Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

chromacomaphoto · Nov 11, 2016

God, that 'Marina' shot was a childhood flashback, my Dad actually owned two of them (not at the same time) and they were one of the worst British cars ever made even in a period of especially bad British Cars. Right up there with the 'Princess' and the 'All Aggro'!

As for rangefinders over SLR's... Yeah the slower speeds handheld are a definite plus but honestly, RF's are a very different way of seeing and there's quite a learning curve to rangefinders if you learnt on SLR's. I flip flop between Leica m's and Leica Glass and older Nikon SLR's for my 35mm stuff. It's been back and forth for a few years now for me, I kind of enjoy it I think. Back on the SLRs and TLR's at the minute. I know more than one person who foolishly went all in on Leicas before thay had actually even tried them only to find that they just couldn't get on with RF's in the end. I think they are a great tool for 'up close and personal' deep street work but honestly so can a small SLR with a wide, fast prime be as well really. Try it and see I guess.

Diapositivo · Nov 11, 2016

AgX said:
I wonder why that split-image concept was not more spread in contrast to the common superimposed-image concept.

I think that is because split-image concept works better when one is focusing on straight lines, but is generally speaking a bit slower in use than superimposed-image concept.
If you are focusing on a face, superimposed image works better because you only see a mess until, suddenly, the face pops up into focus.
With split image one has to concentrate on some line of the face (chin, nose, eyebrows) but it is not, IMHO, as immediate in use.

With an SLR one uses the focusing screen for a fast-and-good-enough focusing, and uses the stigmometre for precision focusing.

The microprisms are somehow the equivalent of superimposed-image concept. Good for fast focusing (because suddendly one sees the subject in focus) but less good for precision focusing. All of the IMHO.

Neil Poulsen · Dec 20, 2016

cliveh said:
Re OP - Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

The overriding reason by 10,000% for me, is that a rangefinder allows you to see above, below, left and right of the shot you are about to take and is therefore an invaluable aid to composition.

For me, rangefinder cameras are more spontaneous, perhaps for this reason. There's more hunting for a good composition with an SLR. Sure, as Drew point out, one can back up for a bit. But by that time, the image can be long gone. Back up and expose, and one's not getting the full advantage of the format.

For fine art, still-lifes, or landscape, rangefinders may not be the best choice. (Yet, they may still be an acceptable choice.) But for photographing people on the move, or compositions on the move, they can excel.

Neil Poulsen · Dec 20, 2016

Svenedin said:
What about depth of field preview? Nobody seems to have mentioned that, unless I missed it. There's no depth of field preview with a rangefinder, only scales to read off the lens. I use both SLRs and rangefinders but if I could only have one it would be an SLR.

Isn't this argument a bit innocuous? Why would one need precise control of dof for the types of images that lend themselves to the strengths of a rangefinder?

Whatever degree of dof control that's needed for these types of image can be addressed with craft. For example, setting focus at the hyper-focal length distance, and knowing what that is.

AgX · Dec 20, 2016

For a camera design that handles both issues referred to in the two posts above, see here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

derelict · Dec 20, 2016

So, I will update this. I am a high school teacher and am friends with the photography teacher. She offered me a bunch of 120 stock that they were not going to be using as film is not used in class anymore. I went down and took a look through their 'storage' room (which was actually a fully stocked darkroom with anything and everything you could ever want, including a filtration system for waste water) and found a Canonet G3 in its original box with strap, hood, filters, and a couple of other Canon accessories that was donated by a retired photo journalist many years ago. The seals were wasted and the finder was off so it was given to me (along with a Minox B with flash and a couple other accessories from the same journalist). I sent the G3 off to Zacks and got it back yesterday. I will be throwing some film into it this week and seeing how I like it. Seems like it will make a great walk around town camera. My Pentax MX will make a great car show or family photography kind of set up to go with my 120 gear.

Ko.Fe. · Dec 20, 2016

I recieved as gift Kiev 19 with Helios 81H MC and purchased Mamiya 645.
Great cameras and lenses. But I just can't forse myself to use them. Still life and fine art, yes, I'm not into it.
Portraits and landscape is so much easy with RF. But I know where are few like me. Every time I give RF to someone else, they struggle to frame and focus.

RattyMouse · Dec 20, 2016

Pioneer said:
The easiest rangefinder to focus that I use is my Zeiss Ikon. That rangefinder is a literal dream to work with. As a general rule though, most of my SLRs with ground glass viewfinder screens are more accurate.

I've looked through the viewfinder of a Zeiss Ikon camera and it indeed is a beautiful sight. Very clear and crisp, easy to focus. However, as good as that is, the viewfinders on my (also Cosina made) Fujifilm GF670 and GF670W are twice the size as the one on the Zeiss. Even bigger, brighter, and clearer. The Fuji's take the Zeiss Ikon viewfinder a few more steps up the quality scale.

kb244 · Dec 24, 2016

I would have said lighter/smaller... But then I opted to get a Canon 7, previously a Canon P.

Though for small/light, I really liked the Olympus 35RC.

I guess I shy away from SLR, more in the sense that I get too much attention from my surroundings walking around with an SLR versus a rangefinder. Sort of like with my mirrorless versus a Dslr (though when I'm shooting my mirrorless it's usually waist level, so even less notice)

narsuitus · Dec 24, 2016

The Leica M6 rangefinder and the Pentax ME SLR are two of my smallest 35mm cameras. When I need to carry just one lens and one small quiet film body, the Leica M6 is my first choice. When I need to carry one small expendable lens and film body, the Pentax ME is my first choice.

35mm film Cameras by Narsuitus, on Flickr

mynewcolour · Dec 26, 2016

I enjoy RFs for quick use of short lenses.

Being photographed with an SLR (with the shooter's face hidden) can feel imposing ... less so with a small RF outfit.

Leaf shutters are great.

For a portrait session (and 85mm lens) I'd use an SLR and work slower.

AgX · Dec 26, 2016

mynewcolour said:
Being photographed with an SLR (with the shooter's face hidden) can feel imposing ... less so with a small RF outfit.

I never thought of this before. (In contrast to using a MF camera with WLF.)

The difference seems negligable to me. Even checked that in front of a mirror with a Canonet and a T-60.
The latter is a small SLR. With a hefty batterycase and larger finder the SLR would block more, but still I doubt that there will be large difference in effect. A 6x7 would be something different.

kb244 · Dec 26, 2016

mynewcolour said:
I enjoy RFs for quick use of short lenses.

Being photographed with an SLR (with the shooter's face hidden) can feel imposing ... less so with a small RF outfit.

Leaf shutters are great.

For a portrait session (and 85mm lens) I'd use an SLR and work slower.

Course the same can be said or waist level shooting (ie: Like I did with my Mamiya RB67 or Hasselblad 500CM).

Though I wonder if a small sized SLR Such as a Pentax ME or Olympus OM, would give similar 'less imposing' feels as a Rangefinder.

Also wonder if the subject would feel even more comfortable if you shot them with an XA?

mynewcolour · Dec 27, 2016

kb244 said:
Course the same can be said or waist level shooting (ie: Like I did with my Mamiya RB67 or Hasselblad 500CM).

Though I wonder if a small sized SLR Such as a Pentax ME or Olympus OM, would give similar 'less imposing' feels as a Rangefinder.

Also wonder if the subject would feel even more comfortable if you shot them with an XA?

Sure, one if the best qualities of TLRs and WLF cameras is how people respond when shot with them.

My 'formal' portrait setup is an OM1n and small 85mm f2.

You mention the XA. The answer I think is yes! Although the camera type will only get you so-far. A MjuII is amazing for indoor situational portraits (and more).

kb244 · Dec 28, 2016

mynewcolour said:
Sure, one if the best qualities of TLRs and WLF cameras is how people respond when shot with them.

My 'formal' portrait setup is an OM1n and small 85mm f2.

