SLRs harder to manually focus than rangefinders?

RFs and SLRs focus differently. The (theoretical) accuracy of a rangefinder is fixed by its base-length (the separation between RF windows) and viewfinder magnification and doesn't change (except with a viewfinder magnifier). With an SLR, the equivalent of RF base-length is set by the optical diameter of the lens (focal length divided by maximum apereture). So the longer/faster the lens, the more theoretically accurate the SLR becomes (whereas wide/slow lenses make 'em less accurate).

But then there's the technique/expertise or lack thereof of the photographer, plus issues of perception and psychology. In theory, I should be able to focus my OM-4T with 55mm/f1.2 lens (EBL 45.8mm) more accurately than my Hexar RF (EBL 41.1mm). In practice, however, I just can't (at least in low light) as I find it much easier to align the RF patches than to use the focus aids in the OM-4s viewfinder.


...Mike
 
For low light, a rangefinder camera with a clearly delineated, bright and contrasty focusing patch (and these would be models like the Leica Ms, CL, Minolta CLE, the Bessas, Hexar RF and the Zeiss Ikon) are great -- easier to use than an SLR. And they don't depend on having a fast lens (f2 or faster) mounted, which is key for easily focusing an SLR. But many SLRs have focusing screens with microprisms or split screens, which help considerably. And it's true, an OM has a wonderfully bright viewfinder.

Also, you can't focus a rangefinder to closer than slightly under 1 meter -- the mechanism doesn't work closer than that. Many SLR lenses, normals and wideangles, not to mention macros, focus to 1/2 meter or even closer. And, as others have pointed out, you simply can't focus a rangefinder accurately with lenses longer than 135mm, while with SLRs there's no such limitation.
 
My Olympus XA is great, but I really don't see why people say a rangefinder is easier to focus. Fast, for better or worse yes, due to the short throw of the focus lever, but easier? Not for me.

With my SLRs, regardless of the quality of the viewfinder or focus screen, the entire viewable image changes as I focus. Thusly, even with a small and dim viewfinder, I can in theory use any part of the view to focus on.

With an RF, I have to make sure that little yellow patch is on something where I can actually see the image split with reasonable clarity. I've found this often a rather difficult proposition with my XA. Also, at least n my XA, I find the tiny lever hard to control with much precision. A big damped focus ring is much easier for me.

No doubt practice will improve things as always, but being a recent SLR user as well as a recent RF user, I can say it was much easier to take to SLR focusing.
 
Leighgion said:
My Olympus XA is great
Click to expand...
So's mine, but it isn't easy to focus by the standards of, say, a Leica M. The difference is enormous, so I wouldn't judge all RF focusing by what you've seen with the XA.

...Mike
 
KoNickon said:
For low light, a rangefinder camera with a clearly delineated, bright and contrasty focusing patch (and these would be models like the Leica Ms, CL, Minolta CLE, the Bessas, Hexar RF and the Zeiss Ikon) are great -- easier to use than an SLR.
Click to expand...


I took my Bessa to London soon after acquiring it. The focus patch was more than bright enough shooting with a 50/1.5 and a 28/1.9 at night in the West End.
 
I find the RF to be easier to focus in most cases. As long as you have some kind of contrasty vertical thing to focus upon, it's quick and accurate!

The hardest to focus is with the new Sigma 18mm lens on the SLR. I have to scale focus on that one most of the time. It's just very difficult to tell for sure.
 
mfunnell said:
So's mine, but it isn't easy to focus by the standards of, say, a Leica M. The difference is enormous, so I wouldn't judge all RF focusing by what you've seen with the XA.

...Mike
Click to expand...

Granted there's going to be different levels of quality in regard to the execution of any system, but to me the truest test of a system's inherit ease of use is comparing average executions of it, not the most elite.
 
One of the reasons I switched to rangefinders from SLRs was that I found it much easier to focus rangefinders. My eyesight has gotten that bad. The overlapping images of a rangeinder are easier for me to see than the groundglass focusing screen of an slr. The split image focusing aid of an slr doesn't seem to help that much anymore, either.

/T
 
Some of my RFs (e.g. M2, Bessa R) are a joy to focus, others (XA, Fed) are a bit dim and squinty. I can normally focus easily with an SLR, but sometimes with slower lenses it's not as easy as using a RF.

Gene
 
I find the split image on an SLR hard to use unless things are moving slowly, but it's a joy for static subjects with lots of time. I find the microprism ring on an SLR a little easier to use on moving subjects, but I'm never really sure I nailed it.

