sircarl
Well-known
I’ve recently called a halt to my roughly seven-year relationship with 35mm rangefinder film cameras and switched (back) to a film SLR. I know these are very personal decisions, but I’d be curious to hear whether others here have gone through similar experiences.
Like many on RFF, I discovered rangefinders after spending quite some time with SLRs. I started out with a Contax G2, moved on to a Minolta CLE for a while, and for the last couple of years shot with a Zeiss Ikon. All were in their own way very satisfying. And the Zeiss, M-Hexanon, and Leica lenses I used gave me excellent results.
Even today I’ll admit that rangefinders are unsurpassed in a number of ways, but the feature that mattered most to me personally was the viewfinder. That’s why I ended up with the ZI, whose viewfinder is unequalled. Yet at the same time this was the feature I gradually grew unhappy with.
I slowly came to the realization that rangefinder viewfinders aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. Seeing the world through a superimposed rectangle is admittedly useful in framing the subject. But if you use three or four focal lengths regularly, as I do, inevitably some of the framelines will be too small to get a clear picture of the subject, or oddly, too big, since you may not be able to see the outer edges comfortably. That wouldn’t be so bad if they were accurate in the first place, but they’re not, as almost everyone here knows, which became increasingly frustrating for me. The final nail in the coffin came after repeated viewings of the pictures I took with my 28mm lens and even my 35mm lens, when it dawned on me that they bore only a faint resemblance to what I saw in the viewfinder, because that viewfinder can’t reproduce the distortions that wider-angle lenses impart to the subject. When I remembered that my old SLRs didn’t have any of these viewfinder shortcomings, that’s when the penny dropped.
So I started playing around with SLRs again, first a Nikon FG, then a Pentax ME Super, both of which were quite nice, but whose lenses didn’t have the same wow factor as the rangefinder lenses I was using (except for the Pentax 50/1.4, which was superb). Then a friend told me he had been having good results with an SLR I actually used to own once, a Contax Aria, the “baby” version of the more serious Contax SLRs of the 1980s and ‘90s. It’s fairly light (actually weighs less than my ZI) and has a very large and bright viewfinder, a shutter that doesn’t clunk loudly when it fires and with a 1/4000 top speed (important to me), and all the usual conveniences of a modern SLR. Most important, it takes the superb line of Zeiss lenses that were made for the Contax/Yashica mount. So I bought one, along with the 25, 35, 50 and 85 lenses, and I’m now a very happy camper.
Oddly, though, I still have to say that the camera that has always given me the greatest joy to use, even though I find it highly impractical for the kind of street photography I like to do, is my old Leica IIIf, with its 50/2 Summitar. I guess in some sense I’ll always have a soft spot for the rangefinder “concept,” even if it’s a type of camera that no longer meets my needs. And if renegades like me can be tolerated, I’ll continue to look at RFF every day, since it has the smartest discussions about photography I’ve found on the Net.
Like many on RFF, I discovered rangefinders after spending quite some time with SLRs. I started out with a Contax G2, moved on to a Minolta CLE for a while, and for the last couple of years shot with a Zeiss Ikon. All were in their own way very satisfying. And the Zeiss, M-Hexanon, and Leica lenses I used gave me excellent results.
Even today I’ll admit that rangefinders are unsurpassed in a number of ways, but the feature that mattered most to me personally was the viewfinder. That’s why I ended up with the ZI, whose viewfinder is unequalled. Yet at the same time this was the feature I gradually grew unhappy with.
I slowly came to the realization that rangefinder viewfinders aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. Seeing the world through a superimposed rectangle is admittedly useful in framing the subject. But if you use three or four focal lengths regularly, as I do, inevitably some of the framelines will be too small to get a clear picture of the subject, or oddly, too big, since you may not be able to see the outer edges comfortably. That wouldn’t be so bad if they were accurate in the first place, but they’re not, as almost everyone here knows, which became increasingly frustrating for me. The final nail in the coffin came after repeated viewings of the pictures I took with my 28mm lens and even my 35mm lens, when it dawned on me that they bore only a faint resemblance to what I saw in the viewfinder, because that viewfinder can’t reproduce the distortions that wider-angle lenses impart to the subject. When I remembered that my old SLRs didn’t have any of these viewfinder shortcomings, that’s when the penny dropped.
So I started playing around with SLRs again, first a Nikon FG, then a Pentax ME Super, both of which were quite nice, but whose lenses didn’t have the same wow factor as the rangefinder lenses I was using (except for the Pentax 50/1.4, which was superb). Then a friend told me he had been having good results with an SLR I actually used to own once, a Contax Aria, the “baby” version of the more serious Contax SLRs of the 1980s and ‘90s. It’s fairly light (actually weighs less than my ZI) and has a very large and bright viewfinder, a shutter that doesn’t clunk loudly when it fires and with a 1/4000 top speed (important to me), and all the usual conveniences of a modern SLR. Most important, it takes the superb line of Zeiss lenses that were made for the Contax/Yashica mount. So I bought one, along with the 25, 35, 50 and 85 lenses, and I’m now a very happy camper.
Oddly, though, I still have to say that the camera that has always given me the greatest joy to use, even though I find it highly impractical for the kind of street photography I like to do, is my old Leica IIIf, with its 50/2 Summitar. I guess in some sense I’ll always have a soft spot for the rangefinder “concept,” even if it’s a type of camera that no longer meets my needs. And if renegades like me can be tolerated, I’ll continue to look at RFF every day, since it has the smartest discussions about photography I’ve found on the Net.
ferider
Veteran
Why one or the other, Carl ?
sircarl
Well-known
Good question, Ferider. It's because I'm really no more than an amateur and just don't have the time and discipline to use two very different camera systems to get the kinds of results I want. I know others can and do -- it's just not me.
colyn
ישו משיח
Like myself others here use both. So why give up rf's??
ferider
Veteran
I am very interested in your experience with the Contax. Some great lenses out there ....
bmattock
Veteran
I use both, but since I mostly shoot digital nowadays, I tend towards the dSLR. The rangefinder camera is still very useful to me, however. Shooting when I do not wish to be a distraction (like at a small concert or performance), the nearly silent shutter of a leaf shutter rangefinder is often just what I need.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The OP said he had come to dislike the results he got with an RF because of the RF viewfinder. Isn't that a good enough reason to give up on RF's? I mean, the VF is THE fundamental difference between an RF and an SLR. If you hate the finder, why keep using it?
mfogiel
Veteran
For me, the choice is fairly simple: RF up to 50mm, SLR from 85mm on and for close up. You will probably arrive at the same conclusion soon.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
Although the Contax G2 viewfinder has it's own set of compromises, it has no framelines that are too big, or too small (actually, none at all) as it zooms depending on which lens is mounted. It's more SLR-like than RF-like in this respect.
I am glad you enjoyed your ZI (my old ZI) while you had it.
I am glad you enjoyed your ZI (my old ZI) while you had it.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
I have to admit to being in agreement!, some months ago I aquired a Konica FT1, and several superb Hexanon lenses - for a 'pittance'. This camera is a similar size and weight to an 'M', but much more versatile, and the lenses are the equal or better than anything I've used in fifty years - and that's quite a few!. Being retired, I'm in the fortunate position of being able to go out shooting more or less whenever I - and the weather! - are up to it!, so can and do, use several camera types, and formats, but if it came down to having just one, it would be an SLR.
Cheers, Dave.
Cheers, Dave.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I use both in a similar way although I do use a 90 on the rangefinder. Above that it`s the Yashica FX-D or Pentax ME. Both bodies are the same size as an M . If only they had the same quiet shutters
bmattock
Veteran
It's not 'the' fundamental difference, though.
Size of the camera.
Ability to see clearly despite filters on the taking lens.
Relative silence of the shutter.
And so on.
If none of those things matter to the OP, then he has made a valid choice. But the frameline is scarcely the fundamental difference, IMHO.
besk
Well-known
I am not leaving Rangefinders. However, it is horses for courses for me too.
Leica IIIf when I need something small and quiet, a Nikon AF 35 SLR to "catch" the grandchildren and LF for just about everything else.
Leica IIIf when I need something small and quiet, a Nikon AF 35 SLR to "catch" the grandchildren and LF for just about everything else.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I really could never give up either camera types. Horses for courses.
However, if I had to give up one and have only one to cover all my needs, I would probably have to give up the RF. An SLR is more versatile, it can do what an RF can do far more easily than using an RF to do an SLR's job.
/
However, if I had to give up one and have only one to cover all my needs, I would probably have to give up the RF. An SLR is more versatile, it can do what an RF can do far more easily than using an RF to do an SLR's job.
/
FrankS
Registered User
i use both. selecting the best tool for the job, or the camera that suits my mood at the moment. i'd not want to give up the opportunity/possibility to use a variety of cameras.
chris91387
Well-known
carl, i did the same thing earlier this year. i've been shooting nikon film slr's for 30 years and bought my first RF (leica m4-2) about 5 years ago and various lenses ever since. i just never really got comfortable with it. i was slow with it and it felt awkward. probably put 100 rolls through it but it just never felt like "family" to me. so i sold it all off; body and 4 lenses. it was a great conversation piece and i will truly miss that.
my FM, FM2n and FA are all i need to satisfy my film needs. my ais nikkor lenses (24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.2, 55 micro, 85/1.4, 135/2.8) are like old friends.
i will miss the look of older m-mount lenses that i longed for (summarit, summar, pre-asph, etc) but plan on taking that desire and playing around with older nikkor s.c. lenses to see what i can come up with.
- chris
my FM, FM2n and FA are all i need to satisfy my film needs. my ais nikkor lenses (24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.2, 55 micro, 85/1.4, 135/2.8) are like old friends.
i will miss the look of older m-mount lenses that i longed for (summarit, summar, pre-asph, etc) but plan on taking that desire and playing around with older nikkor s.c. lenses to see what i can come up with.
- chris
oftheherd
Veteran
That's pretty much me too. I have more cameas than I can use all the time. I just use whatever seems best or what I am in the mood for. TLRs are nice stealth in cafes and bars from a table. So is my Kiev. 9x12 and 4x5 give a lot of real estate. SLRs just seem more "natural" since I used them for so long. I always like my folders for weight and negative size. I don't see giving any of my camera types up one for the other.
Steve M.
Veteran
To me it depends more on what I'm going to be photographing. The only 35mm camera I have left is a Leica R-5. Been shooting MF folders because I like the 6x6 format and the way that Tri-X looks w/ 120 vs 35mm. But if I am going to be going out to shoot stuff at the market or at an event I bring the Leica SLR as it's the only camera that can keep up w/ action. Can't beat the lenses either. I had even more success using a Nikon N80 because it's quick AF was perfect for grab shots, but when I looked at the shots from the Nikon compared to the Leica...Ha! Too bad because Nikon makes great cameras, but the lenses don't come close to the best in 35mm, and I used all of their best primes.
I still like rangefinders for their compact size, especially the width, and one of these days I'd like to have an M-7, but for now the R-5 is still better for street shooting if there's action and I want to know exactly what's in the viewfinder (this would be a consideration for portraits especially).
I still like rangefinders for their compact size, especially the width, and one of these days I'd like to have an M-7, but for now the R-5 is still better for street shooting if there's action and I want to know exactly what's in the viewfinder (this would be a consideration for portraits especially).
dee
Well-known
Forced to choose , I would keep an SLR and DSLR .
Luckily , even if driven to clear out my collection , I would retain a Contax / Kiev or two with a few inexpensive 50mm lenses , which would not be ' worth ' selling .
I am not sure whether this is ultimately a Vintage thing , or specifically , ' Rangefinder ' ... it's the history of my 1933 / 4 twin Leica IIs and Contaxes which fascinate .
I also love the pictures which older lenses create - quite different from my Rokkors .
Luckily , even if driven to clear out my collection , I would retain a Contax / Kiev or two with a few inexpensive 50mm lenses , which would not be ' worth ' selling .
I am not sure whether this is ultimately a Vintage thing , or specifically , ' Rangefinder ' ... it's the history of my 1933 / 4 twin Leica IIs and Contaxes which fascinate .
I also love the pictures which older lenses create - quite different from my Rokkors .