SLR to Rangefinder - What to expect?

S

Stephen82

Guest
Last spring I posted that I was considering a Bessa R. I didn't buy one, but now I am once again considering a rangefinder - this time a Bessa R2A. I have never used a RF, but they have always appealed to me - probably because Leicas seemed so cool.

Here are the facts:
- It is likely that I would not have the opportunity to try a RF out before I purchase one.

- I would only buy one lens - most likely the 35mm so lens selection is not that important.

- I currently have 3 SLR's - 2 auto, 1 manual, several lenses and flash - so I already can meet virtually any photo situation that strikes me. My point is - any limits of the rangefinder will not be a deterrent.

- IMPORTANT - I love simple, manully operated, well-built 35mm cameras. I am also considering a Nikon FM3A. Whichever camera I buy will likely be my everyday, available light, carry camera.

- I mostly will use the camera for landscape, some people, and whatever strikes me along my day.

Now here is my question concerning the R2A: Since I have never used a RF, and I have listed above some pertinant facts, what can I expect the transition from SLR to RF to be like? For those that use both, is there anything I am missing that could later turn into a dissapointing experience? And why do you enjoy RF cameras?

All your opinions and thought are appreciated.
Thanks,
Steve
 
Steve welcome to the forum!! 😀 Why don't you get a real inexpensive rangefinder like a Canon Q17 to see if you like it? About 30 bucks on eBay. You should see some of the photos from that camera here - unbelievable!! You don't need to spend a lot of money to try the concept...
 
I'll second the motion to try a cheapie first. But I'll suggest a Yashica GSN or the like. Solidly built, can be very cheap (I got one for $8 and the other for $20 - the battery adaptor is another $15 though that's a one time shot as it holds cheap batteries) and are big enough to actually hold comfortably... 🙂

William
 
I like and use 'em both! I'll pick the RFs for street photography, environmental portraits, and other spontaneous people pics. The RF cams are more unobtrusive, quieter, more compact.

I'll take out an SLR for landscapes, close-ups, and more artsy photos.

But there's a lot of overlap in usage, and often I'll just grab the camera that contains the film I want to use. Or maybe I have a specific lens in mind. I really have too many choices; several each of 35mm and MF RF, and 35mm and MF SLR.

For exploring the RF idea before committing more funds, I agree with the suggestions for a traditional leaf-shutter rig, and add the Russian rangefinders as another possibility. With any of these there may be maintenance issues...
 
One thing you will will miss Steve is depth-of-field preview - there is none on a RF camera. You have to visualize the DOF, not too hard to do if you're an experienced photog. The second thing you will miss is precise framing, if that's important to you then you may not like an RF so much. What you won't miss is the bulk and weight of an SLR... 🙂

The enjoyment with the RF (for me) is that you see your image in the viewfinder with a frame that outlines the part of the image the camera will capture on film. So you can also see "outside" the frame without taking your eye away from the viewfinder, and this perpective gives you context for what's taking place inside the frameline - it helps you anticipate events so you can press the shutter at just the right time. You get a tunnel view with an SLR. Don't underestimate this difference, it's huge.

Then, when you press the shutter, there's no mirror to flip up and stop you seeing exactly what you're snapping - you see exactly what you get when you take the pic.

And of course, the shutter is sooooo quiet..... 🙂 I don't use my SLR any more. 😀
 
Last edited:
Welcome Steve,
My first camera at age 11 was an SLR and they were all that I used until about five years ago. Once I started using my rangefinders I hardly ever touch the SLRs anymore -- I haven't given up on them but just use the RFs a lot. I really like the compactness and the way they handle -- it has become very intuitive for me. The advice that you've received above sounds very reasonable...I wasn't as cautious, I just jumped right in! Fortunately it worked out alright. Good luck with whatever you decide.

D2
 
Re: SLR to Rangefinder - What to expect?

Stephen82 said:
I have never used a RF, but they have always appealed to me - probably because Leicas seemed so cool.
Click to expand...

Steve, you are in serious trouble. Run as fast as you can before your wallet gets any lighter. Buy one lens? Famous last words. 😀

Actually if you truly plan to buy only one lens, the advice to buy an older fixed lens RF is good advice. Konica, Canon, Olympus, etc. all made such cameras with excellent lenses.

Both RFs & SLRs are designed to meet the challenges of a variety of picture taking situations, as evidenced by the fact that professionals have used both for many decades. So I tend not to emphasize too much the advantages of one over the other - other than the fact that there are certain things you just can't do with RF.

What can yo expect in the transition?

1. You will "take pictures" with the lens cap still on. 😡

2. You will not be notice that your picture is out of focus. :bang:

Yes, there is a learning curve. Shall I go on? 🙄

I agree that RFs are cool. It's just fun to have another way to do the same task. I like playing around with them & I learn from them all the time. I really like how compact the lenses are, making the whole camera feel more compact. I like being able to carry a second lens in my pocket & hardly notice it. When I go out with my SLR, it now seems bigger.

The Nikon FM3A is a nice alternative. With the 45/2.8P lens, it is quite a compact package itself. Its hybid shutter offers aperture priority or fully manual operation even without batteries - except for meter of course.
 
Re: SLR to Rangefinder - What to expect?

I've been going through an identity crisis lately. Been pondering whether or not my RF experience has been good enough for me to justify keeping my Bessa R and lenses. The small size and relatively quiet operation are still benefits. But for me, I haven't noticed much advantage with respect to the RF framing style.

However, my indecision also has a digital aspect but if you're staying with film anyway, I'll not include those issues in this particular post.

I've also been thinking about getting an FM3A (I have a few old manual focus Nikon lenses that I can use with it ... 28, 35, and a few 50's). However, the FM3A is heavy, much heavier than my Bessa R, so it would be a bit of a hassle to carry. And any lens other than the 45mm pancake will make it quite a bit bulkier than my R as well. I also like the idea of having a small, robust, well-built manual camera but since you already have some SLRs, it's tough to justify adding another to your stable. In my case, I have a Maxxum 7 which is just as heavy or maybe a tad lighter than an FM3A and not a whole lot larger but it has many more useful features as well. So functionally, there isn't much to recommend the FM3A unless I'm going somewhere where carrying spare batteries will be impossible or where it will be incredibly cold for long periods of time.

RF focus in low light is a benefit but it's not something I do a lot (after all, my fastest lens is only a 2.5) and I often times miss the fresnel focusing screen of my manual focus SLRs since the focus/recompose process can be cumbersome when shooting moving subjects.

Of course, great photos are taken with RFs AND SLRs so it's really a matter of getting used to it, and since you have a choice, you have to decide for yourself which you ENJOY using the most. I bought a Bessa R to test the RF waters but in retrospect, I think I should've stuck with my original plan and tried a fixed lens RF like a Canonet or some other similar camera. The reason being that it's hard for me to let go of such nice little lenses like the CV35/2.5 and 50/2.5 ... and even my Jupiter 8. They're like really nice hand tools: they're a pleasure to use ... but a modern power tool replacement would do the job just as well and faster.

Since this is the RANGEFINDER forum, I expect that my viewpoint is going to be in the minority. ;-)


...lars
 
Hi Steve,

Like you, I'm going from an SLR to rangefinder. I have borrowed my friend's Leica a few times and had a Hexar AF for a while and there are some significant differences that you'll notice. I'll mention three that I think will require a learning curve:

1. Framing - Because you are not looking through the lens, what you see is not what you get on film. You'll have to adjust for parallax and the framing is more educated guessing whereas with an SLR there's no guesswork - you know where you cropped when you tripped the shutter (discounting how much coverage the SLR really gives - varies from camera to camera).

2. Focusing - You're not focusing on a groundglass. Focusing is a little difficult for subjects up close if they are not in the center of the frame. There are some techniques to adjust for this though.

3. If you are using a 35mm lens on an SLR, when you look through the viewfinder, you see the world in 35mm perspective. Not so with a rangefinder's viewfinder. So, if you use a 35mm lens, you will have to learn how to visualize a 35mm perspective (spatial relationships) as you're looking through the viewfinder.

I think a rangefinder requires more visualizing the final image than an SLR. And probably a looser shooting style. But the benefits are quite nice: quiet, light, almost like using a compact camera with full manual overrides. But, in the end, I think it's a different kind of shooting experience.

