Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

I used a rangefinder yesterday, so I have some recent experience. I found that compared to an SLR, the viewfinder is just a window I use to focus and line everything up, there's a looseness that's implied, whereas since an SLR is WYSWYG, I find myself pushing the edges of the frame, and composing in a very rigid way, because I can. With a rangefinder, you have to give yourself a little breathing room. I also stop down quite a bit more with a rangefinder, yesterday because of the limited shutter speeds, max 1/200s, but partially because it's hard to know what's in focus. I also used scale focusing quite a bit so that I could point and shoot. All this is more a matter of personal taste than facts. I find each camera suited to its own role. Neither is necessarily better in an objective sense.

Fundamentally, the rangefinder camera is a more limited instrument than an SLR. At times I find them very elegant, and other times limiting, especially since I own several cameras, but few focal lengths. As someone who buys cameras both to use and appreciate in themselves, I find rangefinders to be a more interesting group vs. SLRs. Once camera makers converged on the pentaprism, lever wind, and focal plane shutter, every 35mm SLR is very similar in appearance and handling (though I love the distinctive Exakta, Exa and the Kodak Reflex). With rangefinders, not everything is made in the mold of Leica (and you'll usually pay a premium if it is). Compare the Argus C3, the AnscoMark, the Kodak 1A special, the Mamiya Press, the Speed Graphic, Yashica Electro, Canon 110ED, etc, etc. You'll find lots of different ways of accomplishing the same end.

If you've only used an SLR, you're missing out by not using a rangefinder some of the time. The reverse is also true.

I have both, however in different formats so it is not fair to compare. I haven't shot extensively with a 35mm RF

I feel I'm more into SLR than RF camp, because of the life that is in the Viewfinder and the precision of framing.
Admittedly, I'd love to try a MF SLR and specifically the Pentax 67. I chose a Fuji GW because of the RF advantantage extrapolated to large, down to being a big 6x9 machine and a Reflex system for that may be quite huge and heavy.

I have an OM-1 and it's amusing a micro43 digi (praising the minaturization of the format!) is just about the same size.

BillBingham2 said:

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 (;->

Click to expand...

May be done with some SLR's too! However it's not as practical. My OM-1 with 50mm could be used with both eyes open, but focus breathing made it a bit uncomfortable plus the centered VF made it only work when shooting vertically.

michr said:

Fundamentally, the rangefinder camera is a more limited instrument than an SLR.

Click to expand...

I would prefer to say simpler.

Focus accuracy is better with RF up to 90 mm where they are the same. Composition can be more precise especially if you get a 100% viewfinder.

Slr lenses are bigger, bigger and heavier if auto focus. Zooms can make up some of this.

For 35mm, it's clear that every Japanese manufacturer abandoned rangefinders for SLRsin the 1970s. The market spoke. They also abandoned film, following each other and the mass market (which you can't blame them for really). Even the Eastetn Bloc stopped making rangefinders.

There really isn't a size advantage in 35mm if you compare that smaller systems such as Olympus OM with prime lenses to an interchangeable rangefinder system such as a Leica. And there is a far more limited range of lenses that are practical with a rangefinder. Stick to 28-35-50-90 and a Leica is great. But an OM-1 is in the same size range. The only real advantage of a 35mm interchangeable lens RF over an SLR is preference based. An SLR with its central viewfinder hides your face, many people prefer the more subtle rangefinder. Street photographers are a case in point. Stealth plays a part of you are taking candid photos and a rangefinder is slightly more subtle and the quieter operation comes into play. If you are stalking your prey (and trying not to be noticed) having a quieter camera is definitely an advantage.

But the size advantage really becomes noticeable for Medium Format.

My MF camera is a Bronica SQ-A SLR and its big and heavy and clunky. A Mamiya 6 has clear advantages if you want to take your camera out and about. I wish I had one! But for close up portraiture I'd miss the focus confirmation of an SLR. And studio photographers tended to use Hassies.

With an SQ-A Mirror slap is loud enough to scare small children and it's and it's an awkward shape to hold. For me it's very much a tripod camera.

If I were starting again today purchasing equipment, I'd buy a 35mm SLR kit and Medium format rangefinder kit.

But it's horses for courses. Everybody will prioritise different compromises. but the market clearly showed that the SLR was the best overall system for most people. And by the time the Japanese had abandoned 35mm rangefinders the choice had gone, rangefinders became very expensive minority systems. When I bought my first SLR in the early 1980s, rangefinders weren't even an option for me.

The SLR versus rangefinder debate is pretty much playing out again now in the camera market with SLR versus mirriorless cameras, only with the tables turned with mirrorless being the upstart challenging the entrenched SLR.

Many of the same pros and cons are re-emerging. If (when) mirrorless wins, the Japanese camera manufacturers will probably all but abandon the loser (SLR).

But I have never taken a photo with a rangefinder that couldn't have been taken with an SLR. And mostly vice versa. The most difficult part of photography is getting a good subject.

And I've yet to find a subject that requires a particular type of camera viewfinder.

klownshed said:

An SLR with its central viewfinder hides your face, many people prefer the more subtle rangefinder.

