Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

derelict · Jul 8, 2016

Genuinely curious. I have been shooting Pentax 135 my entire life. I recently picked up an old Zeiss Ercona folder and am learning scale focusing and using limited shutter speeds (1/250 max) and am getting it slowly. I bought it (Jurgen aka Certo6 is a great guy) to push my photography but also as a lightweight MF. I am wondering if a rangefinder is worth a look in much the same way as the Ercona. My Pentax with a 50/ 1.7 can do all that a RF can do so why would something like a Canonet benefit my shooting, other than the obvious coolness a vintage camera oozes? Are there any inherent benefits to them? I picked up my mother in laws mint Yashica Lynx 1000 over the weekend and found it to be a great handling body with a good viewfinder and started wondering about the real differences between the SLR I have been using for over 20 years and an RF.

please do not read this as an attempt to start an argument. It is not. I ask as I am genuinely interested in a Japanese RF. Yashica, Canon, Minolta, Olympus... something like that. Thanks in advance.

Alan W · Jul 8, 2016

Rangefinders are great.I have a bessa R with a 35mm lens that can fit in my jeans pocket.The viewfinder is bright and clear no matter how slow the lens is.Hyperfocal distance or zone focusing with this camera and lens is fast and easy.No need to fine focus unless I'm using wider apertures.There is a vast array of m39 lenses out there and they're reasonably priced,especially when compared to m mount lenses.Im left eyed too,as are my rangefinders!

Dismayed · Jul 8, 2016

derelict said:
Genuinely curious. I have been shooting Pentax 135 my entire life. I recently picked up an old Zeiss Ercona folder and am learning scale focusing and using limited shutter speeds (1/250 max) and am getting it slowly. I bought it (Jurgen aka Certo6 is a great guy) to push my photography but also as a lightweight MF. I am wondering if a rangefinder is worth a look in much the same way as the Ercona. My Pentax with a 50/ 1.7 can do all that a RF can do so why would something like a Canonet benefit my shooting, other than the obvious coolness a vintage camera oozes? Are there any inherent benefits to them? I picked up my mother in laws mint Yashica Lynx 1000 over the weekend and found it to be a great handling body with a good viewfinder and started wondering about the real differences between the SLR I have been using for over 20 years and an RF.

please do not read this as an attempt to start an argument. It is not. I ask as I am genuinely interested in a Japanese RF. Yashica, Canon, Minolta, Olympus... something like that. Thanks in advance.

There are trade-off. Rangefinders are compact, focus is accurate, shutters are quiet (no mirror slap), and lens designers have more flexibility when they don't have to deal with a mirror. But framing is less precise and parallax is not corrected for many cameras. Overall I'm happy to have a rangefinder system (Mamiya 7).

MattKing · Jul 8, 2016

Rangefinders can be beautifully quiet, offer leaf shutters for flash flexibility, have excellent lenses, and in some circumstances be easier to focus than SLRs.
There are also a lot of rangefinders which exhibit "character", which is hard to quantify, but enjoyable to experience.
Don't ignore the offerings from Germany. I, myself am fond of the Retinas and Retinettes.
And by the way, welcome to APUG.

narsuitus · Jul 8, 2016

derelict said:
Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

Quiet operation
Bright viewfinder image
Easy to focus with slow lens in low light
Easy to focus with dark filter on the lens
Camera with leaf shutter has many flash sync shutter speeds
Minimal vibrations during exposure
Subject visible in viewfinder at moment of exposure

Rangefinder over SLR by Narsuitus, on Flickr

Ko.Fe. · Jul 9, 2016

I have next to zero interest in Japanese RFs and else. I don't like weird, old RF cameras either.
I prefer RF VF because it is always in focus and only small patch isn't. Comparing to MF SLR VF where nothing is in focus in VF and only small patch in the middle might become in focus, but it takes too long time for me. By the time SLR is in focus, I have picture already taken with RF and left already.
In RF VF which I prefer, I see outside of the frame, with SLR I'm like horse with blinds.

gone · Jul 9, 2016

You're just exhibiting the early, classic signs of G.A.S. Your statement that another camera is somehow going to "push" your photography, lusting after a different type of camera, when it appears you already have perfectly fine gear to take all the photographs you would ever need (if you want to), all that craziness. I went through this myself many times, as did many of us here. Go over to the RFF site if you want to see the effects of people that have gone over the deep end w/ G.A.S. In fact, that's where the term was coined.

No amount of new gear is going to improve your photography, it's up to you to do that, not the camera. If you want to see if a RF will be a better fit for you, just buy one and see. If it doesn't work out, sell it and maybe you lose a few dollars. No big deal. That's the small price you pay to experiment w/ something new. But don't expect any of this gear swapping to improve your photography. A camera is simply a tool, the vision comes from us.

Helinophoto · Jul 9, 2016

derelict said:
Genuinely curious. I have been shooting Pentax 135 my entire life. I recently picked up an old Zeiss Ercona folder and am learning scale focusing and using limited shutter speeds (1/250 max) and am getting it slowly. I bought it (Jurgen aka Certo6 is a great guy) to push my photography but also as a lightweight MF. I am wondering if a rangefinder is worth a look in much the same way as the Ercona. My Pentax with a 50/ 1.7 can do all that a RF can do so why would something like a Canonet benefit my shooting, other than the obvious coolness a vintage camera oozes? Are there any inherent benefits to them? I picked up my mother in laws mint Yashica Lynx 1000 over the weekend and found it to be a great handling body with a good viewfinder and started wondering about the real differences between the SLR I have been using for over 20 years and an RF.

please do not read this as an attempt to start an argument. It is not. I ask as I am genuinely interested in a Japanese RF. Yashica, Canon, Minolta, Olympus... something like that. Thanks in advance.

Depends what kind of RF system you are looking for, the folder-cameras, or the compact "modern" ones.

In my case, it's because they are usually small and the (M-mount) lens selection is very good.
Screw-mount is also cool, as you can get into the Soviet made stuff (which can be excellent).

Contrary to popular belief, one hasn't have to buy all Leica, there are reasonable (and very good) glass out there.

The old folder-cameras are fun and many have excellent lenses and many have a medium format up to 6*9. ^^

I have two SLR's, but I shoot more with my Bessa R3M and Leica M6 (I don't own any Leica-lenses)

cooltouch · Jul 9, 2016

I guess I find rangefinders appealing because they offer variety over the typical SLR offering. They're an entirely different approach to photography, to me, and I like this. I own several -- simple ones like the Oly Trip 35 and XA and even the Yashical Electro 35 and Canon QL17 GIII. And I own the old school ones like the old Canon rangefinders. I have a IIIa, an IVSb, and a P and a small collection of lenses for them. And then there are the folders. I own a few -- all medium format. A couple of Zeiss (an Ikonta and a Super Ikonta) and an Agfa, plus a Moskva 5, a Russian knock-off of the Super Ikonta C. I love those old folders -- they produce especially nice images. And when folded they are much more compact than a medium format SLR, which is a big reason why I like them so much.

Canon IIIa, 50mm f/1.8 Serenar, Tri-X developed in full strength D-76

Zeiss Super Ikonta BX (w/coated lens and Synchro Compur shutter), Fujichrome 100

Peltigera · Jul 9, 2016

I like my Voigtlander Vito CLR. Weight and size wise it does not compete with my Pentax ME Super but it is quick and silent in use. I find that not having zoom or any alternative lens is liberating and it looks good as well.

derelict · Jul 9, 2016

momus said:
You're just exhibiting the early, classic signs of G.A.S. Your statement that another camera is somehow going to "push" your photography, lusting after a different type of camera, when it appears you already have perfectly fine gear to take all the photographs you would ever need (if you want to), all that craziness. I went through this myself many times, as did many of us here. Go over to the RFF site if you want to see the effects of people that have gone over the deep end w/ G.A.S. In fact, that's where the term was coined.

No amount of new gear is going to improve your photography, it's up to you to do that, not the camera. If you want to see if a RF will be a better fit for you, just buy one and see. If it doesn't work out, sell it and maybe you lose a few dollars. No big deal. That's the small price you pay to experiment w/ something new. But don't expect any of this gear swapping to improve your photography. A camera is simply a tool, the vision comes from us.

I Agree. Perhaps push was the wrong term. The folder pushes me as it required me to figure out zone, how to use a light meter, limits of hand holding, distance estimation, near/ far focus and the effects it has, and light conditions versus ISO choice. I am very, very comfortable with my SLR and the 50mm/ 135mm I use with it. It is the lightest set up I could gather up while still remaining in K mount. I have fought off GAS with pretty good success. I have one digital body and three lens, I have accumulated various K mounts and M42s due to the bodies I use, and I have my MF. The RF could be seen as a simple, easier to carry, slightly less weight alternative to my SLR. My photography these days is small trips and chasing my daughter around. I have been selling things off and going for smaller/ lighter/ packable simple gear. If I am going on vacation, it is SLR 100%. If it's around town, maybe a RF would be easier? I don't know, hence the question.

I am not committed to a Japanese offering but know that I am not dropping thousands on a Leica. It seems that my money would go much further with a fixed lens RF than an interchangeable lens German set up.

baachitraka · Jul 9, 2016

If you don't forget to remove the lens caps then RF have certain advantages over SLR.
- Flash sync.
- Quite shutter.
- Un-obstructive viewfinder.

AgX · Jul 9, 2016

To be fair:
With the majority of my rangefinder cameras (not yet cleaned the inside of the RF-assembly or even resilvered it) it is hard to even see that finder patch...

