rangefinder attribute demonstrated?

[Avotius]

I hate to spoil the party but I can get pretty sharp results down to 1/8 sec with my OM-1 ... hold the aperture preview button down which effectively disconnects the mechanism that moves the aperture blades during shutter accuation and the camera virtually has no more kick than my Leica M2!

I was playing with my OM-1 the other day and noticed how little kick the mirror has too especially compared to my Minolta x700 and Canon digital stuff. Unfortunately I cant get my hands on the batteries for the camera and just have not got around to sticking film in it. Though I would say my M6 does move a lot less then my OM1 when the shutter is fired.

 

[craygc]

I enjoy switching at times between my M's and Nikon F3HP... Sometimes its a hard decision as to which kit to take. The requirements that will always push me to the M over the SLR is when size of the kit I need to carry matters and whether I consider the environment I will shoot in will have me shooting a lot without using the viewfinder. Zone focusing on an SLR lens is nothing short of useless...

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

• I've never really understood the claim that that little 'extra' bit in the rangefinder window helps you to 'see what's coming' — so, therefore, the RF has some advantage for shooting action. A rangefinder is about the worst tool for shooting anything that moves, unless you're content to shoot without focusing and rely on a stopped down lens for DOF. There's a pretty big contradiction here. No one (in their right mind) shoots sports with a rangefinder. And, that has nothing to do with the telephoto issue.

And, doesn't the subject have to be moving pretty slowly in order for the photographer to catch it, first, outside the framelines, and then track it into the framelines? Something that moves two millimeters within the viewfinder is really giving you such ad advantage? Versus servo-tracking AF that can allow you to catch a moving subject at F1.2 and not have to rely on zone focusing?

• I've had two M7s and now an Ikon, and have also owned a Mamiya 6 and now a Bronica RF645. I haven't noticed any advantages with low light/slow shutter speed capability with the RFs over well-dampened SLRs like a Contax RX or Aria, and now a Nikon F6. Contrarily, i like having a motor driven camera with continuous drive, so that the second frame doesn't have any effects of pressing down on the shutter release.

• I have the Aria and a Nikon FE2 that are effectively the same size as my Ikon. And, the Nikon 50mm 1.8 Series E is almost a pancake lens, so size isn't really an issue.

• Definitely, the reason why i keep coming back to RFs has more to do with the range of lenses than the body/viewing system. I don't like rangefinders. Someone above said he finds SLR composing more distracting, because too much of the image in the finder is out of focus. For me, it's the opposite. It's distracting to me to see everything in focus, because i then have to mentally 'translate' what i'm seeing into what i'm expecting in the picture. I never shoot at smaller than f5.6 - unless i have to shoot a landscape or somesuch. And, if i am shooting a landscape or whatever, it's so far away from me/the lens that shallow DOF in the viewfinder isn't an issue. There typically isn't that much in the foreground that will even be shown out of focus.

• Blinking. Even with a rangefinder, we're talking about 1/500 of a second for the shutter, and 1/blink of a second for the eye. Even through a rangefinder, i wouldn't bet on whether a blink had been recorded. With an SLR, you may have a suspicion. With a RF, you have a gut feeling Either way, don't you have to reshoot? In 30+ years, i can't remember ever getting a blink on a contact sheet where i wasn't expecting it.

• The picture of the doofus with the SLR and flipflops is moot. There are doofi with RFs, too. Maybe fewer of them, but that's on account of most people preferring SLRs. Besides that, that camera isn't so big anyway. The only people who think SLRs are big, cumbersome, unwieldy, unstealthy are us rangefinder folks. Somehow we get a bit nancy after getting used to small cameras. I used to use a Pentax 67 and a Mamiya RZ67 - both handheld, for 8-10 hours of fashion photoshoots. Now, looking at either one of those cameras makes my head hurt....

• If HCB started in the 60s or 70s, he'd have used a Nikon F, and he'd have made the same types of pictures.

 

[bkrystad]

Hmm. I shoot RF and SLR, and like them both. But for six months I've been getting to know a Minolta CLE with an M-Rokkor 40mm on it, and I'm really enjoying the experience of composition. I've attached a shot of the CLE viewfinder with 28mm brightlines on the outside and 40mm on the inside. The experience is just completely different from composing with my Minolta SLR, and I appreciate the difference.

Can I point to a picture that was made better with my CLE than my XD-11? No. I only use one camera at a time.

I've also attached a sports photo taken with a Yashica Lynx 14e. I may not be in my right mind, but damn that game was fun.

 

[Mattikk]

I saw this guy was coming in with this motorcycle so I waited until he was there and snapped him in the shot too.

Are you deaf?

 

[kemal_mumcu]

For me the only advantage of the RF finder has been that it forces you to think outside the box/camera as to what you're trying to frame. My Leica is a teacher, it forces me to shoot from the minds eye or heart rather than the clear parameters and preview of the SLR. Composing with an SLR is a treat and a visual sensation.

The framelines for me on an M2 are only a suggestion or a guide.

The whole 'seeing outside the lines' preaching concerning RFs has been lost on me so far.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

I have a photo that shows the advantage of tightening a bolt - with a socket-wrench, as opposed to a ring-spanner!! 🙄🙄

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Anyone has a photo that they believe shows the advantage of using a rangefinder? I mean a photo that shows how the viewfinder itself provided some advantage.

Photographing fireworks would probably work well with a rangefinder, as opposed to an SLR, wouldn't it? A few weeks ago our neighbours put on a display during the annual fireworks night we have here in Tasmania. At that time I didn't own a rangefinder (I've since bought five, though!) so, I was shooting Provia with my EOS630 before switching to Superia with my EOSRT. For various unimportant reasons, I was not able to position myself at the optimum distance for capturing the full bursts and was a little too close, but I was stuck with this constraint and had to make the best of it. Most of my shots were multiple exposures on bulb using a remote release. With the 630 I had my fingers crossed most of the time the shutter was open - thinking, "Gee, hope I got that one!" - but it was, of course, impossible to know for sure with the mirror up. With the RT, I could actually monitor the bursts through the finder, to verify that I'd recorded them, and open or close the shutter exactly when needed to achieve this. I would think that a rangefinder would be equally as good as an RT or even better in this situation, yes?

Another great thing is that it takes the guesswork out of determining that the flash has actually fired. Buying an RT was a good move for me because it got me switched on to the idea of rangefinder ownership.

Perhaps others may not feel the issues I've touched on above to be of importance to them, but as a relatively inexperienced photographer, I certainly noticed the difference on the night.

Cheers,
Brett

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Let's face it - apart from personal equipment preferances, the main advantage is noise, or the lack of it!, ( I've allways liked leaf-shutters for this reason ) when close to a subject, but I'm sure the picture examples given, could have been taken with almost anything.
Dave.

 

[yanidel]

• I've never really understood the claim that that little 'extra' bit in the rangefinder window helps you to 'see what's coming' — so, therefore, the RF has some advantage for shooting action. A rangefinder is about the worst tool for shooting anything that moves, unless you're content to shoot without focusing and rely on a stopped down lens for DOF. There's a pretty big contradiction here. No one (in their right mind) shoots sports with a rangefinder. And, that has nothing to do with the telephoto issue.

And, doesn't the subject have to be moving pretty slowly in order for the photographer to catch it, first, outside the framelines, and then track it into the framelines? Something that moves two millimeters within the viewfinder is really giving you such ad advantage? Versus servo-tracking AF that can allow you to catch a moving subject at F1.2 and not have to rely on zone focusing?

For street shots, which is moving action, the bit around the frames is a huge advantage, especiall with 50mm and above lenses. A SLR will give you a tunnel vision and you will have to scan around to see what is happening. The 35mm lens on the M8 (roughly 50mm FF) gives a lot of space outside the frameline and help me anticipate at lot of movement, even with cars and wide-open.
See this shot for example at F1.4 :
http://blog.yanidel.com/2009/06/09/topless-over-the-seine-river/
Seeing the car coming outside the frames helped me anticipate the click. I could also focus on composition.

With a 24mm lens, this advantage does not exist anymore yet I love the big bright finder ..
http://blog.yanidel.com/2009/06/24/losing-control/
This shot was easier (not for my safety) as the car was coming in front.

Of course, I would never shoot a 100m dash with a rangefinder (unless I need only one shot)

 

[Sonnar Brian]

A wide-base Rangefinder provides more accurate focus for lenses up to ~100mm than does an SLR. I have an easier time focussing a fast lens on the RF than I do with a comparable lens on an SLR.

Plus, you can't get a 50mm Sonnar for an SLR.