Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

[Gerald C Koch]

YMMV but I never found using a RF bringing any advantage compared to a SLR.

Here are a few advantages.

o No blackout at the moment of exposure.
o The camera and its lenses are lighter in weight and less bulky than their SLR equivalents.
o The viewfinder shows more than the actually subject. So elements entering or leaving can be seen.
o The design is simpler so less to go wrong.
o No camera shake from a mirror
o Quieter operation, less intrusive.
o Filters do not interfere with viewing. Important for IR work or very dark filters of any kind..
o Easier to focus in low light situations.

 

[ColColt]

There you go, it doesn't get any better than that. One caveat-take that lens cap off!! RF cameras are not through the lens viewing.

 

[ColColt]

I have my fair share of Nikon SLR's and wouldn't trade them for the world but, I find I get along with the Leica M cameras just as well and they are definitely lighter than the F or F2 series and three times less noisy and the optics are second to none.

 

[seezee]

There are trade-off. Rangefinders are compact, focus is accurate, shutters are quiet (no mirror slap), and lens designers have more flexibility when they don't have to deal with a mirror. But framing is less precise and parallax is not corrected for many cameras. Overall I'm happy to have a rangefinder system (Mamiya 7).

Additionally, the lack of mirror slap may gain you some speed by reducing camera shake, and the viewfinder allows you to see outside the framed subject, which makes composing easier.

 

[cuthbert]

Here are a few advantages.

o No blackout at the moment of exposure.
o The camera and its lenses are lighter in weight and less bulky than their SLR equivalents.
o The viewfinder shows more than the actually subject. So elements entering or leaving can be seen.
o The design is simpler so less to go wrong.
o No camera shake from a mirror
o Quieter operation, less intrusive.
o Filters do not interfere with viewing. Important for IR work or very dark filters of any kind..
o Easier to focus in low light situations.

Point in bold have already been debunked in this thread: rewatch the picture I posted of the Pentax MX. I'm pretty sure the Olympus OM is also smaller than Leica Ms that unlike what they say are NOT small cameras, or light. Screw mount Leicas were smaller, not the Ms...I don't know why you keep repeating this despite of the evidence of the contrary. Regarding the weight, a M3 with a Summicron 50mm and a Mr4 is almost 1 kg, more or less like a K1000 with standard lens (not a MX or a LX).

The design isn't simple, in particular the rangefinder is a sophisticated device with many movable parts that can get misaligned relatively easily and if it's so you won't find it out until you develop the film.

This is the rangefinder of a M3 and a M5:

Dead Link Removed

For low light applications I do NOT recommend a rangefinder because screwmount Leicas, Soviet copies and Canons had a dime patch, M have the bright one that sometimes "disappears" in low lightl...I miss more pics with RF than SLRs.

I have my fair share of Nikon SLR's and wouldn't trade them for the world but, I find I get along with the Leica M cameras just as well and they are definitely lighter than the F or F2 series and three times less noisy and the optics are second to none.

Get an LX and you'll realise how outdated were the Nikon Fs in comparison to Pentax cameras.

 

[Bill Burk]

A small, light rangefinder will often "make the cut" as a backup/2nd camera for a trip where weight is important (backpacking) and ability to take photos is imperative.

 

[MattKing]

I'm still waiting for a full frame SLR that is smaller and lighter than my Olympus XA.

Rangefinders (and SLRs) can be designed to accentuate certain potential benefits. That is why you have Rollei 35s and Yashica Electros and Olympus OM1s and Nikon F Photomics.

 

[cliveh]

For low light applications I do NOT recommend a rangefinder because screwmount Leicas, Soviet copies and Canons had a dime patch, M have the bright one that sometimes "disappears" in low lightl...I miss more pics with RF than SLRs.[/QUOTE]

Can you explain what this dime/dim patch is? because I have never seen it on any screw mount Leica or any of the M series I am familiar with.

 

[cuthbert]

Can you explain what this dime/dim patch is? because I have never seen it on any screw mount Leica or any of the M series I am familiar with.