Jim Jones · Jul 9, 2016

I've owned Leica RF cameras since 1952 and Nikon SLRs since 1967. They each have advantages. In most circumstances I prefer the Leica. Its lenses can be sealed better against dust and mold, and are more compact and very durable. A 4x7x8" case holds four lenses from 21 to 135mm, light meter, two rolls of film, and smaller accessories. The Leica is much better for sports if one doesn't need lenses longer than 135mm. The viewfinder shows the frame of the lens in use and a view beyond that frame, useful for moving subjects. There is less shutter delay than with a SLR, which can be critical in sports photography. The Leica is also quieter. The SLR is better with zoom, long telephoto, and macro lenses. It can be part of a very extensive arsenal of lenses and other accessories for technical photography. One SLR body with one appropriate zoom lens would make a less expensive but perhaps a more versatile travel camera for most photographers than my Leica kit. A few friends say that focusing is easier with the SLR, but not for me. I recommend that anyone unsure which would suit them best actually give each system a thorough workout instead of deciding on other photographer's experience.

Dali · Jul 9, 2016

YMMV but I never found using a RF bringing any advantage compared to a SLR.

TheRook · Jul 9, 2016

I use both RF's and SLR's. Besides the already mentioned advantages/disadvantages of each, using an RF is simply a different experience than shooting with an SLR. Overall, I have more fun with an RF, and more fun often leads to greater creativity.

derelict · Jul 9, 2016

I think I might give one a shot, if I can give it a check for accuracy. An auction purchase seems a bit risky given the age and likelihood of the focusing, etc... being off. Light seals are no big deal. Focusing issues are something that I will never have an issue with really with an SLR, unless I am careless and do something like drop my lens.

John Koehrer · Jul 9, 2016

Really, two advantages.
Size & weight & sound. OK, three. three advantages.

The only thing close is the Pentax MX with their 40mm

Eric Rose · Jul 9, 2016

At the end of the day unless you have a very technical reason for using one over the other it's basically a boxers or briefs kind of thing. I've got both and use both. The reason I pick one over the other very rarely boils down to viewfinder.

cuthbert · Jul 9, 2016

narsuitus said:
Quiet operation

Bright viewfinder image

Easy to focus with slow lens in low light

Easy to focus with dark filter on the lens

Camera with leaf shutter has many flash sync shutter speeds

Minimal vibrations during exposure

Subject visible in viewfinder at moment of exposure

Rangefinder over SLR by Narsuitus, on Flickr

The ones in bold are true if you are comparing a dinosaur like the Nikon F to a RF, the problem is that the opener is a smart Pentax shooters and some Pentax SLRs (MX and LX) are actually smaller than a Leica or approximately the same size, their viewfinder is bright, they are as smooth as a Leica and the mirror slap is minimal.

John Koehrer said:
Really, two advantages.
Size & weight & sound. OK, three. three advantages.

The only thing close is the Pentax MX with their 40mm

Despite of what the Leica fanboys say the MX is actually SMALLER than a M4.

That's the sad truth about it. The LX is slightly bigger, and a Praktica B is slightly taller than a MX. It also had a 50mm pancake that is better than the Pentax one.

TheRook · Jul 9, 2016

derelict said:
I think I might give one a shot, if I can give it a check for accuracy. An auction purchase seems a bit risky given the age and likelihood of the focusing, etc... being off. Light seals are no big deal. Focusing issues are something that I will never have an issue with really with an SLR, unless I am careless and do something like drop my lens.

I've never had focusing problems with any of my RF's, but generally this is something that is easily corrected with most models - you don't need to be a repair expert or have access to special tools to do it yourself.

Jeff Bradford · Jul 9, 2016

RF is quick/easy to focus, light, and portable. It's my favorite tourist camera. I even use the auto-exposure feature.
If I have any work to do, it's likely going to be with the SLR on a tripod with primes.

AgX · Jul 10, 2016

Jeff Bradford said:
RF is quick/easy to focus

So far I have not brought home an SLR that is hard to focus, but the majority of the RF's.

canvassy · Jul 10, 2016

Something like an Olympus 35RC might fit the bill. They're cheap enough, and real small. One of the smallest manual rangefinders if I'm not mistaken. Mine is my everyday carry around camera, it lives in a jacket pocket.

narsuitus · Jul 10, 2016

cuthbert said:
The ones in bold are true if you are comparing a dinosaur like the Nikon F to a RF, the problem is that the opener is a smart Pentax shooters and some Pentax SLRs (MX and LX) are actually smaller than a Leica or approximately the same size, their viewfinder is bright, they are as smooth as a Leica and the mirror slap is minimal.

I have used Pentax ME and Pentax Spotmatics for decades. I was fully aware that some Pentax SLRs are as small or smaller than a Leica rangefinder. That is why I never attributed small size as an advantage in favor of the rangefinder.

Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency