Heresy, wise use or what?

[micromontenegro]

I wonder why us rangefinderers strive to prove that there's something, down there, that makes the RF superior to the SLR ;-) History has proved the exact opposite for 95% of the scenarios.

I am quite content now by saying that I use (and will continue to use) rangefinders because I like them better. As someone could prefer a mountain bike over a track one, or, more to the point, bow hunting to rifle hunting. I like them better, and that's it for me. I don't really care if (or believe) they are really better.

But, if I really had to tell a reason, RFs are far more challenging

 

[WoolenMammoth]

your point is moot at best and spurious at worst. I wasn't aware they used RFs in the motion picture industry

had your attitude been a notch better I would have taken some time to explain this to you but the vitriol you insert is not really any kind of reward for the effort.

 

[Al Kaplan]

A lot of the choice, obviously, is dictated by what you're trying to do. Long telephotos, close-ups, copy work, photomicrography, anything requiring precise framing, getting foreground aligned with background so as to not obscure anything, all call out for an SLR even though other factors might be better served if you didn't have the noise, mirror delay and image blackout. SLR's favor a contemtlative style of photography.

Range/viewfinder cameras are great when working in close with people. They're relatively quiet and unobtrusive and can easily be focused accurately in low light with wide-angle lenses. Until recently there were very few really wide or fast wide angle optics for SLR's. The RFDR camera lets you see the exact moment of the exposure, and it lets you see if the flash fired or if you got a lot of glare from the flash from reflective surfaces in the background. A lot of RFDR shooters have a very intuitive style of shooting, adjusting the aperture and shutter speed by feel out of habit long before ever raising the camera to their eye. When they do, they already know what will be in the viewfinder with that lens and at that subject distance.

The problem is that there are a lot of situations where there is no clear cut advantage to one or the other and most amateurs don't have both systems. Way back in the 1960's, when auto-stop down diaphragms and instant return mirrors became common the camera companies and the photography magazines started a major campaign to sell the idea that an SLR was a "do anything" camera, the wave of the future! Zeiss, Canon, and Nikon pulled out of the interchageable lens RFDR market, leaving it to Leitz. Still, though, dealers were having trouble moving used Leicas at fire-sale prices. People were actually trading their Leicas in on Pentaxes and Mirandas.

There will always be people who feel the need to own the latest feature laden model of cars, cameras, even lawnmowers. The more important thing is to pick a good reliable tool for the task at hand.

 

[rsl]

That really sums it up well. To make the summation even shorter: Rangefinders are the best street cameras. Stand cameras -- i.e., 8 x 10 and 11 x 14 views are the best landscape and architectural cameras. SLRs are the best everything else cameras.

 

[italy74]

..that is SLR are more or less like Jeeps (GP = general purpose)

 

[Chris101]

Doesn't keeping your other eye open also show you what's going on outside the frame and the moment of exposure - with any camera? I like RFs cause they are fun, quiet and as micromontenegro said above, more challenging.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

rangefinder lens are tiny compared to the same aperture lens on a SLR

The other day I purchased a Nikkor 50 f/1.8 AF-D lens. When I got it out of the box I thought "gee, this is pretty much the same size (maybe even a little shorter) than my Hexanon 50". Maybe some RF lenses are smaller than some SLR primes, but you overstate things.

 

[Richard Marks]

If focus is critical - for example, portraits or product shots and relatively close distance - I would always manual focus (diopter correction is a godsend for aged eyesight), so I don't disagree with you.

Ok. My point is simply critical focusing is not as good with an auto focus DSLR in my hands. Now the manual focus SLR with split image micro prism is pretty good, but I think there may be some third party split image screens for DSLR's, but they really are intended for AF. Its a petty the R8/9 DMR back was so expensive. I actually held off that knowing the M8 was iminent. I think used DMR's are very highly sought after.

Richard

 

[Gid]

Ok. My point is simply critical focusing is not as good with an auto focus DSLR in my hands. Now the manual focus SLR with split image micro prism is pretty good, but I think there may be some third party split image screens for DSLR's, but they really are intended for AF. Its a petty the R8/9 DMR back was so expensive. I actually held off that knowing the M8 was iminent. I think used DMR's are very highly sought after.

Richard

I think we are probably in severe agreement for critical work 😉

I've seen one DMR module for sale recently (may have been Ffordes) for £2500, so they're not a steal.

 

[Richard Marks]

I think we are probably in severe agreement for critical work 😉

I've seen one DMR module for sale recently (may have been Ffordes) for £2500, so they're not a steal.

Many thanks
Focusing is always critical for me. I think thats why I love rangefinders!
Yes DMR backs are certainly not a steal. (but cheaper than an S2!!)
Best wishes
Richard