Rangefinder vs SLR "seeing"

[Issy]

Up front: This is not intended as a "troll", and I am not asking which is better. Let's agree up front that one is not better or worse, but just different.

That being said, for those of you who spend a majority of your shooting on rangefinders, was rangerfinder "seeing" learned, or in you genes? That is, did you have to learn to see with a rangefinder, or did it seem intuitive when you picked one up (versus a SLR)? There are some of you, correct, who "see" better with a rangefinder than an SLR?

I learned on SLRs, but have had rangefinders (Leica et al) in addition to SLRs for a number of years, mainly for the lens quality. However, what others have said are "advantages" of a rangefinder, I find hinderances. My own personal way of viewing is more comfortable in an SLR... I like seeing an image take shape like a painting on a black wall of a dark room, and fire the shutter when it looks "right". I don't like frame lines, and I find seeing outside the frame a distraction. I don't mind the mirror blacking out. I like being able to "see" the depth of field (when wide open) in the viewfinder... to me, I like seeing a closer approximation of the final image in the viewfinder (like looking at the back of a DSLR) than what I can see in the finder of a rangefinder.

Again, I'm not saying my way is better, just different. What I am curious about is if anyone who sees (or used to see) like me has ever learned to be more comfortable with a rangefinder, or am I fighting my "genes"? I have had my Leica's for years, but I don't seem to be getting any more comfortable with what is presented to me in the finder -- when I pick up my Leica, I feel I am trading my ability to "see" for better optics --- and I think most would agree on what is more important for creating a "good" image. So, based on your personal experience, can I hope to learn to see better with my Leica, or for me, personally, will I always be working at a disadvantage?

 

[sf]

Seeing with a rangefinder is learned - not a gift. But you get used to it quickly - like in a day quickly. Especially with a camera with nice framelines, it is actually much easier. I shot with SLRs for a decade - my first effective decade of life - until I got my first rangefinder. I found it difficult at first, hard not to "see" what i am shooting. But then it becomes second nature with the rangefinder, and I find it SO much easier to focus using those patches than the shifting back and forth over sharp focus with an SLR. My eyesight is not that perfect, you see.

FOr instance, you can track movement in a scene more easily, see subjects moving in and out of frame, and plan your composition more accurately. You can focus more accurately. It is quieter 99% of the time. Smaller without hte mirrorbox (which is also the failure that gets you with SLRs). Less shake.

But as far as seeing with a rangefinder, I think I enjoy it more than an SLR because it gives me a great composing ability that SLRs don't. How often do you shoot with an SLR and have a long lens on there, and you're trying to get a shot of something moving? Hard to find it when you put your eye to the finder after viewing the scene with your eyes? Yes. But with most rangefinders, you have some peripheral area around the framelines for the lens that lets you see the composition form.



BUT, you seem to be pretty sold on SLRs - from your writing. You apparently don't like anything about rangefinders . . . .so the question would be????

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I've used RF's since age 11 and SLR's since 13. The Voigtlander Prominent takes some getting used to. Like maybe a day. Then you think of the focus knob like a TLR.

RF's give a positive indication of the correct focus, SLR's you often have to converge on a solution. RF's provide active feedback during exposure; SLR's do not provide realtime updates during the moment of the exposure. Been working with embedded processors all day.

 

[Issy]

Not true. I like rangefinders a lot. I like the small size. I like the quality of the lenses -- I love how painfully sharp my Contax 45 planar is...I like the quiet of the the Leica. I like the fact my M4-P doesn't scream "major league photographer here" to most people, including my 16 month old daughter who has learned to mug for the big SLR... but I still take better (composition) images with my SLR, and I'm wondering if I can really "learn" to take better images with a rangefinder (because I want to) than with my SLR (from a "seeing" perspective only), or does the Leica become my "special silent camera"?

 

[dnk512]

Shutterflower, I think lssy wants to know if he can hope to 'learn' to enhoy using the rangefinder. I think the answer is a conditional 'yes'. I found some rangefinders to be very difficult to 'enjoy' because of the quality of their finders. A good rangefinder (clear, large, crisp patch) may alow you to focus fast and compose at easy. Then, the lack of vibrations, quality of lens and low light performance (things that matter to me) will vastly increase your enjoyment of using a rangefinder. It also matters what type of photography you do. Rangefinders are great for people pictures. Macro, sports, wildlife are *not* best covered using a rangefinder.

 

[Warren T.]

This is just my personal experience... i've been using SLR's for 35 years, and rangefinders heavily only in the last few years. I find that I don't have a problem switching back and forth between slr and rf. In fact, I often bring one of each with me on some photo outings. Perhaps the key is to be able to pre-visualize your composition before you even bring the camera up to your eye. Interesting subject, thanks for bringing it up.

--Warren

 

[GrAfFiT]

I've been using a rangefinder for one month and three rolls and I can make some comparison with dSLRs.
I think it's more in the spirit around the photograph. I don't really care about seeing live DOF. I seldom use the DOF test button on my SLR. I can appreciate it in mind.
With a rangefinder, I find myself less often changing all the settings, reading all the in-viewfinder data and pausing to see the result. I look more at what's happening in front of me 🙂
Another thing is the friendly look of the camera. My DSLR with 2.8 28-75 hooded zoom lens looks very agressive to some.
I'm new to rangefinders and the only one I have is an Av priority Yashica, but that's some what I found so far 🙂

 

[JoeFriday]

I think it's a mixed bag.. I started using SLRs many years ago and was always comfortable with the focusing aspect.. not as good as a rangefinder in low light, but quick and easy for me in normal conditions

about a year ago I picked up my first useable RF.. a Kiev 4a, which has no framelines.. it was a nice, fun camera, but I didn't see what the big deal was about using an RF other than the lack of mirror slap.. it was when I found a Canonet that had a bright focusing patch and that great viewfinder with the framelines and match needle.. so easy to use and very easy to compose with the framelines

the thing that turned me off from SLRs isn't so much the lack of framelines.. it's the fact that very few of them give you a full view of your shot.. you have to guestimate where the boundaries will be.. it makes me feel claustrophobic whenever I pick one up now

 

[Sonnar Brian]

As you start to shoot more pictures of your daughter, the Leica will fall into more favor. Not knowing the expression on her face while using the SLR will drive you to the Leica. Shooting existing light, having the more precise focus of the Leica with the fast 50, will drive you to it. Flash does not do kids in their environment justice. If you do not have a Summilux, get a Summarit (50/1.5), or a Canon 50/1.4, or a Nikkor 50/1.4. A fast 50 and a fast 85/90 is perfect as she hits toddler years. I love my SLR's, but for pictures of kids in their environment, the RF has the edge.

My daughter, a few years ago at age 2. About the time that I made the "Big" move to RF's.

Kodak Retina IIIS with a 50/1.9 Xenon. A $10 lens...

 

[VinceC]

I shot for a decade with SLRs -- for the most part daily shooting, first for the military, then as a journalist -- before discovering rangefinders. And for the next decade I mixed SLRs and RF cameras, picking the best platform for the assignment. My work the past few years has been almost exclusively writing, so I never use the SLRs and just carry the RFs as "do all" travel cameras and personal cameras that, once in a blue-tinted moon, still get published. I even shoot a lot of my kids' sports on RFs, which is supposed to be a no-no but which can be accomplished with some effort.

I "learned to see" using SLRs and for the most part stuck to a few main prime lenses. When I started using rangefinders with interchangeable lenses, I was already very familiar with how those lenses performed when viewed through an SLR. In this sense, we have a huge advantage over photographers of 1960. Back then, the "killer app" was through-the-lens viewing. Today, we can all use SLRs to get a sense of TTL. We don't have to burn through hundreds of rolls of film to learn it. I haven't put film through an SLR in years, but I do sometimes use a Nikon F or F2 to see how a particular focal length of a lens "frames" in reality, compared to the framelines on a rangefinder.

Like Brian, I very very much like seeing the picture the instant it is taken. I know if someone blinked. I know if the flash went off (back when I did more photojournalism, you sometimes needed a flash for unlit situations or to balance color work in the pre-PhotoShop days). I also do a lot more telephoto work than most RF photographers. That's because I learned to see on SLRs and because my Nikons are the most suitable rangefinder cameras for telephotos (the viewfinders are life-size with 105 and 135 framelines).

The thing I appreciate most is the small size of the bodies and, especially, the lenses. I also like the fact that these aren't "in your face" cameras that don't overwhelm the person being photographed. Finally, the Nikon RFs use 1:1 finders that allow me to keep both eyes open. When I was a journalist, this was of major pyschological importance, because I could maintain eye-contact and continue a natural converation with someone as I photographed him or her.

That said, RFs are certainly not for everyone. The SLR was a major technological advance that utterly transformed 35mm photography for two generations. Those of us who use RFs will be among the first to admit we're not mainstreamers. But sometimes, being a little different is also part of the fun. And when I use my RFs, photography is still fun.

 

[FrankS]

The seeing is different. This is how it works for me: with an SLR I spend a lot of time looking at the world through the camera lens and composing on the groundglass. With a rangefinder, I spend more time looking at the world with my eyes open, composing mentally, and then rasing the usually preset RF (focus and exposure) to my eye and capturing what I saw.

 

[GeneW]

For slow, purely 'compositional' work, I prefer an SLR. I like the tight viewing screen and the dof preview. The good viewing is, in part, why the majority of photographers left RF's en masse for SLR's in the 60's.

Having said that, I prefer RF's for people shots and for general walkabout shooting. The difference, for me, is that with an SLR I'm looking AT my viewfinder and with a RF I'm looking THROUGH my viewfinder -- a kind of window on the world.

Both are good. SLR's are more intuitive but RF's have more immediacy.

My $0.02

Gene

 

[yossarian]

I wish I could recall who to credit, but an article from years ago suggested that SLR
viewing was essentially like seeing an image projected on a screen, and therefore
lacked the dimensionality of the rangefinder image. That, plus the fact that you can
see outside the frame in most instances with a rangefinder, allowing you to be better
prepared for what may be going on just beyond the frame. That's the theory, at least.

Fred

 

[furcafe]

Ditto.

I think it was Andy Piper on the photo.net Leica Forum (don't know if he participates on this site) who I remember writing something to the effect that "SLRs are for capturing images within a space, whereas RFs are for capturing images as they happen in time," i.e., SLRs were traditionally better for taking carefully composed shots, whereas RFs were better for capturing HCB's proverbial "decisive moment." I think this is still true today, even though the invention of auto-exposure modes, motor winders, & high-speed autofocus have enabled SLRs to effectively poach on even the RF's last traditional strength for most photographers. For example, most RFs still have less shutter lag (time between the pressing of the shutter release & the movement of the shutter) than all but the fastest, pro-level SLRs.

Unlike most people, I started out doing serious photography on RFs & have only recently acquired old, manual focus SLRs. I find using manual focus SLRs is much slower for me because I tend to spend more time composing & fiddling w/the focus & DOF preview. For most of the photography I do, however, it's more important for me to capture the moment than to ensure that all the elements of the picture are in their proper place, the focus plane is on the right place, etc.

For slow, purely 'compositional' work, I prefer an SLR. I like the tight viewing screen and the dof preview. The good viewing is, in part, why the majority of photographers left RF's en masse for SLR's in the 60's.

Having said that, I prefer RF's for people shots and for general walkabout shooting. The difference, for me, is that with an SLR I'm looking AT my viewfinder and with a RF I'm looking THROUGH my viewfinder -- a kind of window on the world.

Both are good. SLR's are more intuitive but RF's have more immediacy.

My $0.02

Gene

 

[XAos]

You people need better ventiallation in your dark rooms. I find RF's fun and an interesting diversion, but if I NEED a shot, I'll grab the SLR every time. Moving the little patch is slow and requires the proper background. Reptitive patterns don't work with it, nor do vague fuzzy things. Or moving things. IF it can even be seen in the light you're shooting in. You can do pre-metered hyperfocal grabs with an SLR too.

 

[VinceC]

Nah. I can follow-focus just as well with an RF.

 

[GrAfFiT]

You people need better ventiallation in your dark rooms. I find RF's fun and an interesting diversion, but if I NEED a shot, I'll grab the SLR every time. Moving the little patch is slow and requires the proper background. Reptitive patterns don't work with it, nor do vague fuzzy things. Or moving things. IF it can even be seen in the light you're shooting in. You can do pre-metered hyperfocal grabs with an SLR too.

Agree. RF is more about opportunity. Sure that when it comes to "mission-critical" shots, I rely on zoom, burst shooting, predictive-AF, evaluative metering and on-the-fly ISO setting but it's really a different story.

 

[Issy]

Good comments so far.... may just be hope for me. I'd never get rid of my SLRs.... still do enough macro and long focal length shooting. But Brian is right... my first child is definitley "driving" available light, non-obtrusive image-making..... even to creating a "feux-Leica" out of my Nikons: a black FE2 and a 50 f1.2 AIS 🙂

Part of it might be the different focus directions (Nikon vs Leica)... I think I have also learned to focus in my SLRs without using the center split image to get close (seeing the entire image "pop" into focus, and then using the center split image for final check (on an eyelash or ear), where on the Leica I can only use the patch, so I have to move around a lot between focus point and composition framing - especially on a 16 month-old moving target.

The relative image size impacts me too.... for some reason seeing a consistant image size, regardless of what focal length is on the camera is preferred by me rather than jumping between the larger 35 and smaller 50mm frame lines on the M4-P. I have a tough time with verticals on the Leica, too, for some reason... I will focus horizontally, and then turn the camera.

 

[JimG]

I find RF's to be more intuitive, I consider the image not the camera. SLR's for me are on a more mechanical level, I 'operate' the SLR. Could be a just simple human development. I first used an RF when I was very young. but was introduced to SLR's as an adult.

 

[Issy]

The seeing is different. This is how it works for me: with an SLR I spend a lot of time looking at the world through the camera lens and composing on the groundglass. With a rangefinder, I spend more time looking at the world with my eyes open, composing mentally, and then rasing the usually preset RF (focus and exposure) to my eye and capturing what I saw.

I think FrankS and XAos hit it on the head for me... I think I am trying to shoot my Leica the way Frank (and I) shoot our SLRs... I still "see" (or try to see) a groundglass inside the framelines....