Not A Poll: If Rangefinders Were Big and SLR's Small...

[dexdog]

I much prefer shooting SLRs over RFs, and the size of either camera really isn't an issue. I find SLRs a lot easier to focus, and really love zoom lenses. I use rangefinders primarily because I like the rendering of 1950s RF lenses, very different than the look of modern lenses.

 

[oftheherd]

My preferred SLR is a Fujica ST 901. Very small, not a light camera, but still it is a 35mm so not as big as MF. My Keiv is larger and I think heavier. I learned how to focus SLRs in low light before I ever had an RF, so I have never felt RF had a big advantage there. My Press 23 is easier to focus in low light than the Kiev, but still no big advantage over the SLR. In fact, I think I can sometimes do better with the SLR than the RFs. My only RF for years was the Super Press.

So for me, your question doesn't fit. RF were bigger than SLR.

 

[semordnilap]

A larger size would negate some of the rf advantages, surely... I never did own a Texas Leica... But RF focussing is undoubtedly the best-I hope there's an rf in the future with a zooming finder.

Anyway, the new fuji could be good-has anyone looked into the evf of the sony a-55? Holy cow that's a nice view! And a tiny camera... That there is surely the future. If the fuji's evf is close to the sony's, then great.

 

[rover]

My only film SLR is a Pentax MX. What was the question?

My thought too. The question is a flawed in that in reality, if size was a consideration historically, you could find SLRs which were just as small as a RF. Yes, compared to a Nikon F a Leica RF is small, but there have been zillions of options other than the Nikon F.

Leica Lies...oops, I mean Myths:
A Leica Shutter is silent, nope
A RF is more inconspicuous than an SLR on the street, yeah right
A RF is smaller than and SLR, you have the wrong SLR
Chicks dig Leicas....errr, ok, this one is true.

 

[ebino]

Chicks dig, leather tight fitting jacket, torn jeans, baseball cap, expensive walking shoes, Artisan Salgado bag, sunglasses perched on top of the baseball cap and a leica in the hand, with an abortive calfskin strap.

Magic formula.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

If Rangefinders were big and SLR's Small....

...Can't get much bigger then my Anniversary 4x5 Speed Graphic with Kalart Rangefinder... 😉

 

[wgerrard]

My thought too. The question is a flawed in that in reality...

Rover, the reality may be that it's easy to point to big RF's and small SLR's.

But, the RFF version of reality is that RF's are small and light while SLR's are bigger and heavier.

We do a lot of navel gazing here about the virtues of rangefinders. There are innumerable assertions made here, on a daily if not hourly basis, that RF's are someone's camera of choice because the camera is perceived as being small and the lenses are also perceived as being small. Indeed, one constant explanation of the ongoing love affair with OM cameras is that they are small "like RF's."

Meanwhile, it's the RF focusing mechanism that's the real point of distinction between RF's and SLR's. It's the reason RF's can be the size and shape they are.

 

[rover]

The focusing mechanism doesn't necessarily make the RF always smaller than an SLR. You are right, there is a perception, but that perception, like so many things in life, is not a universal truth. In the end we use what we feel is best for us, but that doesn't make it best for everyone, and whatever explaination we hold as being "the" reason, isn't always a hard fact. Is a f1.7 50mm SLR lens really larger than an f2 50mm RF lens? My experience is no, the SLR lens is shorter and broader while the RF lens is longer and thinner? Which is bigger, or smaller? Does it matter? Wider and faster RF lenses are smaller, but a RF body is not an as capable tool in my opinion for use with a telephoto lens. So which is better? Who knows? There is no right answer, and any answer can be correctly challenged.

 

[wgerrard]

You are right, there is a perception...

It's the perception that interests me, and forms the basis of the question. Perception has much more to do with how we behave than reality. 🙂

However, I stand by my own perception that this place is awash with members telling us they like their RF because it's smaller than a DSLR or it fits in their coat pocket or its strap doesn't bruise the back of their neck or they can focus it at 0😀ark:30 or that people on the street don't notice it, or some such variation on the small and light theme. Sure, a lot of that doesn't accord with reality, but it appears to drive a lot of purchasing decisions.

I'm just curious how many of us are really drawn by the rangefinder part of a rangefinder camera, apart from cost, size and weight issues.

 

[special.foto]

When shooting in the street, having a big slr with a big prime or a telephoto, in the eye of the common folk, you tend to look like a "profesional", hence people think that if you take pictures of them, you will make money off their image, or they will appear in a news paper or on a magazine. In Romania, people tend to be camera shy and somewhat mistrusty of your intentions when pointing a big black (or silver) lens that they can see their reflection in it...

 

[Keith]

It's partly format driven for me. For 135mm I'll chose a rangefinder or an SLR for a given situation based on their individual strengths and size doesn't really matter to me.

For medium format I'll pick my 67 Pentax every time because the type of shooting MF encourages requires accurate framing IMO and I could care less that it weighs the same as a small bar fridge! 😛

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bill,

This is a fascinating question that I had never fully considered. Like many others. my first inclination was to point to my Graflex XL or Polaroid 600 (with RF adapter) and my Pentax SV. But as you say, that is not very helpful or meaningful.

From when I first saw Leicas (about '66) to when I first used one (about '69) to my first M (about '74) to the present day, there's always been something different about RFs -- but is it just size?

I don't think so. There's literally an immediacy to direct vision (DV) cameras that doesn't exist for me with reflexes. I say 'literally' because 'immediate' derives from 'not mediated', and I've often used frame finders with DV cameras -- and may again, now that I think more about 'immediacy'.

Paradoxically, there's also more immediacy to the big, upside-down 'TV screen' of an LF camera, preferably 10x8 inch or above. Seeing people wandering about, on a scale where I can easily see them, somehow does more for me than a reflex.

Of course I have reflexes, from 24x36mm to quarter-plate, and I use them all the time for pack shots and the like. But no, there is something different about DV, and it ain't just size.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Griffin]

My only film SLR is a Pentax MX. What was the question?

+1! 😀

still hoping for a digital version of that one...

 

[narsuitus]

Come on, Narsuitus, et al, is your awareness of cameras limited to those you own? I really think you understand the context of the question. 🙂

No, my awareness is not limited but I thought using the cameras I own would bring some reality to the hypothetical question.

Of course I understand the context of the question. I also understand that the question is based on a false premise, i.e., rangefinders are small and SLRs are big. Many people having this perception will not make it true.

 

[Doug]

Of course the perception is demonstrably incorrect, but true in the context of Leica M (or similar) compared to the large pro-level SLRs with their motors, battery grips, and zooms. In that respect it's the same when we consider digital imaging, but it's still a narrow view. The way a digital Leica M is used is quite different from the way even a smaller dSLR is used; more traditional and manual, with a simpler interface. Manual aperture control, manual focusing, dedicated shutter speed dial...

So while I'm equally comfortable with a Pentax MX and a Leica M2, I find the Pentax K7D confusing and complicated compared to a Leica M8.

 

[wgerrard]

Of course the perception is demonstrably incorrect, but true in the context of Leica M (or similar) compared to the large pro-level SLRs with their motors, battery grips, and zooms... while I'm equally comfortable with a Pentax MX and a Leica M2, I find the Pentax K7D confusing and complicated compared to a Leica M8.

It's interesting that some have responded in a very literal way, challenging the accuracy of my question's premise. While it is obviously true that not all RF's are smaller than all SLR's, the contention that RF's are preferable because, among other reasons, they are small and light, is a constant meme here.

One manifestation of the small and light meme is the issue of whether or not a camera can be stashed in a coat pocket (presumably an HCB-style sport coat 🙂). This is another size-related standard used to judge a camera's merit.

That and the other size-related criteria suggest that they are often the primary factors in a decision to buy an RF. After all, the M5 was and is criticized as too big, and we can wonder if Nikon released an RF as big as an F3 and a DSLR as small as a Bessa, which would attract the most buyers among the RF faithful.

So, those literalist responses are part of what I was trying to tease out: What are the real reasons people buy RF's? And, a different question, once you have used your first RF, what's the reason you buy your second RF?

Why do I ask those two questions? I wonder how many people initially jump into RF photography because they are influenced by the small and light meme, with no real regard for or understanding of the unique elements of an RF, like the actual rangefinder or the direct vision that Roger cited. Perhaps, then, later decisions to stay with RF's, to buy a second RF, are often prompted by other factors, including, per Doug, the distaste for complicated interfaces that control features the user does not wish to use. Is size a secondary factor in those decisions?

I've argued in another thread that designs like the m4/3 and its cousins, along with cameras like the Ricoh GRX, will eventually lead to a new camera design that will have a strong appeal in both the RF and DSLR camps. The biggest part of that appeal will be size and weight, buttressed by improved image quality, fast autofocus, small lenses, and an EVF that rivals optical viewers. We'll see what really happens.

 

[Roger Hicks]

So, those literalist responses are part of what I was trying to tease out: What are the real reasons people buy RF's? And, a different question, once you have used your first RF, what's the reason you buy your second RF?

Dear Bill,

Another superbly framed question.

My first 'real' camera in 1966/67 was a Pentax SV, which I regard as the closest I've ever seen in size, feel and handling to a reflex version of a Leica RF. When I was buying paper, developer, etc., I first encountered screw Leicas (in Hamilton, Bermuda, where there were two excellent camera stores a few doors apart), and when my girlfriend was looking for an affordable, high-quality camera in the UK in 1969, I pointed her toward a II (£20). When after a few weeks she wanted it back, I had to buy my own: a IIIa (£30).

In other words, a Leica was 'more of the same': a small, light, unobtrusive, easy-to-use camera. When I could afford one, I bought an M3 in about 1974: a III, but easier to use, though slightly bulkier (even with my old Elmar on the front).

In the 70s and 80s I used Nikon F and Leica M side by side, but slowly the M gained the upper hand because I was willing to lose a tiny percentage of pictures (focal lengths above 135mm) in return for carrying just one small, light system. Today, for travel, I normally carry 2x M + 3-5 lenses, though very rarely I add an F for 200mm. I'm always amazed by those who ask "What cameras should I take when I go to ________?" and postulate three completely different systems with one body and two or three lenses each.

Cheers,

R.

 

[DNG]

I don't find RF focusing any easier- similar difficulty focusing in the dark (maybe cause my M2 is old and dying), and I often muck up off-center compositions, which is kind of annoying.

RFs and small SLRs aren't that different in size- but if you want a compact 35 f/1.4, you're kind of out of luck with an SLR.



and besides, SLRs aren't nearly as cool.

😎

+1 😀

Seriously though,

I have both, and my M5 with a ZM 50mm f/1.5 is bigger and heaver than the Pentax Super Program with a Vivitar 28/2..
But I like the quickness of the RF over the split ring donut of the SLR. I also like the ability to what's happening outside the VF frame with a 50mm lens mounted, not so with a 28mm mounted on a .72 VF with a 28mm frame.

But, I like the Pentax Super Program, because [of the size] and that I can use the "A" mode with any PK lens mounted... handy with a wide angle and candid captures in fast changing lighting. Like downtown where one minute you shooting in daylight, then, you turn around and you are shooting in the open shade.

 

[Steve Ash]

I love the manual focusing and the extended view with RFs.

Steve

 

[Tompas]

No, if rangefinders were big beasts I wouldn't use them. A small wide-angle or 50mm lens would look silly on a large camera.

If SLRs were small I would use them (for wide-angle to 50mm), but I would have to sell my 500mm lens -- such a beast needs a F4 or LX with winder attached to it, not a FM3a or MX: bad balance and weird appearance.

Style matters. Always.