Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

cuthbert · Jul 11, 2016

Bill Burk said:
Wait! Hasselblad screens don't return?

Hasselblad and medium format in general are more ehm...crude than 35mm.

The only ones with instant mirror return and built in lightmeter are the 200 series as far as I remember, the Hasselblad 500 itself is literally a black box with no shutter, a mirror that pops up always at the same speed and nothing more.

mnemosyne · Jul 11, 2016

cuthbert said:
Have you ever looked inside one of these in night time?

I do it all the time. Actually, my IIIf is my tool of choice for night time photography. I find it is even easier to focus in dark surroundings than my M3 (which is also very easy to focus at night).
If you find your Leica screwmount RF dim or unusable at night time, the RF optics of your camera are dirty or degraded. This is of course not a big surprise for a 60+ year old camera, and you should invest some money to have it cleaned or repaired, instead of using it as a pretext to bash the design of the camera ...

cuthbert · Jul 11, 2016

mnemosyne said:
I do it all the time. Actually, my IIIf is my tool of choice for night time photography. I find it is even easier to focus in dark surroundings than my M3 (which is also very easy to focus at night).
If you find your Leica screwmount RF dim or unusable at night time, the RF optics of your camera are dirty or degraded. This is of course not a big surprise for a 60+ year old camera, and you should invest some money to have it cleaned or repaired, instead of using it as a pretext to bash the design of the camera ...

I don't bash the design of the camera, I perfectly understand we are talking about a camera of the 20s, but insisting that it's easier to focus with a Leica III than with a SLR with bright screen and fast lens in low light is futile.

I also assume you will come and say a Leica III is a faster shooter than a Olnmpus OM.

Dali · Jul 11, 2016

cuthbert said:
I also assume you will come and say a Leica III is a faster shooter than a Olnmpus OM.

The answer is clearly no.

removed account4 · Jul 11, 2016

hi op

ive been shooting slr35mm cameras most of my life
then RF the last IDK 10-12 years?
to be honest i don't really see many big differences at all
it all ends up being personal preference and what side of the street you
want to say you live on and the small differences you want to make seem to be huge.

good luck with your new cameras

michr · Jul 11, 2016

I've thought about it for a couple of days, and I can't think of a truly compelling reason to choose a rangefinder over an SLR. Supposing this were an irrevocable decision, I would say SLR every time. With the SLR you can use the entire range of macro to super-telephoto, zoom lenses, bellows, tilt-shift, stereo, etc. The way the SLR works is so versatile, there's really no comparison. Really the only shortcoming of the SLR is actually a shortcoming of the shutter, slow flash sync speeds, and is not limited to SLRs as quite a few rangefinders have focal plane shutters.

I enjoy rangefinders because of their variety, their history, and because they're fun to use. I like them because they're all a bit different, and most SLRs are cookie-cutter in comparison (excepting the Exaktas, Retina Reflex and some others). But if I want easy, fast and WYSWYG photography, I reach for the SLR.

This is not to say that rangefinders are inadequate in any way. They're just different. The lens selection is more limited, but in day-to-day use, it usually doesn't matter.

Pioneer · Jul 11, 2016

I don't shoot a lot of night time photos but I have done quite a bit of work in very low light and my LX is likely the easiest of the bunch to focus.

Personally, my 60+ year old eyes don't like night time focusing even with the best of equipment but the easiest I have would likely be my Pentax 645.

Brian Legge · Jul 11, 2016

For me, focusing with a good rangefinder is faster than focusing with an SLR. And I say this as someone who is 100% manual focus who has used SLRs with good focus screens. Similarly, its nice that focusing with a lens that only opens to F4 is just as bright as focusing with a f1.4 lens.

I had a serviced Zorki at one point that has been serviced and had the mirror/beamsplitter replaced. The focus dot was astonishingly bright; as contrasty as an M or modern Voigtlander/ZM. Leica III and its clones can have strong finder if they're serviced. The split window focusing can be nice from a precision standpoint and can force a mental mode change between focusing and composing but was too slow for me. The screwmount Canons are among the earliest rangefinders that work well for me.

