Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

[ColColt]

Fast SLR lenses are easier to focus but give a poor impression of composition stopped down, rangefinders are better at this but most lack corrected frames.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Viewing through an SLR what you see is what you get or at least 90+% of it depending on model. Why would you stop down unless you had to use stop down metering? I don't see what that has to do with composition, however. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[baachitraka]

@blockend True.

Olympus XA, set the focus to 3m and aperture to f/5.6.

It is the fastest camera I have used.

 

[blockend]

I'm not sure I follow you here. Viewing through an SLR what you see is what you get or at least 90+% of it depending on model. Why would you stop down unless you had to use stop down metering? I don't see what that has to do with composition, however. Maybe I'm missing something.

An SLR with a wide aperture lens only registers the point of focus sharply, everything else is out of focus. If that's a 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 at a metre or so, you're talking about a wafer thin image on the ground glass screen. If you're shooting that lens on the street at f11, the SLR gives a poor representation of the negative. Wide angle SLR lenses behave slightly better in this respect, especially if they're an f2.8 or f3.5, but a rangefinder or viewfinder camera shows everything sharply at all times. Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage depends on the kind of photography you do.

You could keep pressing the stop down button for every shot if the camera has one, but the viewfinder would be too dim to successfully establish where focus falls away.

 

[Moopheus]

please do not read this as an attempt to start an argument.

You do realize this is the Internet? But the real answer is: use whatever you feel comfortable with, because the real differences between RF and SLRs (at roughly the same level of quality) are far less than most of their users imagine. If this were not true, the religious war would have been settled long ago, instead of people just trotting out the same old canards over and over again. Many users have made many excellent pictures of all kinds with all kinds of cameras.

 

[cuthbert]

Your statement left the impression that screwmount Leicas RFs were inherently (by design) dim and cannot be used at night. This is plain wrong.

Yes the rangefinder window of Leica screwmount are small and dim, and they are difficult to focus in low light. It's the best that could have been conceived in the 20s, but after 90 years things have changed.

Of course anything is possible but in order to focus and compose correctly with my Leica IIIb I need light and a a contrasty subject.

 

[cuthbert]

An SLR with a wide aperture lens only registers the point of focus sharply, everything else is out of focus. If that's a 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 at a metre or so, you're talking about a wafer thin image on the ground glass screen. If you're shooting that lens on the street at f11, the SLR gives a poor representation of the negative. Wide angle SLR lenses behave slightly better in this respect, especially if they're an f2.8 or f3.5, but a rangefinder or viewfinder camera shows everything sharply at all times. Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage depends on the kind of photography you do.

You could keep pressing the stop down button for every shot if the camera has one, but the viewfinder would be too dim to successfully establish where focus falls away.

Mmm...no. Perhaps you aren't aware there are special screens for fast lenses.

If it were true nobody would use SLRs with fast lenses.

You do realize this is the Internet? But the real answer is: use whatever you feel comfortable with, because the real differences between RF and SLRs (at roughly the same level of quality) are far less than most of their users imagine. If this were not true, the religious war would have been settled long ago, instead of people just trotting out the same old canards over and over again. Many users have made many excellent pictures of all kinds with all kinds of cameras.

That I agree, I like to shoot with RFs but not for the reasons their supporters describe that IMO are completely off, in particular the size and focusing "superiority"...it's actually true the opposite, usually with wide lenses on RFs I don't even focus but I shoot at hyperfocal range.

 

[derelict]

You do realize this is the Internet? But the real answer is: use whatever you feel comfortable with, because the real differences between RF and SLRs (at roughly the same level of quality) are far less than most of their users imagine. If this were not true, the religious war would have been settled long ago, instead of people just trotting out the same old canards over and over again. Many users have made many excellent pictures of all kinds with all kinds of cameras.

No doubt. The interwebs are great but allow everyone to loudly support the horse that brung them, which I can understand.

I am going to swing by my local camera shop and check out their used section. They develop my film for me and have a lot of film bodies and lenses around. I'll see if i can play with one before making my decisions. I love my Pentax gear. I really only ever use two lenses (50/1.7 and 135/2.8) as those are what fits my photography best (daughter and cars). My interest in a rangefinder is another step in the direction of downsizing. If a rangefinder can do what my K mount stuff can do in a smaller, lighter package, that interests me. I have a backpack I use to carry my gear. That is my limiting factor. I want my M4/3 kit, my folder, and my film body to fit without being cramped. It's not quite there.

I'm not into getting more stuff. The stuff I get usually replaces something that didn't quite do what I needed it to. That replaced gear then gets sold. I'm not into the whole G.A.S. thing.I do not like to accumulate just for the sake of having more stuff.

The Bessa T does intrigue me, out of everything I've seen and researched this far. Old rangefinders are everywhere but the lack of an accurate meter and usually slow shutters is a problem for me. I have a light meter but I'm not going to be able to pull it out and take a reading when my daughter decides it's time to ride the balance bike.

 

[TheRook]

The Bessa T does intrigue me, out of everything I've seen and researched this far. Old rangefinders are everywhere but the lack of an accurate meter and usually slow shutters is a problem for me. I have a light meter but I'm not going to be able to pull it out and take a reading when my daughter decides it's time to ride the balance bike.

It's often the selenium cell meters that have a problem with accuracy, due to aging and loss of low light sensitivity. However, rangefinders with CdS meters and the proper battery are about as accurate as the CdS meters in SLR cameras.

 

[blockend]

Mmm...no. Perhaps you aren't aware there are special screens for fast lenses.

If it were true nobody would use SLRs with fast lenses

Mmm..yes. The whole point of a ground glass screen is to provide an exact representation of what the lens sees wide open. That is the viewing system SLR cameras are provided with. I hope you're not going to illustrate your demurral with a lot of self portraits in a mirror..?

 

[cuthbert]

Mmm..yes. The whole point of a ground glass screen is to provide an exact representation of what the lens sees wide open. That is the viewing system SLR cameras are provided with. I hope you're not going to illustrate your demurral with a lot of self portraits in a mirror..?

Besides insulting people personally for their self portraits are you able to say anything that makes sense?

You are just proving to be a jerk with that, besides of course being ignorant of simple fact like the existance of SLRs without automatic aperture, something that you have probably missed.

You do realize this is the Internet?

Yes, and like any other place on the internet there are idiots who think to be experts in anything. At this point it's better not to engage them and let them rant their ludicrous theories.

 

[blockend]

Besides insulting people personally for their self portraits are you able to say anything that makes sense?

You are just proving to be a jerk with that, besides of course being ignorant of simple fact like the existance of SLRs without automatic aperture, something that you have probably missed.

You dismissed an accurate and informed point with "Mmm..no", which is most condescending. I stand by everything I said regarding the viewing screens of SLR cameras relative to rangefinder and viewfinder cameras. If you'd care to re-read what I said in full, and comment on any shortcomings, we can have a discussion based on facts not putdowns.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Yes the rangefinder window of Leica screwmount are small and dim, and they are difficult to focus in low light. It's the best that could have been conceived in the 20s, but after 90 years things have changed.

Of course anything is possible but in order to focus and compose correctly with my Leica IIIb I need light and a a contrasty subject.

Not what I have seen in my IIf.

Looks like your Leica needs new semi-mirror and cleaning. Once it will be done, you might realize what you were wrong about it.
Size is fine as well for this size of the camera.

 

[derelict]

Wow, so this devolved. I appreciate all the input. Right now, my next step is to hit the shop and find a suitable trial camera.

Anyone shoot with a Bessa T? The L is distance focus while the T is viewfinder and small finder window. The T is screw lens while the T is bayonet. Are there any more differences then those?

 

[farmersteve]

This is what I have done. If there is a camera that I can afford, like the Bessa T, just buy one off of eBay and use it for a while. It's lost all it's new value already so if you don't like it you can probably sell it for what you bought it for. It's like renting a camera for free. I have done it several times and had no problem...

 

[blockend]

This is what I have done. If there is a camera that I can afford, like the Bessa T, just buy one off of eBay and use it for a while. It's lost all it's new value already so if you don't like it you can probably sell it for what you bought it for. It's like renting a camera for free. I have done it several times and had no problem...

I agree, although there is an element of pass the parcel with valuable old cameras - no one wants to be caught holding one when it breaks! A camera worth £500 is free if you sell it for £500, it ain't if it costs a few hundred to fix. That's the dilemma with cult cameras, there's sufficient financial incentive to be creative with descriptions which makes buying one a less than straightforward transaction.

 

[darinwc]

One difference between rangefinders and slr's is the use of filters.

With a rangefinder, I can use black and white film with a yellow, orange, or even red filter left on the camera and still see the frame normally.

With a slr, the darker filters make it harder to focus. O I have to take the filters on and off all the time. But then if I am using a polarizing filter, it is much easier and accurate to use the slr.