You mention the XA. The answer I think is yes! Although the camera type will only get you so-far. A MjuII is amazing for indoor situational portraits (and more).

I had a camera very similar to the look of the Mju II with the same lens even but I can't remember the model number of it, I just know it wasn't a Mju.

I noticed now days, If the camera looks like it's film, people are less intimidated by it than digital. (For example my Olympus E-M5 with a peruvian walnut grip attached keeps getting confused as a film camera).
Seems to be some kind of notion that either 1) It won't come out [or that it needs a tripod in low light], or 2) it won't be that great, or 3) difficult to share/spread.

AgX · Dec 28, 2016

The Olympus μ[mju:] range was on some markets offered as Stylus.

kb244 · Dec 28, 2016

AgX said:
The Olympus μ[mju:] range was on some markets offered as Stylus.

Oh... then that's what I had, I remember Stylus, but didn't know it was the same thing as Mju, I may still have it... somewhere... buried.

Ces1um · Dec 28, 2016

They basically only have minor differences between them and I can't say I prefer one over the other. For every pro of one system there is a counter pro for the other. For every negative there is a counter negative. Just buy one. Film cameras are cheap. Give it a go. If you hate it, sell it for what you paid. Then tell yourself it was because of the model you bought and it's time to buy another from a different manufacturer. Repeat as desired. Better yet, don't get rid of them. Amass a giant collection of cameras that now occupies several shelves of your bedroom walk in closet. Make sure it's large enough that your significant other complains loudly that the shelf space could be put to better use like housing her clothing. Keep going until the sheer volume of choice that you have available to you makes it difficult to decide which camera and which lens with what film you want to take out to use. That's what I did and it made me the man I am today.

derelict · Jan 3, 2017

I used the Canonet for the first time this weekend. I left my MX (which is pretty tiny) at home. It was interesting using it. Focusing was pretty quick, not that much quicker than a 50/ 1.7 I usually use but was noticeable. All the controls being on the lens reminded me of using my Zeiss Ercona and the shutter was really quiet. I liked that the most. I am developing the roll right now to see how they turned out.

Ces1um · Jan 3, 2017

derelict said:
I used the Canonet for the first time this weekend. I left my MX (which is pretty tiny) at home. It was interesting using it. Focusing was pretty quick, not that much quicker than a 50/ 1.7 I usually use but was noticeable. All the controls being on the lens reminded me of using my Zeiss Ercona and the shutter was really quiet. I liked that the most. I am developing the roll right now to see how they turned out.

awesome! glad things have worked out for you!

derelict · Jan 4, 2017

Ces1um said:
awesome! glad things have worked out for you!

Yeah, it is pretty decent. I am into it for only the cost of a CLA. I think I will probably keep it. I like the focal length a lot.

2016-12-21_01-44-59 by Jarrod Hills, on Flickr

cooltouch · Jan 4, 2017

Nice looking outfit. What I like most about the QL17 is its beautifully sharp and well-corrected lens. I have seen magazine covers shot with one of these cameras, so it is pretty much capable of doing anything you ask of it.

derelict · Jan 5, 2017

cooltouch said:
Nice looking outfit. What I like most about the QL17 is its beautifully sharp and well-corrected lens. I have seen magazine covers shot with one of these cameras, so it is pretty much capable of doing anything you ask of it.

Thanks. As much as I like the MX I have, the Canonet might be what comes out with me when I walk around. Between the TLR and it, my walking around, general use film set up is complete. The MX will probably only come out when I need lens options.

Trower · Feb 7, 2017

I still can't get over how nice it is to have my Zorki 3 and a collapsible lense in my pocket ready to go.

Really all I use for cameras lately have been my Zorki 3, and my Agfa Isolette. So easy to carry, and both produce great results!

Don Craig · May 11, 2017

I'm new to the APUG forum and late to this thread. I'm very fond of RFs, used them for 15 years before I finally got my Minolta SR1. Right now I have an Olympus 35 RC which I can practically palm when on the street. I also have a Contax II which I like to use for nostalgia sake.

Thanks, Don

Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency