Why did most war photographers during 1960s-1990s carry an SLR and a Rangefinder?

[mdarnton]

I was a news photographer in the 70s. Most of the time I carried a Leica with a 50 or 85, and an Olympus with a 21. That covered most of what I needed to do. The reason for the 21/SLR combo was accuracy in framing near things against far is more touchy and the SLR gives the real story, and because the Leica with an accessory finder wasn't that fast, anyway. I had a lot of other lenses, but rarely used them because changing lenses took too much time.

 

[Ces1um]

Because a 8x10 view camera is difficult to use in combat conditions.

unless you're using them to hit the enemy!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Very simple. RF excels with 21mm-50mm, quick grab shots. SLR excels with longer lens.

What he said.^^

 

[pentaxuser]

. These were pre-Jimmy Carter dollars, so we are talking real money. .

Was the dollar worth "peanuts" after Jimmy, then? Sorry couldn't resist

pentaxuser

 

[John Koehrer]

looks to me as if everyone's answered -- if you look at photos of pulitzer-winnrs in Vietnam they typically had a Leica and a Nikon around their neck, the Leica usually with a wide-angle lens, the nikon with a normal or tele ... as a consistent Leica user myself, I know they're smaller and lighter and when you are out humping it with the troops, small and light counts for a lot of f8 and be there, still the best gear around.

Most of the pics tend to show this combination Tele & WA on the respective camera(SLR/RF)

 

[PGraham3]

Wow! Awesome! Thank you for sharing your observations and experience. Very very helpful.
-Paul

 

[Ko.Fe.]

(more reliable than a Leica, as it is today, c.f. Leica M4 vs. Nikon FM2n). They were more comfortable (e.g. better viewfinder without those tiny masks for tele lenses, film loading system, greater lens barrels, smoother grips), they had quite good lenses - you don't see any difference between Leica and Nikkor lenses when enlarging 10x15cm. And they could also be quiet (mirror lock up with F2)...

I have M3 made in earlier fifties. It shows signs of use, it has original C seal, still works.
And here is Winogrand's M4 which served another two owners after him:
https://www.cameraquest.com/LeicaM4G.htm

Also, no Nikkor, Leica lens needed for 10x15cm. FSU lens will do. I have Ukranian Helios 81H which is superior to any Nikkor 50mm SLR lens made in film era, on larger prints.
And comfortability of any SLR rig is kind of joke to me...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have M3 made in earlier fifties. It shows signs of use, it has original C seal, still works.
And here is Winogrand's M4 which served another two owners after him:
https://www.cameraquest.com/LeicaM4G.htm

Also, no Nikkor, Leica lens needed for 10x15cm. FSU lens will do. I have Ukranian Helios 81H which is superior to any Nikkor 50mm SLR lens made in film era, on larger prints.
And comfortability of any SLR rig is kind of joke to me...

You haven't used many 50mm Nikkors have you?

 

[Jim Jones]

You haven't used many 50mm Nikkors have you?

About 45 years ago I did a quick, but critical, test on three dozen current lenses for 35mm cameras. Three slightly outperformed any Nikkor 50mm. They were the 45mm G-N Nikkor pancake lens, the highly regarded Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, and the Leitz Elmar 50mm f/2.8. Also superior was the 50mm f/2.8 EL-Nikkor. The difference between these four and the other 50mm Nikkor and Leitz lenses wouldn't be noticed in most photography. The test was done at about 1/20 magnification. This may have slanted the results in favor of the Micro-Nikkor and the EL-Nikkor.

 

[PGraham3]

Interesting, Jim. I have a GN Auto Nikkor-C 45mm f2.8 lens that I got AI’d for my Nikon F3. I haven’t used it much at all, and when I did get images back, I didn’t recall them being better than Nikkor-S 50mm f2 or Nikkor-H 50mm f1.4, and no way better than the Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S. However, as you mentioned, it wouldn’t be noticed in most photography. Nevertheless, your message has encouraged me to give GN another go around.
-Paul

 

[Ko.Fe.]

You haven't used many 50mm Nikkors have you?

I use a lot my El-Nikkor 50 2.8. I like Nikkor 50 1.4 RF version.
For we rest on SLRs we have talk on rangefinder.ru recently. I was not the only one, nor was I first one to draw similar conclusion about Nikkor SLR lenses.

 

[chip j]

I was a US Army Still Photographer during the 1966 thru 1968 years, stationed in Germany. Yes, the "Nam photographers used Leicas for WA shots & the Fs for telephoto. BUT, back then, there wasn't much difference between the 2 systems as far as focal lengths go--there were no 24mms or 20mms that had Reflex viewing. I went from Nikon to Leica simply because Leicas were more "fondable". All @ low Canadian PX prices, of course, and it was 4 Marks to the Dollar in Germany at that time! (Although a member of our 7th Army Photo Platoon did get a 24mm 2.8 Nikkor in late 1968, just before my service time was over).

 

[AgX]

Because a pre-hyperfocussed rangefinder with fast film and a wide-angle lens is far quicker at taking grabshots than an SLR when you're being shot at.

You can mount on an SLR a wide-angle lens and prefocus it too. Only difference I see is that with an SLR body and lens are more heavy and bulky.

 

[Paul Howell]

I remember lusting after a SP with motor drive. A new photographer Chris Robson worked for the LA Herald Examiner, he was what was called a scab, the paper was on strike and he was a replacement worker. He had a F and SP, both with motor drives the F, standard unmetered prism viewfinder or a sports finder. By the time I was making money the SP had gotten so expensive that they were out of my budget.

 

[narsuitus]

By the time I was making money the SP had gotten so expensive that they were out of my budget.

I do not remember the Pentax Spotmatic SP being that expensive ... or did you mean the Nikon SP rangefinder?

 

[Paul Howell]

As the post was concerning rangefinders and SLR I did not make myself clear. Nikon SP. Pentax Spots were very good, at the time I had a Konica T and a Spot, still have the Spotmatic, The Nikon SP when released was in most regards the most advanced Rangefinder of the day.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In that time frame there were debates in the photography magazines about screw thread mounts versus bayonet mounts for both range finder and single lens reflex. Screw thread mounts allowed a wider selection of lenses and were slower to change. Bayonet mounts were faster to change and securely latched into place.

 

[narsuitus]

In that time frame there were debates in the photography magazines about screw thread mounts versus bayonet mounts for both range finder and single lens reflex. Screw thread mounts allowed a wider selection of lenses and were slower to change. Bayonet mounts were faster to change and securely latched into place.

I bought my first 35mm SLR toward the tail end of those debates. Those debates helped me decide on a Miranda Sensorex because it had a screw thread mount and a bayonet mount.

Nice concept but lousy camera.

 

[Jim Jones]

I bought my first 35mm SLR toward the tail end of those debates. Those debates helped me decide on a Miranda Sensorex because it had a screw thread mount and a bayonet mount.

Nice concept but lousy camera.

Yes, indeed. I bought a Miranda in 1966 as an upgrade from a Pracktica FX3. After several minor problems, I sold it with full disclosures of its faults for a fraction of the original cost. At least its three Soligar lenses performed well. The Nikon F kit that replaced it was a much better bargain.