With a RF, it's relaxed and easy to use even on fast moving subjects, and I'm usually fairly sure when I've nailed it. My biggest problem is repeating patterns. For example, someone holds up 5 fingers, and I try to align the 2 images in the VF, I might line up the index finger with the middle finger. That wouldn't be a problem with an SLR.
 
I still find that with my Nikkormat FT2, with a fast lens like the 50mm f1.4 - giving a really bright v/f image, and the split image center, I can focus as fast or faster than any of my rangefinders, - of course, it does get a little harder with a slow or wide angle lens, but still not a problem. BTW - the finder is a little dim, but the r/f patch on my cheapo but much loved Fed 2b is one of the best and most accurate I've used in forty+ years!!!

Cheers, Dave. :)
 
"My Retina IIIc, with a leaf shutter up front, is just plain sweet for slow speed shooting, primarily because of the shutter design, not because it's a rangefinder."
And a Retina IIIS has the same tzpe of shutter and adds a parallax corrected RF/VF and the right lines for 35/50 and 85 mm! A great camera...but it's not verz sturdy.
A great advantage is that in an RF the whole picture you see in the VF is always sharp and zou just hav to focus a small portion of what you see.
That's mz neuroyic glitch: Once I focus something with an SLR and the object moves and gets even slightlz out of focus I satrt focussing again. With an RF I only focus a small portion of the pic I see in the Vf and I am can focus on composition.
 
Spider67 said:
Once I focus something with an SLR and the object moves and gets even slightlz out of focus I satrt focussing again. With an RF I only focus a small portion of the pic I see in the Vf and I am can focus on composition.
Click to expand...
Er, if your object moves after you focus, then it doesn't help you at all if the VF image is always sharp. If it moves after focussing, it will be unsharp on the final image, no matter what viewfinder technology you use. You will have to refocus either way. The RF can actually be even worse here than an SLR finder, because you get the illusion that focus is where you want it to be even though the object has moved away.

Philipp
 
It might be easier to *view and compose* with a rangefinder, but I find SLRs much easier to *focus*.
This has become even more pronounced as my vision diminishes with age.

For lenses over 50mm the SLR wins hands down. Those tiny RF framelines for teles are just plain ridiculous.

I have never liked the split image focusing aid on my SLRs, so I have converted all of mine to microprism screens.

Chris
 
wintoid said:
With a RF... My biggest problem is repeating patterns.
Click to expand...


Same here. If I can't find a distinct line to lock on to, it's tough, and even tougher with too many.
 
Last edited:
Now that I've finished my morning coffee, I wonder if anyone has ever linked specific eyesight problems with specific preferences for /problems with different focusing systems. Few of us, even as children, have perfect eyes.

For example, cataracts would obviously make focusing difficult, but what's the impact of nearsightedness versus farsightedness, etc.

Newly noted focusing problems might be a hint we need to visit our ophthalmologist, too.
 
But with an SLR any part of the entire focusing screen will get you in the ballpark.
You don't have to rely on an at times barely visible - even on an M2 or M3 - RF patch.

Chris
 
Hi - first time poster here (be gentle ;-P) In my experience, any good SLR from the golden age of the 70's/80's will be vastly superior as far as manual focusing when compared to modern autofocus SLRs - for the simple reason that they were designed to be manual focused - hence they have bigger,better, more contrasty screens and more often than not focus aids are built in. I don't have any experience with the OM system, but if their screens are anything like Pentax screens you will have no problems achieving sharp focus. IMHO where SLR screens really shine when compared to rangefinder systems is if you can manage to rustle up a high quality contrasty plain matte screen (Beattie used to make some really good ones - don't know if they are in business any more) - a bright and contrasty matte screen (w/o focusing aids) will make an image really pop into focus. As a bonus I find the matte screens a LOT faster in use when tracking action as well.

Regardless of SLR or rangfinder - technique has just as much to do with in focus shots as the screen. I have found that the more I fine-tune focus and second guess myself the worse off I am (I start to lose concentration if I start focusing back and forth). Set your lens to infinity, aim the camera and start to bear down/focus on the subject - as soon as the image pops into focus (or the patch aligns, etc.) shoot - don't overthink it.

Have fun with your new camera,
Dana
 
I use Pentax SLR's and DSLR's and they tend to have good viewfinders so my experience is that in most conditions the SLR's are easier to focus than rangefinders. It does depend on the lens though as with slower lenses it can be trickier on an SLR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom