Optical Viewfinder and Rangefinder Trade-offs

[Beemermark]

Additional RF advantage. You don't need perfect, or even good, eyesight. And as you get older your pupils don't open as far as they did when you a youngster. But with a RF you only need to bring two lines together unlike trying to focus on a Fresnel screen. Works great no matter what focal length is on the camera.

 

[Coldkennels]

"Maximum Practical minimum focus is about 2feet, 0.7m. "Absolute Kludge" devices allow close-up work. Best left to a Masochist to use them or a collector to display one."

Have you ever used the NOOKY, NOOKY-HESUM or SOOKY for the pre-IIIg Barnacks, Brian? They're irritatingly slow to fit, but surprisingly functional - and very accurate. I used to use them quite a lot for close-up portraits and the like. The way the built-in 50mm viewfinder is "cropped" by the N/SOOKY as you focus is particularly genius.

This photo of an MP was taken with one:



They're a nice thing to have in the kitbag if you're using a II or III.

 

[Pál_K]

Let’s not forget another rangefinder-based focusing device: the Kalart Focuspot whereby two converging light beams can be projected from a Speed Graphic (I tried this at home and it does indeed work). Great for low light work - the same technique was good enough for Lancaster bombers against the Möhne dam in the middle of the night. Just a thought on Veteran’s Day.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Have you ever used the NOOKY, NOOKY-HESUM or SOOKY for the pre-IIIg Barnacks, Brian? They're irritatingly slow to fit, but surprisingly functional - and very accurate. I used to use them quite a lot for close-up portraits and the like. The way the built-in 50mm viewfinder is "cropped" by the N/SOOKY as you focus is particularly genius.



They're a nice thing to have in the kitbag if you're using a II or III.

"Modern Times"- the close-up helical without the Auxiliary viewfinder would be interesting on a Mirrorless camera. Will have to try it.
These used to sell for $10~$15. Like everything else Leica- through the roof.
Some 15 years ago, used one of them to convert a Helios-103 to RF coupled LTM.

The close-up devices are neat, and they work- but for close-ups, I use a Nikon with a full set of macro lenses from 55mm and 60mm, 105mm, through to the Micro-Nikkor 200/4 and 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom.
I've also used the Collapsible Summicron on a 39mm to F-mount adapter, the image really holds together. Cannot do that with a Sonnar.

Nikon N8008s with Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8 and SB-29 ring-light.

nikonf_t_2 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

These days- I use a P&S Ricoh CX-5 picked up for $40 on Ebay.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Dante Stella wrote an article on the advantages, both real and alleged, of rangefinders over SLRs:
https://www.dantestella.com/technical/rangefinder.html
.[/I]

75mm F1.25, wide-open on the Leica M9. I use a 1.25x finder.


Low-Light, Fast-Telephoto, Moving Subject, Rangefinder Camera.

 

[Coldkennels]

"Modern Times"- the close-up helical without the Auxiliary viewfinder would be interesting on a Mirrorless camera. Will have to try it.
These used to sell for $10~$15. Like everything else Leica- through the roof.

Yeah, I'm glad I grabbed mine when they were cheap. I still see them at some dealers in the UK for £40-ish; I don't think that's too bad of a price for how useful they are.

Having now used the Focoslide, the NOOKY-style adapters, and the Visoflex, I think the NOOKY is the most convenient (definitely far easier to carry), but the Focoslide is perhaps the best of all the options; I just wish you could mount more cameras onto it.

Of course, when you're talking about Focoslides and Visoflexes, you're not even using the rangefinder at all. But maybe that's one (slightly more esoteric) benefit of a rangefinder: due to the small size of the body, it's a lot easier to mount oddball accessories and different lenses to it.

 

[OlivierAOP]

Just wondering. Generally the RF centreline is 1-2cm in front of the film plane. So even with a long and/or magnified RF this might cause additional issues near minimum focus or with longer lenses?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Just wondering. Generally the RF centreline is 1-2cm in front of the film plane. So even with a long and/or magnified RF this might cause additional issues near minimum focus or with longer lenses?

The position of the RF patch with relation to the film plane is not an issue. The RF is used to determine distance to the subject. The lens and RF are calibrated. If the lens is properly collimated, the actual focus will be in good agreement.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

7Artisans 75mm F1.25, wide-open on the M9. I use a 1.25x magnifier.
First shot is low-light, Disco-Lights only. Subject is moving fast. 1/45th second, F1.25, ISO2500.

Second shot- main lights on. Higer Shutter Speed.

I just zipped up and sent him 65 pictures from today. We met him at the Skating Rink two weeks ago. So many talented individuals - and they practice constantly.
This young man is Fast, Lightning McQueen Fast.

 

[mconnealy]

Meanwhile, the brightest, easiest to use and all around best rangefinder in my collection is on my Argus C3.

 

[Doug A]

The gold standard for me is the built-in 1.5x RF magnification of a Barnack Leica combined with an external SBOOI 50mm VF that lets me shoot with both eyes open, seeing the VF frame projected on the scene I am viewing.

And with shorter focal lengths the Barnack RF beats the split-image/microprism RF of my Nikon F hands down. I can't focus a 28/3.5 lens at all with the Nikon.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

A combined viewfinder/rangefinder is much better for shooting a fast lens or a Telephoto lens wide-open.
The 1.5x finder of the Barnack Leica was required so accommodate the short top deck of the camera. The Leica IV switched to a combined VF/RF with a long base. I'm not sure if Zeiss patents prevented manufacture. The Fed 2 reminds me of the Leica IV.

The Leica M3 is my gold-standard. I never get patch flare with it, a feature of the design. With the M8, M9, and M Monochrom- I run into flare making the RF patch impossible to see.

 

[Coldkennels]

A combined viewfinder/rangefinder is much better for shooting a fast lens or a Telephoto lens wide-open.

In theory yes, in practice... I'd argue it's up for debate.

In reality, when I'm using a combined RF/VF, I find my eye is focusing on the patch while I focus the lens and then I have to refocus my eye to view the whole frame anyway, so the shift from a late Barnack's RF window to the 50mm window right next to it isn't much different. Moving from the RF window to an external VF is a bit of a bigger jump, but you can still do it quickly enough that it's not much of a problem with practice.

Honestly, out of the two scenarios, I'd take the high-mag RF I can make out clearly over a lower-mag RF patch in a combined RF/VF window.

For example, while it's not exactly the longest or fastest lens in the world, I took my 90mm Elmar and a Leotax T2L to a skateboard event in the summer. I was using the collapsible SEROO finder - that gives you a perfect 1:1 90mm frameline, so it's super easy to follow action and frame. I was slightly worried I wouldn't be able to make it work - I was shooting APX 100 and it was a cloudy day, so I was having to swap between f/4 and f/5.6 on the fly throughout the day - but I didn't miss focus once in the whole roll.



Of course, part of that is over-familiarity with both the equipment and the subject, but still. It can be done.

[Edit: I just walked away from my desk to make a coffee after posting this and got thinking about the early Canons with the combined RF/VF and switchable VF magnifications. Some people claim that's an improvement over the separate VF/RF of the early Leicas and the various direct clones - the Niccas, Leotaxes, Reids, etc.; I'd argue in many ways it's worse, if only because the eye relief is so bad and the edges of the viewfinder are so vague that it's a nightmare to frame anything. I end up leaving my Canon IIIa on the 1.5x RF setting and using an external finder for everything - even 50mm.]

 

[Evergreen States]

Sonnar formula lenses can be used with mirrorless cameras without problem.

True, but I was operating under the assumption that the scope of discussion was limited to film cameras.