On compactness, yes, the Ms don't have the smallest bodies out there. I appreciate the compactness of some of the lenses though - particularly the vintage ones. A body and 3 lenses can fit in the same bag that I carry a FM2n and a 35mm lens.

...

Note that all of this is about why rangefinders work for me. I have nothing against SLRs and use them at times but being open to rangefinders opens up decades of potentially interesting camera gear, some of which may work very well for photographers.

farmersteve · Jul 11, 2016

I'm hardly an expert on rangefinders and own way more SLR gear than rangefinder. I've had several RFs over the years and sold most of them. I have never had a Leica but had a new Voightlander about 5 years ago and a nice CV 35mm lens with it and hardly used it. I recently bought a Canon P to give it another shot. But for me it comes down to two things. I recently started to have to wear glasses in the past couple of years. Focusing on the Canon P is tough with glasses. The eye relief isn't that great. I miss the selectable framelines of the Voightlander (kind of wish I hadn't sold it but needed the money at the time). I do like the simplicity of the Canon P. Not much to fiddle with. It's quiet. Pretty lightweight. Great for street shots. OTOH, so of the newer SLRs had diopter adjustments built into the viewfinder so it makes focusing waaaay easier (for me).

The 2nd thing for me that weighs in favor of SLR gear is that there is some great stuff out there dirt cheap. I can buy a body and several lenses for the cost of the cheapest Leica M3 with a lens. To me, taking pictures shouldn't be about equipment. I don't fawn over my equipment, I use it and it gets beaten up but you know what? As much as I love using it all, they are just tools. A means to an end. Especially with old SLR gear. I can beat it up and if it breaks I don't feel too sad because I can choose from the millions of them out there for peanuts...

Paul Howell · Jul 11, 2016

I have always had both rangefinders and SLRs, different tools for different jobs. When working as a PJ I used a Leica IIIG and Canon 7S to shoot funerals, wedding (as news), in the field I usually carried the Canon with a 28mm along with a Nikon F and a set of lens, normal, 105 and 200. A rangefinder is quite, I had no issues using the 7S in low light. In more modern times a SLR is my primary camera, and for the most part I use point and shoots rather than a rangefinder, but on occasion pull out my Canon QL 1.7 or Konica S3, lens are very sharp, great color. I will in France this fall and will carry a SLR and S3.

Jim Jones · Jul 11, 2016

cuthbert said:
You can't use lenses longer than 135mm on a RF. There is a reason for that.

I have a rangefinder coupled 200mm Komura for LTM, but do prefer a 200mm lens on a SLR.

blindpig · Jul 11, 2016

I have to agree with Matt King's earlier comment about Retinas. I've had two IIa's and find their jewel like construction to be a wonder today and certainly ahead of it's time when built.It's small when folded and easily fits in a pocket,easy to focus and fast sharp lens,one stroke film advance and requires no battery.
Really a joy to use.
Don

cuthbert · Jul 11, 2016

Jim Jones said:
I have a rangefinder coupled 200mm Komura for LTM, but do prefer a 200mm lens on a SLR.

How long do you take to focus an object? Do you use an external finder to magnify the image?

cliveh · Jul 11, 2016

You tunnel vision guys with SLRs should try the world of RF that opens up greater composition possibilities and vision at the point of exposure.

cuthbert · Jul 11, 2016

cliveh said:
You tunnel vision guys with SLRs should try the world of RF that opens up greater composition possibilities and vision at the point of exposure.

This is what you see in the LX tunnel with a fast lens:

echard · Jul 11, 2016

Focus for me is a good reason. My eyes aren't so good and I can still do well with the focus patch. Also, I like that I don't know exactly what's going to end up in the frame everytime.

ColColt · Jul 11, 2016

I guess I'm still fortunate as I can focus the SLR as well as the RF. The only RF I've ever had problems with is the Nikon S2. Leicas are a piece of cake to focus and just as easily as the split image SLR for me.

Jim Jones · Jul 11, 2016

cuthbert said:
How long do you take to focus an object? Do you use an external finder to magnify the image?

