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

[FallisPhoto]

Rangefinder strengths:

1. SLRs use retrofocus lenses; they have to, because the lens has to be placed farther away from the film plane (due to the mirror box) than is optimum. This works fine with telephotos lenses, but not as well with normal lenses and it is pretty awful with wide angle lenses. Rangefinders don't use retrofocus lenses because they have no mirrors, and so perfermance is superb with normal and wide angle lenses but not very good with telephoto lenses.

2. SLRs use lenses that have their best performance only in a very narrow range of f/stops (usually f/8 to f/16). Typically even a good SLR lens will not do very well stopped down to f/22 or opened up to f/2. Again, this is inherent in the retrofocus design. Since rangefinders don't use retrofocus lenses, they don't have this problem. f/2 and f/22 will both be sharp.

3. SLRs are more difficult to use in low light. There is a pretty wide range of focus adjustment where the image will appear sharp. A coincident rangefinder's superimposed images (or even a split image rangefinder) make it much easier to focus accurately in low light.

4. Because there is no mirror swinging up and down and bumping into things in a rangefinder, there are no mirror-induced vibrations that can cause camera shake and motion blur. This means you can shoot handheld at significantly slower shutter speeds than would be possible with an SLR.

5. Rangefinders are far quiter than SLRs and so are less intrusive.

Rangefinder weaknesses:

1. It is going to be nearly impossible to use a graduated ND filter or a polarizer with a rangefinder. You have to be able to see through the lens in order to use these effectively, and most rangefinders don't allow you to do that.

2. Rangefinders don't do very well with telephoto lenses. I don't think you can even get a lens that is over 135mm.


Conclusion:

Rangefinders excell at full-length people photos and group photos, at street photography and at low light photography. SLRs are going to be better at most other things.

As you can see, the rangefinder and SLR systems compliment one another almost perfectly. Each system's weak points precisely match the other's strong points. Ideally, you'll have both.

 

[OlyMan]

While I agree with most of what's been said here, a lot of people quote low-light focussing as an advantage of rangefinders vs SLRs. Am I the only one to think otherwise? Ok my only experience of rangefinders has been with fixed-focus Olympus models while my experience of SLRs is wide and varied. But from what I've seen, providing the SLR has a fast-ish lens (F2.8 or wider) then I find the split-image and microprism found on manual-focus SLRs a lot easier to focus than a rangefinder in almost all instances. Perhaps it's just because I need to wear spectacles and do not have the benefit of getting the viewfinder right up to my eye? Crappy slow zooms on modern plastic wonders can be dismal and difficult to focus, but they only really tend to come attached to autofocus SLRs anyway. With a standard 50mm attached to my OM4Ti and focussing screen 2-13 installed, the lifesized, bright image is leagues ahead of the the tiny, flare-prone images seen in my rangefinders (a CLA would help with the flare but not the image size)

 

[wgerrard]

I should add to my earlier post that the one thing that makes me an RF fan is their carry-ability. If you're looking for a camera to shove in a coat pocket and take with you, the RC is a good one. No, it isn't as flexible as an SLR system or an RF system. But, if you're like me, I don't want to carry around a "system". I just want to carry around a camera. You won't take pictures if it's too much hassle to carry around the stuff you take pictures with.

Go for the RC. If you don't like it, you won't have any trouble selling it.

 

[FallisPhoto]

While I agree with most of what's been said here, a lot of people quote low-light focussing as an advantage of rangefinders vs SLRs. Am I the only one to think otherwise? Ok my only experience of rangefinders has been with fixed-focus Olympus models while my experience of SLRs is wide and varied. But from what I've seen, providing the SLR has a fast-ish lens (F2.8 or wider) then I find the split-image and microprism found on manual-focus SLRs a lot easier to focus than a rangefinder in almost all instances. Perhaps it's just because I need to wear spectacles and do not have the benefit of getting the viewfinder right up to my eye? Crappy slow zooms on modern plastic wonders can be dismal and difficult to focus, but they only really tend to come attached to autofocus SLRs anyway. With a standard 50mm attached to my OM4Ti and focussing screen 2-13 installed, the lifesized, bright image is leagues ahead of the the tiny, flare-prone images seen in my rangefinders (a CLA would help with the flare but not the image size)

Fair enough, as far as it goes, but I am comparing a whole bunch of rangefinders (Isolette III, Speedex Special R, Retina II, Yashica GSN, Hi-Matic 7S, Super Memar, and about a couple of dozen more) against several SLRs (a Nikon FM2, a Pentax K-1000, a Yashica TL Electro, a Pentax 67 and about half a dozen more). Many manual SLRs don't have split image focusing screens. When they do, what the focusing screen does is take a sample image from either side of the lens (about equidistant from the center of the lens and the edge) and project the image onto a spot in the center of the focusing screen. Focusing the camera brings the two images together, in effect turning an SLR into a split image rangefinder (not unlike the Agfa Karat 36 or the Argus C-3 rangefinders). Another point is that most rangefinders have a MUCH bigger and brighter viewfinder than the Olympus (I'm assuming an XA of some sort).

Also, since a rangefinder's focusing system is based on triangulation, rather than the typical SLR's "now it looks fuzzy and now it doesn't" system, and because the base of a rangefinder's triangle is much wider than that from a typical SLR's split image focusing screen system (unless you have a HUGE diameter lens), focusing is still going to be more accurate with the rangefinder, because there is no range of focus adjustment where it will still look sharp. Either it will be spot-on, or the images are not merged in the viewfinder.

I suspect that your rangefinder, in addition to having a small viewfinder, may be dim, due to a dirty mirror or one that has been cleaned poorly and has had some of the semisilvering rubbed off.

 

[wgerrard]

...most rangefinders have a MUCH bigger and brighter viewfinder than the Olympus (I'm assuming an XA of some sort).

I picked up an XA sometime ago. I haven't serviced it and pretty sure that it's never been serviced. I wear glasses. The viewfinder is, indeed, small. The focus patch is really small and I find it difficult to focus on occasion. In low light, the patch is essentially invisible.

But, it's an old, used camera that uses a design that is not typical of rangefinders. It really isn't the best example to choose when comparing rangefinders and SLR's. Frankly, 30-year-old rangefinders should be compared only with 30-year-old SLR's.

On the other hand, I also have a Bessa R4M and find it's viewfinder to be bright and easy to use with my glasses, in all kinds of lighting environments.

 

[FallisPhoto]

I picked up an XA sometime ago. I haven't serviced it and pretty sure that it's never been serviced. I wear glasses. The viewfinder is, indeed, small. The focus patch is really small and I find it difficult to focus on occasion. In low light, the patch is essentially invisible.

But, it's an old, used camera that uses a design that is not typical of rangefinders. It really isn't the best example to choose when comparing rangefinders and SLR's. Frankly, 30-year-old rangefinders should be compared only with 30-year-old SLR's.

On the other hand, I also have a Bessa R4M and find it's viewfinder to be bright and easy to use with my glasses, in all kinds of lighting environments.

If we are talking about manual cameras, the technology involved in SLRs and rangefinders is very old technology that hasn't changed to any significant degree in those 30 years you mention. Nearly all of the technological advances since then have been in the areas of automation (autofocus and autoexposure) and in the design of zoom lenses. In prime lenses the last really significant change occurred in about 1978, when multicoated lenses and computerized calibration became generally available. In the SLRs themselves, the last siginificant changes were the substitution of fresnel lens focusing screens for ground glass, and the appearance of sensors behind the semitransparent mirrors of some SLRs. In particular, these last two have had a negative impact on the performance of SLRs when used in manual mode. The cameras simply are designed to work better in automatic than they do in manual.

BTW, I use glasses too.

 

[principe azul]

I'd say, given typical viewfinder magnifications, that a top-drawer SLR and a top-drawer RF are round about equal at 50mm for ease of use, focusing aside. But the RF definitely improves in both areas 40/35mm and wider.

Easier to focus an RF accurately in low light at 50mm, too, I reckon. Maybe longer, but I don't have much experience of this. And certainly with slower lenses.

That said, you'll run into situations where an RF doesn't cut it for focusing. Patterns can be awkward to focus on. In very low light - e.g., unlit room at night, with streetlights making faint shadow of blinds on far interior wall - you might not be able to get any purchase on them at all (e.g., by attacking them from a different angle), where an SLR proves better - though not 100% accurate, and we're talking about light so dim that autofocus would fail. Then again, few people focus on almost imperceptible, repeating shadows, and you might ask what I was doing with two cameras in an unlit room anyway... 😱

So many variables. Light changes constantly, and equipment varies so much. By top-drawer above, I was thinking of something like a Nikon F3 with a fast lens in front of an optimal focusing screen versus a Hexar/Bessa/Leica/Zeiss Ikon. Get an RF from a thrift store, or an SLR with a dim screen or one that's really designed for viewing rather than focusing (as wgerrard points out), and it might be a different story. But in general, the RF shines for low light.

Anyway, while I can justify my generalisation, an RF is unquestionably superior at focusing for most of what I throw at a camera (light, angle of view, filtration, lens speed etc.), and that's all that matters.

 

[OlyMan]

Many manual SLRs don't have split image focusing screens.

I've only ever had manual SLRs with split-image focussing screens. I certainly wouldn't want to try to focus one without such inbuilt assistance. To be honest, I would have thought every manual-focus SLR designed within the last 40 years will have had a split-image screen? Certainly all the ones I have used have had one, including models by Yashica (FRII), Olympus (OM1/10/4Ti), Monolta (X300) and Pentax (K1000).

 

[FallisPhoto]

I've only ever had manual SLRs with split-image focussing screens. I certainly wouldn't want to try to focus one without such inbuilt assistance. To be honest, I would have thought every manual-focus SLR designed within the last 40 years will have had a split-image screen? Certainly all the ones I have used have had one, including models by Yashica (FRII), Olympus (OM1/10/4Ti), Monolta (X300) and Pentax (K1000).

I have a Yashica TL, a Yashica TL-X, a Canon AE-1, a Pentax 67, a Pentax K-1000, and several other SLRs, that do not have split image focusing screens. Some of these have it as an option, but apparently the persons who had them before me didn't opt for them.

 

[jay00]

Thanks so much all of you for you replies to my thread- all is making a bit more sense now when it comes to rangefinders vs SLR's, next step is to try one out!
No doubt I'll have more questions when I do....thanks again & regards.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

...a lot of people quote low-light focussing as an advantage of rangefinders vs SLRs. Am I the only one to think otherwise?

Framing maybe, but focusing definitely not. In low light the RF patch sometimes becomes completely invisible.

Chris

 

[FallisPhoto]

Framing maybe, but focusing definitely not. In low light the RF patch sometimes becomes completely invisible.

Chris

What kind of rangefinder are you using? I've got about 30 - 40 rangefinders in my collection and only have that problem with maybe half a dozen of them. I could probably fix that with those half dozen too, by installing new semitransparent mirrors. What is usually the problem is that the semisilvering on the mirror has become dim (dirty or has been rubbed partly off by inexpert cleaning).

 

[Finder]

There are varying shades of gray/grey between rangefinders and SLRs. Certainly each can be a manual or automatic as the other. There are limits to the lenses you can put on a rangefinder. Focus distance is limited as well for rangefinders. I guess in "practical" terms, the SLR is superior in most every way.

However, people and photography are not practical. I use rangefinder/viewfinder cameras more than any other camera type. It is limiting in ways, but I find the rangefinder to offer fewer compromises to the way I see and work.

I could not recommend a rangefinder except to try one and see if you like it. If it clicks, then you have found a useful camera. (Know pun in tended.)

 

[OlyMan]

Definitely. It all depends what you want the camera to do. I like to use my RFs when I want to go around without looking like David Bailey: OM kit is small compared to its bigger peers and modern pro SLRs, but is still not as compact as most RFs.

The RFs I have had any experience are strictly of amateur grade compared to such as a Leica M7 or a Contax, so it's probably unfair for me to compare. None the less the bright, clear, lifesized image which appears on my OM4Ti's 2-13 focussing screen is just simply in a different league to the tiny image and even tinier focussing spots on my RFs. Depending on what I want to focus on and whereabouts it lies in the frame, it can take a few extra seconds with my RFs to focus and compose the shot because the image in a RF's viewfinder is by its nature always in focus to your eyes, regardless of where the focus ring is positioned. On an SLR, you can get near enough bang on without using the split image because the image snaps into focus on the focussing screen as you turn the focus ring.

As for an RFs 'feature' that you can see both left and right of the area being photographed so you can spot that 'decisive moment', you can get a simlar effect on an SLR by opening your other eye... 😉

 

[FallisPhoto]

There are varying shades of gray/grey between rangefinders and SLRs. Certainly each can be a manual or automatic as the other. There are limits to the lenses you can put on a rangefinder. Focus distance is limited as well for rangefinders. I guess in "practical" terms, the SLR is superior in most every way.

However, people and photography are not practical. I use rangefinder/viewfinder cameras more than any other camera type. It is limiting in ways, but I find the rangefinder to offer fewer compromises to the way I see and work.

I could not recommend a rangefinder except to try one and see if you like it. If it clicks, then you have found a useful camera. (Know pun in tended.)

Superior in every way? Not at all. The way I'd put it is that an SLR is more of a general purpose camera and the rangefinder is more of a speciallist's tool. There are a few things that rangefinders do WAY better than SLRs, but there are just not a whole lot of them.

To use an analogy, an SLR is kind of like a big swiss army knife. Yeah, A swiss army knife has a saw, and it CAN cut a branch, but it isn't going to do it as well as a jungle knife. On the other hand, the jungle knife is going to really suck if you are trying to get a cork out of a bottle. An SLR, like a swiss army knife, can do quite a lot of things, but some of them it does rather poorly, some it is okay at and several things it does very well indeed. A rangefinder is more like a bowie knife; there are a handfull of things it is very good at indeed, but it isn't going to be much good for anything else. Now if you happen to be doing one of the types of photography that a rangefinder is good at (full length people photography, night photography, street photography), then you are probably going to absolutely fall in love with your rangefinder, because these all fit rather well with its strong points, but if you are doing something else (landscapes, sports photography, macros and so on) then you're probably going to find it very limiting and are not going to like it at all.

In short, whether I would recommend a rangefinder (or any other kind of camera, including an SLR) would depend on what kind of photography the person who is asking is going to be doing with it. I would not make ANY kind of recommendation without knowing that first, and I think those who jump right in and say things like "the Nikon FM2 is what you ought to get," without knowing what kind of photography the guy is into are idiots.

 

[Herman Abdullah]

Hi Jay, mind if i joining in this discussion?

Perhaps my view is slightly different in certain angle. I beg to differ. 🙂

Well, I think , all the responses that you have received were pretty much about the technical comparison of those two camera, and you already have got most of the answers you ever need in that matter.


As to me the most important thing when comparing the both, it is not about the technical stuff, but more about the 'feeling' when shooting with it.

Of course you can do more stuff with SLR because that is the main reason of existence (i.e: interchangeble lense, more control, white balace, DOF preview and stuff) but when it comes to RF, it is not about the camera advance technology that you are thingking of, but it is more is about you doing advance thingking for the camera ( as RF function is normally inferior to SLR at certain extend and im talking about my 35SP)

However, with RF you will discover photography differently. It has that sweet (undescribable?) 'feeling' in it.. you will get yourself engaged, diluted, mixed, blent with the subject more than what you will have with SLR, and it is basically you and your sweet time, and not the camera anymore.

At the end of the day, sweet satisfaction comes with it..believe me. It is totally a different experience all together.


That's about it.

Anyway, i will shoot with DSLR if the 'situation' required me to do so...and if i need fast and quick result..and i mean no film involve..🙂 and I will use a 'very fast' camera in that range.