Why Rangefinders?

[MarkoKovacevic]

I've been using my zorki, and it's been ok. Some bad points, it is unreliable, difficult to focus in lower light [my nikon focuses much better in low light] and has no meter. It's also not as durable, and even expensive ones such as Leica probably wouldn't be. I have ordered a focusing screen for my F5 from B&H [broke the last one] and can't wait to use it again. I just prefer using SLRs to RFs. Why do you guys prefer RFs?

Side note, I used a Konica Hexar RF over the summer, with a Leica 50mm Summicron-m. I really liked it, but I found myself worrying about using it in downpours and such. The lens was great however.

 

[bob338]

i don't think anyone will fault you for not liking rangefinders.

you like it or you don't.

bob

 

[MarkoKovacevic]

Maybe if I would have my Zorki CLA'd and bought a meter I would like it more. Great cameras though.

 

[FifthLeaf]

Why boxers instead of briefs? It comes down to what works best for you.

But here are some reasons commonly cited for liking rangefinders:

1) Everything is in focus in the viewfinder. This way you can see what's going on in the background as well as the foreground equally well.

2) No viewfinder blackout. This is a matter of preference.

3) Smaller lenses and bodies, in general. You can focus many rangefinder lenses with just a single finger. And it's nice not carrying a giant camera.

4) No mirror slap. The shutter is quieter and doesn't have sharpness killing vibrations at slow shutter speeds. You could get a giant SLR and lenses with sound dampening and image stabilization, but re-read point #3.

5) Better wide angle lens performance. Focusing wide angle lenses is easy on a rangefinder, even in low light. And because there's no mirror, the lens sits so close to the film that you don't have to use retro-focus lens designs (but with handheld shots, this may not be that big of a deal).

6) You can see outside the framelines. This is a huge matter of preference and I can understand why SLR users find it distracting. And this gets into what's basically the fundamental difference between the two types of cameras. With an SLR, you hunt for the right picture while looking through the viewfinder, accurately framing your picture. With a rangefinder, it's often better to frame the shot before you lift the camera to your face, using the viewfinder simply as confirmation.

 

[Shok]

I like it because it's a less of a pain than the SLR. Although my friends are the opposite. They pick it up with confusion, and still can't figure it out.

 

[principe azul]

difficult to focus in lower light [my nikon focuses much better in low light]

You should compare a manual-focus rangefinder with a manual-focus SLR: many of us prefer manual focus most of the time because we can do it quicker (hyperfocal points) and more reliably (knowing exactly where the plane of focus is) than we can with autofocus. So that's one of the selling points.

A good RF viewfinder will be much brighter than an average SLR with an average lens - unless you've got something like an H2 microprism screen in a Nikon F3 and are looking through an f/1.2 lens. Manual focusing is generally much easier with an RF in low light than with an SLR. In fact, manual focus with an RF is superior to manual focus with an SLR when it comes to wideangles, and less so with telephotos.

RFs aren't so clever focusing on patterns, and an SLR will usually win, even in low light.

RFs really shine with wider angles. For the lens-design reasons above, and also because you have a greater magnification through the finder with say with a 28mm or 35mm lens than you have with an SLR.

I got into RFs for these reasons. I didn't need reflex viewing for the focal lengths I was shooting with, and the reflex viewing got in the way. RFs just fitted the way I shot, and, to me, they were a superior tool for that. If I shot another way, they wouldn't be.

Yeah, there's all the Leica mystique blah-de-blah, but to be honest you can get that kind of bragging in any camera forum.

 

[FA Limited]

i'm an slr user but enjoy this forum.

some reasons not for rangefinders that i haven't been able to get past:
-external viewfinders for wides
-hard to focus tele lenses
-useless close focusing abilities
-no one "optilmal" viewfinder magnification for all focal lengths
-viewfinder blockage from lenses and hoods
-no autofocus (contax g1/g2 excepted)
-no auto winder (hexar excepted)
-slow max shutter speeds (m8's hexar excepted)
-lack of digital options

 

[bmattock]

i'm an slr user but enjoy this forum.

some reasons not for rangefinders that i haven't been able to get past:
-external viewfinders for wides
-hard to focus tele lenses
-useless close focusing abilities
-no one "optilmal" viewfinder magnification for all focal lengths
-viewfinder blockage from lenses and hoods
-no autofocus (contax g1/g2 excepted)
-no auto winder (hexar excepted)
-slow max shutter speeds (m8's hexar excepted)
-lack of digital options

Yeah, those are things that rangefinders aren't as good at. Horses for courses, as they say - I use rangefinders for what they are good at and SLRs for what they are good at. If I never found myself in a situation where a rangefinder would be the better choice, then I'd never need one. Sometimes I do, so there you go.

I'm not into isms. I use what I use, whatever seems most appropriate for what I'm doing at the time. Digital, film, rangefinder, SLR, medium format, 35mm, whatever works. It's all photography.

 

[bmattock]

It's also not as durable, and even expensive ones such as Leica probably wouldn't be.

That's the only part of your statement I found issue with. I'm not a huge Leica fan, actually I don't own one, but there is no disputing that they're well-made. Comparing a Zorki to a Leica and dissing the Leica because the Zorki is a pile of crap? Uh, I think you need to own a Leica before you can dismiss them as junk.

I like to make fun of Leica owners, and I don't even dismiss them as junk. They're very durable cameras. Many photojournalists in many wars say so, and I believe them.

 

[colyn]

I can focus faster with my Leicas even in low light. SLR's are big and bulky and tend to slow me down..

 

[Nh3]

I like rangefinders for three reasons.

1- their viewfinder - everything in focus
2- quality of lenses available for them
3- they look passive and less intimidating

 

[jmarcus]

I agree with everything FifthLeaf said. But other people have touched on, "use what you like, or what works for you". Its easy to make the rangefinder v. slr argument as strong as a religious one. Even though I shoot with an Epson R-D1s the mechanics of using a rangefinder taught me a lot about photography. the rangefinder format has become part of my seeing.

 

[Jason Sprenger]

I primarily like 35mm RF's for their size. For this reason, it is the camera that comes along when photography isn't the primary aim, meaning, it is the one that I use for most of my photography. The smallest SLR's are comparatively cubic because RF lenses are generally smaller.

The other reason I like 35mm RF's is that I see outside of the frame during action. Through the viewfinder, particularly with a 50mm lens, I fit the scene to the frame. On an SLR, a wide to portrait zoom can do this too, "zooming" from wide to tight, but in a larger package generally involving a slower lens. You may not experience this type of framing with a Zorki or other RF without frame-lines unless you use an external bright-line finder and use zone focusing.

For a single camera that can do everything from macro to telephoto, an SLR is a strong choice and why I have one. For everything in between, an RF often works better for me because it's the camera I'll have with me.

 

[mhv]

You know, you can rationalize all the possible pros or cons, but in the end you'll find that it depends on what you feel comfortable with, and attracted to.

Some people will gain a practical advantage from using a RF, others won't.

What consistently attracts me to RFs is the feel of the shutter. My Contax IIa has a damn sexy shutter snap. Nothing like the big clunk of my SLR. And I'd love to have an M3 because that "schlopp" is just perfect...

I don't even care whether or not I can handhold a shot without vibrations in lowlight. I actually like blurred shots in these circumstances. So a small SLR would be equally useful here. Yet I use my Contax or my Kiev to take concert pictures because that's what I feel comfortable using.

But other than that, except for the outstanding 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar, it's really a sub-par camera in all other respects compared to modern stuff.

Still, I like how it feels to work with it, I achieve results that I enjoy, and that's all that matters.

 

[Bassism]

I use a rangefinder these days simply because it feels nice and makes me feel excited to go out shooting in a way that my slrs have lost.

When I bought my Himatic, it sat on the shelf for probably two years because I just didn't get it. Then one day I picked it up, and now it's all that I shoot...

Go figure

 

[maddoc]

I use 35mm rangefinder cameras for one simple reason, focusing a 35mm SLR - with it's short effective base-length of ~ 10mm when using a split-screen - is more miss than hit for me, especially in dim light. For 120, my Rolleiflex and Hasselblad with magnifying glasses in the waist level finders are fine to focus, though. So rangefinder cameras are my only choice for 135 film (and I don't like AF) but I still dream about using a Pentax Spotmatic with 55/1.2 Takumar lens. 🙂

 

[mh2000]

I don't buy any of the supposed *benefits* of RF's, I just like shooting them because they are something different... and that makes them fun.

🙂

 

[Leicame]

Bill,
Nowhere did the OP state that Leicas were junk or that Zorkis were piles of crap.

As I read it, he intimated that RFs, even expensive ones, "probably" are not as "durable" as SLRs.
I would have to agree with him. Rangefinders are easily knocked out of alignment by knocks and bumps that would not affect most SLR systems.

I read the OP post as his camera is crap and a leica is not much better,,,then his second post say's the zorki is a great camera...well then...to me it sounds like a comercial,cuz a zorki is not anywhere near even a mediocre camera and a great camera is such a stretch as to be laughable!

 

[piazza63]

I think what I think it comes down to is how many people start SLR and move to rangefinder vs. start RF and move to SLR? I don't want to sound like a snob, but how many people start single malt +12 and move to well whiskey... 🙂

 

[Leicame]

It's right there in his commercial..i have a mint zorki 4 made in 72' and it's crap,laughable quality compared to an M3,M2,the zork dork viewfinder is comparable to an easy bake oven,cept cheaper at the going rate of $40.

+Above rude post deleted by Pitxu+