Blake Werts
Established
Hello all,
I've recently started using a rangefinder and enjoy just about everything about it. I have a friend who has started "learning photography" that will be visiting soon and I know that I'm going to have to explain the choice of a rangefinder over an SLR. This fellow is quite technical so a "just because" isn't going to satisfy...
Please help me: why do we prefer rangefinders over SLRs?
I've recently started using a rangefinder and enjoy just about everything about it. I have a friend who has started "learning photography" that will be visiting soon and I know that I'm going to have to explain the choice of a rangefinder over an SLR. This fellow is quite technical so a "just because" isn't going to satisfy...
Please help me: why do we prefer rangefinders over SLRs?
funkaoshi
Well-known
If you want to snap photos with wider angle lenses, focusing is a bit easier with a rangefinder than the split screen in an SLR. The lenses and bodies are also a fair bit smaller than their SLR counterparts. They are a little bit quieter too.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Because of digital I shoot both a DSLR and a RF. Other than the Playstation camera controls, my second pet peeve with the DSLR is its mirror slap and ensuing black out of the finder. A RF lacks this paparazzi feature.
bmattock
Veteran
I don't prefer rangefinders over SLR cameras. I prefer rangefinders for what they are best at.
Some of those things include:
* Quieter than a typical SLR.
* Smaller and lighter than a typical SLR.
* Work better in low-light due to a brighter viewfinder.
* Don't have to try to focus and compose through filters.
I do not use rangefinders obsessively. Yes, they can be used for macro, but I think that's a waste of time when an SLR can do it much better. Same for telephoto beyond 100mm or so.
Each type of camera (rangefinder, slr, tlr, point-n-shoot, etc) has its advantages and disadvantages. Using a camera according to its advantages makes sense, like using the right knife in the kitchen. Using a camera because you prefer it, even if another is better for the job is also understandable. But using a camera type obsessively out of some dislike for other sorts doesn't make much sense.
So, final answer - I use rangefinder cameras when it makes sense to do so, or because it gives me pleasure. Otherwise, I use other types.
gavinlg
Veteran
I find that I take different pictures on rangefinders - they have a lot more feeling - a lot more of a human interaction feeling about them. When I take pictures with SLRs they seem to be more clinical and technical.
I once read that rangefinders capture moments in time, SLRs create pictures. Or something to that effect.
I think it's VERY true.
I once read that rangefinders capture moments in time, SLRs create pictures. Or something to that effect.
I think it's VERY true.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Smaller, lighter, quieter bodies; MUCH smaller, lighter, often faster lenses; easier to focus in poor light; easier to hold still (most people reckon they can hold an SLR steady for twice as long as an SLR); less obtrusive ('jobsworths' tend not to regard them as 'professional' cameras); continuous viewing...
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
Veteran
The camera does not know what it is taking a photo of. If one takes 'human' photos and the other 'clinical' shots, that is down to what you have between your ears.
Some people find themselves feeling more artistic when wearing a beret and smoking clove cigarettes. I doubt the clothing changes the paint around on the canvas.
BillP
Rangefinder General
No, but I agree with Fdigital. I use a rangefinder differently, I find different shots, and I feel different when using it. It is less clinincal, and more involving. If I get it wrong with my DSLR (which I reserve for tele and macro) then nine times out of ten it is because there is some setting somewhere that I have got wrong, and like the dumb machine it is, it has acted upon it. When using my IID if I make a mistake I have made it directly. I only have four controls to work, after all.
Find a book by Jeremy Clarkson (Yes THAT one). It's called "You've Got Soul". It's about machines that transcend their inanimate beginnings to become something more in use. So it is with a rangefinder, for me, anyway. YMMV.
Regards,
Bill
bmattock
Veteran
You say *I*, but then you put the result of that onto *it*.
I think my car drives better after I wash it. But it doesn't. That's just me.
A minor form of anthropomorphizing, I'd say. Nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't work well in a logic discussion of how a rangefinder works differently than an SLR. In this sense, it doesn't. That's the person holding it.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
For decades I used film SLRs and RFDRs pretty much interchangeably for ordinary work. Saw no difference in the results, felt no difference in use. That's to say, I agree with bmattock: though I can understand that fdigital's experience -- a subjective matter -- may be something else.
Leighgion
Bovine Overseer
A "just because" never satisfies. It's an answer you use with yourself. If used on others, it should only because you're trying to be frustrating, in which case I must fully support your friend ignoring your pleas of mercy while he kicks your butt.
I actually don't prefer rangefinders over SLRs. To me they're specialist cameras and reasons for using rangefinders are extremely technical. What I like about them:
1. Compact & light
2. Very Quiet, especially if fixed lens & equipped with leaf shutter
3. Can be held steady at slower shutter speeds
Leaving aside the retro appeal of my Canon QL17 which is not specific to rangefinders, that's pretty much it. Every reason I have for using an RF as opposed to an SLR ends up boiling down to one of that triad of traits.
The list of things I don't like about RFs are touted advantages I'm indifferent to is longer. I don't find rangefinders easier to focus overall as often I struggle with the patch being over something that's difficult to see. I don't really feel a big advantage to continuous viewing. Framelines & parallax frustrate me greatly. While I like wide lenses, I don't really prefer them for general use, so the norm for fixed-lens rangefinders really isn't ideal for me. I'd much rather my QL17 & XA have a 50mm than 40mm and 35mm respectively.
Ultimately, I'm mostly an SLR guy who uses rangefinders for the specific styles of photography I'm interested in that I find them better suited to, which perhaps makes my POV valuable for the question of explaining the choice of RF over SLR to a new SLR user.
I'd say be as reasonable as you can and clearly separate the things can be argued as technical advantages of using an RF from the things that are just personally appealing.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
But equally, an adze finishes wood differently from a plane, and there's a difference between an egg fried in a wok or in a flat-bottomed frying pan.
The tool does work differently -- continuous viewing (and therefore more engagement with the subject, in the view of many), easier to hold still (most people find it so, anyway), no zooms, etc. -- and therefore it is hardly surprising that people take different pictures with different cameras.
In other words, the tool shapes the photographer's vision, just as the photographer's vision shapes the choice of tool.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Of course, another reply to the original question is,
Which do you prefer? Apples or pears? Why? And does it matter to me? (Unless you are visiting and I want to stock the fruit bowl.)
Cheers,
R.
Which do you prefer? Apples or pears? Why? And does it matter to me? (Unless you are visiting and I want to stock the fruit bowl.)
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
Veteran
A specialist in the history of wood-shaping, could, no doubt, tell the difference between wood finished with an adze and a plane. Many could no doubt tell the difference between an egg cooked in a variety of ways.
What I am hearing here is a person describing how using one sort of camera makes them 'feel' as opposed to another - perfectly valid observation. But then they extend that to say that the camera itself takes different photos - one warm and engaging, the other cold and clinical. This, I reject.
Let's put it this way - if a robot arm held a camera - rangefinder and then slr - and took photos with it, the results would look the same to any level of technical analysis. The camera simply does not know what it is taking photos of, and neither, presumably, would the robot.
That there are differences in the resulting photos must therefore be down to the photographer. If you say that using a rangefinder makes you feel differently, and therefore you take different photos, I have no problem with that. If you say that rangefinders and SLRs take different photos - this seems absurd to me. They don't take different photos - you do.
There would be nothing stopping an SLR aficionado from likewise pronouncing that he takes more human photos with an SLR. I'm sure such a person can be found. If he then were to proclaim that therefore, SLR cameras take more 'human' photos, I'd disagree with him as well.
I think that there is an interesting leap taking place. One describes how a certain camera makes them feel and the frame of mind it places them in, and then transfer that from themselves to the camera, as if the camera possessed that attribute - it does not.
The rangefinder camera certainly possesses a number of objective qualities that differ from that of an SLR and make it the logical choice for a number of applications. The 'feeling' of the photos it takes is not one of them; that's internal to us.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I gotta agree with bmattock. It's all how YOU perceive what you're doing. There's no inherent "coldness" in an SLR. Tons of photographers have captured "involving" imagery with SLRs.
I also don't understand this comment:
"If I get it wrong with my DSLR (which I reserve for tele and macro) then nine times out of ten it is because there is some setting somewhere that I have got wrong, and like the dumb machine it is, it has acted upon it. When using my IID if I make a mistake I have made it directly. I only have four controls to work, after all."
Either way, it's YOU who have gotten it 'wrong.' How is the IID not a "dumb machine?"
I have a 5D, and it, similarly, only has "four controls to work." If someone were to tell me it has more, i'd suggest those other controls were built for the next owner. No matter how complex a camera may look, there are always going to be simple ways to use it. On the 5D, i set ISO (have to do the same thing on my Ikon/M7). I set aperture (same thing...). I set shutter speed (same thing...). I focus (same thing...). Simple pimple.
The idea that a rangefinder somehow captures life more honestly is rather ridiculous. There is the potential for a truth if the user adopts a different identity when using various cameras. I can easily believe that RF users are channeling HC-B when shooting with their Leicas. They approach subjects differently, stalk them, wait for "decisive moments," etc. SLR guys are probably less likely to idolize dead guys and "obsolete" equipment. But, then, you can't count that as a 'rule,' because there are some of us who shoot with both, and who also have a HEALTHY : ) respect for our predecessors....
So, back to the original question. I like rangefinders because:
1. They're smaller, for the most part, than the SLRs i would want to own, when lens is included.
2. There is a great deal of variability in the lens range. A wide choice. I own Canon and Contax SLRs, and have owned Nikon, as well. For each system, i realistically have a choice of one or two 50mm lenses. One or two 35mm lenses. With the M-mount, i could choose between ten. And, if you're as particular as i am about 'lens character,' CHOICE is an addictive element.
3. I'm supposed to be able to handhold an RF at slower shutter speeds than an SLR. But, i'm beginning to doubt that. I haven't done any stringent tests, and my 'loose' tests haven't presented any truths.... But, i don't feel as steady with an M7/Ikon as i do with a Canon or Contax SLR. And, last night, comparing a Rolleiflex with a Hasselblad, the Hassy felt much more steady. But, that idea is still in my head....
4. RFs don't look like expensive, professional cameras. They look 'old.' Like antiques. When shooting in certain enviroments where it isn't safe, that's an advantage - to look like i'm using something not worth stealing.
5. I just enjoy variety. I like being able to choose an SLR for one purpose and then an RF, just to see things differently, and to feel like i'm doing something different. It isn't an inherent advantage of the camera - it's just that it's 'something else.'
6. RFs look and feel cool. If they didn't, i probably wouldn't use one, despite the above. I have a camera fetish. What can i do?
I also don't understand this comment:
"If I get it wrong with my DSLR (which I reserve for tele and macro) then nine times out of ten it is because there is some setting somewhere that I have got wrong, and like the dumb machine it is, it has acted upon it. When using my IID if I make a mistake I have made it directly. I only have four controls to work, after all."
Either way, it's YOU who have gotten it 'wrong.' How is the IID not a "dumb machine?"
I have a 5D, and it, similarly, only has "four controls to work." If someone were to tell me it has more, i'd suggest those other controls were built for the next owner. No matter how complex a camera may look, there are always going to be simple ways to use it. On the 5D, i set ISO (have to do the same thing on my Ikon/M7). I set aperture (same thing...). I set shutter speed (same thing...). I focus (same thing...). Simple pimple.
The idea that a rangefinder somehow captures life more honestly is rather ridiculous. There is the potential for a truth if the user adopts a different identity when using various cameras. I can easily believe that RF users are channeling HC-B when shooting with their Leicas. They approach subjects differently, stalk them, wait for "decisive moments," etc. SLR guys are probably less likely to idolize dead guys and "obsolete" equipment. But, then, you can't count that as a 'rule,' because there are some of us who shoot with both, and who also have a HEALTHY : ) respect for our predecessors....
So, back to the original question. I like rangefinders because:
1. They're smaller, for the most part, than the SLRs i would want to own, when lens is included.
2. There is a great deal of variability in the lens range. A wide choice. I own Canon and Contax SLRs, and have owned Nikon, as well. For each system, i realistically have a choice of one or two 50mm lenses. One or two 35mm lenses. With the M-mount, i could choose between ten. And, if you're as particular as i am about 'lens character,' CHOICE is an addictive element.
3. I'm supposed to be able to handhold an RF at slower shutter speeds than an SLR. But, i'm beginning to doubt that. I haven't done any stringent tests, and my 'loose' tests haven't presented any truths.... But, i don't feel as steady with an M7/Ikon as i do with a Canon or Contax SLR. And, last night, comparing a Rolleiflex with a Hasselblad, the Hassy felt much more steady. But, that idea is still in my head....
4. RFs don't look like expensive, professional cameras. They look 'old.' Like antiques. When shooting in certain enviroments where it isn't safe, that's an advantage - to look like i'm using something not worth stealing.
