smk
Established
Because I can see what happens when the shutter opens.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I don't know that I would agree as there are definitely SLRs out there with "bigger viewfinders" than most rangefinders. In fact since the Kine Exakta came out it was rangefinders that were playing catch up with SLRs for viewfinder size. Looking into the viewfinder of a Leica IIIx or just about any other RF of the era is very much like looking down a tunnel at a tiny image to try and compose. Even once designers began to make larger viewfinders most of them were dim or tinted funny colors... there's only a handful of rangefinders in the entire history of the camera that have truly great viewfinders.
My personal like for rangefinders has to do with them being quiet and small, I mostly favor leaf shutter designs for these reasons. Also a lever focus has distinct ergonomic advantages over turning a lens barrel through 180 degrees or more.
Thomas78
Well-known
There are many reasons:
- A rangefinder can be more compact and lighter than a SLR. - I like the screw mount Leicas very much for their small bodies.
- Smaller and lighter cameras in medium format: e.g. Mamiya 7 <--> Pentax 67
- Rangefindes lenses are smaller that most SLR lenses. - They do not need automatic apertures and you can use lenses with moderate max. aperture as you do not need a fast lens for precise focussing.
- More flexible lens desinges:
- You could use the Sonnar lenses at 50 mm.
- No need for retro focus wide angle lenses.
- Good rangefindes are easier to focus at low light.
- No mirror slap. / More quiet than an SLR - Spechially when using focal plane shutters.
- A rangefinder can be more compact and lighter than a SLR. - I like the screw mount Leicas very much for their small bodies.
- Smaller and lighter cameras in medium format: e.g. Mamiya 7 <--> Pentax 67
- Rangefindes lenses are smaller that most SLR lenses. - They do not need automatic apertures and you can use lenses with moderate max. aperture as you do not need a fast lens for precise focussing.
- More flexible lens desinges:
- You could use the Sonnar lenses at 50 mm.
- No need for retro focus wide angle lenses.
- Good rangefindes are easier to focus at low light.
- No mirror slap. / More quiet than an SLR - Spechially when using focal plane shutters.
rwintle
Scientist by day
I wanted to get back into 35mm film photography and a rangefinder was what I was after, mainly because my eyes are fairly crap for manual focusing but with a rangefinder, no problem. And the small form factor appealed. Also, I really like older cameras from the 60's and 70's... and there are plenty of RF options of that vintage available. Also, many of them have fast lenses which is of course no longer the norm when buying modern DSLR kits.
I have DSLRs, and now a couple of film SLRs, as well as a scale focus camera or two (one being an RF with *ahem* a busted RF), and a medium format TLR. But I love my little rangefinders.
I have DSLRs, and now a couple of film SLRs, as well as a scale focus camera or two (one being an RF with *ahem* a busted RF), and a medium format TLR. But I love my little rangefinders.
marcr1230
Well-known
I think the exercise should be started with "what do you want in a picture taking instrument" ?
size ? quality of image, choice of lenses, simplicity/complexity of operation. quality of results ? aesthetic look/feel of the camera, ergonomics, optics/focusing ?
when you examine these areas and define what is important to you , then pick a tool
we shouldn't lock onto rangefinders any more than Kodak locked on film - Kodak was in the imaging business, but couldn't successfully navigate away from film. We are in the image making business (and gear fetish). don't let the tool dictate the result, let the requirements, and vision dictate the tool
size ? quality of image, choice of lenses, simplicity/complexity of operation. quality of results ? aesthetic look/feel of the camera, ergonomics, optics/focusing ?
when you examine these areas and define what is important to you , then pick a tool
we shouldn't lock onto rangefinders any more than Kodak locked on film - Kodak was in the imaging business, but couldn't successfully navigate away from film. We are in the image making business (and gear fetish). don't let the tool dictate the result, let the requirements, and vision dictate the tool
furbs
Well-known
I like how I can see everything in focus in a rangefinder's viewfinder. Focusing with a rangefinder's split image is quicker, simpler, and easier for me. I love 35 f/1.4 lenses, and the size of a Summilux and film M together makes for a very appealing package. The quiet shutter and lack of loud, flipping reflex mirror is also a definite plus.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
This.
I find the rf is subject focused and the slr image focused. For me it's not all about the image and so the rf gets in the way less. That's just me, and I seem to shoot mostly 50mm focal length.
outbr3akxal
Established
Just to add on what the rest has covered, I feel both rf and slr merits a place in a photographer's bag.
It all boils down to what they intend to shoot and which on them make them feel whole.
I shoot with both rf and slr and also my digital omd. And in all I find pleasure in whenever I use them.
But yeah rf are a joy to use. The feel of the body. The lenses are great. And when I press the shuttter..... magical. 😊
It all boils down to what they intend to shoot and which on them make them feel whole.
I shoot with both rf and slr and also my digital omd. And in all I find pleasure in whenever I use them.
But yeah rf are a joy to use. The feel of the body. The lenses are great. And when I press the shuttter..... magical. 😊
woollybandit
Newbie
Dear Agony Aunt,
I feel a little blasphemy coming on.
I own an M9-P and an M7. I have owned a Voigtlander R2m, Zeiss Ikon ZM, M4, M4-P & M8 before these so am not new to RFs. I also own a D300, D700, V1, P67II and a Fuji GW690. Because the local shop is so appalling at developing/scanning I have all but given up on film as I don't have time to do wet work myself and digital allows me to control the whole process up to printing.
I usually use the Nikons for studio, product and sports/nature but carry the M9-P most of the time for it's size and a kind of perverted pleasure of using it. My dSLR images are way better than the RF ones and I'm beginning to wonder if the Leica was only worth $300 I would use it less and the sheer cost of the M is what makes me carry it.
I could be a Leica fanboy with the best of them but am trying to be honest with myself. At times I almost resent the digital M for being the only (expensive) show in town.
Am I alone in this thought?
I feel a little blasphemy coming on.
I own an M9-P and an M7. I have owned a Voigtlander R2m, Zeiss Ikon ZM, M4, M4-P & M8 before these so am not new to RFs. I also own a D300, D700, V1, P67II and a Fuji GW690. Because the local shop is so appalling at developing/scanning I have all but given up on film as I don't have time to do wet work myself and digital allows me to control the whole process up to printing.
I usually use the Nikons for studio, product and sports/nature but carry the M9-P most of the time for it's size and a kind of perverted pleasure of using it. My dSLR images are way better than the RF ones and I'm beginning to wonder if the Leica was only worth $300 I would use it less and the sheer cost of the M is what makes me carry it.
I could be a Leica fanboy with the best of them but am trying to be honest with myself. At times I almost resent the digital M for being the only (expensive) show in town.
Am I alone in this thought?
thegman
Veteran
For film, just find a different lab and use mail order.
For the standard of image, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'better', better content, colour, resolution?
woollybandit
Newbie
Better content? I don't think the camera really matters, so long as it's not a plate camera
Better composition? Focusing manually and framing can be done simultaneously with an slr without having to re-frame after using the patch. The patch could be bigger I think. I actually like SLR focusing and seeing the final image without parallax errors. As for seeing events outside of the frame lines ... I can do that with my other eye regardless of which camera.
Colour is what ever you want it to be if you shoot NEF/DNG, but this isn't really an issue in the thread topic which is 'Why a Rangefinder'.
Better composition? Focusing manually and framing can be done simultaneously with an slr without having to re-frame after using the patch. The patch could be bigger I think. I actually like SLR focusing and seeing the final image without parallax errors. As for seeing events outside of the frame lines ... I can do that with my other eye regardless of which camera.
Colour is what ever you want it to be if you shoot NEF/DNG, but this isn't really an issue in the thread topic which is 'Why a Rangefinder'.
Ansel
Well-known
It doesn't matter what camera you use, it's what you do with it that counts.
Just use the one that you find comfortable/enjoy using. That is why I use a RF, but I am under no illusion that it is any better/worse than any other 35 mm camera. Also I am a bit of a sucker for nicely engineered equipment, and Leica cameras and lenses really are top notch.
At the end of the day its a personal choice and we are all different. If you want to buy another RF then go ahead.
Just use the one that you find comfortable/enjoy using. That is why I use a RF, but I am under no illusion that it is any better/worse than any other 35 mm camera. Also I am a bit of a sucker for nicely engineered equipment, and Leica cameras and lenses really are top notch.
At the end of the day its a personal choice and we are all different. If you want to buy another RF then go ahead.
woollybandit
Newbie
I'd be interested in seeing one I haven't already tried.
My original question was .. Would I still use the Leica if it wasn't so expensive? My point being that the cost compels it's use ... not because it is better. The fact that it's the only digital RF around essentially makes it better. :bang:
Ansel
Well-known
I'd be interested in seeing one I haven't already tried.
My original question was .. Would I still use the Leica if it wasn't so expensive? My point being that the cost compels it's use ... not because it is better. The fact that it's the only digital RF around essentially makes it better. :bang:
I was replying to the OP.
But in response to you question: use whatever you want. Do as your heart desires. Nobody can live your life for you! Life is too short.
Lss
Well-known
It's not a gym membership. You can actually get rid of it.
Linkert
Established
Konica TC-X (SLR):
I have no idea why I love my Zorki-4 (RF) as much as I do. It's not a brilliant camera like I feel my TC-X is. It doesn't compare at all. And I use it more like a viewfinder/scale focus camera, at least when I'm using the Jupiter-12 on it. Maybe that's the beauty of it. Set focus, aperture and speed, walk around waiting for pray to enter my focus zone. It relies on me doing a good job, more than my TC-X which is so spot on it makes me feel stupid when screwing up a frame. Like screwing up 2+2 with a calculator in front of you
Super clear VF & focus-spot.
TTL-metering with needle inside VF.
Beastly and firm shutter sound, gives great satisfaction.
Superb shutter release button.
Mirror blackout don't bother me at all, have no problem following the action.
Nice single stroke film advance lever.
More compact body size than my Zorki-4.
TTL-metering with needle inside VF.
Beastly and firm shutter sound, gives great satisfaction.
Superb shutter release button.
Mirror blackout don't bother me at all, have no problem following the action.
Nice single stroke film advance lever.
More compact body size than my Zorki-4.
I have no idea why I love my Zorki-4 (RF) as much as I do. It's not a brilliant camera like I feel my TC-X is. It doesn't compare at all. And I use it more like a viewfinder/scale focus camera, at least when I'm using the Jupiter-12 on it. Maybe that's the beauty of it. Set focus, aperture and speed, walk around waiting for pray to enter my focus zone. It relies on me doing a good job, more than my TC-X which is so spot on it makes me feel stupid when screwing up a frame. Like screwing up 2+2 with a calculator in front of you
kuzano
Veteran
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I've been following this thread with a lot of interest, having sold on my Leicas ( at a nice profit
).I've now come to the conclusion that mfogiel has put his finger on what attracted me to rangefinders: the bright line finder. I've also realised that I don't like the rangefinder as such. Speaking only for myself, I can focus a SLR just as quickly as I can focus a rangefinder and for anything up to 50mm, I can scale focus just as well.
As I don't like rangefinders for longer lenses, anyway, there's no real point in my owning a Leica or other interchangeable lens RF. So I now use a Bessa L with external finders for 35mm film.
We all need to work out what's good for us as individuals.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I too have followed this thread with some interest, having ditched all my DSLR gear in the past year and returned to Leica, both digital and film. I'm not afraid of large cameras. In the past couple of weeks, I'm also in the process of re-acquiring my Hasselblad outfit, a newer setup this time with a 503 CXi and a late-model 500CM.
At the end of the day in this discussion, a coincident-rangefinder/bright frame viewfinder camera either fits your style of shooting or it doesn't. SLRs allow for a different style of shooting. A rangefinder camera uses primes, and large aperture primes can be much smaller and lighter than those typically found on SLR cameras. Smaller aperture lenses are much, much smaller and lighter.
Electronics allow for the photographer not to have to work as hard mentally at planning and executing the shot, particularly in nasty lighting. Some argue that's a good thing. What it boils down to for many is convenience versus control. If you can look at a scene, evaluate the light, know when you need a ND filter and know how to use one, then you probably don't need automation. If you don't have clue how much DOF you get at a specific aperture with a specific lens, and you can't visualize it on the fly, then automation will probably do a better job that you would do manually.
Small physical size, large aperture primes also lend themselves to a different working style which then causes rangefinder camera users to adopt a different working style of shooting. Rangefinder camera users tend to move more for framing and perspective than SLR shooters with zooms. And, of course, there are some things that are just done more conveniently with an SLR; long lenses and macro work. Although the Leica M series are just as competent at both; they're just not as convenient to use. And for those who think they're not competent to do those kinds of things, here a shot I did with my M9, Viso III and 65mm Viso-Elmar this week:
L1008511 by chief1120, on Flickr
But the real benefit is the viewing system. If you like a coincident rangefinder in a bright line finder and it works for you, then that kind of camera is a good choice. If you don't then an SLR or EVF is probably the better choice for you. There's no magic here, there's just different ways of seeing the world through a camera. The bottom line is that you should use what you're most comfortable with because if you don't have to fight with the camera, you'll be able to make the images you want to make.
At the end of the day in this discussion, a coincident-rangefinder/bright frame viewfinder camera either fits your style of shooting or it doesn't. SLRs allow for a different style of shooting. A rangefinder camera uses primes, and large aperture primes can be much smaller and lighter than those typically found on SLR cameras. Smaller aperture lenses are much, much smaller and lighter.
Electronics allow for the photographer not to have to work as hard mentally at planning and executing the shot, particularly in nasty lighting. Some argue that's a good thing. What it boils down to for many is convenience versus control. If you can look at a scene, evaluate the light, know when you need a ND filter and know how to use one, then you probably don't need automation. If you don't have clue how much DOF you get at a specific aperture with a specific lens, and you can't visualize it on the fly, then automation will probably do a better job that you would do manually.
Small physical size, large aperture primes also lend themselves to a different working style which then causes rangefinder camera users to adopt a different working style of shooting. Rangefinder camera users tend to move more for framing and perspective than SLR shooters with zooms. And, of course, there are some things that are just done more conveniently with an SLR; long lenses and macro work. Although the Leica M series are just as competent at both; they're just not as convenient to use. And for those who think they're not competent to do those kinds of things, here a shot I did with my M9, Viso III and 65mm Viso-Elmar this week:
L1008511 by chief1120, on Flickr
But the real benefit is the viewing system. If you like a coincident rangefinder in a bright line finder and it works for you, then that kind of camera is a good choice. If you don't then an SLR or EVF is probably the better choice for you. There's no magic here, there's just different ways of seeing the world through a camera. The bottom line is that you should use what you're most comfortable with because if you don't have to fight with the camera, you'll be able to make the images you want to make.
Michael Markey
Veteran
The small size attracted me to RF`s .
I can still focus an slr just as quickly so the rangefinder aspect isn`t a significant factor for me.
I can still focus an slr just as quickly so the rangefinder aspect isn`t a significant factor for me.