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

I'm still waiting for a full frame SLR that is smaller and lighter than my Olympus XA.

Yes sure and the XA is as capable as a full frame SLR, especially it has a lot of lenses available for it.

Ehi look this camera is smaller than the XA! And it takes pictures too!

Dead Link Removed

So..what are we talking about?

 

[Sirius Glass]

So far I have not brought home an SLR that is hard to focus, but the majority of the RF's.

I have never had a problem focusing SLRs, but many of the RF are hard to focus. I use RF cameras on rare occasion when more useful.

 

[cuthbert]

I have never had a problem focusing SLRs, but many of the RF are hard to focus. I use RF cameras on rare occasion when more useful.

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here are a few advantages.

o No blackout at the moment of exposure.
o The camera and its lenses are lighter in weight and less bulky than their SLR equivalents.
o The viewfinder shows more than the actually subject. So elements entering or leaving can be seen.
o The design is simpler so less to go wrong.
o No camera shake from a mirror
o Quieter operation, less intrusive.
o Filters do not interfere with viewing. Important for IR work or very dark filters of any kind..
o Easier to focus in low light situations.

These read like a list of excuses in desperate search for reasons. I do not have a problem with mirror shake or noise, both of which were touted by the camera magazines of the 1960's. I have no problem seeing through and focusing a Red #25 filter. And when was the last time you used a zoom lens on a RF camera?

 

[Wallendo]

I enjoy shooting with rangefinders because it is fun (maybe is just nostalgia). The "advantages" of RF cameras are in my experience more theoretical than practical other than the availability of small rangefinders (I carried my Olympus 35 RC with me everywhere - at least until I dropped it on the floor one time too often )

 

[Bill Burk]

While looking for "smaller than Rollei 35" I overlooked the Kodak Retina series... A Retina I fits in a back jeans pocket, the lens is protected and the body is tough.

So I propose that if you like the 35mm format, you should not look for superlatives... smallest, lightest, brightest, etc.

 

[MattKing]

So..what are we talking about?

I'm talking about the part of my post that you didn't quote.

The part about it being possible to design rangefinders to do some things (like be compact and quiet) better than SLRs.

At the expense of other things - like framing accuracy, close-up capabilities, functionality with a wide range of lenses, etc.

The reason why you might choose a rangefinder is that it may have been designed for and be particularly suited for a particular use that matters to you.

Like so much with photography, it is important to know where you want to go before you decide which tool to use to get there.

 

[John Koehrer]

For low light applications I do NOT recommend a rangefinder because screwmount Leicas, Soviet copies and Canons had a dime patch, M have the bright one that sometimes "disappears" in low lightl...I miss more pics with RF than SLRs.

Can you explain what this dime/dim patch is? because I have never seen it on any screw mount Leica or any of the M series I am familiar with.[/QUOTE]

You can have a dim focusing patch on ltm's it's pretty common.
The M he refers to may be the m6/M6ttl, There've been a lot of people swap out that RF for one in the M7(?)

 

[TheRook]

Here are a few advantages.

o No blackout at the moment of exposure.
o The camera and its lenses are lighter in weight and less bulky than their SLR equivalents.
o The viewfinder shows more than the actually subject. So elements entering or leaving can be seen.
o The design is simpler so less to go wrong.
o No camera shake from a mirror
o Quieter operation, less intrusive.
o Filters do not interfere with viewing. Important for IR work or very dark filters of any kind..
o Easier to focus in low light situations.

You left out one important point:
o Shorter flange focal distance, which contributes to better image sharpness.

Except for long exposures and early SLR models lacking automatic mirror return, I don't think the brief duration of SLR blackout is really much of a handicap. At least not in my experience. Besides, you're not looking through the viewfinder with both eyes; the other eye is free to watch the captured scene uninterrupted.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Except for long exposures and early SLR models lacking automatic mirror return, I don't think the brief duration of SLR blackout is really much of a handicap. At least not in my experience. Besides, you're not looking through the viewfinder with both eyes; the other eye is free to watch the captured scene uninterrupted.