Click to expand...

Interesting aspect, I did not hear of before.
In contrast to the SLR vs. TLR discussion.

AgX said:

Interesting aspect, I did not hear of before.
.

Click to expand...

Lucky you! My greasy shtrutzel is blocked by damn SLRs, I have to turn my head to be able to breath. While RF is just beside.
But it has nothing to do with "subtle", the real reason is in location of VF.

Ko.Fe. said:

But it has nothing to do with "subtle", the real reason is in location of VF.

Click to expand...

That's what was implied. Your face isn't totally obscured with an Rf (unless you are left eye dominant) and people have claimed that makes interaction with others less intimidating ever since the SLR was born.

The same discussion is happening today with RF style mirror less cameras versus big hulking SLRs.

Since the dawn of the SLR, Canon and Nikon have been desperate to make the SLR as big and unsubtle as possible.

klownshed said:

...
Many of the same pros and cons are re-emerging. If (when) mirrorless wins, the Japanese camera manufacturers will probably all but abandon the loser (SLR).
...

Click to expand...

The moving mirror was what first intrigued me about SLRs so many decades ago. Yet, from a manufacturing perspective today, the advantages of mirrorless are overwhelming:

- less cost:
-- no mirror
-- no mirror box
-- no actuation mechanism
-- no groundglass or pentaprism

- no time (money) spent aligning to tolerances

- smaller, lighter camera bodies
- lens flange can be closer to the "film"

The only disadvantage (based on my little knowledge) is autofocus speed in certain situations. That, and you have to view an electronic, not optical, image.

And I've yet to find a subject that requires a particular type of camera viewfinder.

Click to expand...

Folklore has it that only Leicas were allowed in courtrooms because they were so quiet.

Theo Sulphate said:

That, and you have to view an electronic, not optical, image.

Click to expand...

At the risk of getting too off-topic, the Fuji X-Pro cameras have very interesting rangefinder style optical/EVF hybrid viewfinders.

Whilst the 'intimidation' factor has more to do with size than viewfinder (a tiny SLR with pancake lens is less intimidating than an F6 with 70-210) the most important aspect is still the personality of the photographer.

A good portrait photographer has skills beyond the technical to put the subject at ease or to remain un noticed regardless of the type of camera.

For my kind of photography though, any camera will do

klownshed said:

At the risk of getting too off-topic, the Fuji X-Pro cameras have very interesting rangefinder style optical/EVF hybrid viewfinders.
...

Click to expand...

--------
Indeed: I bought the X-Pro1 when it came out not only because it had traditional external controls, implemented in an elegant way, but also because of its unusual viewfinder system.

If I may continue off topic for just this part...

Not only can you switch between optical and electronic, not only can you customize the displays in each, but also you get a "normal" and "alternate" display in each (using DISP) - basically four ways to look at things. I set it as follows: optical with minimal info, optical with a few aids, electronic with minimal info, and electronic with full information. Usually I use the optical viewfinder unless I'm carefully composing close-up.
--------

Back to the topic...

Even though an Olympus OM-1 or Pentax ME may be smaller than some rangefinders, the handling, operation, and maybe even the psychology of using a rangefinder camera is different - maybe it's as simple as having an optical viewfinder at the top left side as opposed to a through-the-lens view in the top center. Maybe it's the general flat rectangular shape. Some aspects of personal camera use can't be deduced logically -- otherwise TLRs would've disappeared.

Theo Sulphate said:

The only disadvantage (based on my little knowledge) is autofocus speed in certain situations. That, and you have to view an electronic, not optical, image.

Folklore has it that only Leicas were allowed in courtrooms because they were so quiet.

Click to expand...

Regarding live-view cameras, the real disadvantages were, years ago, that they forced to use CMOS sensors and that the sensor works during composition work. That means the sensor gets hot and the noise/signal ration worsens. Besides, that sucks energy. Also, you had to have a very good viewfinder in order to focus precisely. With an electronic viewfinder you have to make recourse to zoom and such stuff, or rely on autofocus.

Leicas were probably the most noisy of the camera allowed inside a courtroom. A central-shutter camera is, i believe, even less noisy.
I suppose that, basically, all cameras but SLR were allowed in courtrooms. Normally that means "Leica" for professionals. I'm sure a TLR would have been admitted just as easily.

Theo Sulphate said:

The moving mirror was what first intrigued me about SLRs so many decades ago. Yet, from a manufacturing perspective today, the advantages of mirrorless are overwhelming:

- less cost:
-- no mirror
-- no mirror box
-- no actuation mechanism
-- no groundglass or pentaprism

- no time (money) spent aligning to tolerances

- smaller, lighter camera bodies
- lens flange can be closer to the "film"

The only disadvantage (based on my little knowledge) is autofocus speed in certain situations. That, and you have to view an electronic, not optical, image.

Folklore has it that only Leicas were allowed in courtrooms because they were so quiet.

Click to expand...

Good list of points.
I'd add one more disadvantage of RF cameras - the use of polarizing filters. It's far less tedious with SLR cameras, as one can see the filter results in the viewfinder while the filter is attached to the lens, and make precise adjustments to the filter without taking the eye off the viewfinder. With RF cameras, it's a bit more complicated and time consuming to get the desired effect.