 

[cliveh]

One difference between rangefinders and slr's is the use of filters.

With a rangefinder, I can use black and white film with a yellow, orange, or even red filter left on the camera and still see the frame normally.

With a slr, the darker filters make it harder to focus. O I have to take the filters on and off all the time. But then if I am using a polarizing filter, it is much easier and accurate to use the slr.

But even with a rangefinder, you can always rotate it as you look through it, to get the effect you want before placing it at that orientation on the lens.

 

[darinwc]

Yes neither prevents you from using certain filters. They are just not ideal.

 

[Dismayed]

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.



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

Size/weight is not even close.

Mamiya 7 II with 80mm lens:

Dimensions: 159 x 112 x 123mm (6.2 x 4.4 x 4.8 in.)
Weight: 1210 g (2.6 lbs.) with 80mm lens

Mamiya RB with 127mm lens and 120 magazine:

Dimensions: 104 x 144 x 233mm (5.7 x 4.1 x 9.2 in.)
Weight: 2690 g (5.9 lbs.)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Sorry, I missed T question. I've had L and T. Both purchased like new. L is worth of 100$, T is 200-250 max.
L is very plastic and loud. T is newer and better overall. Both require expensive external viewfinder for each focal length. It is very expensive. Or less expensive FSU made universal VF, which is huge and ugly. T RF is fine and have diopter adjustment.
For the price of T you could find R. This one was in longer use by me. After one year of extensive use it was looking ugly due to not durable exterior materials. But everything inside was good.
You could find cheap 50mm lenses, but cheapest 35mm Jupiter-12 is blocking exposure meter on L, T and R.

 

[derelict]

After playing with one, a Yashica Lynx 1000, I've decided to stick with my SLR set up. The rangefinder was interesting but my Pentax stuff is just more flexible and in the end will be more useful.

As to the MF rangefinder, of course they are smaller and lighter but even they are bigger and heavier than my Zeiss folder. MF was not my desired option, I was only looking at 35mm.

 

[Dismayed]

Always trade-offs. I've shot both rangefinders and DSLRs, but my preference for one or the other is driven by the situation.

 

[Chadinko]

This is a fascinating discussion. I'm not really a RF user; I have a few that I've run film through but mainly for the novelty of them (FED-2, Bolsey B2, Bolsey C, Ricoh 500, something Olympus that is beautiful but really, really needs a CLA). Maybe it's heretical but I genuinely don't get the whole Leica religion; too expensive and I don't see a difference in image quality between one and the Zeiss lenses on my Contaflex IVs or even my Rolleiflex SLRs (yes, crappy camera, but those lenses!). I've only once ever had an issue with shutter noise and that was shooting a wedding in a CofE church in Lincolnshire, England some years ago when the priest had a fit about the noise of the shutter on our DSLRs.

Maybe it's not technically a "real" rangefinder, but lately I've been playing around with shooting my 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Speed Graphic handheld using the Kalart RF and 120/220 rollfilm backs. It's an adventure, really, because small and easily portable it's not (though lenses tend to be a little smaller than an SLR lens). It's damn near impossible to see through the top viewport, so I end up focusing it with the RF up to my left eye to focus, then use the viewfinder on top to frame, then shoot. I have gotten some shots I really quite like and some that were somewhere south of good, but the challenge of using that camera keeps bringing me back to using it. It's just fun, and it starts a lot of very interesting conversations when I walk around town with it.

 

[ColColt]

I like the rangefinder. In fact, I've been considering the Plaubel Makina 67.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm still on the learning curve with my recently acquired Fuji GW690II. No way I'll ever consider it a substitute for my P67 system, much less my
view cameras. It has a reasonable sized neg and a very sharp lens. You can only use one film type at a time, and it has a fixed lens. But it was an
acquisition that I wanted to make, since I hope to keep doing high altitude backpacking in my 70's. To me it is a very petite lightwt machine - might
as well be a Leica instead of a Texas Leica compared to everything else I shoot, except Nikon of course. Rangefinder focus is a not ideal by any means. You don't see what you get, and have to be careful to truly select the same stripe or spot to align. Still, last nite's test roll came out immaculate, even the handheld shot, so I think I'm ready for the real world tomorrow. I'll toss it into the same pack as my Sinar 4x5. I like the slightly stretched panoramic effect of 6x9 more than 6x7; and frankly, I just can't afford any clean M7 system. I'm still mainly a view camera guy
anyway. But I think this Fuji rig is going to be a lot of fun.