This is yet another reason that the blackout is not a problem, even with the Hasselblad which does not have an automatic mirror return. The last image in that eye tells me that I got the photograph. Neither good photographers nor I need no stinking view screen to know that we got the photographs. Reviewing screens just make apes out of people who have to chimp!

 

[Arklatexian]

I Agree. Perhaps push was the wrong term. The folder pushes me as it required me to figure out zone, how to use a light meter, limits of hand holding, distance estimation, near/ far focus and the effects it has, and light conditions versus ISO choice. I am very, very comfortable with my SLR and the 50mm/ 135mm I use with it. It is the lightest set up I could gather up while still remaining in K mount. I have fought off GAS with pretty good success. I have one digital body and three lens, I have accumulated various K mounts and M42s due to the bodies I use, and I have my MF. The RF could be seen as a simple, easier to carry, slightly less weight alternative to my SLR. My photography these days is small trips and chasing my daughter around. I have been selling things off and going for smaller/ lighter/ packable simple gear. If I am going on vacation, it is SLR 100%. If it's around town, maybe a RF would be easier? I don't know, hence the question.

I am not committed to a Japanese offering but know that I am not dropping thousands on a Leica. It seems that my money would go much further with a fixed lens RF than an interchangeable lens German set up.

While I have both SLR and Rangefinder, I have found that my M2/3 Leica rangefinder cameras are more sensitive to being in/out of focus than any SLR I have ever owned or used. If you put a matchstick ten feet in front of either of my M cameras, focus on it, then lean forward or backwards, you can see the match go in or out of focus on the rangefinder. To get the same effect on my SLRs with the lens wide open, you will fall on your face leaning forward and fall over backwards leaning back. I watched a Leica company salesman demonstrate this with a new M camera and a new Leica reflex. The same thing happened using just Leica products. Unless you are buying NEW Leicas, you probably will not spend thousands of dollars (or equiv). Both my M cameras are more than fifty years old and I still trust them and enjoy using them.......Regards!

 

[Bill Burk]

Wait! Hasselblad screens don't return?

 

[Arklatexian]

There you go, it doesn't get any better than that. One caveat-take that lens cap off!! RF cameras are not through the lens viewing.

Col. Colt, I have only shot one or maybe two pictures through the lens cap. It did not take long to realize something was wrong and I guess I may be a fast learner. Don't throw the lens cap away though. Since 1942, I have never heard of burning a hole in the Leica shutter when the lens cap was covering the lens....Regards

Wait! Hasselblad screens don't return?

Bill Burk: my Hasselblad screen has always returned home with me after a shooting session. But it does not flop back down after each shot. Is something wrong? I have a 500CM.......Thanks!

 

[Bill Burk]

I never used a Hasselblad, and I trust they are fine cameras. But I never knew this about them.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... If you put a matchstick ten feet in front of either of my M cameras, focus on it, then lean forward or backwards, you can see the match go in or out of focus on the rangefinder. To get the same effect on my SLRs with the lens wide open, you will fall on your face leaning forward and fall over backwards leaning back. ...

Something's not right. Yes, with my M3's or M6's the focus is very precise. However I have found both microprism and split image SLR's equally precise. I have a habit of playing around with different cameras and lenses while boring stuff is on TV, so I'll randomly focus on things from three to fifteen feet away. With the SLR's (Leicaflex, Nikon F series, Canon, Minolta, etc.), moving forward or back just a few inches will reveal a change in focus.

 

[Pioneer]

I do enjoy working with my Leica. I can't really define it, it just begs to be used.

I also love working with my Graflex 4x5 Auto RB, and my K1000, and....

Using mechanically operated cameras that are in good condition is a wonderful thing and becomes very addictive so you should take great care before picking these cameras up and working with them.

As far as I am aware there is no known cure.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Wait! Hasselblad screens don't return?

Nope they don't I shoot a 503 cxi and i am doing a lot of slow shutter works of around 8 to 16 seconds and my release cable is set to keep it open until i manually release it. Otherwise since it doesn't work with the shutter in the lens after opening, it would just close on its own ruining the shot.