Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

[Svenedin]

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.

 

[baachitraka]

That is one feature that very few use.
I rather read it from the lens to know about DOF.

RF is good if I leave the lens cap at home.

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1*105

 

[Svenedin]

I think it is very useful and have used DOF preview since I bought my OM4-Ti in 1990. Of course, OM lenses, and many others have had that feature for far longer than that.

 

[flavio81]

With some things, personal preference trumps all the reasons given for using an SLR.

Consider TLR's. Many photographers prefer them, yet:

- you're not looking through the taking lens
- the image is reversed and often dim
- the image usually is at waist level
- the camera is somewhat bulky
- tele & wide lenses, if available, add to bulk

I thought I'd never own a TLR - now I've got two.

Yes, but using also reason, "pros" of the medium format TLR are:

- no viewfinder blackout at the moment of the exposure
- viewfinders can be quite bright (look through a C220F or C330F and you'll see)
- waist level shooting can be comfortable
- camera is often smaller and lighter than a medium format SLR of 6x6 or 6x7 format
- lenses are definitely smaller than medium format SLR lenses
- no mirror shock
- minimal shutter lag (much smaller than SLR camera lag)

 

[flavio81]

I think it is very useful and have used DOF preview since I bought my OM4-Ti in 1990. Of course, OM lenses, and many others have had that feature for far longer than that.

+1

For me DOF preview is highly important and that's why i avoid cameras that don't have DOF preview.

As for the thread topic, for me these are the RF advantages:

- Smaller size (for fixed lens rangefinders)
- For interchangeable lens RF, wideangle lenses can be made much smaller due to no need for a retrofocus design
- no viewfinder blackout
- sometimes there is lower shutter lag
- usually they're quieter
- some RF cameras can be focused quickly

Disadvantages, in my opinion, compared to a SLR:

#1 - no way to see the actual perspective compression effects / DOF compression effects the lens is making
#2 - Lenses longer than 135mm can't be focused reliably or they don't exist (unless we consider those horrible SLR-conversion contraptions like the Visoflex, which turns the camera into a mutant SLR)
#3 - need auxiliary viewfinder for focal lengths that are outside the standard 35/50/90, or for all of them (depending on camera model)
--- which mean you need to focus through one viewfinder and then compose through another
--- which mean you need to correct for parallax with long lenses
- no zoom lenses available (and no, the Tri-Elmar is not really a zoom)

other disadvantages:

- wideangle lenses of non-retrofocus design usually show vignetting at wideopen, and since the late 60s retrofocus (SLR) wideangle lenses have been made as good as they get. Also, they are invariably slower (although smaller, so this is not really a disadvantage.)
- lack of "mirror shock" is not a real-life advantage when comparing to the more refined SLRs like the Leicaflex, Canon F-1, Nikon F3(and later models), etc. Even the Canon A-series (AE-1 etc) are very very soft in this regard.
- screwmount (m39) rangefinder lenses need to be screwed in carefully so you don't hit/kick the rangefinder coupling lever (it is sensitive)
- rangefinder assembly is sensitive to shock and misalignment; you need to be gentle
- with a 100% viewfinder SLR (Nikon F, F2, F3...), you can frame exactly. Not all RFs are that precise with regard to framing.
- usually fewer metering options

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Actually the Leica M3 has a visual reference for depth of field built right into the rangefinder for two different apertures. And you don't have to press a button or deal with a dark viewfinder. Just sayin'...

I don't really have a preference one way or the other. I usually carry my Hexar RF just because it is easy to. I also have a Contax system. I usually just grab whatever I feel like when i am walking out the door. I have been grabbing my Contax ST alot lately though. Such a great camera.

 

[georg16nik]

...
- lack of "mirror shock" is not a real-life advantage when comparing to the more refined SLRs like the Leicaflex, Canon F-1, Nikon F3(and later models), etc. Even the Canon A-series (AE-1 etc) are very very soft in this regard...

So much heavy bulk just to shoot a tiny 35mm film is admirable.
For the weight of Canon F1 + 50mm lens, one could easily pack a lightweight RF + wide angle lens, AND lightweight SLR + any prime up to 100mm... B&W film in the RF and color film in the SLR or slow film in the RF and fast film in the SLR...

 

[flavio81]

So much heavy bulk just to shoot a tiny 35mm film is admirable.
For the weight of Canon F1 + 50mm lens, one could easily pack a lightweight RF + wide angle lens, AND lightweight SLR + any prime up to 100mm... B&W film in the RF and color film in the SLR or slow film in the RF and fast film in the SLR...

I'm used to packing a RB67, so a 35mm SLR is very light weight to me. You know, in the past, photographers weren't babies who cried and complained about camera weight, and were not afraid to take 8x10" view cameras along with several lenses and a heavy tripod for long, long distances.

A Canon F1 plus three lenses is light enough. Yes, a rangefinder is lighter, but to each its own. Rangefinders are cool, but i prefer SLR cameras.

If i want REALLY light cameras, i take a scale focusing camera like the Olympus Pen S, or a Minox 35.

 

[georg16nik]

Must be real fun to hike high altitude mountains with RB67 and even a modest kit, tripod, and stretch it to long distances.
I hope you are having fun with huge optical prints from the RB67...

 

[Luckless]

If I owned one of those light weight medium format folder range finders along side my C330 TLR (or an even heavier camera), and my choice was to take my heavy camera on an actual back packing trip, or the lighter camera and another day or two of food...

Well, I DO happen to like to eat.


Every camera is a comprise of design. Personally I like TLRs for my medium format work simply because using it becomes that much more different from my other far more modern gear. They look interesting, are fun to use, and I'm really enjoying the waist level viewfinder on my C330f, should prove very handy whenever I get around to experimenting with some IR film work, and its weight combined with no mirror movement and the leaf shutter? Well that makes for a wonderfully low speed handholding factor compared to what I can achieve with SLR style gear, even with some of the newest gear on the market.


I'm really considering buying a second C330f for parts/reverse engineering, and do a complete modern redesign on one with more modern materials and features.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I owned a Mamiya C330with the PorroFlex and with the 65mm, 80mm, and 250mm lens which I traded in for the Hasselblad 503 CX and lenses. I never looked back and I have never missed the TLR.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Actually the Leica M3 has a visual reference for depth of field built right into the rangefinder for two different apertures...

Not all M3's have the DOF notches in the rangefinder patch. I believe the early ones don't.

My first M3 (DS, ST, PV), does not have it. My second M3 (SS, ST, PV) does.

M6's don't have it. I don't know about M4 and M5.

Clever feature.

 

[OptiKen]

Obviously RF cameras are strange for common sense people. But for strange person like me...
Since this thread was open I acquired three more of them. Two as my first M were made, assembled in the province of my residnese, Ontario. Isn't it weird to like cameras made where you live?

Well, I had to buy a 'KEN-FLEX' in it's wooden case just because it was called Ken

Ken

 

[ColColt]

DOF preview is about as useless as tits on a boar hog, IMHO. You can bet it was of no concern to HCB, Eisenstaedt, DDD or Eugene Smith.

 

[Sirius Glass]

DOF preview is about as useless as tits on a boar hog, IMHO. You can bet it was of no concern to HCB, Eisenstaedt, DDD or Eugene Smith.

Especially if one does not know how to use a slr. Did they call you from the grave to tell you that about DOF preview on slrs? Do you have a direct connection? HCB used range finder cameras, so his comment in the slr world would be somewhat less than useless.

 

[removed account4]

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.

hi cliveh

sorry to sound oblivious but how does it open up greater compositonal possibilities and vision ?

thanks
john

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Walk around with both eyes open and then there is no need for a range finder camera. I have used both range finder and slr cameras extensively and there is not compositional advantage for either one.

 

[BillBingham2]

RFs focus better with wide angle lenses. If you have a 1:1 viewfinder you can shoot with two eyes open, which frankly is way cool for tracking what is going on around.

B2 (;->

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Especially if one does not know how to use a slr. Did they call you from the grave to tell you that about DOF preview on slrs? Do you have a direct connection? HCB used range finder cameras, so his comment in the slr world would be somewhat less than useless.

I don't think HCB or any other prominent photographer made any comment regarding DOF on SLRs - certainly no implication about that was made in this thread.

Mr. James noted that Leica M3's have a way of indicating DOF with the rangefinder patch notches. I stated that some of them do. ColColt stated such DOF preview was useless.

Some people like to use SLRs, TLRs, rangefinders equally.

 

[AgX]

DOF preview is about as useless as tits on a boar hog, IMHO. You can bet it was of no concern to HCB, Eisenstaedt, DDD or Eugene Smith.

Those photographers only repesent a fraction of photographers concerning their use of cameras.

 

[one90guy]

Strange, I just realized I rarely think about DOF when using RF's, but am always aware when shooting SLR's. Need to go back and look through old photos and negatives. Also use Mamiya 6 some with mainly the 50mm and wondering

 

[one90guy]

[QUOTE="baachitraka, post: 1841431

RF is good if I leave the lens cap at home.[/QUOTE]

Hmm a very true statement, have missed more photos than I care to admit on the lens cap left on.

David

 

[cliveh]

hi cliveh

sorry to sound oblivious but how does it open up greater compositonal possibilities and vision ?

thanks
john

See my post 101

 

[removed account4]

thanks, while i use a camera with frame lines, i really
haven't used it the way you have. MF and LF cameras too
i didn't realize it was considered tunnel vision, i just thought it
was using my eyepiece and viewfinder/ground glass. i don't use DOF preview either

its nice that we all use our cameras differently. the next time i use a camera with frame lines
or ground glass, i will think about above/below/side to side. maybe i do it already and don't realize it ?