Dave said:
Hmm... thanks guys, that's all very instructive.
More questions, if you don't mind...
What are the advantages of an SLR compared to an rangefinder then?
The obvious one is that with an SLR, what you see is (mostly) what you get. You're looking through the lens that is taking the picture. Assuming that your camera is functioning properly, when it appears to be in focus to you, it is. I have a number of rangefinder lenses for my CV Bessa R. One of them is significantly mis-adjusted, so when the rangefinder says it is in focus, it isn't. I would have no way of knowing that without seeing the photos - with an SLR, it either is or it isn't in focus.
Also, I have found that SLRs are far better at doing macro work. If you want to take, say, a picture of a flower, close-up, an SLR with an extension tube or macro lens will let you focus right in on it - again, within limits, what you see is what you'll be getting. With a rangefinder, there is always the problem of parralax - what you see through the rangefinder is not exactly what the lens sees. At large distances, that's not a problem. Close up, the problem becomes more pronounced.
An example: close one eye, and hold your hands in front of your open eye at arm's length, forming a frame shape with your thumbs and forefingers. Now 'frame' something with your arms. Now freeze - don't move. Close the open eye and open the closed one. The frame you made has moved, hasn't it? That's because what one eye 'saw' was not what the other eye sees. Same for rangefinders - up close, the difference is more pronounced.
Rangefinder cameras CAN do macro, and there are lots of ways to make that happen - but it's much simpler and usually less expensive with an SLR.
Why is that? [to the comment that rangefinders tend to be lighter and smaller]
SLRS have mirrors and mirror boxes and pentaprisms that make them heavier and more complicated. When you're looking through the lens that is taking the picture, you want a bright image to focus on - so the lens cannot be 'stopped down' while you're composing and focussing. Therefore, there must be a mechanism to stop down the lens AFTER you've composed and focussed, and before the actual exposure is made. Then, the mirror you were using to look with has to swing up out of the way of the shutter/film. Much mechanical swinging about, high precision ballet ensues. This takes up space and is heavier than if you don't have to have it.
I like the fact that rangefinders are smaller - it's more likely they'll be taking pictures that way.
I like the fact that rangefinders are smaller too, and I partially agree with you. But if that were my only reasoning, I could also say that I might as well carry a point-n-shoot compact camera, since it's REALLY small.
It is good to get in the habit of habitually carrying a camera around, I think. And an SLR and a bevy of lenses for it can weigh quite a bit. A fixed-lens rangefinder or even a CV Bessa R and a couple of screw-mount lenses doesn't take up much room. But it's a matter of deciding what you're after and how much you're willing to carry, and also - WHEN you want to carry it.
There are times when I'm willing to use a block and tackle to get my gear in the jeep because I'm going out to burn some serious film. Other times, I toss my Olympus XA in my pocket and head out the door. But they don't both do the same job, you see? There is always some compromise involved.
How much can I expect to invest to get going?
That's really a hard question to answer! You can buy a used but nice condition fixed-lens rangefinder camera from the classic years (1970s) on eBay for under $20 if you wait for the right deal. You can spend thousands on a top-of-the-line Contax or Leica system new in the camera store. Even tens of thousands. I get a nosebleed just LOOKING at that stuff. And there are all kinds of prices inbetween.
Hate to say it, but the real answer is: it depends on what you want to do with your camera(s). Snapshots? Family? Vacation? The insides of volcanoes? Macro shots of fleas? See what I mean?
I have this feeling that rangefinders might suit me better than SLRs might. Right now I have a digital Minolta Dimage Xt that I take everywhere, but it's fully automatic and doesn't leave much room for flexibility.
Ah, you said the magic word - flexibility. If you're looking to take more control over the images you make, you can do that in a variety of ways - digital, SLR, and rangefinder. The important parts are getting control over your aperture and shutter speed. I also prefer to have control over my focus, but that's a personal choice - most autofocus systems work pretty well these days.
Creative control starts with aperture and shutter speed. After that, you can further your control with things like different lenses, filters, types of film, and then once you have the image on film or paper, through scanning and digital manipulation. But it all starts with aperture and shutter speed.
I appreciate that you feel that a rangefinder will suit you better - hard to disagree, this is a rangefinder forum and I certainly love 'em. But I think you'll find that the group here is not particularly religious about cameras - many of us have and love our SLRs too, we just don't spend much time discussing them here. I haven't seen any religious wars over rangefinder vs SLR here (hope I never do), because I think we're all pretty much grownups here - we realize that each plays a part in the body of photography, each has distinct advantages and disadvantages, and some people prefer one over the other exclusively.
If I were you, I would never say never. You can experiment fairly cheaply - you can even rent cameras from most 'pro' camera stores for a day or so and try them out. You can buy used stuff on eBay without breaking the bank. I'd say give rangefinders and SLRs an even try and THEN decide which you like - or be like me - use them both with equal fervor.
In the end, it's the photographer, not the equipment. Yes, it helps to have a hammer and not a screwdriver when you're trying to drive a nail, but in a pinch, a good photographer uses what he or she has to best advantage.
Hope this helps!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
