what is the difference between how you use a rangefinder compared to a manual SLR?

[jay00]

Hello, I have only just found out about these Olympus RC 35 cameras so sorry I also have a couple of perhaps silly questions,- what is the difference in how you use a manual SLR compared to a rangefinder camera, other than with the lens capability and interchangability? Do you still adjust apeture, shutter speed and focus manually (with ring on lens)? And when they say rangefinder- is this the same as manual focus depth of field, or has it something to do with how you compose a shot through the viewfinder (ie. does a rangefinder not give an actual view, and require compensation- if so can you please describe how you may do this in simple terms for me). (I have a minolta SLR if that helps explain the comparison)- thanks 🙂. And I apologise for my ignorance when it comes to these cameras- but the prospect is exciting!

Also can anyone tell me how much it may cost for a Olympus RC 35 mm camera which has been overhauled (inc. battery and cleaning)? And reliable people that may sell or repair this type of camera either overseas or in Australia. ( I am from Australia).

With thanks Jay

 

[dmr]

I know my opinion here is not shared by most here, but I consider the 35mm manual SLR (with a normal lens) and the 35mm manual RF to be far more similar than they are different. I shoot a Pentax K1000 and a Mamiya SD rangefinder and the process is almost identical. Set the shutter speed manually, compose and focus via the viewfinder (which is the most different step), then adjust the f-stop to either match the needle exactly or else intentionally over or under expose, and then fire.

The focus on the SLR is on the ground glass so you focus for the sharpest image. The focus on the RF is to line up the two images so they coincide.

 

[Kent]

Hi, Jay! Welcome.

It all depends. With some rangefinder cams (mostly the "better" ones) you have manual control and you can change aperture at the lens. You would not change shutter speed at the lens, though, well... you wouldn't do that at an SLR either, would you?
With an SLR you see what you'll get in the picture (sometimes even including DoF), with an RF you always can see what you shoot (no mirror slap) and more. With an RF it is easier to shoot "secretly", since mostly the shutter is quieter than in an SLR.
RFs generally are smaller and since you do not have a mirror in the way, extreme wide angles are easier to construct.
For me composition is easier with an SLR, snapshots are easier with an RF - but that's personal opinion.
When I shoot with an SLR, I often use a narrow DoF for composition, with an RF I mostly use the lens at hyperfocal distance.
IMHO SLRs are more versatile, RFs are compact and street photography is much more fun with an RF.

You can get a 35RC in good condition for perhaps about US$ 30-40,-

 

[wgerrard]

Rangefinders and SLR's are different kind of cameras. There are a number of differences, with perhaps the most basic being that an SLR allows you to view the subject through the lens. Nothing wrong with that, but there are trade offs.

Rangefinders can have interchangable lenses, just as SLR's. And SLR's can be made with only one fixed lens. Rangefinders are typically completely manual -- you adjust aperture, shutter speed, and focus -- or offer an aperture priority mode -- you pick an aperture and the camera sets a shutter speed.

A viewfinder is not the same thing as a rangefinder, although in many cameras they are combined. Depth of field has nothing to do with all this.

Rangefinders allow for smaller and lighter lenses than on SLR's, so a kit of a rangefinder and a few lenses usually weighs less and is less encumbering than an equivalent SLR kit.

Here's a good link to get you started: http://www.photoethnography.com/equipment.html. Check out the links along the left.

For sales and service in Australia, I'd have to turn to Google. I do know that a number of Olympus service shops in the States have websites. KEH (http://www.keh.com) in Atlanta, Georiga, sells used equipment and has a good reputation, and they ship overseas.

 

[rogue_designer]

I don't recall where I read it - maybe it was in Bill Pierce's threads - but it was stated that they forced a different approach to the photograph.

With the RF, you're in the moment. You are capturing a feeling, a moment, a more inclusive kind of photograph. This is partially due to the nature of the RF - you can see what's around the photograph you are taking, your view isn't ever blocked, so you can capture HCB's "decisive moment"

With the SLR - you have more control over the precise framing and can more easily preview the depth of field - so you can make different kinds of composition decisions more accurately. Exclude this element, or that one with selective focus? Or show them all more clearly? etc.

Summarized as follows: "With the RF you take a photograph, with an SLR you make a photograph."

 

[principe azul]

SLRs are way more versatile than rangefinders, but you shouldn't worry. I've always bought SLRs with multiple exposure capability and depth of field preview, but I've never actually used either feature.

With an SLR, you have the advantage that you're looking through the lens (and can see the effects of graduated and polarising filters, and the depth of field - if you can preview it by stopping the lens down).

With a rangefinder, you have the advantage that you don't have to look through the lens. There's no blur in the finder (and you don't get annoying dust specks everywhere). And if you use a yellow filter - or a really dark infrared one - your view isn't obscured as it would be with an SLR.

While you can't see depth of field through a rangefinder window, you should know by intuition, experience or the depth of field scale on the lens what you're going to get. And a lot of new SLR lenses don't even have them. I used to shoot with an SLR all the time, with a 35mm lens. I'd choose to shoot at 1.4 or 2.8 or 5.6 purely according to the effect I wanted, or according to the circumstances - e.g., want selective focus but subject moving a bit, so I'd go to 2 or 2.8. I didn't find the time to stop down and preview DOF.

This all comes much easier if you don't use a zoom and just get to know a few focal lengths.

So my experience was that I was using my SLR pretty much like a rangefinder, and since I often focused in very low light and preferred wider angles and wanted a more compact camera, a rangefinder became the obvious choice.

I've never found a huge difference between the two - though I can see the point of Bill Pierce's article - it's just that if you shoot to the strengths of an RF, it's far more rewarding than an SLR.

About preferring wider angles. First, RF wide angles tend to be better than equivalent SLR wides (price, focal length, aperture, make, newness, etc.) because there's no mirror box to clear. My Zeiss wide probably gets well over an inch closer to the film than my Nikkor ever could, for instance. Second, though viewfinder magnification is better in an SLR for longer lenses, it works in your favour for wides, because the magnification doesn't drop on an RF.

You'll probably futz around the first time you try and focus an RF, but I remember doing that with my first SLR.

One last thing. While there's a lot of mystique around rangefinders - at least the ones that come from Germany - rangefinder-focusing was the bog-standard way to focus a camera back in the 50s and 60s, and millions of folks who only took pictures at holidays and at Christmas seemed to manage it perfectly well. Don't know much about your Olympus, but it would have been one of those cameras.

One very last thing. A friend of mine took a Zorki on holiday, knowing nothing about photography. She just followed the exposure instructions on the inside of the film box, and everything came out perfectly.

 

[principe azul]

Aaannnd, to get back to your question, framing won't be perfect with a rangefinder, but most SLRs don't show a 100% view anyway.

The framelines won't move in the Olympus to correct for parallax, but there's a parallax indicator to help you compose: http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/35RC.html

 

[ruben]

Jay welcome! Go ahead with the RC as it is a mighty small tool. For a good and slightly used RC I would pay a hundred Amercan dollars.

As for your questions, you are very much asking the technical questions of questions, very much controversial. So hereby my view in brief.

SLRs are the sons of RFs, somewhat like digitals are more evolutioned cameras than film cameras. The problem is that the photographic industry never takes all the good sides of the old cameras and adds it to the new ones, but always leaves highly valuable features of the old ones as if they never existed.

What RFs have to offer against the much more evolutioned SLRs ?:

a) They are extremely quiet cameras.

b) They are built to focus much more quickly than SLRs

c) With wide lenses, RFs focus more easy than SLRs

d) There is a whole branch, to which the RC belongs, of compact cameras

Now, the SLRs have different advantages over the RFs, making them in much more versatile and convenient in general terms. But if you are specially looking for one of the avovementioned edges of RFs, you will not find anything at SLRs - you will have to get a RF. And the RC is superb !

Cheers,
Rubne

 

[gns]

There are many differences well noted here, but the essential difference for me is what you see when you look through the finder. With an slr you see the lenses image projected on a ground glass and magnified. The focus is shallow as you are generally at the widest aperture and image is often not the brightest. With a rangefinder, you view the subject more directly. Everything is seen in focus and as bright as possible. That suits me better. I want to see the subject, not something that looks like a picture.

Of course, great pictures are made with all kinds of cameras and when I look at others' pictures, I'm not concerned with what kind of camera was used. But I prefer rangefinders and for me I think it does make a difference in what pictures I make.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[anselwannab]

My Leica CL I leave in my pocket, my Canon F1 I leave at home.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Hello, I have only just found out about these Olympus RC 35 cameras so sorry I also have a couple of perhaps silly questions,- what is the difference in how you use a manual SLR compared to a rangefinder camera, other than with the lens capability and interchangability? Do you still adjust apeture, shutter speed and focus manually (with ring on lens)? And when they say rangefinder- is this the same as manual focus depth of field, or has it something to do with how you compose a shot through the viewfinder (ie. does a rangefinder not give an actual view, and require compensation- if so can you please describe how you may do this in simple terms for me). (I have a minolta SLR if that helps explain the comparison)- thanks 🙂. And I apologise for my ignorance when it comes to these cameras- but the prospect is exciting!

Also can anyone tell me how much it may cost for a Olympus RC 35 mm camera which has been overhauled (inc. battery and cleaning)? And reliable people that may sell or repair this type of camera either overseas or in Australia. ( I am from Australia).

With thanks Jay

This should just about cover all of it: http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/camtec2.htm

 

[NickTrop]

Forgive me if I missed this, but I didn't see it in the posts.

The RF has no mirror. Therefore, you can hand-hold shots at slower shutter speeds. 1/30th (no problem), 1/15(practice or braced), 1/8(practice, braced) so they're better in low-light. Because the mirror "slaps" the camera's insides in order to "get out of the way" before the shutter opens, the vibration caused by the mirror slap in an SLR makes SLRs, generally, "a little" to "a lot" noisier than a RF and the vibration imposes a "1/focal length" rule when using an SLR. So if your SLR has a 50mm lens, you usually won't shoot with a shutter speed slower than 1/60th (1/focal length) for hand-held photography.

For these reasons:

1. Smaller (usually)
2. Quiter (usually)
3. Can shoot a stop or two slower shutterspeed hand-held than an SLR (due to no mirror vibration)

... RFs are preferred for "documentary" style "street photography" and candid photography using natural light (no flash). Another advantage is you can anticipate action because you can see outside the frame lines with a RF camera, as others have mentioned.

Another advantage of you particular camera (and all the fixed lens Japanese) is they use leaf shutters, which enables you to sync the flash at all speeds. This is good for using your flash as a "fill flash" (think of wedding photographers you might have seen) in harsh daylight to remove harsh shadows and if there's strong backlighting. SLRs use a different type of shutter than has to "sync" to the flash at a disignated slower shutter speed - sometimes 1/30 (older SLRs), 1/60 (common), 1/125 (modern). Usually when using fill flash, you're shooting at 1/250 or 1/500.

Also, because lenses don't have to be designed to "clear" the mirror in a RF, better wide angle lenses can be created where the rear element is almost smack up against the film plane. So, photographers often take advantage of this and shoot at 35mm and wider focal lenghts if they're using an interchangable lens RF system (moot, since yours is a fixed lens...)

Incidentally, you have a great little camera. Enjoy.

 

[peter_n]

Welcome to the forum Jay. 🙂 For me the difference is that I can see outside the frame in a rangefinder VF. Simple as that. I haven't used my SLR since I got my first RF cam 4 years ago.

 

[Ronald M]

SLR see exactly what the film sees. RF focus better.
SLR have slower responses after you push the button. SLR have more accesories and excell at close up and tele work.

Take your pick depending on what your main use is.

 

[MJones]

web simulator of RF focus

web simulator of RF focus

Here's a link to a simulator for the Epson rd-1s.

Follow the startup. and literally click on the different parts of the camera. I think it will simulate most everything the camera can do. But here's for the RF focus with a coupled lens.
1. turn "on" the camera from the top view.
2. rotate the focus ring on the lens
3. watch the cropped viewfinder above the camera and it will show the focus change as you rotate the lens

http://www.epsonrd1.co.uk/virtual/virtual_en.html

 

[oftheherd]

...

One very last thing. A friend of mine took a Zorki on holiday, knowing nothing about photography. She just followed the exposure instructions on the inside of the film box, and everything came out perfectly.

I took photos, including crime scene photos, like that often in Vietnam years ago. All worked out well. Having some background in photography helped but wasn't essential

As to the questions that started this thread. There are many different versions of RF cameras. Some allow changing aperture and shutter speeds, some are all auto with no option to change exposure other than adjustment of the ASA (ISO). RF viewfinders have a frame to indicate the area that will appear in the photograph. Most are fairly accurate, but that used to be commented on in reviews, how much they were or were not accurate. In general I wouldn't worry about it. Most gave a little extra room to compesate for composing errors on the part of the user.

I never found RF focusing to be faster than SLR as I usually went from in and out on either side getting it exact. RF are often easier to focus in dim light than as SLR, but when you practice it a lot, you would be surprised at how good you can get in low light with an SLR. But RFs are indeed usually easier.

I can't help you at what costs might be overhauled, or what is usually referred to as a CLA, clean, lubricate and adjust. Hopefully someone else in the forum can help with that.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[capitalK]

Rangefinders force you to focus and recompose if you are not using the center as your focus point. SLR's allow you to focus any part of the image and often will allow you to set a point other than center for automatic focus.

This one is personal, I don't tend to shoot a lot of portrait-orientation images with a rangefinder though I do with SLR's. Just a preference thing.

 

[richiedcruz]

For me the main differences are weight and that I tend to scale focus when I use a rangefinder. When I use an SLR, I cannot resist the tendency to take an extra second to focus rather than just take the picture. As for the weight, I use screwmount Leicas and anything, even an M, is a tank in comparison ; )

Richie

 

[ruby.monkey]

For me the main difference is that I have far fewer thumb- and lenscap-shots with an SLR.

 

[DougK]

I know my opinion here is not shared by most here, but I consider the 35mm manual SLR (with a normal lens) and the 35mm manual RF to be far more similar than they are different.

I probably wouldn't have said this when I was a newbie rangefinder convert, but I now agree, the essential process is the same, particularly if you shoot mostly wide angles. My favorite focal length has steadily moved wider, from about 50mm when I started shooting rangefinders to 24-28mm now. I don't take many macro or telephoto shots anymore and scale focusing allows me to just meter, frame, and shoot most of the time.