Rangefinder/slr History

[Huck Finn]

The Nikon F was/is a modular system, which offers enormous advantages. TTL viewing also offers depth of field preview.

 

[furcafe]

Actually, that would depend on the model of Contarex & what screen you're using. Starting w/the Contarex Special & later versions of the Contarex 1 (Bullseye), around 1961, you had an option for a regular ground glass screen (still later than Nikon, though). Also, I doubt that boke/out-of-focus areas was a big consideration for the vast majority of photojournalists & war photographers that Bill was asking about.

. . . Other SLRs like the Contarex & Contaflexes only went out of focus in the central spot, so you didn't see the bokeh across the entire image. . . . .

 

[VinceC]

>>I doubt that boke/out-of-focus areas was a big consideration for the vast majority of photojournalists <<

Not the bokeh itself. But I'm sure the depth-of-field preview was very important. My first Nikomat had a depth-of-field preview button, and I very quickly learned its value in predicting the final image.

 

[RJBender]

Also, The N->F adapter allowed professionals to use their expensive long Nikkors on the Nikon F. The F cost less than some of these lenses, and was much easier to use than the Nikon RF reflex attachment. At an antique store, I picked up a Nikon M and 25cm/4 manual Telephoto with N->F adapter (~1952 issue), that was sitting next to a Nikon F. Easy to see what that Pro did.

Brian,
Can you use the NF adapter with a Contax 135mm Sonnar or a Kiev Jupiter 9?

R.J.

 

[VinceC]

Nikon made RF telephoto Nikkors over 135mm -- in lengths from 180mm out to 1000mm -- that were designed to be used with a mirror housing (Leica had a similar device). The NF adapter allowed you to use those mirror-housing lenses on the F-mount SLR. The RF coupled 135 lenses couldn't be fitted with a simple adapter but would instead require a completely redone mount. Not really worth it, given that the 135mm Nikkor formula was carried over directly to the F-mount version of the lens.

 

[louis]

Actually, that would depend on the model of Contarex & what screen you're using. Starting w/the Contarex Special & later versions of the Contarex 1 (Bullseye), around 1961, you had an option for a regular ground glass screen (still later than Nikon, though). Also, I doubt that boke/out-of-focus areas was a big consideration for the vast majority of photojournalists & war photographers that Bill was asking about.

The market dissagrees with you. The viewfinder image is critically important. You only need the central split image for critical focus, but all SLRs since the early 1960s have had the ability for ground glass focusing corner to corner. In fact, SLR makers have competed with each other on the brightness of their focusing screens.

You can even get custom made aftermarket screens like Beattie that make SLRs even brighter.

It's not just to make the camera easier to focus. Amateur photographers, like to see through the viewfinder an image that looks as much as possible like the final image. And amateurs make up most of the market.

Speaking for myself, my first 35mm was a rangefinder. Then I got an SLR and fell in love with the image in the viewfinder even though the image in the rangefinder was brighter than the SLR image.

War photographers are a special breed. They probably use the hyperfocal scale and prefocus their cameras.

 

[RJBender]

Nikon made RF telephoto Nikkors over 135mm -- in lengths from 180mm out to 1000mm -- that were designed to be used with a mirror housing (Leica had a similar device). The NF adapter allowed you to use those mirror-housing lenses on the F-mount SLR. The RF coupled 135 lenses couldn't be fitted with a simple adapter but would instead require a completely redone mount. Not really worth it, given that the 135mm Nikkor formula was carried over directly to the F-mount version of the lens.

Thanks, Vince.

R.J.

 

[ruben]

Hmmmm, am I feeling kinda RF fundamentalism here?

 

[VinceC]

>>Hmmmm, am I feeling kinda RF fundamentalism here?<<

I dunno. It strikes me that most of the folks in the thread are discussing strengths and advantages of SLRs.

We can't replay the early 1960s, but introducing workable SLRs must have been huge to the photographic community. I learned to shoot and, importantly, to "see" using SLRs, so it was pretty easy to go retro and start using rangefinders -- I already had a good ability to previsualize how different focal lengths behave in different situations. I think someone who had only used RFs would, in 1960, have been very excited about being able to look directly through the lens for the first time ever, and to then have the mirror return to normal to take the next shot.

 

[dmr]

Well, I can tell you a few of the reasons I originally abandoned the rangefinder for the SLR way back 30 years ago ...

First, there was this WYSIWYG factor which was very significant. Change lenses, you see the whole image in the viewfinder and focus as you see it.

Interchangeable lenses. Yes, there were interchangeable lens rangefinders, but they were tres spendy!

>>I doubt btw that any of them bought an SLR to look cool, that’s an amateur attitude.<<

I must admit that there was a factor of peer pressure, and yes, looks, in there. I selected the black "press" model of Spotmatic because I thought it looked cool and others remarked to that effect as well. Yes, amateur attitude and juvenile attitude.

Yes, looking way back to those days, {imagine Wayne's World wavy "do-do-do do-do-do flashback} there was a camera pecking order among the older teens who were getting into photography.

Toward the top was the Nikon F series. This was like arriving for the prom in a limo! 🙂 This was the camera that was the ultimate.

Below that were the current non-Nikon-F SLRs, such as the Nikkormat, Pentax Spotmatic, Minolta SRT101 and such. My brother had a Pentax H3 or HV or something like that, the model right below the Spotmatic.

The rangefinder I had back then, the Mamiya SD, was kind of right below the non-F SLRs. It had a big impressive fast lens, modern styling, built-in meter with match-needle exposure. It did actually generate some "ooooh"s when I first showed it off. (But not as many as the black "press" Spotmatic. {blow on fingernails, wipe on blouse}) 🙂

Some other kids had rangefinders. The one I remember quite well was the Petri 7 (7s, maybe?). I really don't remember many Canonets from back then.

Below those were what I might call "your daddy's old 35", which was like the Argus or the Pony, slower lens, and yes, not as cool looking.

And at the bottom of the food chain were the box cameras and such. Any 35mm was a step up from these.

Although I didn't think the crowd I hung out with back then was really status conscious, we were, and yes, there definitely was the cool factor as far as cameras were concerned.

Oh well ... 🙂

 

[Jeroen]

...and I've never understood exactly why. Was it reliability? Better selection of lenses/accessories? Cost?

Ever held a Nikon F?

 

[PaulDalex]

It seems to me that without marketing and brand competition considerations one cannot explain the unbalance between the different advantages of each system over the other (RF and SLR) and the abrupt abandoning of RF. Everybody jumped on the bandwagon except Leica. It happened again and again with autofocus and the with digital. Now if Zeiss is right to say that film is still superior how to explain the rush to digital even with the initial 300K sensors? Making more profit and killing competitors surfing a mass market wave. This is the point. Image quality count for us. Mass market is another story. We are 5000. How many digital gadgets sells Canon in a year?
Regards and thanks to everybody for contributing to this most interesting forum
Pistach

 

[louis]

Despite the advantages of rangefinders to pros; easy to focus on dim light, no mirror blackout, quiet shutter, etc, SLRs overcame each one til there wasn't that much of an advantage to using a rangefinder. SLR shutters got quieter, viewfinders got brighter, and SLRs took over.

 

[PaulDalex]

SRL did not overcame the fact that at the decisive moment you are blind. Also they require retrofocus design. There are areas where SRL just cannot win
Pistach

 

[louis]

SRL did not overcame the fact that at the decisive moment you are blind. Also they require retrofocus design. There are areas where SRL just cannot win
Pistach

All true. And yet, Canon & Nikon tried mightily with their excellent rangefinders in the early 1960s simultaneously with their SLRs, and SLRs won out.

Canon even brought out an SLR that overcame mirror blackout: the Canon Pellix. This excellent SLR had a stationary transparent mirror (pellicle mirror). You lost about 1/3 of a stop since the light had to travel through the mirror. The image in the viewfnder was also slightly dimmer.

The failure of this camera in the marketplace proved that SLR buyers weren't concerned with mirror blackout.

As far as lens design goes, are you saying that the best Rangefinder lenses are superior to the best SLR lenses?

 

[furcafe]

I agree that the VF image is critically important, but I wasn't writing about the entire market, nor of advanced amateurs, or even the more artsy of the photojournalists & war photographers like Smith or Salgado. I specifically mentioned the "vast majority of photojournalists & war photographers who Bill asked about." The photojournalists & war photographers I've met (mostly the former), have been more concerned w/"capturing the moment" &, when they have time, checking to see what's in focus (per Vince's post), than w/savoring boke or even getting critical focus (they've also been very concerned w/things like reliability & being able to get broken equipment fixed/replaced).

I would say that the main reason why camera makers competed for having the brightest VF was precisely because a bright VF makes focusing easier, not for the compositional benefits. If you look @ the current market, now that autofocus has taken over, there are now very few SLR models that have DoF preview, even on those models that have all kinds of other advanced features, & almost all have pretty dim VFs by 1960-1980s standards. I think we can agree that that's sad, but that is also a reflection of the market.

The market dissagrees with you. The viewfinder image is critically important. You only need the central split image for critical focus, but all SLRs since the early 1960s have had the ability for ground glass focusing corner to corner. In fact, SLR makers have competed with each other on the brightness of their focusing screens.

You can even get custom made aftermarket screens like Beattie that make SLRs even brighter.

It's not just to make the camera easier to focus. Amateur photographers, like to see through the viewfinder an image that looks as much as possible like the final image. And amateurs make up most of the market.

Speaking for myself, my first 35mm was a rangefinder. Then I got an SLR and fell in love with the image in the viewfinder even though the image in the rangefinder was brighter than the SLR image.

War photographers are a special breed. They probably use the hyperfocal scale and prefocus their cameras.

 

[louis]

To follow-up with my previous comments, Even Leica tried to make an SLR. Ironically, they ignored the Nikon F and came out with the instantly obsolete Leicaflex.

 

[furcafe]

To follow up on my earlier comment, it's my understanding that SLRs are easier to manufacture @ an acceptable level of quality/useability than RFs are. To bring in another thread (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&threadid=20028), it's very difficult & expensive to make a full-fledged system RF, i.e., w/interchangeable lenses, framelines, etc., which logically means a relatively more expensive (& less attractive) product for the consumer.

I think the others have hit on the main reasons -- the ability to use long lenses and wides without the need for an external (and easily lost) finder; the ruggedness of the cameras, especially the Nikon F; the fact the manufacturers wanted to sell something new.

Zooms really didn't come along until the '70s, but no question they became a major reason for using an SLR.

People will take issue with this, but I do believe SLRs are better able to take abuse than rangefinders. Leica-design RFs (I include the Hexar RF, the Bessas and the ZI in this group) can get knocked out of adjustment rather easily, and a photographer wouldn't know this until the film gets developed. I think the Contax-Nikon design is much better in this regard. With an SLR, you know if you're in focus or not.

 

[John Camp]

One big thing: flexibility. You could take hand-held macro shoots with an SLR, and get good results all the time, which is more important than you would think for photojournalists -- pictures of coins, stamps, and other small stuff. And for people shooting troubles (and there were a lot of troubles in the 60s -- massive 'long hot summer' riots, ciivil rights, Vietnam, the anti-war movement) as well as sports made photojournalists want longer lenses. Lots longer. And of course, high-profile nature photogaphers, like those for National Geographic, were captured by the extra-long lenses out to 1000mm. And those people set the tone for serious amateurs...
Also, I suspect, was the fact that hundreds of thousands of young GIs went to Asia at the time, and PXs were selling Spotmatics like crazy -- you could get a Spotmatic with a 50mm and 135mmm lens on what a GI could afford...

JC

 

[Nikon Bob]

I have seen the theory posited a few times in print that Nikon made it big in the 60s and 70s by producing outstanding products, and by working very hard to cultivate professional photographers. The theory continues that the link to professionals was a big factor in the appeal of the Nikon system to ordinary camera-buying folks. According to this theory, Nikon's success in this arena prompted Canon to aggressively pursue the pro market in a big way in the 80s. Canon is more than likely the biggest player to day in the realm of professional sports photography, and probably other fields as well, and is certainly the overall leader in camera sales, with Nikon in second place. I think that it sounds plausible... many camera ads still rely on endorsements from pro photographers.

In any case, I think that marketing is a big factor. After all, all the of the major camera makers produce excellent products, but the marketing is what prompts people to choose one flavor over another.

Coming into this thread late and not disagreeing with any points made so far as to the pros and cons of each system and why SLRs won out. I think that in Nikon's case they developed a corperate mindset where they were the best and became noncompetative in marketing and the developement of new products in a timely manner. This allowed a very competative Canon to take the lead away. A question of too late and too little. Perhaps Leica suffers alittle from this complacent attitude too.

Nikon Bob