Focusing must be done carefully, and stopping down for more DOF is wise. There may be magnifiers for the focusing window, but I've never used one. I do have an external variable frame viewer that goes up to 200mm, but didn't always use it.

Theo Sulphate · Jul 12, 2016

Ultimately the preference of one camera over another, rangefinder, or SLR, is a personal choice. Some cameras feel better than others in the hand. Some have their controls in just the right place.

To my surprise, a Leica M5 (which I don't have) is larger than my M3 or M6 and feels much better to me to operate. The Retina IIa is nice and compact, but I can't ever find its focus lever without looking. My Nikon S2 is perfect. The smaller Canonets are also easy for me to use.

One reason I like rangefinders is that I can hold them up to my right eye without pushing my nose into the back - which is what happens with almost all SLR's.

But, ultimately, it's a personal choice.

derelict · Jul 12, 2016

I understand that just about everything ends up being a personal choice. I used to have big bulky gear but got tired of all that and started to downsize. Away went all my Pentax DSLR stuff for an OMD EM10 and three primes, which are lighter and take up the same space as my Tamron 28-75/ 2.8. I started using the Pentax film bodies more and settled on the first one I ever used, my P30T. It's not the fanciest but has a great screen, very light and compact as it gets, and the controls are right where I want them to be. My MF choice is a folder for much the same reasons.

The RF interests me as they can be even more compact and lighter than my P30T. I have zero issues focusing my SLR and zero issues focusing my accessory rangefinders when trying to guess distances for the folder.

Can someone explain to me how a Bessa T works? It requires an external viewfinder, which I'm okay with as I have gotten used to that with my Ercona, but also has a small rangefinder window?

mnemosyne · Jul 12, 2016

cuthbert said:
I don't bash the design of the camera, I perfectly understand we are talking about a camera of the 20s, but insisting that it's easier to focus with a Leica III than with a SLR with bright screen and fast lens in low light is futile.

Your statement left the impression that screwmount Leicas RFs were inherently (by design) dim and cannot be used at night. This is plain wrong.

I never said a Barnack is easier to focus at night than an OM with a high speed lens. I never did that comparison as I don't have a 1.4 or 1.2 lens for my OM-1/2.

cuthbert said:
I also assume you will come and say a Leica III is a faster shooter than a Olnmpus OM.

Never assume.

mnemosyne · Jul 12, 2016

derelict said:
Can someone explain to me how a Bessa T works? It requires an external viewfinder, which I'm okay with as I have gotten used to that with my Ercona, but also has a small rangefinder window?

You focus through the RF window and frame through the external VF.

farmersteve · Jul 12, 2016

mnemosyne said:
You focus through the RF window and frame through the external VF.

The RF window gives you a small field of view. An external viewfinder would let you frame correctly. It's an extra step, but if you are using hyperfocal focusing you may not want to focus the lens ahead of time.

NortheastPhotographic · Jul 12, 2016

I have a MUCH easier time focusing an RF with fast lenses vs my SLRs, AF lenses not withstanding. I also find them easier to travel with. Plus many of the Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses are very affordable. Because of the recent Zeiss rebates I was able to pick up the 50/1.5 C Sonnar, 35/1.4 Distagon, and 28/2.8 Biogon for what I consider a steal (had some gift cards, etc). The old Nikkors don't really come close to these gems. I have a 50/1.4 Planar for Nikon and focusing it at 1.4 is nearly impossible for me. Where-as my 1.5 optimized C Sonnar is right on every time. Same with the 35/1.4. The 28 is just easier for DOF reasons.

After 50mm, I go with SLRs. On the job, at my weddings I use a D750 and an M 240. They both augment each other in interesting ways.

blockend · Jul 12, 2016

The fastest handling camera is a pre-focused one, of any type. Next comes a good autofocus camera, and in a distant third place come manual focus varieties. Whether rangefinders or SLRs are quicker depends on the model. Fast SLR lenses are easier to focus but give a poor impression of composition stopped down, rangefinders are better at this but most lack corrected frames.

You pays your money....

Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency