to smoke a last cigarette.

I used Leica RF and Nikon SLR outfits side by side for decades. Both served well in temperatures down to -60F. About the Leica, the ads for another shooting device said long ago, it fits in the hand like the hand of a friend. The Nikon never became so much a part of me. Of course the Nikon system is far more versatile, but much photography doesn't demand so many capabilities. Like blockend, I've occasionally included the hand used for shading the lens in the frame. Better that than wrestling with compendium lens hoods on 35mm cameras, or using a tripod so I can precisely shade the lens. Controlling the last tiny detail kills the joy in photography.

For what you're (OP) talking about, an SLR would be advantageous. Both camera designs have their merits, which is why they're both still so popular. But to me, the differences are usually pretty minimal. Neither camera design will make you a better photographer. They just might make photographing certain things easier.

jim10219 said:

For what you're (OP) talking about, an SLR would be advantageous. Both camera designs have their merits, which is why they're both still so popular. But to me, the differences are usually pretty minimal. Neither camera design will make you a better photographer. They just might make photographing certain things easier.

Click to expand...

I prefer rangefinder cameras for the fact they're smaller and mostly lighter, but as you say the differences aren't great. I don't like the way an SLR views at maximum aperture*, even when shooting at f8-f11, but there are conditions when a WYSIWYG view is essential.

*ignoring stop down metering modes (so dark you can't see what's in or out of focus!)

blockend said:

Rangefinder vs SLR, winter thoughts

Click to expand...

Rangefinder vs. SLR is usually not the first criterion on my mind.

Here are some of the things I consider first:

1. Manual/mechanical vs. automatic/electronic - I prefer battery independent cameras.

Here are the cameras I would seriously consider using because they may need batteries for the exposure meter but they to not need batteries to take pictures:

Fuji 6x9cm medium format rangefinder
Fuji 6x7cm medium format rangefinder
Leica M6 35mm rangefinder
Nikon F2 35mm SLR with non-metered finder
Pentax Spotmatic 35mm SLR
Mamiya RB67 medium format SLR
Nikonos 35mm waterproof underwater camera
Calumet 4x5 inch large format view camera

The first three are rangefinders, the second three are SLRs, and the last two are neither.

2. Image quality - I prefer the image quality of large format and medium format cameras more than small format. Therefore, I would select a medium format SLR or rangefinder before I would select a 35mm SLR or rangefinder.

3. Lens focal length - if I need a long telephoto lens to shoot birds or winter sports, I am limited to my 35mm SLR cameras because I do not have long lenses for my rangefinders or my larger format cameras.

4. Lens angle-of-view - if I need to shoot winter landscapes, I prefer to use a lens with a 75 degree diagonal angle-of-view. I do not have lenses with this angle-of-view for all my cameras. For example, I have a 28mm for my Nikon F2 and Pentax Spotmatic but I do not have one for my Leica M6.

5. Aspect ratio - when shooting winter landscapes, I prefer the 2:3 aspect ratio used by 35mm cameras and 6x9cm cameras. My Fuji 6x9cm medium format rangefinder is my personal favorite.

6. Weather resistance - I like cameras that resist snow, rain, sleet, spray, condensation, etc. My Nikonos is my most weather resistant camera.

7. Filter availability - I may need a certain filter that will only fit a certain lens for a certain camera. For example, if I need to shoot infrared, I am limited to using a lens that will accept the only one I own, a 720nm infrared filter with a 52mm filter thread. Since most of my Nikon lenses accept 52mm filters, that is the camera I would select for winter infrared shots.

8. Filter usage - it is easier to focus a rangefinder with dark filter vs. an SLR with a dark filter. Therefore, if I needed to shoot a winter scene with a 10-stop neutral density filter, I would select a rangefinder.

9. Size, weight, and ergonomics - my 4x5 inch view camera is too big, too heavy, and too slow for me to use in cold weather.

Jim Jones said:

I used Leica RF and Nikon SLR outfits side by side for decades. Both served well in temperatures down to -60F. About the Leica, the ads for another shooting device said long ago, it fits in the hand like the hand of a friend. The Nikon never became so much a part of me. Of course the Nikon system is far more versatile, but much photography doesn't demand so many capabilities. Like blockend, I've occasionally included the hand used for shading the lens in the frame. Better that than wrestling with compendium lens hoods on 35mm cameras, or using a tripod so I can precisely shade the lens. Controlling the last tiny detail kills the joy in photography.

Click to expand...

Interesting, controlling the tiny details puts the joy in photography for me!

Marco Gilardetti said:

I...a 4x5'' SLR camera would be basically unusable.

...

Click to expand...

You don't like the Graflex, eh?

markjwyatt said:

You don't like the Graflex, eh?

Click to expand...

I can't really tell, as I never owned a Graflex SLR, but just looking at the size of it makes me think that it possibly isn't very handy and quick. 35mm SLR cameras were winners as they were compact, convenient and quick: all you need to see can be put in one single finder and you also have the relative sureness that what you are seeing in the finder will also be on film (early SLR cameras, which didn't have these features and were actually quite slow and cumbersome, were not succesful at all). Most mid-format SLRs don't feature the same convenience, and it definitely looks as if the Graflex SLR doesn't.