At any rate, whatever you choose, good luck and welcome to the forum! Very helpful people here.
 
"And why do you enjoy RF cameras?"

Heh... 🙂

For me, it was "back to basics", a kind of luddite attitude at first.
First I used an all-manual SLR (Nikon FM), wanting to be battery-independent. When my kids were born (i.e. when they learned to walk), I was forced to get an AF body and lens, due to poor eyesight. But I always detested that whizzing, auto-everything stuff. When I realized that I'm using my camera as an oversized "point-and-shoot" ("idiot camera", as they are called here 🙂), and that my resulting photos leave a lot to be desired, I returned to my trusty FM.
Wanting a better quality and bigger size of negative, I later turned to MF stuff, and used MF exclusively for more than a year (apart from kid photos, for which I again ended using AF SLR).
Then I got a Kiev 4A, and shot a few rolls, and was intrigued by how well the photos turned out. I also realized that the rangefinder patch allowed me to focus easier than with my manual Nikon, even in poor light.
Then I got some other RF cameras, and got used to RF viewfinder, and the RF style of shooting. Finally, I realized that the camera doesn't really matter - it's just a box that keeps the light out. It's the lens that count... And, I'm a bokeh freak, I must admit - and in this area my Nikkors are usually poor performers. After studying Leica images on photo.net for a month or two, I decided that I had to get some Leitz glass. I finally ended with a Leica M2 and 50/2 Summicron, and added some more lens later. It doesn't get better than that - at least for me.
I still use some other of my cameras, but I find the Leica most rewarding. Relatively small, easy to carry, smooth in operation, and the photo quality is outstanding - nothing comes close to Leitz glass. It's a pleasure to use.
Even without a Leica, I'd probably be using my Yashica Lynx more than my SLR Nikons. And, in medium format, I've settled on a Rolleiflex. 😀

As for a possible advice, others have already made some suggestions. I might add that you should definitely try out a Cannonet GIII QL (the one with better lens - 1.7). My friend, who's a semi-pro photographer, got one recently, and was blown away by the quality of negs! The Cannonet is often referred to as "a poor man's Leica" - so it should tell you something about the quality. It can be had relatively cheap (VERY cheap compared to Leica!), and the results are superb.
Get one, shoot some film, and see for yourself if you like that kind of shooting. If you do, you'll probably soon get the Russian bug 🙂, and from there - who knows.... 😀
I should also note that RF cameras are not particularly well suited to fast action shots (get an AF if you're shooting races) or macro shots. But, for general type of photography and street shooting, RF cameras can't be beat!

Denis
 
Use of Polarizing filters (for landscape work) is easier on an SLR. Colors are more vivid through the RF's viewfinder. The RF allows you to see the expression on people as the shutter fires; no blackout. Latency is lower on the RF as there is not a mirror to flip up. The wide-angle lenses are much lighter and optically not as complex on the RF's.

The R2a is a limited production camera. You will not lose much if you decide to sell it off, assuming you keep the box and paperwork, and keep the camera in good shape. You could not rent a camera for a week for what you would "lose" by reselling it.
 
Re: Re: SLR to Rangefinder - What to expect?

Re: Re: SLR to Rangefinder - What to expect?

lars said:


Since this is the RANGEFINDER forum, I expect that my viewpoint is going to be in the minority. ;-) ...lars
Click to expand...

Lars, you are not alone. 🙂

Don't get me wrong. I love my RF & it is the first camera I reach for when I'm going out these days. But for my style of shooting, I don't find the advantages of RF that I read about before purchasing to be very significant. Frankly, I haven't found almost anything that I can do with with RF, I can't do with SLR. There are rare exceptions & if I did these rare things all the time, then it would be a must - & for some pros who do a lot of these rare things it is a must, i.e. a specialty tool well worth the money.

Dante Stella has a nice article on his website: "Will a rangefinder make me a better photographer?" He does a nice job with this subject with his usual sense of humor & well written style.

Some people adapt more readily to one style of shooting than another. It's great to have an alternative. I like to learn about thigs outside the mainstream . . . hence, rangefinders.

They're fun, they're different. Have a good time.

The same can be said about SLRs. Either way, you can have a good time capturing slices of the world & framing them in a way to express your way of seeing this world of ours. 😎
 
I've also been thinking about getting an FM3A

An FM3A is heavy? I take it that an FM3A is the descendant of an FM2 and the FM2 is not a heavy camera. It's small and light and there are lots of them on eBay at very reasonable prices. A wonderful little camera!
 
It's a lot easier to take photos of your prized rangefinder if you also have an SLR.

-Paul
 
it's like driving in that a small mazda will get you where you want to go as will a caddy or bmw.

i drive a mazda mx3, a small sporty type car. it has big wide tires and a stick shift and has a sport suspension that makes driving a real blast.
my boss drives a small truck and my buddy has a big suv.
we all seem to get where we're going.

i prefer a manual rangefinder and my buddy with the suv uses a big ol minolta af auto everything, my boss has a little digital.

joe
 
Re: Re: Re: SLR to Rangefinder - What to expect?

Re: Re: Re: SLR to Rangefinder - What to expect?

Originally posted by Huck Finn Dante Stella has a nice article on his website: "Will a rangefinder make me a better photographer?"
Click to expand...

His article pretty much sums it up for me regarding the rangefinder experience. I don't buy into the religion experience, and frankly I've yet to meet anyone that can look at an image and say with any accuracy if it was done with a specific lens or type of camera in this regard (some obvious exceptions excluded). And I generally don't think its makes you a better photographer any more than shooting with the latest wiz bang camera in manual mode and using the sunny 16 rules.

However, this is something neat about shooting with a 40 year old camera that works perfectly well and takes great photos. For that matter, there is also something cool about taking photos with a $20 camera and plastic lens, even if only for the diversity of images.

I agree with the advice given to you above, and can only add, try it! Its a lot of fun and a nice diversion to shooting with an SLR. Start with something like a used Canon QL17 GIII or similar and then take it from there. Using the QL17 will answer your questions after a half dozen rolls of film, and you haven't outlayed much cash that you can't recover rather quickly. In fact, I'd be more than happy to loan you one of mine for a couple weeks if you just want to test the waters.

One thing to keep in mind though. If you go the SLR route, you will already have accessories, extra bodies, etc, that will fit the compact SLR you go with. If you go with a rangefinder, you essentially will be buying into a new system, and may very well buy a few lenses and accessories for it. Additional cost, but you will end up with a nice compact camera system.

Oh yea, and welcome!
 
peter_n said:
I've also been thinking about getting an FM3A

An FM3A is heavy? I take it that an FM3A is the descendant of an FM2 and the FM2 is not a heavy camera. It's small and light and there are lots of them on eBay at very reasonable prices. A wonderful little camera!
Click to expand...
Compared to an F, the FM/FE series are light. But compared to, say, a plastic-bodied AF SLR or a Bessa RF, they are heavy (I am assuming they have a regular lens mounted rather than, say, the 45 pancake).

...lars
 
Dante Stella has a nice article on his website: "Will a rangefinder make me a better photographer?" He does a nice job with this subject with his usual sense of humor & well written style.
Click to expand...

I read the article and I will admit that I want to believe, and I want to convince myself that a RF will somehow change me into a different, and better, photographer. I know that's not true. I like cameras so I probably would not be dissapointed, and would likely enjoy the experience of using a different type of camera.

Several people suggested to try a cheaper introduction to a rangefinder such as a Canonet or a Yashica. I looked on E-bay and there are quite a number of selections, but how do I know what to buy? I have, and have had older cameras that look great but no longer work. Any tips for buying through E-bay?

Thanks,
Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bucs
Biogon 21/4.5 on a Leica If
Replies
1
Views
432
rfaspen
rfaspen
AusDLK
Konica Hexar RF rangefinder adjustment plug
Replies
0
Views
271
AusDLK
AusDLK
F
NIKKOR 3.5CM F1.8 Amedeo Adaptor on Leica MEV-1
Replies
9
Views
403
fatphoca
F
T
What if I decided to do something stupid and load my own 35mm film from bulk?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
1K
punkzter
P
L
Retinette vs Retina
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Dralowid
Dralowid
Back
Top Bottom