Theo Sulphate said:

The moving mirror was what first intrigued me about SLRs so many decades ago. Yet, from a manufacturing perspective today, the advantages of mirrorless are overwhelming:

- less cost:
-- no mirror
-- no mirror box
-- no actuation mechanism
-- no groundglass or pentaprism

- no time (money) spent aligning to tolerances

- smaller, lighter camera bodies
- lens flange can be closer to the "film"

The only disadvantage (based on my little knowledge) is autofocus speed in certain situations. That, and you have to view an electronic, not optical, image.



Folklore has it that only Leicas were allowed in courtrooms because they were so quiet.

Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa, I did not think that you were allowed to mention any of that on here?

Well, I started the thread and will update it. I was primarily interested in a rangefinder for the compact size. About a month ago, I found and had CLA'd a Pentax MX and I absolutely love it. It really is not that loud and it is about as close in size and weight (for K mount) as I can get to my mirrorless OMD EM10 set up. It accompanies the EM10 everywhere I go.

derelict said:

Whoa whoa whoa, I did not think that you were allowed to mention any of that on here?

Click to expand...

"It's easier to ask forgiveness then get permission" -Rear Admiral Grace Hopper

Well, I started the thread and will update it. I was primarily interested in a rangefinder for the compact size. About a month ago, I found and had CLA'd a Pentax MX and I absolutely love it. It really is not that loud and it is about as close in size and weight (for K mount) ...

Click to expand...

Were you able to try any rangefinders though? Something like a Canonet 28 or the higher-spec QL17 is pretty compact and also fun. For pocketability, it's hard to beat an XA or XA2. Try one if you get a chance.

TheRook said:

Good list of points.
I'd add one more disadvantage of RF cameras - the use of polarizing filters. It's far less tedious with SLR cameras, as one can see the filter results in the viewfinder while the filter is attached to the lens, and make precise adjustments to the filter without taking the eye off the viewfinder. With RF cameras, it's a bit more complicated and time consuming to get the desired effect.

Click to expand...

I'd add one more advantage of RF cameras - the use of all filters apart from polarizing filters. It's far more tedious with SLR cameras, as one can see the filter results in the viewfinder while the filter is attached to the lens. Put on an ND filter, and the whole VF goes dark making it much harder to focus. Put on a red filter, and the whole VF darkens and becomes red, making it much harder to focus. With RF cameras, as long as it is not a polarizing filter, any filter that you use does not affect viewing and focusing.

(I'm playing the devil's advocate here, as I use all sorts of cameras.)

You could use a swing/flip filter-holder on a SLR.
But such thingy is scarce.

If you are using an SLR you can focus before you attach the filter.

Not very practical in many situations. That is why I hinted at special-holders.

klownshed said:

The most difficult part of photography is getting a good subject.

Click to expand...

You may never get a good subject and there exist nothing like that.

Polarizing filters on a rangefinder camera are no more inconvenient than dense filters on a SLR. Decades ago Leica Polarizers for their rangefinder cameras were quite convenient (and expensive).

cliveh said:

If you are using an SLR you can focus before you attach the filter.

Click to expand...

Yes. Just make sure that you only take images of static objects.

The only filter that is inconvenient to use on a RF is the polarizer. The only filter that is convenient to use on an SLR is the polarizer.

It is not like using a filter on a SLR is hard to do nor it is rocket science. Rarely is a filter so dark that one would have trouble seeing through it. On the other hand one never knows what is in focus so the photographer has to be reduced to zone focusing. To make things worse RF cameras have trouble using lenses shorter that 28mm and longer than 135mm. So all around the RFers have be grasping at straw to justify their bad decisions.

The RF versus SLR wars were fought over fifty years ago and guess what!?! RF lost and the RFers have been pissing in their beer ever since.

An SLR is also nice for graduated filters as well. The difficulty in using other filters on an SLR is kind of a variable factor depending on use case and conditions, and what you're photographing. If you're doing filters 'by the numbers' and going off only meters, then there isn't a great deal of advantage to an SLR. However if you're visualizing things through the filter, then it can be handy to stop and actually take the time to study how the light is looking when going through the filter.

But cameras are tools that are all a series of unfortunate compromises. Use the camera that meets your usage requirements with the fewest negative compromises towards your needs. If one of your use cases is "super light medium format and readily fits comfortably in the breast pocket of a jacket", then you're going to be 'rather hard pressed' to come up with an SLR design that meets those requirements.

Sirius Glass said:

... RF cameras have trouble using lenses shorter that 28mm and longer than 135mm. So all around the RFers have be grasping at straw to justify their bad decisions...

Click to expand...

Wider than 28mm is good only for photos of the galaxy. Longer than 135mm is good only for canals on Mars. For all terrestrial objects, 28-135 is good!

The RF versus SLR wars were fought over fifty years ago and guess what!?! RF lost and the RFers have been pissing in their beer ever since.

Click to expand...

Analog controls and film also lost, but we love it still!

Yes, I agree all beer worldwide tastes like piss. Cannot drink it.