benedictjames
Member
I've been trying to find comments around RFF about viewfinders - rangefinder or not - and their importance in terms of usability for people's picture-taking process and style. I've not found much.
Personally, if my finder is not how I must have it, the camera itself ceases to be a camera for me, because I cannot shoot with (through) it properly! I don't care how good the optic on the front is, if the viewfinder sucks, so does my photography, I have found! I seemed to miss the best scenes and moments with my street stuff, for example, when shooting through finders I'm not happy with (like that outrageously small thing in my Nikon D40, for example). I always 'find' my shots right through the finder, from the get-go, camera pretty much permanently stuck to my head, rather than looking around with the camera away from my eye! It somehow allows me to be more emotionally attached to my scenes, which usually translates into better and more interesting shots. I 'find' much less with my camera away from my eye, so it's hugely important that I can live with the camera's viewfinder at all times, with as little distraction in there as possible and a brightness level I can live with.
I like rangefinders in this regard, and get on well with my Olympuses and Canonets - and even my little Trip 35 and XA2 scale focus cameras (basically only a frame in those - great!). SLR-wise, I live relatively happily with my Olympus OM1 and Canon AE-1 P finders, although not as happily as with my rangefinders, mostly because of the inevitible blackout and non-ability to see beyond the edges in the SLRs.
The OM1 finder was a trumpeted aspect of that camera right in its marketing in the '70s, which I've never seen before in an SLR ad, or any camera ad (anyone know of any more?). I saw one of those blurbs in the form of a collectable OM1 magazine ad for sale on ePain, and just went right out and bought an OM1 based on that! It's actually better than what I though was my never-to-be-bettered-finder-in-an-MF-SLR-for-cheap(ish) AE-1P, I find!
What's more important for your shooting: the finder optics or the lens optics - and why? I would be very interested to know others' feelings on this. What's a Leica rangefiner's finder like (try and say that really fast 3 times in a row!). I can't afford one right now to find out, but please do tell, as if it's better (or do they vary between models?) than my 35SP or QL17 in that regard, it could very well be the definitive 'best finder AND best lens system' camera around, making it the ideal camera for those who weight equal importance on the usability of the finder and the capability of the lens optics!? And I don't mean to start a debate here about Leica optics being the best or not, but y'all know what I mean!
Personally, if my finder is not how I must have it, the camera itself ceases to be a camera for me, because I cannot shoot with (through) it properly! I don't care how good the optic on the front is, if the viewfinder sucks, so does my photography, I have found! I seemed to miss the best scenes and moments with my street stuff, for example, when shooting through finders I'm not happy with (like that outrageously small thing in my Nikon D40, for example). I always 'find' my shots right through the finder, from the get-go, camera pretty much permanently stuck to my head, rather than looking around with the camera away from my eye! It somehow allows me to be more emotionally attached to my scenes, which usually translates into better and more interesting shots. I 'find' much less with my camera away from my eye, so it's hugely important that I can live with the camera's viewfinder at all times, with as little distraction in there as possible and a brightness level I can live with.
I like rangefinders in this regard, and get on well with my Olympuses and Canonets - and even my little Trip 35 and XA2 scale focus cameras (basically only a frame in those - great!). SLR-wise, I live relatively happily with my Olympus OM1 and Canon AE-1 P finders, although not as happily as with my rangefinders, mostly because of the inevitible blackout and non-ability to see beyond the edges in the SLRs.
The OM1 finder was a trumpeted aspect of that camera right in its marketing in the '70s, which I've never seen before in an SLR ad, or any camera ad (anyone know of any more?). I saw one of those blurbs in the form of a collectable OM1 magazine ad for sale on ePain, and just went right out and bought an OM1 based on that! It's actually better than what I though was my never-to-be-bettered-finder-in-an-MF-SLR-for-cheap(ish) AE-1P, I find!
What's more important for your shooting: the finder optics or the lens optics - and why? I would be very interested to know others' feelings on this. What's a Leica rangefiner's finder like (try and say that really fast 3 times in a row!). I can't afford one right now to find out, but please do tell, as if it's better (or do they vary between models?) than my 35SP or QL17 in that regard, it could very well be the definitive 'best finder AND best lens system' camera around, making it the ideal camera for those who weight equal importance on the usability of the finder and the capability of the lens optics!? And I don't mean to start a debate here about Leica optics being the best or not, but y'all know what I mean!
