Why a rangefinder?

DCB

DCB

Well-known
Local time
9:12 AM
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
244
I was wondering why you choose to shoot with a rangefinder? I have 2 and am not sure about them. I have always used SLR's so I know there is a learning curve...

Thinking about getting another one but not sure.

Thanks

Peace
 
I can't speak for others, but I like the smaller size, focusing format and quiet (usually) shutter.

Why buy a third if you have 2 and are unsure?
 
DCB said:
I was wondering why you choose to shoot with a rangefinder? I have 2 and am not sure about them. I have always used SLR's so I know there is a learning curve...

Thinking about getting another one but not sure.

Thanks

Peace
Click to expand...

I've got more cameras than I know what to do with, including rangefinders and a DSLR (5D2) with a handful of L lenses.

Choosing between a rangefinder and DSLR is rarely difficult for me as both serve very different functions. The most obvious being analog vs. digital.

I choose to shoot with rangefinders because they're smaller, lighter, and quieter. Pre-focusing is a breeze. No shutter lag, either. Quick and responsive. I rarely need long telephoto lenses. Macro isn't a big deal to me.

Sure, both rangefinders and DSLRs take pictures. But ultimately they're different tools for different jobs. While their uses may overlap, each of them are very good at what they're meant for.

As far as buying a 3rd rangefinder if you're unsure about the 2 you already have...that depends on what 2 you already have and the condition they're in (QL17 and GSW690, very nice). I was initially very put off using rangefinders as my first was a Yashica Electro 35 GSN with a very dim rangefinder patch. I had no idea it was dim, I just assumed that's how all rangefinders would be. I eventually got a Canonet QL17 Giii and that was slightly better. Then I ponied up and bought an M3 paired with a DR 'Cron and that has been a joy to use. So while I typically try not to promote GAS, I'd hate your view of rangefinders to be spoiled because of poor experiences with gear that is less than ideal. Not that acquiring new equipment will always fix your experiences/pictures, but sometimes it does...
 
Personally, I think the smaller size thing can be a misnomer. I was holding up my M6TTL and my Pentax ME Super side-by-side and realized that with lenses mounted, they are essentially the same size. The ME Super is shorter (even with the prism hump) and they are negligible in terms of width and thickness. I was surprised myself. With the Pentax 50/1.4 and the Nokon 50/1.5 mounted, the lenses were essentially the same length, too. Sure, some rangefinders are smaller (the Oly 35RC, for example), but the Leica M is on the large size of RFs.

If you own two, and still can't decide if you like them, then I'm guessing you don't? For me I prefer the focusing of the RF vs. the SLR. I find it far easier to focus with an RF, especially if the situation is dark, or the subject is moving.

Most of all, I like shooting the RF more. When given a choice, and all things are equal, I choose the RF because photography is my hobby and it brings me more pleasure. I don't make money on my photos, and if I did, the analog RF would be hard to justify on any job.
 
^ Yes, it's not really the size, it's something else about rangefinders: I'll let you know when I figure out what that is for me. :)
 
Snowbuzz said:
^ Yes, it's not really the size, it's something else about rangefinders: I'll let you know when I figure out what that is for me. :)
Click to expand...

I think people marvel at the size when compared to a Nikon D4 and 70-200/2.8 lens. But really, RFs aren't that small for the most part unless you're talking about the classic fixed-lens models (QL17 G-III, 35RC, etc).
 
I had a IIf for a while. TINY. My Contax IIIa is ver small, as well. Leica M cameras are larger. But I think I shoot differently and get different results with RFs compared to SLRs. I think it's two different ways of thinking about the final picture. My Rollei TLR is yet another way.
 
The thing about rangefinders is that they're generally lighter and smaller than DSLR's. This is great if you're the sort of photographer for whom a camera is a constant companion whether as a hobby or professionally.

Rangefinder's don't have mirror's. So there's less vibration in the hand which allows for the use of slower shutter speeds. Great if you take photos in dim light often.

Also because of the lack of a mirror they're generally quieter. So they're great if you're often photographing people and trying to be subtle.

Rangefinders use framelines for composition. So as you're framing up your shot you can see what's going to be in the shot and what isn't. It's especially great when photographing something dynamic like people, you can anticipate just when your subject is going to walk into your frame.

A rangefinder patch is often easier to see, align and therefore focus in dim light.

The viewfinder is exactly how you see it. If you're going to account for depth of field you have visualize what's going to be subtracted as opposed to a DSLR where you have to figure out what's going to be added.
 
I got my first rangefinder because it was about the same price, actually I think it was a little cheaper that the Mamiya C330 F I had on layaway. And it had a bigger negative. As I began to use it, it was just a different way to use a camera, paid for by the bigger negatives. I have never been sorry to have that camera, especially as I began to get more lenses and backs, as well as cut film holders and the extension tubes. My first RF was a Super Press 23.

I have acquired quite some few RFs since then. I don't favor them over SLR unless there is something really unique, such as the XA with its small size, or the Canon QL 17 III which is bigger, but for some reason, easier for me to use. I like my Kiev for the interchangable lenses.

Other than that, I still prefer the two SLR systems I use.

If there isn't something particular you dislike about the two you have that another will change, I wouldn't be too quick to get another.
 
boomguy57 said:
Personally, I think the smaller size thing can be a misnomer. I was holding up my M6TTL and my Pentax ME Super side-by-side and realized that with lenses mounted, they are essentially the same size. The ME Super is shorter (even with the prism hump) and they are negligible in terms of width and thickness. I was surprised myself. With the Pentax 50/1.4 and the Nokon 50/1.5 mounted, the lenses were essentially the same length, too. Sure, some rangefinders are smaller (the Oly 35RC, for example), but the Leica M is on the large size of RFs.

If you own two, and still can't decide if you like them, then I'm guessing you don't? For me I prefer the focusing of the RF vs. the SLR. I find it far easier to focus with an RF, especially if the situation is dark, or the subject is moving.

Most of all, I like shooting the RF more. When given a choice, and all things are equal, I choose the RF because photography is my hobby and it brings me more pleasure. I don't make money on my photos, and if I did, the analog RF would be hard to justify on any job.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, RF cameras are smaller than DSLRs. But there are exceptions, of course. My DR 'Cron is significantly smaller than my 50L, but there's also the smaller Canon 50 f/1.8, too. But, a full frame DSLR body is going to be larger than any 35mm camera. However, if you wanna talk "Texas Leica..."

So there are always exceptions, but I still think RFs are generally smaller than DSLRs.
 
Rangefinder's don't have mirror's. So there's less vibration in the hand which allows for the use of slower shutter speeds. Great if you take photos in dim light often.

Also because of the lack of a mirror they're generally quieter. So they're great if you're often photographing people and trying to be subtle.
Click to expand...

I'm really not trying to be controversial when I point out that these two features, once the great strength of the rangefinder (and particularly the Leica M models) have now been matched by the M43 digitals. I sold my M outfit after trying out a Panasonic G2 for a year. Pretty well silent, extremely good viewfinder, small and inconspicuous. I can only imagine that the Olympus M5 is even better in those departments.

I expect that the M series digitals are even better but I just don't feel like spending the money to find out.

Still, if someone produces a digital Kiev 4A that takes the FSU lenses, I'll be up near the front of the queue to buy one! :D
 
For me the piont is that I see what framing. Finders with multiple frame lines give you the possibility the see things moving in or out of your pic - no SLr can give you this.
I don´t care for size and weight but this point make me use my Retina IIIs insted of the Bessamatic.

PS:
Sejanus.Aelianus - I finished my Kiev/Contax/Nikon to Sony NEX adapter yesterday. Here is the how to do - I did it the same way - http://picturechemistry.own-blog.co...d-nikon-s-auf-sony-nexmftcanon-eos-m-adapter/


Sony NEX-5 + Kiev Jupiter 8 2,0 53mm von Michael Relguag auf Flickr
 
some guys love rf´s and others find slrs to be more easy to use...if you don´t know why you use an rf perhaps there´s an external reason that makes you to use rf´s...i think you should use at the same time your rf and your slr then make your own decision about using one or the other...

In my case i never liked slrs, i can´t focus them properly i get dizzy with that prism not to mention AF slrs, they focus whereever they want...
The RF patch is ideal for me, easy, precise and fast way to focus.
Also minimun amount of cotrols, knobs and no face detection...great!

Not the least that prism hump on top of slrs are simply horrid...

;)
 
If it wasn't for this site I'd be happy as a lark with my SLR and TLR stuff. But, it appears
I suffer from GAS. Peter
 
it's the lack of a mirror , and the size and quality of the lenses that do it for me , but I also like slr 's , digital and analog .
 
My real first camera was RF. Most likely this is why any SLR is ugly box for me.
Plus, SLR means annoying dust in VF and light leaks in old cameras, again, to me.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
My real first camera was RF. Most likely this is why any SLR is ugly box for me.
Click to expand...

I started using a rangefinder in college and began my career with one. One of the most irritating things I hear is how Rangefinders force you to slow down. I can react and focus and shoot just as fast with a Leica as I do with an SLR. It comes down to experience. I think the whole "slowing down" is due to the unfamiliarity. If you don't know how to use something of course it's going to slow you down but rangefinders are not slow cameras.
 
I presume we're talking about film.

It depends. Personally, for normal lenses, rangefinders represent the best choice for accurate focussing. My crappest $20 fed (properly calibrated) will focus more far more accurately and with better confirmation than my fanciest 90's contax SLR with Zeiss 50 1.4.

For long lenses, zooms, wides, I prefer SLRs.

Also there are lots of cheap 70's leaf shutter fixed lens RFs for cheap, a lot of them are really great. I first started using RFs when I bought a Ricoh 500g. I really loved that camera.

I'm not sure what cameras you already own but either they're not representative of the "RF experience" (i.e. broken) or you just don't like rangefinders.

Personally though? Right now I like autofocus point and shoots, hahaha!
 
A picture is a picture, but a camera is not another camera.


ZF against ZM_2 by mfogiel, on Flickr

In a rangefinder, you look at the world, and you put a frame around what you see, in a SLR, you look into a black tunnel and you try to see the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom