Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

[c41]

I just mark the polarizer exterior where maximum strength is.

If the exact amount or effect of the polarizer is critical, that’d be a specific use case and maybe the SLR is needed. Of course then we can see exactly what the effect will be, or maybe it will be too dark to focus with confidence..

For my needs, I have a pretty good idea what is going to happen. In fact I’m sitting here right now at the beach (30C ), #32 on the roll, all with cpl and a rangefinder.

Whatever camera I’m using i feel it’s better to have some idea what you’ll end up with before you put it to your eye.

But yes absolutely, cpl, flare, the lens cap, my thumb, these are amongst the things i never see through a camera viewfinder.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The Olympus 35RC, Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII, Canonet 28, and Barnack Leica - all are very compact and will fit in a pocket better than the smallest 35mm SLR (Pentax ME?). Plus, their viewfinders are clear and bright - brighter than an SLR's groundglass.

They are just very quick to use - great handling.

It's really a personal choice for the occasion. I use rangefinders, SLR's, and TLR's.

 

[removed account4]

ive used RF (35mm) cameras and was weened on an slr ..
and they are both fun. im not sure which one is better or worse
for me and the way i use a 35, they are both about the same.

 

[Jim Jones]

Such as using polarizing filters? Missed that one, did you?

Leica rangefinder systems long ago had a good solution to that problem.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Leica rangefinder systems long ago had a good solution to that problem.

But not the rest of them.

 

[TheRook]

No yellow universe with b/w film.

However, it is the "yellow universe" (or red, green, orange, etc.) that can best illustrate what in the scene will be rendered as dark tone and what will be rendered light tone by the filter, and by how much it will do so.

Of course one can either bring a second filter or temporarily remove the filter from the lens to look through, but viewing through the filter is far more convenient with an SLR camera.

 

[Pioneer]

Why a rangefinder over an SLR?

My pictures are a whole lot clearer and sharper when I take them with my rangefinder.

"Why should that be? " you ask. "Everyone knows that an SLR is far better than a rangefinder."

I don't know for sure. All I know is that every time I press the shutter button on my SLR something goes "WHACK!"

And every time something goes "WHACK" I jump.

When I press the shutter button on my rangefinder there is no "WHACK!"

No "WHACK", no jump.

Voila...sharper pictures.

But I assure you. If ever I want fuzzy pictures I'll be sure to use an SLR.

 

[Chuckwade87]

I've resorted to using both, the rangefinder is perfect for using a 50mm lens. SLR are better with take photo and zooms.

Focusing with a rangefinder is faster
(for me anyways)

They are typically smaller than an SLR
(with a zoom lens attached)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I really don't know I have two SLRs to go, because I can't force myself to use them. But I have no problems to use DSLR and dRF daily, in addition to film RF (it is currently loaded with color slide film)...