I'm in! Especially since I love using my Fuji Instax and don't know where that falls.
Why a rangefinder over an SLR?
-
A
- Thread starter derelict
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon 28mm 2.8 ais and 20mm 2.8 ais
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 lamp housing and partial neg carrier
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Nagaoka 4x5 Pinhole Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Sinar Grip & Cable Release for Sinar Handy 4x5 - Hard to Find - EX++++
- Started by pdccamerqs
-
For Sale Mint Nikon AI-s Lenses
- Started by Barlow
Forum statistics
I'm in! Especially since I love using my Fuji Instax and don't know where that falls.
Ha, definitely a joke for you Brits, but I got it! (former Jensen owner here)
Yep. Sometimes just having a camera with you is what makes a day fun - like an XA, XA2, or Ricoh GR-1 -- all of which fit easily into a pocket.
I've been following this thread for several days now, and I don't know if I still have made my mind up about it.
I recognize how much the SLR has greatly simplified many photographic tasks. Think of shooting macro or microscopic or long telephoto shots with a rangefinder, and you'll see what I mean. Seeing how filtration actually affects a subject is also another useful aspect of SLR photography. Try using a polarizer with a rangefinder. Thanks, I'll pass.
But then there are definitely places where rangefinders excel. Street photography is probably the most used example. A rangefinder with hyperfocal distance scale and leaf shutter is still the stealth camera.
Years ago, I had a conversation with a guy who shot for Time and other major publications. He showed me a couple of indoor shots of a person he took with his Leica M6 that appeared in Time. I knew that he also owned a Nikon F4, so I asked him why he chose the Leica for the shots. He was shooting slides in available light and he told me that it was because he could shoot at slower speeds with his Leica than he could with his SLR. Hm, I thought. Good point. I've tried shooting at slow speeds with my rangefinders, with mixed results, so I suspect there was also just a bit of talent that went along with what he told me.
I often refer to myself as an anachronistic iconoclast with strong atavistic tendencies, so it's no big surprise, I guess, that I might enjoy shooting with rangefinders. And so I do, mostly just because I find them fun to use. And isn't that really the point with a photographic hobby?
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 9,373
- Format
- 4x5 Format
Thanks cooltouch,
I actually had one (pictured here). If ever a camera was the Austin Marina of rangefinders, it would be this one...
The Kodak 35
I had one at the same time as the car. It was actually my main camera for a while because my Kalimar SLR shutter failed and my dad didn't want to give me his Spotmatic II. This particular Kodak 35 I picked up from a camera shop for $5 when I went to get film a couple weeks ago. It needed cleaning, which I finished last night. I had to file spanner notches to remove the second element of the lens, and I lost and had to replace one of the wind-knob-clutch springs. Otherwise the cleaning was uneventful and now I have a nice working camera.
Nice being a relative term. I could just say "reliable". And there are times when a reliable camera is all you need.
In Britain it was called the Morris Marina. It was a product of British Leyland, which nationalised and merged many 'great' names and managed to be the inverse of holistic; The sum of the parts were significantly less than the whole.
The British car industry never really recovered from the BL debacle.
MattKing
Moderator
Ahh, a Kodak 35 - my first 35mm camera.
My Dad gave it to me. I expect that it had been sent for repair to the repair facility at the Kodak lab where my Dad's office was, and had never been picked up by the customer.
Alternatively, it may have been purchased by my Dad in the employee sales program that was used to deal with cameras that were returned under warranty - although it must have been hidden in a corner somewhere, given when I got it.
For those who think an RB67 is heavy - this is a heavy camera!
My Dad gave it to me. I expect that it had been sent for repair to the repair facility at the Kodak lab where my Dad's office was, and had never been picked up by the customer.
Alternatively, it may have been purchased by my Dad in the employee sales program that was used to deal with cameras that were returned under warranty - although it must have been hidden in a corner somewhere, given when I got it.
For those who think an RB67 is heavy - this is a heavy camera!
Never heard of the Kodak 35 until now. Kodak is full of surprises.
More details found:
http://mattsclassiccameras.com/rangefinders-compacts/kodak-35-rangefinder/
More details found:
http://mattsclassiccameras.com/rangefinders-compacts/kodak-35-rangefinder/
I always have had the option of buying a Kodak 35 RF, but never dared to do it.
On the other hand i'd love to have a Signet 35.
On the other hand i'd love to have a Signet 35.
I've done this, while sitting in one room and focusing on objects in another. It depends on the quality of the rangefinder patch and the quality of the SLR's screen.
The best rangefinder patch I've seen in 35mm is on the Leica M6. In medium format, the Mamiya 7.
In general, against flat or diffuse objects, I think the rangefinder is easier.
Split image in SLR's works well only on edges of objects. Best of all is my Pentax SP500: it has just a central microprism that just snaps into focus. One of my F3/T's has an all-microprism H screen that works equally well.
Last edited:
Which H screens are you using with which lenses?
Ever since I bought the F3/T in 1988 I've been using the H2 screen with a 50/1.4 AIS exclusively; it works very well. You can focus anywhere on the groundglass. Of course, all the things out of focus are going to be shimmering, but I don't care; I like the effect.
That 50/1.4 is currently getting its blades cleaned so in the interim I've got a 35-135 f/4.5-3.5 AIS mounted on it; that doesn't work so well with my H2 screen - except in the center.
Ah yes, the Kodak 35 RF. the "Argus C3 Killer" that didn't... When I finally got mine working a few years ago I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the lens.
I just compared at 8m M4-2 RF (where it doesn't matter which lens is) and Mamiya 645 with 50mm lens equivalent with split screen. It is very similar to 0.8m
where with RF/VF I could see everything at any time, but with SLR split or any SLR screen I could only see it as good as in RF VF only where it is focused.RF split image works great for verticals and corners, if only horizontal it is next to impossible without turning camera. But it is rare situation. With SLR 45 degree split it is easier and feels more precise.
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.
The difference is in the speed. Most, not all, of my SLR lenses are designed with slow helicals that promote critical focus over fast focus. Rangefinder lenses are usually the other way around. They are quick to focus but are not as accurate as the SLR lens.
Another factor that weighs in favor of the SLR is the benefit of a wider aperture. With a rangefinder, f2 is the perfect compromise. There is enough DOF in that aperture to account for minor inaccuracies. Your view is no better with f1.4 or 1.2 but the DOF is much thinner and much harder to get in focus with a rangefinder. With an slr, the wider the aperture the brighter the view, so it is easier to focus the f1.4 lens. I do think though that apertures wider than that kind of even the playing field. The 1.0 and 1.2 apertures have a DOF that is so narrow that it can be difficult to get accurate focus no matter which system you are using.
For me it boils down to good enough but quick, or slow but very accurate.
The difference is in the speed. Most, not all, of my SLR lenses are designed with slow helicals that promote critical focus over fast focus. Rangefinder lenses are usually the other way around. They are quick to focus but are not as accurate as the SLR lens.
Another factor that weighs in favor of the SLR is the benefit of a wider aperture. With a rangefinder, f2 is the perfect compromise. There is enough DOF in that aperture to account for minor inaccuracies. Your view is no better with f1.4 or 1.2 but the DOF is much thinner and much harder to get in focus with a rangefinder. With an slr, the wider the aperture the brighter the view, so it is easier to focus the f1.4 lens. I do think though that apertures wider than that kind of even the playing field. The 1.0 and 1.2 apertures have a DOF that is so narrow that it can be difficult to get accurate focus no matter which system you are using.
For me it boils down to good enough but quick, or slow but very accurate.
Last edited:
That is why some SLR screen even got a crossed split-image focusing aid and why there also is that microprism patch.
Very good post, Pioneer. Thanks!
I agree, Zeiss Ikon rangefinders are easy to focus, but the very best rangefinder to use is the one in my Werramatic, they use a split image, same as you find in an SLR camera, and it it is a doddle to use
Agree, i owned a Werra 3 and the RF was superb. HOWEVER, the viewfinder required you to precisely center your eye; the angle in which you could see the image was really really narrow.
As with anything practice makes perfect, my Werramatic is a late model and the R/F is a little better to use than the one in my earlier werra 4, but, as with SLR split image focusing, for me it has become instintive to use, and as far as why a rangefinder over an slr, for me, putting any other advantages/disadvantages aside, I simply enjoy using rangefinder's, I have seveeral, everything from a Certo super dollina fixed lens to a Leica IIIf, and most everything in between, I also have slr's which I would use if needed, but for preferance give me a Rangefinder any day,
I have also wondered, but it seems to be unique to Werra cameras, I certainly have never come across it on any other range finder camera. I have read that it was trickier to get this on a rangefinder, the superimposing both easier and cheaper, not sure if that is true, but focusing on a werra is both faster and easier than and more precise than any other rangefinder that I have ever used, and that includes my Leica IIIF
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |