RF questions

[jmal]

Hello,

!!!Note: this is not meant to stir controversy, but rather to gain some rational understanding for the preference of a particular camera in a certain "style" of photography.

I have a few questions about rangefinders vs. slrs. Because my main interest is "street photography" (notice the quotes), it seems relevant to ask why rangefinders are preferred, aside from historical reasons. Size? My FM2N is only marginally bigger than a Leica M series, and I believe it may be slightly smaller than CVs. With a 50mm or smaller, it seems on par with an RF. Noise? While my slr may be noisier than a Leica, it appears that CVs and others are not terribly quiet. Noise has not been a problem for me anyhow. Focusing? I don't have difficulty focusing through my 50/1.4. Now, as much as I lust after a Leica, I don't see why there is such a cult of RFs. I understand why Leicas are sought after, but I don't quite understand the draw of the lesser RFs. Are they just fun toys or do they really do something better than an slr? Is there any discernable difference in the final images? That seems to be the point, ultimately. Thanks.

Jmal

 

[Markok765]

I also dont see why RF's are prefered in street photography, it is easier for me to focus with my slr, and also preforms better in low light than my Rf.
My pentax slr is slightly bigger than a leica.

 

[Joe Brugger]

It's a matter of what gets you the desired result.
I enjoy shooting with rangefinders, but can't honestly say the results are much different than they would be with an SLR.
The big difference is in using the viewfinder window, instead of looking straight through the lens. The RF gives you a little better view around the edges with certain lenses and the shutter release, without the mirror, might give you an extra shutter speed on the low end.

 

[DeanC]

I think most of the benefit comes out of not having mirror slap. You wind up with a quieter camera and less vibration so you can use slower shutter speeds.

 

[copake_ham]

I use both kinds of cameras - they each have their purpose(s). Besides, neither one can take a great picture - it requires the photographer to do that!

 

[matt miller]

They're usually smaller (cameras and lenses), more quiet, and less intrusive. Framing and focusing accuracy are usually better with RF's. The viewfinders are usually brighter.

I prefer a RF when I don't want to be noticed, or when I want something small. I prefer an SLR in most other circumstances.

 

[oscroft]

I'm new to RF photography (previously been using only SLRs for 35 years), and the difference surprised me.

With an SLR it feels like I'm looking through something and am detached from the scene, but with an RF it feels like I'm looking staight at the scene and am in it. I think the cause of this is that with an SLR I can't see anything around the edges of the frame, but with an RF I can see outside of the frame too and see things and people coming into and going out of shot. This is twofold - firstly I can see outside of the framelines with my right eye. But secondly, and far more strikingly, when using a 1:1 viewfinder I just keep both eyes open and I'm looking at the scene in proper stereo vision, with the frame superimposed. Also, I think the fact that everything is in focus with an RF viewfinder but not with an SLR viewfinder helps in seeing with both eyes open and adds to the 3-D view feel. Also also, I think the blanking of vision with an SLR when the mirror flips adds to the disconnect from the scene - with an RF you can keep winding (providing you have a lever wind) and shooting with no interruption to vision.

Another interesting observation (well, I think it's interesting), is that the focal length I'm most comfortable with for quick shooting with an SLR is 35mm, but with an RF it's 50mm. Again, I suspect this is because I can see outside of the frame with 50mm on the RF and it feels less closed-in.

Anyway, this is really just speculation as to the reasons behind the feeling I get using an RF, but it definitely does feel different (and better for this style of shooting).

Hope this helps,
Alan

PS: No fancy expensive stuff either - my "street shooting" RFs are cheap Zorkis and FEDs (my SLRs are Olympus)

 

[Gerald Koch]

One of the problems with an SLR is the time parallax caused by the delay when the mirror is moved out of the image path before the shutter fires. During this period of time the photographer is essentially blind and cannot see the subject. He must therefore anticipate when to press the shutter release. Rangefinders do not have this problem.

In addition, rangefinders are usually quieter and smaller and thus less intrusive.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I was a working photo journalist I carried both a Nikon SLR (F, F2 and F3)and rangefinder, either a Leica III G or a Canon 7s with a 35mm or 28mm, sometimes a 90mm. I preferred the rangefinder for low light, situations that required a miminum of noise, and when I was working close to my subjects, a big black F2 with motor can get in the way of developing rappor.

 

[RobinP]

I just recently got my first interchangeable lens RF camera (a Bessa R, rapidly upgraded to an R2) after many years of SLR use for most things but fixed lens RF or VF cameras when travelling light.
The small size of the Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 and 75mm lenses came as a pleasant surprise but a Nokton 50mm f1.5 arrived last week and it's as big as my SLR 50mm f1.6!
My "standard" lens has been a 35 or 40mm for years now and it's just easier to get top quality in a RF lens of that focal length so the SLR will just be used for wide, telephoto & macro duties now.
While I understand the theory of having space around the frame in the RF viewfinder it doesn't really help that much in the sort of "considered" shots I take.

Cheers, Robin

 

[Jim Jones]

I preferred a RF for street photography. Focussing with lenses from 90mm down was quicker and more precise than with an SLR. The shutter and aperture could be set without even glancing at the camera. Even focussing could be roughly set on the Leica by feeling the position of the infinity lock. I've replaced a few Nikon F and Nikkormats over the past decades, but my 36-year-old Leica M4 still works perfectly. The Leica system was expensive, but has proven economical over the years. While perhaps not important, to misuse an old slogan, "It fits in your hand like the hand of a friend."

 

[Peter Black]

I think there are all sorts of reasons why people like (rather than prefer) rangefinders, and much depends on what type of shooting you do.

I'd immediately separate off Leicas from the rest, since they have fully interchangeable lenses and you are not really restricted lenswise unless you choose to be. They are also very quiet compared to Bessas, so that is a big issue for some.

I haven't used any of the expensive kind, but really used to enjoy using an Olympus XA because it had a great fixed lens. The rangefinder wasn't great in certain light conditions, but was very accurate when the light was OK. Almost the opposite of this was the Kiev 4A which is a substantially chunky machine with old fashioned wind-on requiring a relatively relaxed style. The rangefinder on this resembles a dirty fishtank, but is also surprisingly accurate and easier to use in the sort of light where the XA might struggle. The Konica EE Matic Deluxe(!) I had was just too big and was actually bigger than my OM2, but well made, needed no batteries and took a decent photo. I preferred my non-RF Olympus Trip.

As was said earlier by someone, there is an immediacy with an RF that is missing due to mirror movement in an SLR and it either bothers you or it doesn't. I can really recommend buying one of the cheaper models to see how you like it, and you shouldn't lose out by putting it back on ebay if it doesn't work for you. You might be pleasantly surprised!

 

[DBP]

First of all, I find being able to see what is coming into the frame a huge advantage when shooting in unpredictable conditions. Second, it is easier to zone focus and thus take a picture quickly by bringing the camera to the eye and shooting immediately, which increases the chance of catching a spontaneous look. Third, many are significantly smaller and less conspicuous than an SLR, especially an SLR with a zoom lens. Fourth, for some reason people seem to find them less threatening. Last, the shutter is a little quicker, which can make all the difference.

When shooting 35mm, I probably use a rangefinder about 40% of the time. The times I definitely don't are when I need a long lens or a fast motor drive, or if I don't have the lens I need in the appropriate mount.

 

[keithwms]

There are many reasons why I prefer rangefinders to SLRs, and not just for street stuff (which I seldom do anyway). I use RFs for everything from 35mm to 4x5" and I love 'em!

Foremost, composition with a RF isn't done through the lens, and as such you have a 3D view of the subject. You have a big, bright viewfinder and there is no blackout when you fire the shutter. Some RFs have 100% viewfinders so you can compose with both eyes open; I usually keep both eyes open even with non-100% VFs, I feel more comfortable doing that because the VF is so bright and, again, the view is 3D. I can't keep both eyes open with an SLR, it is just too uncomfortable.

Also, the framelines in most RFs shown space around the composition, which is a feature that I find very useful. I like to frame the shot just as I would with my hands. With SLRs I feel more cramped when I compose. The RF style of composition does require that you develop some knowledge and intuition about depth of field... I focus hyperfocally. There is no DOF preview.

Also, concerning composition, I am an avid fan of infrared photography, which of course requires an opaque filter. With an RF, you can compose normally, you aren't looking TTL so it doesn't matter what filter you have on. I also tend to use red and orange filters so again I feel like not looking through the lens is a bonus.

Now, concerning mirror slap, that is of course the most commonly cited benefit of RFs. With good technique you can quite easily work down to 1/15 sec handheld, sometimes further. The speeds I tend to like best are ~1/60 and slower, I am musically inclined so perhaps those intervals are just more familiar to me and I can compose the shot with specific rhythm in mind. Some slight motion blur can be, I think, a very powerful compositional element, I am not such a huge fan of static scenes, so I like slightly longish exposures for mnay things (albeit not sports or wildlife obviously). At 1/60 is right about where mirror slap starts to enter into SLR shots, so unless you have IS/VR lenses then you can't really go down to 1/60 and beyond, handheld. And those lenses are expensive and bulky as heck. I have done handheld shots as low as 1/8 sec with an RF that I felt were plenty sharp.

Concerning optics, there are some almost miraculous RF lenses that have quite simple designs because the lens sits so close to the film plane, so they don't require nearly the degree of correction that SLR lenses do. I won't go off into MTF technicals but suffice it to say that if you are interested in shooting normal to wide lenses, wide open, then a good RF is usually going to outperform a good SLR. I really don't think anything can touch some of the Leica and Carl Zeiss fast primes for RFs. With SLR glass one typically must stop down to f/5.6 or so to get away from lens issues, but with RFs, that "sweet range" is a stop or two wider at least. There are fast RF lenses that deliver excellent sharpness and contrast and lovely bokeh down to f/2, or even f/1.

That last point brings me to one of the real strong suits of RFs: available light photography in general. Many of the issues I mentioned above combine to make RFs really ideal for available light. However, even if you use flash, RFs can shine. RFs that have leaf-shuttered lenses will synch at all speeds. The Leica M7, for example, can work with a metz flash down to 1/1000 sec!

Ergonomics is another very strong suit for RFs, they are typically light and compact. My mamiya 6, which shoots in 6x6 cm format, can go in my jacket pocket, even with the 50mm lens attached (it collapses into the body). I can take it amost anywhere and not feel burdened. In fact it has become one of my favourite landscape cameras. Now in terms of resolved detail, the medium format RFs can far exceed 35mm and can match e.g. a Nikon D2x; look at this:

http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html

The mamiya RFs are really pushing toward large format's level of detail, and they are about as compact and ergonomic as a typical SLR at the same time. Much of that has to do with the lack of mirror box- think about some of the comparable 6x6 or 6x7 SLRs and how unwieldy they are by comparison, e.g. the hassies or the pentaxes.

Concerning shutter noise, well, my mamiya 6 is very quiet, it is way more quiet than any SLR I have used. My quietest RF has to be the konica AF, that thing is scarily quiet. It is totally unintrusive. And just as I prefer available light because I find it less intrusive, sound and the physical bulk of the camera are important factors if you aim to get candid shots.

The drawbacks of RFs: you are usually focusing in the center and when you shift the focused subject ff center you have to think about whether the subject is still in your DOF. But handling that becomes second nature. Also, you can't really work past about 135mm, though some digital models can effectively take you past that now. And RFs are not hgh-fps instruments, you have to know your timing and know when to click. I actually see that as a benefit, I find the machine-gun approach wasteful and I think it really causes the photographer to become detached from the dynamics of the scene. But I am sure others feel differently Some people are annoyed that RFs may meter through the viewfinder or from some meter that isn't looking through the lens. I think that's kinda silly, if you use a filter then you had better know the filter factor. It is really only an issue if you use a polarizer, that requires some thought

One other thing: you can get your mits on a good RF for much lower price than you may think. Don't be intimidated by those with the $5k kits, there are great outfits for any budget. When I bought it, I think my mamiya 6 kit cost me maybe $1500 with two lenses, now it is worth more, but you can still get the body for around a grand. And there are many, many other options, like the ~$550 new bessas or the some of the older yashica gems that go for under $100 every now and then. My most recent RF purchase? A crown graphic 4x5 with a coupled kalart rangefinder, for ~$250! What a joy to use- handheld 4x5! I also use a $50 olympus XA now and then- now that's a true pocket camera! There is a rangefinder for everybody's budget.

Oh, sorry for the lengthy epistle. :rolleyes:

 

[matti]

I have both a Leica M6 and a Nikon FM2n. And I think the FM2n is on of the SLRs that, fited with a 50mm lens, is most like the Leica. The Leica is easier to focus and noticably quieter.
/matti

 

[alan c. davis]

I used a Nikon outfit for 20 years 2 bodies and 5 lenses. Bought my first rangefinder about 3 years ago a Hexar RF and in my humble opinion the M-Hexanon lenses leave the Nikon lenses for dead. Had to send the RF in for a service so was forced to use my SLR's for a time. Focussing proved much more difficult having used the rangefinder for so long.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jmal,

Well, I've been using RF cameras for 35 years or so and I'm sufficiently keen on them that I actually wrote an entire book about them (Rangefinder, GMC Publications, 2003).

Most reflexes, even the small ones, are pretty lumpy, slow things next to an RF: the prism always makes 'em bigger (all right, except Olympus Pen and Focaflex) and the fact that the mirror has to get out of the way before you can take a picture means that it's usually twice as long between the time you press the shutter release and take the picture.

The lenses, especially the fast wide-angles that I like best -- my standard lens for over 25 years has been a 35/1.4 -- are far smaller and lighter for a given speed, build quality and image quality (no auto-diaphragm, far less need for retrofocus design).

Focusing, especially in poor light with wide-angles, is far easier and quicker; I won't even begin to comment on autofocus. And, of course, the speed of the lens is irrelevant to focusing ability.

Like most people, I find I can hand-hold an RF for one or two shutter speeds longer than an SLR, so the already fast lenses are effectively a stop or two faster. I've never figured out why it's easier to hand-hold reflexes, but enough people say the same thing that I'm sure it's not just me. My suspicion is that it's the continuous viewing: with a direct-vision finder on a reflex, I can hold that steadier too.

In the days when the only 35mm choices with interchangeable lenses were Leicas, Former Soviet Union cameras or elderly kit such as Canons and Nikons, you had to pay a lot for good quality, but since the arrival of Voigtlanders a few years ago the price/image quality relationship for RF cameras has been better than for reflexes.

Sure, I still own reflexes for long lenses and close-ups, but the vast majority of my 35mm photography for pleasure and publication has for decades been RF: there are lots of examples in www.rogerandfrances.com, where you'll also find (in the Photo School) information about some of the other cameras we use including fixed-lens and medium-format rangefinders -- and if you go to the Galleries>Subjects, Techniques, Equipment>Sepia>Hand-Held you'll find 4x5 inch Polaroid Sepias shot with an MPP.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[jmal]

Thanks for all the responses. There seem to be some very useful reasons for using a RF after all. It's good to hear more detailed comments on the benefits, rather than unsustantiated remarks about how miserable SLRs are. I do have a couple of questions. I have read a little about Bessas overlapping frames (on the negatives, that is). Is this user error or a mechanical flaw? Also, I've read that the focusinf mechanism is easy to knock out of adjustment. Is this true? If so, how difficult is it to adjust it? Thanks for the help.

Jmal

 

[DBP]

Thanks for all the responses. There seem to be some very useful reasons for using a RF after all. It's good to hear more detailed comments on the benefits, rather than unsustantiated remarks about how miserable SLRs are. I do have a couple of questions. I have read a little about Bessas overlapping frames. Is this user error or a mechanical flaw? Also, I've read that the focusinf mechanism is easy to knock out of adjustment. Is this true? If so, how difficult is it to adjust it? Thanks for the help.

Jmal

The film transport mechanism in the Bessas is shared with many other cameras, such as the Nikon FM10, so I would be very surprised if there were frame overlap problems. As for the rangefinder alignment, the first one I acquired was out of alignment, so I returned it. My current Bessa R has been in steady use for four years now without a problem. But I am sure that many people here abuse theirs more than I do.

 

[Ole]

My Bessa-L has an occasional problem with the film advance. Some films are worse than others too, I don't know why. I believe it's a mechanical flaw, in that the necessary slippage in the advance mechanism is just a little bit too big. Since a Bessa-L is too cheap to be worth a professional repair (my local repair shop charges the equivalens of $120 just to look at it and decide if it's worth fixing - pretty steep for a $35 camera!), I've decided to have a look at it myself. In the meantime I've splurged on a Bessa-T; I decided it would be nice with a "real" rangefinder so I can use the long lenses. The rangefinder is very exact, I've had no problems with a wide-open Hektor 135mm. I haven't managed to knock anything out of position yet, and the advance on the -T is still good.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you havent read Roger's book you should find a copy, I bought a copy a couple of years a ago, excellent resource for someone new to the world of range finders.

 

[matti]

My Bessa R2 was a lovely camera. I would like to have it as a compliment to my Leica M6. I never had any mechanical problems with it whatsoever. Oops that was a lie! It actually broke down completely, when we accidently dropped a tree weighting several houndred kilos on it. The lens got pushed into the camera and it was impossible to repair. I was quite amazed the camera shell itself was unharmed, though.

hm, the new R2M looks great...

/matti

Thanks for all the responses. There seem to be some very useful reasons for using a RF after all. It's good to hear more detailed comments on the benefits, rather than unsustantiated remarks about how miserable SLRs are. I do have a couple of questions. I have read a little about Bessas overlapping frames (on the negatives, that is). Is this user error or a mechanical flaw? Also, I've read that the focusinf mechanism is easy to knock out of adjustment. Is this true? If so, how difficult is it to adjust it? Thanks for the help.

Jmal

 

[copake_ham]

As was said ealier, both a RF and SLR are tools - similar but different. Each has their role in the shooting arsenal.

I just learned that I will have the opportunity to attend a conference which will include a tour of New York City's Third Water Tunnel - a decades-long infrastructure improvement project now nearing final completion ("nearing" being measured in years - this is a forty plus year project).

Dead Link Removed

While there I want to shoot under available light - probably pushing Kodak TCN400 one stop.

After deliberating b/w my Nikon F3 and my Cosina/Bessa R2S I am favoring the RF in this situation.

For the F3 I have a 50/1.8 Nikkor and a 28/2.8 Nikkor.

For the R2S I have the classic 50/1.4 Nikkor S and the Nikkor 35/2.5

The Bessa is somewhat smaller - but the F3 is also not a particularly large body. The lens speeds are close with the edge to the RF's but only marginally so. Conversely, while I can only guess what is down there until I arrive - I'd prefer something wider than the 35, which makes the 28 very tempting.

Oh, and this is a business event, so I do not want to bring BOTH cameras and appear "weird". I am there as a banker, not a photographer.

If this were a question of close focusing, since I am much more experienced as a SLR shooter, I would probably opt for the F3. However, I suspect most shots will be at infinity such that focusing shouldn't be much of a task.

As I said, I'm leaning to the R2S, but both could do a good job.

The "tools" choice in this situation is a close one. And, boy, it sure is nice to have choices!

 

[Roger Hicks]

. I have read a little about Bessas overlapping frames (on the negatives, that is). Is this user error or a mechanical flaw? Also, I've read that the focusinf mechanism is easy to knock out of adjustment. Is this true?
Jmal

I think I've had at most half a dozen overlapped frames out of all the Voigtlanders I've owned or used (L, T, R, R2, R2S, R3A, R3M) with hundreds of films so I suspect it's user error.

One was delivered with a misaligned viewfinder and was repaired/replaced without hesitation. The others have had hard use for some years and have not gone out of alignment.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bromo33333]

One was delivered with a misaligned viewfinder and was repaired/replaced without hesitation. The others have had hard use for some years and have not gone out of alignment.

Question: How would you determine, aside from shooting a roll, if a RF was out of alignment? Mine seems OK and everything, but I was wondering how one would determine this? Would it be the double images never line up or something like that?