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
A remarkable insight: the composition of a picture is enriched by things that won't be in the picture! I hope the benefit of this approach extends to the final viewer who should also have a catalogue of the peripherals that aren't included.
Given the advantages of "above, below, left, and right" I'm not sure that these virtues aren't cancelled by the rangefinder camera, always hostage to parallax, being unable to show exactly where the picture is being taken from.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,587
- Format
- 35mm RF
Maris, the final viewer does not need a catalogue of the peripherals that aren't included. You as the photographer have made that decision for the viewer and parallax is only a problem in close up. Even then some cameras compensate for this.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 14,217
- Format
- 8x10 Format
You could do the same thing with an SLR simply by backup up a bit to include more in the scene than you think you'll need in the print, or just switching to a slightly wider lens for a larger field of view then cropping. I don't like having more in the viewfinder than I want. What I do with a
6x9 roll film back on 4x5 is a compromise. I make the 6x9 viewing cutout from frosted translucent mylar, so that only the actual 6x9 area is fully
crisp on the groundglass, but the adjacent area on full 4x5 is also faintly recognizable.
6x9 roll film back on 4x5 is a compromise. I make the 6x9 viewing cutout from frosted translucent mylar, so that only the actual 6x9 area is fully
crisp on the groundglass, but the adjacent area on full 4x5 is also faintly recognizable.
OR you could just open the other eye.
With rangefinder, schnozz is not pressed against the back like with SLR.
Some rangefinders like Canonet are just pocketable, light, quick-handling, and quiet.
Like comparing apples and oranges - it's personal preference.
Some rangefinders like Canonet are just pocketable, light, quick-handling, and quiet.
Like comparing apples and oranges - it's personal preference.
How does that work with an SLR? All mine have the VF centrally located. If I open the other eye it gets a nice view of the back of the camera.
The thing I like about RFs over SLRs is lack of noise and vibration. And the VF view. The thing I like about SLRs over RFs is the flexibility and using longer lenses. And they are freakin' cheap in comparison!
With some things, personal preference trumps all the reasons given for using an SLR.
Consider TLR's. Many photographers prefer them, yet:
- you're not looking through the taking lens
- the image is reversed and often dim
- the image usually is at waist level
- the camera is somewhat bulky
- tele & wide lenses, if available, add to bulk
I thought I'd never own a TLR - now I've got two.
Consider TLR's. Many photographers prefer them, yet:
- you're not looking through the taking lens
- the image is reversed and often dim
- the image usually is at waist level
- the camera is somewhat bulky
- tele & wide lenses, if available, add to bulk
I thought I'd never own a TLR - now I've got two.
Life's too short not to use a little bit of everything when you can.
The experience of shooting each type of camera is different. I wouldn't go on a diet of only one. SLRs for me are more about technical control of the picture, RFs about candidness, other types about fun.
The experience of shooting each type of camera is different. I wouldn't go on a diet of only one. SLRs for me are more about technical control of the picture, RFs about candidness, other types about fun.
Part of the viewer's joy, at least on the part of sophisticated viewers, is to share the mental process of the photographer in arriving at the final picture. In effect seeing what the photographer saw. Unknown, undisclosed peripherals cheat the viewer of an enhanced experience.
False! Parallax always lurks. Ever tried to hide the sun behind a tree branch when photographing a back lit landscape? The sun might be hidden in the viewfinder but the lens could be looking straight at it.
False! Some cameras offer an approximate compensation of framing. This is not the same as compensating parallax.
I've used a variety of SLRs and RFs over the years. And I'm still not totally swayed one way or the other.
Yes, I enjoy the window - like, bright view of a good RF (notice I said "good", because some are better than others).
Yet for many of my pictures, composition is important, out to the edge of the frame; RFs simply can't deliver the compositional accuracy of an SLR's TTL viewing. I know when reviewing a roll of film from an SLR that the composition will be precise; not so with an RF; because not all RFs have parallax correction; it's more hit-or-miss - which can be fun, in not knowing exactly what to expect from the roll. Which is okay if it's photos just for my private amusement. But I wouldn't want to rely on it for things like weddings or portraits.
I've found it easier to determine subject in/out of focus with the two RFs I own (Retina and Zorki IV) over my SLR (Minolta X370 & 700). The center spot focus screens on the Minoltas simply don't snap in and out of focus like the parallax of an RF.
Focus accuracy between bodies and lenses I've heard can be more problematic with RFs. Like cams needing to be machined. Especially with FSU; at least, that's what the word on the street has been, here on RFF, for years. I simply don't hear the same kinds of problems with people buying older SLR bodies and lenses.
As for weight, my old Zorki IV is pretty damned heavy, compared to the Minolta X370. And the Retina isn't far behind. I think this idea of lightweight RFs is pretty bogus, unless you're comparing them with Nikon F1s or other early, heavy SLRs. Or the big auto-focus SLRs. Most standard amateur SLRs from the '70s and '80s are rather light. But I wouldn't want to put either of them in a jacket pocket, honestly; unless I had two of them, one in each pocket, as a counterweight.
I really want to like RFs better than SLRs, but I seem to get consistently better images from the SLRs. But that's just my experience. YMMV.
~Joe
EDIT: Diopter adjustment is lacking on both SLRs I own, whereas the Zorki IV has it. Important for those of us with not-so-young eyes. But this is not exclusively an RF/SLR issue, as these features vary from one brand/model to another.
Yes, I enjoy the window - like, bright view of a good RF (notice I said "good", because some are better than others).
Yet for many of my pictures, composition is important, out to the edge of the frame; RFs simply can't deliver the compositional accuracy of an SLR's TTL viewing. I know when reviewing a roll of film from an SLR that the composition will be precise; not so with an RF; because not all RFs have parallax correction; it's more hit-or-miss - which can be fun, in not knowing exactly what to expect from the roll. Which is okay if it's photos just for my private amusement. But I wouldn't want to rely on it for things like weddings or portraits.
I've found it easier to determine subject in/out of focus with the two RFs I own (Retina and Zorki IV) over my SLR (Minolta X370 & 700). The center spot focus screens on the Minoltas simply don't snap in and out of focus like the parallax of an RF.
Focus accuracy between bodies and lenses I've heard can be more problematic with RFs. Like cams needing to be machined. Especially with FSU; at least, that's what the word on the street has been, here on RFF, for years. I simply don't hear the same kinds of problems with people buying older SLR bodies and lenses.
As for weight, my old Zorki IV is pretty damned heavy, compared to the Minolta X370. And the Retina isn't far behind. I think this idea of lightweight RFs is pretty bogus, unless you're comparing them with Nikon F1s or other early, heavy SLRs. Or the big auto-focus SLRs. Most standard amateur SLRs from the '70s and '80s are rather light. But I wouldn't want to put either of them in a jacket pocket, honestly; unless I had two of them, one in each pocket, as a counterweight.
I really want to like RFs better than SLRs, but I seem to get consistently better images from the SLRs. But that's just my experience. YMMV.
~Joe
EDIT: Diopter adjustment is lacking on both SLRs I own, whereas the Zorki IV has it. Important for those of us with not-so-young eyes. But this is not exclusively an RF/SLR issue, as these features vary from one brand/model to another.
Last edited:
Are you saying that in addition to all the elements included in how the photographer framed the shot, those elements outside of the chosen area should be included as well - as if the photographer backed up or used a wider lens? In presenting an image, how does the photographer share his mental process leading up to the shot?
With the Minoltas, Nikons, and using a prism on the Hasselblad, I have a clear view of the scene with the other eye. With RF cameras, not so much, I see the back of the camera.
It's interesting to look at a famous photographer's contact sheets, largely to show that they too are human and had their share of near and complete misses, but their reputations rest on those decisive moments when everything came together and having the editing skill to know the difference. The magic is in having those perfect moments presented to us in a book or on a gallery wall to represent a complete vision of a consistent world view.
Broadly speaking, rangefinders work well for freewheeling photography on the hoof, SLRs are better for images that require precise framing and subjects that allow time for focusing. Autofocus SLRs killed at least some of the reason to shoot a rangefinder, as did AF point and shoot cameras, and the main difference now is size, weight and feel.
You can do practically the same with a SLR and a zoom-lens attached:
View the scene in a wider stand and zoom-in on something important to you, zooming back after release.
For 15 years I found rangefinder camera framing accurate enough for thousands of Kodachrome transparencies intended for uncropped projection. The Leica was supplemented by a SLR which seemed to have more precise cropping, but there was little discernible difference in the photographs. I preferred the Leica, but needed the Nikon for some photography.
Compact cameras are great for hiking. You can keep the camera in a pouch at your belt. They are generally speaking lighter and more robust than an SLR, having less parts. A Yashica T3 (AF) or a Canonet (RF) can work very well while hiking. An SLR would normally be kept inside the rucksack, and would be less comfortable to carry and less available for use.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 14,217
- Format
- 8x10 Format
My 6X9 Fuji RF actually has one corner of the shot area itself cut off (vignetted) in the viewer by the lens itself. That certainly isn't conducive to the
kinds of precise compositions I rely on. Still, I wanted something with this size neg light enough for extended old age backpacking, and this fills the
bill, at least for some excursions.
kinds of precise compositions I rely on. Still, I wanted something with this size neg light enough for extended old age backpacking, and this fills the
bill, at least for some excursions.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,816
- Format
- 35mm
The first time (and the last!) I was fortunate enough to have enough money towards a decent camera set-up, I tested a second-hand Leica RF system, and just couldn't seem to "get on" with it. I eventually went with a Pentax MX and LX plus all the bits-and-pieces, and have always been happy with them, particularly as, at first, I did a lot of close-up and similar work.
OTOH, I sometimes wonder how differently my photography might have developed, had I gone down the simple route of just a Leica plus standard lens (and perhaps kept to only the "traditional" Kodachrome or Agfacolor films from the 1970's.)
OTOH, I sometimes wonder how differently my photography might have developed, had I gone down the simple route of just a Leica plus standard lens (and perhaps kept to only the "traditional" Kodachrome or Agfacolor films from the 1970's.)
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,101
- Format
- Multi Format
Leica I + Elmar 3,5/50 VS Pentax MX + body cap
----
Pentax MX weight 497g
Leica I + Elmar 3,5/50 weight 490g
----
The thing is rangefinder lenses either are or look much smaller, in length, diameter, overall bulk. Quite unlike 'MILC' lenses which pretty much negate the supposed lightweight of those cameras.
Just thought I'd pop in with a reason that doesn't appear to have been mentioned. No viewfinder blackout during motorsport panning shots which is nice if you're close enough to use 135mm or shorter focal length. Personally I find my main reason for using them is the shorter flange distance of rangefinders allowing for sonnar or heliar type "normal" FL lenses and non retrofocus wide angles. I do use both though. Different cameras for different applications
Obviously RF cameras are strange for common sense people. But for strange person like me...
Since this thread was open I acquired three more of them. Two as my first M were made, assembled in the province of my residnese, Ontario. Isn't it weird to like cameras made where you live?
Since this thread was open I acquired three more of them. Two as my first M were made, assembled in the province of my residnese, Ontario. Isn't it weird to like cameras made where you live?
...Isn't it weird to like cameras made where you live?
No, I don't think so. Though I get to like that my M was made in the same continent where I live.
| 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:  |