• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

flavio81 said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Hold it right there...

That is one of the reasons that Mr. Barnack designed the Leica in the first place. He wanted a smaller camera to pack around because the large format camera he owned was too big and heavy.

And I for one am grateful. I think his little cameras are perfect. Of course I still pack a large format camera around sometimes but with my little Leica I am freed from all that if I want to be.

For me, size combined with lens quality are the biggest benefits of the Leica rangefinder. And when I refer to size I am not comparing an M3 against a Pentax MX or Olympus OM-1. To me the ideal size versus photo quality ratio is with the Leica III. And the lenses, even from the 30s, are high quality enough to get some very large photographs from, and even larger if I want to project.
 

Yes, i agree with the reason for creating the Leica camera; i also use 35mm equipment including very compact cameras (scale focus cameras).

But my point is that most 35mm cameras are small and light enough, including 90% of 35mm SLR cameras.
 
flavio81, what is long distance, in case you are lugging 8x10 or the RB67?
When I am up in the high altitude mountains, I can't remember telling myself even once that I am missing by not taking a MF SLR or 4x5, even 8x10...
Then again, mountaineering clothing & equipment is usually built light, breathable, yet heavy duty...
 
flavio81 said:
Yes, i agree with the reason for creating the Leica camera; i also use 35mm equipment including very compact cameras (scale focus cameras).

But my point is that most 35mm cameras are small and light enough, including 90% of 35mm SLR cameras.
Click to expand...

You need the lens for SLR.



SLR 50 1.8 lens on the left, RF 50 1.5 lens on the right.



And this is 50 3.5 lens on Barnack Leica.
 
Last edited:
Ko.Fe. said:
You need the lens for SLR.

View attachment 166024

SLR 50 1.8 lens on the left, RF 50 1.5 lens on the right.

View attachment 166025

And this is 50 3.5 lens on Barnack Leica.
Click to expand...

My point is -let me repeat it- that both are light enough and small enough for me, and thus other considerations are going to steer me for one over another. In which case i would picl the SLR depicted above.

As for the Barnack Leica with the 50/3.5, if i was very concerned with carrying a smalm and light camera, I would rather pick my Olympus Pen S with the 28/3.5 lens; equally slow, a bit wider in angle, double the amount of exposures, extra depth of field, less fragile, and perhaps quicker to operate.
 
Theo Sulphate said:
...

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

I used to love beer, but as I have gotten older I am finding that most beers now leave a bitter after taste. There are only a few beers that I can drink.


On the other hand, there is nothing like the feel of using a RF Leica.
 
Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread but surely one of the main reasons for choosing an RF is the way in which they "force" you to compose which is quite different from an SLR.

Camera to the left eye ...other eye open,and the framelines impose onto your normal field of vision .
This enables you to see outside of the restrictions imposed by whatever lens you`re using.

Personally I think the size argument is over done in todays world of compacts.

If I`m really bothered about size and weight I`ll carry a GRV but there is nothing to match the compositional advantages of an RF
 
you wouldn't take a ferrari off road and you wouldn't take a land rover to the track... both have their ideal uses and both are crap for other uses.
 
Sirius Glass said:
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...
This "war" you mention is mostly imagined. Sure, there was a shift in the industry from RF to SLR, but these types of shifts have been occurring throughout the history of photography. No one is "pissing in their beer", other than perhaps a few camera manufacturers who failed to adjust to market demands. For the consumer, less demand for a particular camera style means more affordable!
I would even argue that the popularity of film RF cameras is now on the rise. At recent flea markets, I've noticed RF cameras getting snatched up by buyers much quicker than SLR cameras.
 
I use both, but the biggest reason for using a rangefinder for me is the ability to shoot IR through a filter and still be able to see the image clearly
 

I did not say that RF cameras are bad. There are two main types of hand held cameras. Choose the one you like and move on. There is no reason to rehash all the article in Popular Photography and Modern Photography in the 1950's and 1960's.
 
Why a rangefinder over an SLR? Because rangefinders were cheaper than SLRs.
 
A Leica rangefinder is the Aston Martin of the camera world. No other 35mm camera design can compete.
 
cliveh said:
A Leica rangefinder is the Aston Martin of the camera world. No other 35mm camera design can compete.
Click to expand...

I love this man.
 
miha said:
Why a rangefinder over an SLR? Because rangefinders were cheaper than SLRs.
Click to expand...
I've bought a few new Leica RF cameras and a few new Nikon SLRs when each were the choice of many professionals. The Nikons were cheaper. German craftsmanship was expensive, but worth it.
 
Jim Jones said:
I've bought a few new Leica RF cameras and a few new Nikon SLRs when each were the choice of many professionals. The Nikons were cheaper. German craftsmanship was expensive, but worth it.
Click to expand...

So why not Leicaflex or Contarex, dearer than RF Leica, best craftsmanship to date.

 
The choice between RF and SLR is more a matter of shooting circumstances than of camera quality. I started with LF because they were compact and the choices of SLR was quite limited. I added SLR when systems like Nikon became comprehensive. Each still has advantages. More important than prestige or craftsmanship is function. Nikon was the World leader in versatility. Leica (and some of their imitators) handled better.
 
Can someone remind me which side I should be on in this argument since I happily use both SLRs and RFs?
 
Huss said:
That makes sense since every mfg that competes with Aston outperforms it - Ferrari, McLaren, Lambo, Porsche etc etc
Click to expand...

But they lack taste and refinement.
 
I love them one and all...

but the Leica M-A is now my most used camera.

The Pentax K1000 is my second most used.

They both do exactly what I ask, even when it is wrong.
 
Huss said:
Can someone remind me which side I should be on in this argument since I happily use both SLRs and RFs?
Click to expand...

Join those of us on the side of "Cameras are fun and different designs are good for different tasks"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register