5. I just enjoy variety. I like being able to choose an SLR for one purpose and then an RF, just to see things differently, and to feel like i'm doing something different. It isn't an inherent advantage of the camera - it's just that it's 'something else.'
6. RFs look and feel cool. If they didn't, i probably wouldn't use one, despite the above. I have a camera fetish. What can i do?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
I see your point, but equally, because cameras are not used by robots -- at least, not for anything but the most basic record photography -- I am less than convinced by your argument.
Let us take a reductio ad absurdum: a Gandolfi 8x10 'takes different pictures' from a Minox B. Is this down solely to the person behind the camera? I think not.
In any case, the interaction between the photographer and the camera is inescapable, so all talk of robots and controlled conditions is essentially nugatory. If the camera operates differently, the operator will use it more or less differently.
The only question is whether the difference in operation between an SLR and an RF is sufficient to necessitate (or even merely encourage) a different modus operandi. I suggest that most people find this to be so.
Cheers,
Roger
I see your point, but equally, because cameras are not used by robots -- at least, not for anything but the most basic record photography -- I am less than convinced by your argument.
Let us take a reductio ad absurdum: a Gandolfi 8x10 'takes different pictures' from a Minox B. Is this down solely to the person behind the camera? I think not.
In any case, the interaction between the photographer and the camera is inescapable, so all talk of robots and controlled conditions is essentially nugatory. If the camera operates differently, the operator will use it more or less differently.
The only question is whether the difference in operation between an SLR and an RF is sufficient to necessitate (or even merely encourage) a different modus operandi. I suggest that most people find this to be so.
Cheers,
Roger
tripod
Well-known
The photographer-camera system often effects the type of pictures taken with different styles of cameras. Think of LF view cameras vs P+S digi cams as examples. Bill, you are being more precise in your argument than is necessary here. Some would characterise it as nit-picky. Sometimes it's called for, other times, not so much.
BillP
Rangefinder General
*sigh*
It's a pleasant Sunday afternoon. I have better things to do than to split hairs.
Bill, I apologise if my use of language was insufficiently clinical for you.
But I stand by what I said; the tool influences the end result, both by it's "performance envelope" and by the way it's form and function effects the way I hold and use it.
CK (loved you in the film, btw). Both are dumb machines. One, however, is a much simpler machine than the other. The DSLR contains processors that make decisions based on factors that I have not input. There is a longer "line of communication" between my eye and brain and the final image. In the IID that chain is about as short as it can be. Is that clearer? Compare it to driving a modern sportscar and one from the 1960s. Both will transport me from A to B, both can wind me up in the ditch, but I will be more involved in the process of driving in the model from the 1960s than I am in the present-day model. I can switch off the traction control, and put the gearbox into manual, but I cannot bypass the engine management system.
Regards,
Bill
It's a pleasant Sunday afternoon. I have better things to do than to split hairs.
Bill, I apologise if my use of language was insufficiently clinical for you.
But I stand by what I said; the tool influences the end result, both by it's "performance envelope" and by the way it's form and function effects the way I hold and use it.
CK (loved you in the film, btw). Both are dumb machines. One, however, is a much simpler machine than the other. The DSLR contains processors that make decisions based on factors that I have not input. There is a longer "line of communication" between my eye and brain and the final image. In the IID that chain is about as short as it can be. Is that clearer? Compare it to driving a modern sportscar and one from the 1960s. Both will transport me from A to B, both can wind me up in the ditch, but I will be more involved in the process of driving in the model from the 1960s than I am in the present-day model. I can switch off the traction control, and put the gearbox into manual, but I cannot bypass the engine management system.
Regards,
Bill
BillP
Rangefinder General
bmattock
Veteran
I'm actually thinking in terms of the original question.
Posit a visitor who is dubious about the 'difference' between an SLR and a rangefinder with regard to one being superior for a particular use.
I would attempt to convince said visitor with objective, logical, provable points.
If I chose to delve into how my resulting photographs were different because of how said camera system affected me emotionally, I would make sure I specified that as a 'subjective feeling' rather than objective analysis.
Both are valid - but one does not win an argument with a skeptic by describing how something feels.
Nit-picking? Perhaps. I prefer to keep my objective facts and subjective feelings in different boxes. Letting them play together is how we get poor choices for elected officials.