Point & Shoot vs Rangefinder

[hughjb]

This is a philosophical question, is a "point & shoot" a strip down range finder?

 

[wierdcollector]

Technically, a point n' shoot can be an autofocus camera or a fixed focus camera where everything from close up to infinity is in focus all the time. Depends on your choice I guess. For myself, I have several fixed focus auto exposure point & shoots, several with zoom and plenty with autofocus so it depends on your definition of a point and shoot I suppose. I would only consider the AF cameras to be a form of RF myself. Curt in Canada.

 

[Huck Finn]

Technically, both rangefinders & point & shoots are a form of viewfinder camera, i.e. both employ a separate viewfinder rather than viewing through the lens like an SLR.

A rangefinder camera adds a rangefinder focusing mechanism. A rangefinder is actually not exclusively a photographic instrument. By using the principle of triangulation, 2 separate images obtained at 2 different points can be used to determine distance &, therefore, in photography, accurate focus. Using a mirror & prism, the 2 images can be optically superimposed to find the precise point of focus. Point & shoots do not use a mechanical rangefinder to determine focus. Although there are differences they most often use a light beam.

In either case, the use of a separate viewfinder allows the lens to be designed so that it is placed at the optimal distance from the film. In an SLR, the minimum distance is predetermined by the space required for the swinging mirror which provides for through-the-lens viewing. As a result, lenses for viewfinder cameras - including rangefinder cameras - can be designed smaller, & wide angle lenses, in particular, can be designed to be optically superior.

 

[Doug]

Hugh, it's my impression most modern "point & shoot" cameras are dressed up with MORE fancy features than the traditonal mechanica rangefinder rig. While they may be missing the triangulation rangefinder mechanism, they're more likely to have auto-focus, auto-exposure with various pre-programmed shooting modes, motorized film advance, and so forth.

So, are Leica M cameras stripped-down point'n'shoots? :-D

 

[pvdhaar]

...A rangefinder is actually not exclusively a photographic instrument. By using the principle of triangulation, 2 separate images obtained at 2 different points can be used to determine distance &, therefore, in photography, accurate focus. Using a mirror & prism, the 2 images can be optically superimposed to find the precise point of focus...

Sounds much like what my eyes do to judge distance.. most of the time that is.

Now if such is the case, there's a question that begs to be answered by all you philosophy bugs:

Given that a rangefinder need not be coupled directly to a focussing helix, wouldn't any camera that allows scale focussing where you guess the distance by eye be considered a rangefinder? 😀

 

[Doug]

Hi Peter-- Roger Hicks interestingly addresses this point in his recent book "Rangefinder: History, Equipment, Techniques." He proposes that all cameras with optical viewfinders could be called "direct view" cameras, by contrast with those that view the scene projected onto a ground-glass screen.

And a rangefinder camera is a member of the "direct view" group; a subset that has a built-in rangefinder mechanism, coupled or not.

There are lots of borderline cases, and some which can be in two groups at once, or shift. For instance, some reflex cameras have RFs, example some models of the Swiss Alpa SLR. Many press cameras, like Crown Graphics, have Kalart rangefinders mounted and coupled, but this can be removed, and the camera is then no longer an RF. There used to be separate accessory rangefinders sold to fit camera accessory shoes. So, with one of these accessories present, is the camera now an RF?

One big question is whether an autofocus direct-view camera is a rangefinder or not. And what if it has an LCD screen too, giving a live view of the scene though the taking lens? Does that make it an SLR? We have some thinking to do... 🙂

 

[lars]

In either case, the use of a separate viewfinder allows the lens to be designed so that it is placed at the optimal distance from the film. In an SLR, the minimum distance is predetermined by the space required for the swinging mirror which provides for through-the-lens viewing. As a result, lenses for viewfinder cameras - including rangefinder cameras - can be designed smaller, & wide angle lenses, in particular, can be designed to be optically superior.

Hmm...I don't know if RF lenses are actually optically superior. Some of the "recent" Leica M-mount lenses use the retrofocus design features of the SLR lenses.

...lars

 

[LionFlyer]

My sense of a traditional point & shoot is a bit dated. The Kodak Instamatic with its drop in film cassette fits that bill for me. It had no provision for the setting of focus, focal lenght or exposure. They were like a reusuable version of todays one time use cameras only without the electronic flash. Used flash bulbs instead. They were very fast to get a snap shot off. I don't know what to call todays automatic cameras. They have adjustable focus, zoom lenses, and exposure controled by a CPU with various sensors. That format is used through a wide range of cameras from a lowely cheep-o "point & shoot" all the way beyond a Nikon F5 in auto everything mode. The inexpensive ones are not very fast to get into action. The typical zoom lenses are slow. So you are limited to daylight or flash. You can't just point & shoot anymore. You need to point, help the autofocus figure out what to focus on, shoot, and wait for it to get around to tripping the shutter. Hopefully the picture you had in mind is still there once all that happens. The more expensive automatic cameras get the job done much faster, allow a great choice of fast glass, plus allow the photographer to bypass the automation. What they both offer is technically good exposures within their design limits without needing to know much about photography. Other posters have done a fine job describing the workings of how a range finder gets its name. What I like about the range finder I am using is its small size, fast and sharp lens, and that I have control over how it operates. It is very fast to get into action especially if you use the age old method of prefocusing a hyperfocal range. And it is easy to align the two images for precise focusing even in dim light. Many use leaf shutters which allow flash sync at all speeds. This makes it possiable to get good fill flash effects. Don't get me wrong, my Nikons get the photos too. Plus do killer fill flash. My F100 has a lot to offer beyond my Olympus SP. None the less, I wonder if 30 years from now, the F100 will be working as well as my 30 year SP is now. Double ditto for the digital bodies of today.

 

[canonetc]

What makes a rangefinder a rangefinder is not only the ability to focus, but actually the need of the user to be able to visually know, based on lens selected, what he/she will be capturing as he/she looks through the viewfinder.

To clarify, let's say you take a Leica m6/m2 or Bessa that takes interchangeable lenses, and attach a 90mm lens: a smaller set of lines appears within the viewfinder that pertain to actual field of capture of the 90mm lens. Looking through the viewfinder, you can still see around those lines, but that outside area will NOT be captured on film. Only the "range" or zone WITHIN the lines will go into your photograph.

This is why, for example, older rangefinders including the Leica m2 or m3 required a seperate viewfinder for the 21mm lens. Leica did not design the M's to have viewing lines for the 21mm. The viewfinder would have to be bigger.

This is a long winded way of saying it, but the rangefinder has to do with "range" or, an area of space that the selected lens will capture. The good RF user has to be able to see and decide upon what he will capture, based solely on the lens-lines in the viewfinder. Focusing is not the primary definition of an RF.

Since PAS cameras do not do this, they are NOT rangefinders. But Canonets and other RF's with fixed lenses are.

chris
canonetc

 

[dmr]

is a "point & shoot" a strip down range finder?

No (IMAO that is). A point-and-shoot and a rangefinder have things in common, like they are both camera and they are both not SLRs, the same way a cat and a rabbit are alike in that they are both mammals and they are both not a dog. (So first your memory I'll jog ...) 🙂

A point-and-shoot is an effective tool for capturing some images, and so is a rangefinder. A point-and-shoot tends to have autofocus or fixed focus, and whether you consider this a feature or a limitation is from your personal perspective. A rangefinder, by definition (the way I've always understood it) uses the split-image triangulation method to determine the distance to the subject, which does require the photographer to perform the focusing function, either actively or passively (like setting to infinity or hyperfocal).

IMAO, the inability to focus is a limitation, as is the inability to set or tweak the exposure. (And this comes from somebody who typically takes far more frames with a point-and-shoot than she does with a rangefinder or SLR.) A point-and-shoot, by implied definition, is one that lacks the ability to manually focus or set exposure. I've learned to partly get around this. Aim at what you want to focus/expose on, hold the release half way down, then compose and shoot.

A point-and-shoot is a non-rangefinder as a cat is a non-rabbit (500 Trivia Points for that reference) and both are indeed non-SLR's. That's about as close as they are. 🙂

 

[dmr]

What they both offer is technically good exposures within their design limits without needing to know much about photography.

Sorry for being such a motormouth on this topic, but it got me thinking ... and I think this is really where the difference lies. The rangefinder is intended for somebody and almost always used by somebody who has at least a fair knowledge in the techniques of photography.

An Instamatic/box camera/point-and-shoot or even today's modern auto-everything SLR can indeed be used to give acceptable results with no behind the scenes knowledge.

 

[XAos]

A rangefinder, by definition (the way I've always understood it) uses the split-image triangulation method to determine the distance to the subject, which does require the photographer to perform the focusing function, either actively or passively (like setting to infinity or hyperfocal).🙂

Is a Contax a rangefinder? Is a Hexar? What if you had a decoupled Polaroid "distance sensor" to avoid the magic nomenclature, requiring manual focus? A pull string with an encoder that you had people hold while you took their picture?

To fabricate a slightly less absurd rangefinding mechanism, say you still had a manually focus ring, and but your rangefinder used a PSD (angle of arrival light measuring gizmo) and relayed the results to you by either blinking lights in the viewfinder or beating a pair of tones against each other. You'd have 1) manual focus 2) distance sensing based on triangulation, but it wouldn't be split image. Would a true stereo image processing gizmo that correlated the two images to autofocus be a rangefinder? Is anything besides a Leica a rangefinder?

Sounds like somebody's getting defensive about his hobby. 😀

 

[jlw]

This is a long winded way of saying it, but the rangefinder has to do with "range" or, an area of space that the selected lens will capture. The good RF user has to be able to see and decide upon what he will capture, based solely on the lens-lines in the viewfinder. Focusing is not the primary definition of an RF.

Sorry, but etymologically I can't buy that. As someone else has posted, the optical device known as a rangefinder is older than its application in cameras. Among other things, its original uses include land-based and shipboard artillery, where its use is to find the range (distance) of the target. This usage was well-established by the time someone manufactured a camera with a rangefinder built into it (Kodak, in 1914.)

Incidentally, you can sometimes see these military rangefinders in old war movies. If there's a scene in which the commander is peering tensely out of a trench or bunker or whatever, and somewhere near him is a thing that looks like a V-shaped "rabbit ears" with binocular lenses on the upper ends, that's a rangefinder. And if you look at photos of old battleships, you'll often see a small rotating thing mounted high up -- it looks like a tiny gun turret, with no guns but with "ears" sticking out the sides. This thing is a "director," used to aim the guns, and the ears are the two windows of a very long-based rangefinder used for measuring the distance to the target. Stephen Gandy says on his website that the directors for the WWII Japanese battleship "Yamato" incorporated the longest-based rangefinders ever made.

But if you're willing to stretch the definition a bit, though -- as many seem to be doing here! -- then there's one rangefinder with a considerably longer base length. It's called the planet Earth! Astronomers used to use the rangefinder principle to measure the distance to nearby celestial objects; they called this the "parallax" method. It involved taking a precise measure of the angle to the object, then waiting for a period, and measuring again. Since the earth would move during the waiting period, the distance it moved (which they could calculate) became the base length. Set up your telescope on the equator, measure, wait 12 hours and measure again -- your base length would be the earth's diameter. Wait six months, and your base length could be the diameter of the Earth's orbit around the sun!

 

[dreilly]

I always seem to be on the edge of Rangefinderdom. I just got a Hexar and as beautiful as it might be, it' s not quite a rangefinder (to me) because it has no rangefinder mechanism. Neither is a Ricoh GR-1, though it has a passive AF that works a lot like RF shooters do, looking for vertical lines and contrast. But still not a rangefinder. I wouldn't call either of those "point and shoots," however. To me, P&S refers to a lack of artistic control. And to me, focus (whether done by me or by an AF mechanism) isn't the end-all to artistic control of exposure. To me depth of field is very important, hence I love the aperture priority modes of the Hexar, or even the GSN or XA. P&S to me means the same as "fire and forget" does. Pick it up, point, and shoot. Maybe you spend time framing the shot, maybe you wait for the killer moment--that's what makes it a camera capable of art (in my mind) but it's still a point and shoot leaving a lot of decisions up to the camera.

There's a lot out there that isn't an RF, or an SLR, or a P&S. I like the "direct view" nomenclature some use here, as that seems to be an important meta-category: how do you frame the photo? That seems to unite most RFF members whether they shoot Hexars or GSNs or Leicas or Canonets.

As a photographer with a camera on the edge of the mainstream definitions, I prefer casting the net wider. Anyway, there's no cool forums out there for the "ill-defined" cameras.

Rangefinders are rangefinders, but they have lots of cool brothers and sisters that can take some wonderful pictures. But who don't fit in as well with their cousins the SLRs.

 

[aizan]

yeah, by definition, rangefinder cameras are those with rangefinders. some rangefinders are also considered p&s, such as the various polaroid cameras, compact rfs from the 70s and even earlier, like kodak retinas and old voigtlanders.

there is lots of variety in the "p&s" category. the hexar and contax g are af viewfinder cameras, and were marketed as high end p&s cameras. most modern p&s are af viewfinder cameras, but some are fixed focus, or scale focus, or don't even have a viewfinder at all.

oh, and there are field cameras. you can put a rangefinder on graflexes and linhofs and all that, but their primary categorization is as a field camera. same goes for the leica i being primarily a viewfinder camera. what do you call the leica if or the bessa l? a 35mm camera? a viewfinderless camera? a scale focus camera?