What is a rangefinder?

The current "normal" lens on my 35mm RF is a 21mm. Haven't taken a picture of the lens cap with it - yet.

I find that with my big RF (Century Graphic) I occasionally take a photo of the dark slide. Of course, I've done the same thing with my 8x10...

Rangefinders are mostly used for photographing people. People tend to think that the larger camera you have, the more proffesional it is. Rangefinders are typically small. atleast the ones for 135-format, so people are more relaxed in front of the camera and tend to pose less. Beeing photographed is not a natural thing. Small rangefinders typically have the viewfinder placed far left on the camera. This means you're not covering your face behind a large bulky SLR while you're shooting. In other words, the person getting photographed is not staring into a machine but at the photographer.

Another story is that of Leica. Rangefinders would probably not be used a lot if it wasn't for Leica. Many famous photographs have been shot with Leica such as the portrait of Che Guevara, the d-day invasion of normandy and the little girl running away from napalm in Vietnam. Photographers such as Henri Cartier Bresson, Elliot Erwitt, Ralph Gibson, Sebastiao Salgado, Reni Burri, Anton Corbijn, Robert Capa and many others all used/uses Leica.

gnashings said:

I don't recall anything in SLR lenses taht dos a 1/4 turn, like the QL for example.

Click to expand...

They do exist. Examples in my camera bag include a Zenitar 16mm and a Mir-47K 20mm. A Tamron 28-70mm takes just barely more than 1/4 turn, and a Tamron 24mm is a bit more than that, but I'd guess a bit less than 1/3 of a turn.

cvik said:

Rangefinders are mostly used for photographing people. People tend to think that the larger camera you have, the more proffesional it is. Rangefinders are typically small. atleast the ones for 135-format, so people are more relaxed in front of the camera and tend to pose less.

Click to expand...

The other side of this is that in medium format, a rangefinder is (or at least can be) a LOT cheaper than an SLR or TLR. The RF mechanism is less expensive than another lens the same size as the main one, and a LOT cheaper than all the doodads that make an SLR work. It's also relatively easy to make a rangefinder camera fold, which is handy if it's 120 film and a 105 mm lens (the downside of folders is that bellows are labor intensive, which makes them costly in today's world -- hence the demise of the folder in the 1960s and 1970s). And if you're shooting 6x9 cm on 120, there aren't many choices for SLRs or even TLRs anyway. But there are always the thousands of old Moskvas and Super Ikontas, and then one shouldn't forget the Fuji "Texas Leica".

I use my Moskva-5 for everything I do in photography (except that it doesn't fit in a shirt pocket like my Minolta 16s do). Very good lens, as robust as a folder will ever be, fits in a pocket (well, the ones on cargo pants or heavy winter coats, anyway), and I can focus on my own feet with confidence they'll be sharp if I don't move the camera during exposure. I don't use the Moskva excluslively because I like variety, and sometimes want either a different negative format or a smaller, lighter camera.

cvik said:

Rangefinders are mostly used for photographing people.

Click to expand...

I use my rangefinders for general photograhy, landscapes, and occasionally I use my rangefinders for people photography. My Fuji GS690 II rangefinder is actually fairly obtrusive - as is my Century Graphic.

Woolliscroft said:

No one has really answered the question of what are rangefinders good for.

Click to expand...

Hey! I (kind of) did!

Jokes aside, I find that they are best (at least the 35mm ones) for things you don't want to be obvious about photographing. I mean, its tiny and the shutter is so quiet it gets lost in any background noise - even a quiet conversation. Funny story:

I was at a camera store in Toronto (Henry's - the outlet store) when a very colourful looking lady walked in very upset that the camera she bought (Nikon f90 I think, if memory serves) did not fit the lenses she already had. She was very animated and dressed like not many people you see. I had to have a photo! With everyone looking at or through an SLR, I took the QL17 and no one was the wiser - even the guy behnd the counter didnt notice I took the photo, and he was talking to me!!! (looking through stuff while doing it - but still!) I think I will scan that photo in - who knows, she maybe among the membership and not even know she was victim of a street photo!

OK - so this post was just an excuse to share that story...

Peter.

Trivette said:

Unfortunately, on rangefinders without TTL metering, there may be a tendency to take pictures of lens caps.

Click to expand...

Been there: done that.

David.

I just got my Yashica Electro G to power up, I think...Popped a roll of bulk loaded PanF+ into it, and now I wanna go out and play. I've been starting to make my face known at a couple of locations in town, so that I won't be the strnage guy with the camera, when I go to take some street shots. (Well, ok, I'll still be the strange guy with the camera. I just won't be too unfamiliar to the regulars...)

First, the story.

I went from digital to film about a year ago with a Nikon FE and 50mm f/1.4 lens. It served me well for quite a while, but I then started getting interested in rangefinders. I bought a Canonet 28 from a seller on the 'Bay and got addicted. A little while after that, I sold my Nikon in favor of getting something else (was going to go for an FSU camera or two) and a very nice person offered me a Canon P on a trial basis. I am in love.

All that aside, there are pros and cons to almost any type of equipment. If you have one you should have the other depending on your style of shooting. If you like to do street photography yet you also like to do macro work, you're best off getting a good rangefinder and a decent SLR. If you do street photography and landscapes you could get away with only having one or the other. I'm a street photo/candid portrait person and I love my rangefinders for this. The lenses are sharp and easily focused, they are relatively quiet (the Canonet is a very quiet 'click'), and they are much less bulky than the SLR I used to have. I like shooting black and white film and my style of photography is better suited to a rangefinder than an SLR. My personality is as well. I prefer the feel of a rangefinder in my hands to an SLR, even the older, better built ones.

It's all personal preferences and how you shoot. I am yet another one of those people who buys into the philosophy that it isn't your gear that makes you a good photographer, it's your vision. Find what you're comfortable with using and use it. Don't let anyone tell you that one thing is better than another or that one format is better than another. A person who has the most expensive gear and has no vision will still be a bad photographer regardless of what he bought.

Stephanie,

I think there is not a single point in your post I dont agree with
But... I am also a gear junky - I love photography, but I realize I also love cameras. You know the difference, right? Sometimes, I have no idea what I want to shoot - but I know which camera I want to use... Perhaps thats directly lrelated to my level of accomplishment as a photographer - but ts the way it is.
And if you like the Canonet 28, you will love the QL 17!!! I had no idea what a love affair was aboutto take place when this little camera arrived!
Then again, I love all my cameras and cant part with any of them - I have a Vivitar P&S - one of the plastic, see through, plastic lens red eye makers bought at a drug store... and I cant part with that thing - now imagine how I am about my real cameras!
OK - I have raised nothing new here - it is clear I just cant shut up (at least on this subject)

Cheers!

Peter.

Just to update the size thingy:

The Linhof Technika III 5x7" has a rangefinder too - can be used with cammed lenses. But even I admit it's of limited use on a 7kg camera (see my avatar).