Rangefinder vs SLR "seeing"

[Finder]

I think things are a little confused. You want a camera/tool that presents the fewest number of compromises to the way YOU shot. Some like view cameras, others like SLRs, and there are folks who perfer TLRs and rangefinders. I don't see the point of trying to fit yourself to the camera.

I have used most styles of cameras, and the rangefinder seem the most natural for me. It is not perfect and so I do have other types of camera for when the rangefinder is not going to work.

Rangefinders may not be your thing.

 

[pvdhaar]

I started out with a Zenit SLR in the mid-seventies. Nowadays, my photography is divided 50/50 between RF and dSLR.

The dSLR is for when I've got a specific end result or topic in mind. It's incredibly flexible, but also very utilitarian; it's a means to an end. I use the finder more or less like a rifle sight.

The RF is for when I want to capture what's happening around me. It's what I take on a walk, when I'm traveling. In short; when the environment is key. The RF/VF is a window to the world..

 

[RML]

Wow, lots of replies here. But the ones that struck a cord with me were Brett's (JoeFriday) and FrankS' replies. Those come closest to how I experience(d) rangefinder shooting.

.

 

[aizan]

your style of "seeing" comes out of what situations you get yourself into and how you respond to them. it has nothing to do with the type of camera you use. that's just a matter of preference, education, economy, or technical necessity.

 

[doubs43]

IF you want the image to be exactly what you saw when you pressed the shutter, use a rangefinder. Unless the subject is still and not changing, what you see in the SLR when you press the shutter release will not be what you capture. Even using hyperfocal distance with an SLR will not change that fact.

A fleeting expression or peak action is best captured with a rangefinder. With an SLR you must anticipate and guess correctly to compensate for the delay as the mirror rises.

If you demand critical sharpness and spend your time trying to focus, it doesn't matter which you use.... you aren't going to get many images recorded if there's much movement of your subject.

The actual "seeing" isn't easy with either. Unless you shoot with a lens wide open, what you see in the finder of an SLR will not be the same image that's recorded because the DOF changes when the lens iris closes down. So now you not only focus but if you want to see the REAL results, you have to stop down the lens to shooting aperture to see the true end result. That nice, out-of-focus tree behind your subject suddenly is growing from their head!

It's easier to screen behind your subject for unwanted clutter with a rangefinder but there's no way to actually view your DOF. That's where you must learn to judge what the result will be and it's not really that difficult. Check the DOF scale on your lens for your aperture and apply that to the scene. It's not readily applicable to SLR's because you're still seeing only the wide open image on the screen rather than the clear image of a RF viewfinder. Stopping down the lens aperture or checking the lens DOF scale and measuring with your eye before returning to the viewfinder is how you must use an SLR.

The old photographers we admire so much - HCB, Eisenstadt, Lang etc. - probably had it easier than we do when it comes to "seeing". Most of them worked with one camera and very few lenses. They learned their equipment so well it became an extension of their eyes and I doubt that they thought much about anything except their subject. The rest had become second nature.

We're fortunate to have choices in equipment but I'm not so certain that it helps us truly "see" as well as we could if we limited ourselves to a few essential pieces of gear.

Walker

 

[siverta]

I shoot with both RF (Bessa R2) and a SLR (EOS 30). Manual focussing on my R2 is much more easier than focussing manually on my EOS 30 (w/ 28-70/2.8L). When autofocus on the EOS fails, I have a very hard time finding focus manually. I can't "see" the image "pop into focus" (yes, I have tried to adjust the dioptri-screw several times).

My girlfriend experiences this in the opposite way: She hates the focuspatch on my R2, and almost never gets one image sharp. She prefers her EOS 33 when focussing manually, and almost always (90% of the time) gets sharp images.

Perhaps it is an "acquired taste", or a thing that has to be learned.
Maybe it depends on your eyes abilities? We all have a dominating eye, much like we are left/right-handed and so on. Some people are tonedeaf, some are colourblind etc.

(I have one friend from Iran that can't see black&white pictures (or b&w-movies). He can't "see" what the pictures resembles, he claims. Strange.)

Sivert.

 

[sircarl]

Dante Stella has some interesting observations on this question in his Website article, "Does a rangefinder make you a better phoographer?" (http://www.dantestella.com/technical/rangefinder.html).

I'm a new rangefinder user after many years with SLRs, and I confess I'm in the "still getting used to it" camp. A big hurdle for me has been that a rangefinder viewfinder just shows you the boundaries of the image being captured, whereas an SLR viewfinder shows you the actual image. For someone like me who uses fairly wide angle lenses a lot, I really miss seeing how -- and how much -- the final image will be "distorted" by the lens. But then again, I also like all the pluses of rangefinder shooting noted in the previous posts. A complex trade-off....

 

[lubitel]

There has been almost everything said already. so here's my two cents

I like shooting both. And I think of the differences between the composing ways to be similar to the differences between traditional "western" and traditional "japanese" art. In europe the artists have composed their motives within the frames of canvas, carefully positioning elements inside. That to me is similar to SLR composing. The japanese composed their prints completely different as if cut out from a larger picture, the elements were often cut off by the borders. That is the way I feel when I shoot with the RF. I feel as if I am cutting myself a piece of the view I am seeing.

 

[ErnestoJL]

I think that anyone would get used fast to RF "viewing" just because it´s the ideal camera for fast action, short range photography provided it´s been preset for the situation (at least if one´s target is this kind of picture taking). My experience is more or less like Frank´s and I agree with him mostly.
Of course the viewing is different, a wide open SLR has shallow DOF and it takes some time to adjust focus properly, but this time would mean you´ve lost the action. Framelines can be disturbing, but there are not so many of them at the same time in the VF.
I guess it´s a question of just getting used to it, accepting the limitations and benefits of every system. And at least that´s the way it works for me!
Regards
Ernesto

 

[varjag]

To me the major difference in seeing is the already-mentioned tight DOF of an SLR finder vs 'real' look of direct VF. Even if I zone-focus with SLR, the image doesn't feel 'right' once the camera brought to the eye for composition. DOF preview might help, but not in poor light and it's one more action anyway. Maybe it's just an issue of getting used to that.

OTOH SLR is probably more convenient to establish precise focus when doing, say, a portrait with fast tele.

 

[Bertram2]

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

These are the reasons why I learned to use RFs too, and there are more good reasons: Distortion free wides and super wides for my cityscapes, easy focusing at night also with slow lenses (!), no mirror blackout, all mechanical.

Composing is hard tho with an RF, this stuff outside the framelines I find distracting too and it is not easy to "think it off" for the composition. Not to speak of the ridiculous effect of intruding lens barrels at big high speed lenses.

The WYSIWYG effect of the SLR screen is unsurpassable, (and undispensible for tele), extremely obvious on MF screens. Withinn a second you recognize if it is all in balance or not. And I think this is the perception of the very most photogs and the reason for the conquest of the SLRs in the 60s, tho they were terrible beasts in those days. Loud, heavy, dark and grainy screens getting even darker by metering stopped down .

Composing is not the whole task tho , sometimes it isn't part of the task at all, and some of the disadvantages of the SLR concept are still not eliminated.This grants a place to survive for my RF cameras.

Shooting with those finders is a PIA tho, I fully agree ! Taking my SLR after a longer period of RF use each time I think aaarrrghh, why do I torture myself with these finders ??????? 😀

bertram

 

[JohnL]

Most of what there is to say on this has already said, so I'd just like to add my own personal views, FWIW ...
RF - I find it quite quick to focus except under some lighting situations whn it's hard to see the patch; I tend not to think about DOF for specific shots - rather only for groups of roughly similar shots - setting the aperture beforehand; I generally use aperture priority auto, but switch to manual when exposure needs to be adjusted; I'm not bothered by what's outside the framelines, but I don't think I pay a whole lot of attention to it either most of the time; through a viewfinder I do feel I'm looking at the subject rather than at a picture of the subject.
SLR - viewfinders vary enormously in quality, as also speed and accuracy of AF. My new Canon 5D, for example, is at least an order of magnitude better in all these respects than my 10D. The EOS 3 is also better than the 10D, but not quite as responsive, I feel, as the 5D. Having said that, I don't find it difficult to switch from one the other. I like the RF for being small and light and unobtrusive. I like the SLRs for being versatile, for long lenses over 135mm, for macro and for picture quality. The 10D (6MP) matches 35mm in this respect, and the 5D is significantly better.

 

[varjag]

Image quality has nothing to do with SLR vs. RF. Besides 6MP is hardly there in terms of resolution; I can easily see detail on 12mp scans that's on the verge of scanner resolution, and those are just casual snaps with decades old equipment on 400 ISO film.

 

[Kin Lau]

I just use whatever I have on hand and most of the time, I try to use the best tool for the job, whether it's RF, SLR, digital or film, 4x5 View camera or Speed Graphics etc.

Sometimes tho, just for the fun of it, I'll shoot with something that seems crazy.. like using a Speed Graphics to get a picture of an owl 🙂.

I tend to use RF's when the experience of shooting is a higher priority than getting the shot. Ease of use or focusing or framing doesn't really make much of a difference with me. It's a bit like driving a stick-shift or automatic, positives & negatives of both, but I get used to it.

 

[VinceC]

There's a Washington press corps photographer who mainly uses a Speed Graphic at all the hearings and news conferences. He's responsible for some of the two-page b&w photos you sometimes see in the news magazines.

 

[FPjohn]

contained

contained

Hello:

I'm not aware of any conscious difference in use of an RF vs SLR. However, I suspect images of mine made with an SLR are more self contained vs those made with an M which might have more implied space* outside the frame-what one would expect from each way of seeing, IMHO.

yours
Frank

*lubitel anticipated this in a prior comment

 

[oftheherd]

Until recently my main (only) RF was a Super Press 23. I used it when I wanted bigger negatives/slides. I learned to use it the way it was intended, and never got hung up over RF vs SLR. I did like the versatility of interchangable lenses on the SLR, not being able to afford anything but a 65mm on the RF (about 28mm equivalent in 35mm photography). There were times when I liked the tradeoff of more lenses with less weight with SLR, but 35mm RF could give a lot of that. I just never did it. Oddly, I used to use my 35mm SLR a lot for party photography. It wasn't easy, and there were a few less than best, but I learned how to focus from the outer area of the ground glass in very very dim light. It can be done. In the dim light I was in, I am not sure rf would have been much of an advantage. I guess I used the Super Press some, but don't remember.

I guess all that to say I think either SLR or RF, view cameras, or even box cameras, are tools for our enjoyment. Whatever experience we want at any given time, taking into consideration how we perceive inconvenience and how much of it we are willing to put up with at a given time.

My two cents.

 

[GeneW]

As I think about it, I don't tend to choose one of my cameras based on the viewfinder. I select them for other reasons -- size, weight, or appropriateness for a particular task. I shift between them without much grief and enjoy each, as one might enjoy now a rose, now an orchid.

I think the most fun viewing, for me, is the waist-level finder on my Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. Not ideal for all tasks, but wonderful for composition.

Gene

 

[Kin Lau]

There's a Washington press corps photographer who mainly uses a Speed Graphic at all the hearings and news conferences. He's responsible for some of the two-page b&w photos you sometimes see in the news magazines.

That would be David Burnett. Here's one of the articles on him http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/040226.htm

 

[JohnL]

Image quality has nothing to do with SLR vs. RF. Besides 6MP is hardly there in terms of resolution; I can easily see detail on 12mp scans that's on the verge of scanner resolution, and those are just casual snaps with decades old equipment on 400 ISO film.

Clearly "Image quality has nothing to do with SLR vs. RF". I agree entirely. I was referring to the digital issue - I don't have a digital RF.
Regarding "Besides 6MP is hardly there in terms of resolution" ... what I meant in my preceding post was this ... When I scan a film at 3200dpi, which is about 13.7MP, I can see a lot of detail that comes from the residual grain structure of the film. I use film down to and including 100ISO - both negative and transparency. This - for me - detracts from the cleanliness of the image. Making prints, I can go at least as big for the same quality from a 6MP digital capture as I can from scanning 35mm film. I'd be happy to learn how if there is some way to do better with film.