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

W

wgerrard

Veteran
Local time
11:14 AM
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
2,451
So... if rangefinders were big and heavy, and SLR's were small and light, which would you choose? Why?

Just askin'.

Also trying to get at just how important the actual RF focusing mechanism is to folks.

I'd opt for the smaller, lighter camera. I find an RF easier to focus in dim light, but I do little shooting in those conditions.
 
Let me say it like this: I would probably prefer an M5 with 50 or 90mm over my OM1 with 85/2, if the M5 had a 1:1 finder. :) Then again, I have two M3s which are the same size as the OM1, roughly, and I prefer them.
 
I prefer my Nikon SP with the 10.5cm F2.5 over the Nikon FM with the 105/2.5. They are both black, and about the same size. The SP is heavier.
 
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.

:cool:
 
Yeah, I'd still choose RF. Easier to focus the wides and in low light. I like to see outside the framelines, the bright VF no matter what lens I have on, and I don't like the VF blackout and mirror slap on SLRs.
 
wgerrard said:
So... if rangefinders were big and heavy, and SLR's were small and light, which would you choose? Why?
Click to expand...

I do not understand your question because it is not a "what if" situation for me. It is reality!

My Fuji medium format rangefinders are big and heavy.
130 x 200 x 119mm (height x width x depth) and 1500 grams

My Pentax ME SLR is small and light.
82.5 x 131 x 49.5mm (height x width x depth) at 460 grams

I choose the one that will do the job for me.
 
my Linhof Super Technika isn't exactly a light weight, small rangefinder... i chose it over a DSLR though.
 
I do not own a 35mm film SLR. I do have a Bronica SQA. I also have a old D70 DSLR which gets almost no use.

But if I could get a D700 with a prime that weighed what my ZI does, I would buy and use it.

Weight is more important to me than focusing by a rangefinder instead of a reflected image on a screen. And I would use auto focus a lot if it worked like on the high end DSLRs auto focus does.

I just use whatever camera works best.
 
I use a rangefinder for two main reasons: the compact lens size and the image quality of wide-angle lenses. RF focusing is secondary, as is "seeing beyond" the framelines. Although, the aperture-free viewing is nice.

So, in regards to your question, I'd probably go with an SLR.

That said, rangefinders can indeed be big and heavy. Take an M9 with a Leica 50mm f/0.95 lens, for example, or a Zeiss ZM 15mm f/2.8 lens. It would be monstrous, and make an OM-1/50mm f/1.8 combo look tiny.

So it really depends on the lenses you use.

This, of course, is talking about 35mm.
 
narsuitus said:
I do not understand your question because it is not a "what if" situation for me. It is reality!

My Fuji medium format rangefinders are big and heavy.
130 x 200 x 119mm (height x width x depth) and 1500 grams

My Pentax ME SLR is small and light.
82.5 x 131 x 49.5mm (height x width x depth) at 460 grams

I choose the one that will do the job for me.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
If my slr would be smaller, lighter, and with it i could be able not to atract much attention, i would use it like my rangefinder. The main advantage would be using a most-flexible zoom lens, over a fixed one. My slr is a Zenit, so it's heavy, bulky and not so easy to focus accurately when shooting in the street, not to mention that it makes a lot of noise. My Fed is smaller (even if it's heavy almost like the Zenit) and i think the rangefinder focusing is the best manual focus sistem that exists. I wouldn't trade it for anything, it's the most accurate vs. any mf slr. The thing with slrs with a medium zoom on them (for me a 35-70) is that, when on the street, people tend to avoid you when they see you with a "professional-looking" camera. I tend to use the Fed for urban landscape, people and things that require accurate medium-distance focus, and the Zenit mainy for landscapes that mostly require focusing at infinity.
 
I like to travel with fairly compact gear, but that's not the most important reason I prefer rangefinder cameras.
 
For me the attraction to rangefidners is mostly the size of the system as a whole. The body is only slightly smaller than my SLR, but the lenses are just TINY. Add to that the fact that I prefer primes, and shooting primes on modern SLRs is getting harder (unless you shoot Pentax, or are willing to lug around big f1.4 optics), and my M3 wins out.
 
Compact size (body and lenses) is the reason I started shooting with rangefinders, in addition to mechanical simplicity and build quality of the bodies I shoot (M3/ M4).

The focussing mechanism has never been a deal breaker thus far, but I think the ability to see outside the framelines, lack of mirror slap and lack of mirror blackout are all aspects of the rangefinder design that are quite invaluable to me.

More than it's individual elements, it is the complete package of all these attributes that makes a rangefinder my 35mm camera of choice.

Size is important to me though, and of all the attributes above I consider important for me, a compact body is the price of entry before I will even consider any other attributes in a 35mm camera.
 
Last edited:
In all honesty, apart from the minor advantage of easier focusing in low light there is no reason other than sheer perversity why I use rangefinders at all. I can't really claim a better reason than "what the heck" for owning two fully capable camera systems for one format. And except for large format, where the Technika preceded the first Mentor by twenty years, all rangefinders that I own came secondary to a SLR, so they are by definition superfluous luxury. If the relation between SLR and RF cameras were reversed, I'd presumably own SLRs for the same silly reason...
 
This SLR is very small...

Look down at the camera. by Antony J Shepherd, on Flickr
The others are far away...

Considering that a 4/3 sensor is a similar size to a frame of 110 film, if it was ever possible to make a 4/3 camera the same shape and size as the old Pentax Auto 110 (and preferably with the same mount!), that would be pretty fantastic. And it would have a 'real' viewfinder.

Certainly, what appealed to me about rangefinders was the size. I could take my Voigtlander R3A, and a couple of lenses, in a small bag, whereas if I took my DSLR and one other lens it took up much more space. The R3A would even fit in a coat pocket.
In the end I got tired of lugging the DSLR around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom