Why a rangefinder?

[swoop]

A picture is a picture, but a camera is not another camera.
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.

That's damn poetic sir.

 

[noisycheese]

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.

If anything, rangefinders are quicker than DSLRs - and film SLRs too, for that matter.

If you use hyperfocal and/or zone focusing techniques, you have no "focus slowness" for lack of a better term. Then there's the issue of autofocus - with a manual focus rangefinder, there is no delay while the camera hunts for proper focus. Then there is the issue of shutter lag. This is not so much of an issue with film cameras, but it is an issue with DSLRs.

I did some spec comparing on shutter delay times of DSLRs vs. Leica M film rangefinders. It has been awhile since I did this so I do not recall which models of cameras I researched, but I do recall this: The shutter delay time of the Leica M cameras was 1/8 that of the DSLRs I researched.

With a manual focus rangefinder and zone focus, the limiting factor is not autofocus time or shutter lag; it is how quickly you can move the tip of your right index finger.

The shutter lag times in milliseconds for a few well known cameras are as follows -

Sony NEX-5: 115ms
Sony Alpha DSLR A850: 74ms
Nikon D300s: 53ms
Canon EOS-1D mk. IV: 49ms
Canon EOS-1D mk. II: 40ms
Nikon F6: 37ms
Leica M3: 16ms
Leica M7: 12ms
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_lag#Examples_of_various_shutter_lag_times )

Quicker is better in street photography. "Nerding out" by comparing shutter lag times that are measured in milliseconds may seem silly or pointless to some.

BUT - when you add shutter lag + autofocus hunting time + photographer reaction time, it can all add up to the difference between getting the shot or missing the shot.

Why a rangefinder?

In addition to the above, rangefinders are
Smaller and lighter than DSLRs
The lenses are smaller and lighter
The lenses have faster maximum apertures than all but the costly, heavy professional DSLR lenses
The shutters of rangefinders are much more quiet than those of DSLRs and film SLRs
There is no whine of the film advance/rewind motor as there is with a film SLR
There is no unholy THWACK/WHEEZE racket when you actuate the shutter as is produced by Hasselblad V system film bodies
The lenses are far more sturdy and reliable than autofocus zoom lenses
The lenses are miles ahead of DSLR lenses in terms of image quality (Leica M and Zeiss glass, at least)

EDIT

...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.

Very true - a rangefinder gives the photographer a totally different way of seeing
their subject - and the world - compared to a SLR. You have a set of framelines and a non-framed zone outside of the photograph so you can see when a subject is about to enter your frame. This gives you a huge advantage in terms of anticipation of subject movement outside the frame compared to a SLR.

 

[DCB]

I was looking at maybe getting a Zorki-6 with Jupiter-8 Lens from a reputable seller.

Thanks for all the input.

Peace

 

[dct]

[...]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.

Well said... Better than I could. It is very simple for my feel: I'm used, from my photographic beginnings decades ago, to viewfinder cameras. Later also RFs.
I never got accustomed to waist level or prism finders even if I used those a lot. For my most applied focal lenghts (from wide to ~90mm) and photographic objects I want to see as directly as possible to the scene I'm shooting. It is that simple!

This is true for AF and MF lenses.

Of course, exceptions on the macro or tele side break the rule.

 

[Pioneer]

I don't think it matters to me. I can become completely oblivious to everything else around me and become lost in a zone while shooting my Pentax 645Nii and my Contaflex, both slr cameras. But I can quickly enter that exact same zone with my Zeiss Ikon or my Leica II. Different types of pictures; different types of cameras, but the same feeling.

If I am comfortable with the tool, and with those cameras it seems that I am, the tool recedes and I am thinking about the light I see in the viewfinder.

I doubt everyone feels the same way but, for me, If I am still thinking about the tool, I am almost certainly missing the light.

Interestingly, I have never had that same feeling with any digital, though I have been close with the M9. I think that if I could reach the point where I am not thinking about chimping the picture I may be able to get there. That one little thing seems to distract me.

 

[jsrockit]

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

This above and the small lenses with short focus throws.

 

[thegman]

I don't use an RF at the moment, but I still think they have the best focusing method of any type of camera. It's so 'binary', focused, or not. I find SLR split awkward, I don't mind the microprism thing on my Rolleiflex, and I don't trust my eyes enough for plain ground glass. Autofocus is fine, but there are so few nice cameras with autofocus. Range finder just plain works.

A range finder on my Rolleiflex (built in, not that unwieldy add on contraption), would be perfection.

 

[cosmonaut]

I agree that size is not really an advantage. I mean an Olympus OM is pretty small. I don't shoot much film anymore but I think, quitter shutter, no mirror so lower shooting speeds in low light would be two reasons. Also basic operation and simpler operation and slower approach. Used by shooters that don't do a lot of sports and wildlife. Just something simple and easy when it's needed. I think the same reasons a mirrorless user uses to justify buying one to go along with their big D800s and 5Ds.

 

[Scrambler]

The nominated advantages of small size, compact lenses and quiet shutter are all bettered by digital compact system cameras. Noise can be almost silent with a leaf shutter cam like the x100.

The short flange advantage with wides is also bettered with newer dedicated live-view designs.

I like my film rangefinders. But I don't think they have any intrinsic advantage over modern cameras.

Even the vaunted frameline viewfinders are not on all RFs. And the alleged advantages can't be a factor for most buyers as a 120% SLR viewfinder is quite possible.

 

[hendriphile]

Horses for courses.

Out on a motorboat, constantly changing orientation to the sun, under a brilliant sky dappled with numerous cumulus clouds, family in shade under the boat's canopy necessitating rapid and perfect computation of fill-in flash... the auto-everything P&S is perfect for that. My RF with a flash synch of 1/50th wouldn't have a prayer of a chance.

OTOH if it's a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Monument Valley, there's no way my medium-format SLR is staying home for that.

But for informal get-togethers with friends, or catch-as-catch-can street photography, the lack of camera turn-on lag and shutter lag means my RF will get the shot that the digital P&S and SLR would probably miss.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

I've extensively used all Leicas from M6 to M9 the last ten years, and still use a M6, but I can't honestly find any sensible reason to do so, other than my passion for the object itself.

Some say a one-body-one-lens RF setup is small and compact, I don't know which scale or ruler they use, but my M6 + 'cron 50 is heavier and just as compact (or cumbersome) as my FM2 + 50/1.8, and both setups are much bigger and 3 times heavier than my GR1v.

The latter, as any other high-end P&S, is also much faster to use under all circumstances relevant to me, offering in addition a HUGE advantage over RFs: the significantly smaller minimum focusing distance, which lets me isolate a subject enough to never miss a summicron.

I have thought of selling all my Leica stuff and with that money for instance travel or publish, but at some point I'd miss the object (not the shots it used to afford me). But I'm working on this, as I don't think the attachment to that object makes me a better photographer (or person).

 

[Roger Hicks]

Viewfinder + positive, easy, reliable focusing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Wulfthari]

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.

Insccurate comparison you should use a Pentax MX which is smaller than a Leica!😀

 

[DCB]

My OM1 will be smaller than the Leica as well.

Peace

 

[John E Earley]

Canon P vs Pentax MX http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/MX_with_CanonP_02_k.jpg

 

[chikne]

I've extensively used all Leicas from M6 to M9 the last ten years, and still use a M6, but I can't honestly find any sensible reason to do so, other than my passion for the object itself.

Some say a one-body-one-lens RF setup is small and compact, I don't know which scale or ruler they use, but my M6 + 'cron 50 is heavier and just as compact (or cumbersome) as my FM2 + 50/1.8, and both setups are much bigger and 3 times heavier than my GR1v.

The latter, as any other high-end P&S, is also much faster to use under all circumstances relevant to me, offering in addition a HUGE advantage over RFs: the significantly smaller minimum focusing distance, which lets me isolate a subject enough to never miss a summicron.

I have thought of selling all my Leica stuff and with that money for instance travel or publish, but at some point I'd miss the object (not the shots it used to afford me). But I'm working on this, as I don't think the attachment to that object makes me a better photographer (or person).

This guy talks sense, and has the portfolio to back up what he says.

In other words, rangefinders, especially Leicas, are a drag.

 

[Mcary]

MMMM lets see here.....because I feel like it....Yup pretty sure that's the reason why 🙂

 

[Michael Markey]

I've extensively used all Leicas from M6 to M9 the last ten years, and still use a M6, but I can't honestly find any sensible reason to do so, other than my passion for the object itself.

Some say a one-body-one-lens RF setup is small and compact, I don't know which scale or ruler they use, but my M6 + 'cron 50 is heavier and just as compact (or cumbersome) as my FM2 + 50/1.8, and both setups are much bigger and 3 times heavier than my GR1v.

The latter, as any other high-end P&S, is also much faster to use under all circumstances relevant to me, offering in addition a HUGE advantage over RFs: the significantly smaller minimum focusing distance, which lets me isolate a subject enough to never miss a summicron.

I have thought of selling all my Leica stuff and with that money for instance travel or publish, but at some point I'd miss the object (not the shots it used to afford me). But I'm working on this, as I don't think the attachment to that object makes me a better photographer (or person).

My feelings too ....my GR V is , smaller, lighter and quieter.

I still use my RFs though although no where near as much as I once did.

 

[Richard G]

Maybe Mcary provides the key. But I would still make noisycheese's contribution a sticky, and Pioneer's for balance, and put mfogiel's summation on the RFF banner. And Andrea Taurisano's has to be in there too. This has been a great thread.

For a hike in the hills with three or four lenses and a spare body I would still take my Leicas and some Velvia for size and weight. Mfogiel's elegant comparison shot was more for the size of the lens than the camera I thought. I don't think I would have got half the great shots of my kids when they were small if I hadn't been using the M2 and M6 with the incredibly short shutter lag and the constant view viewfinder to see whether they blinked or not. Pioneer's comfort with equipment argument probably accounts for many of us sticking with rangefinders for digital too, plus maintaining currency of all our lenses. I love the X100, but the option for absolute focus and choice with manual focus, and the ease and familiarity of scale focus by feel with tabbed lenses are advantages I would not let go.

 

[literiter]

I don't think in terms of menus very well, I'm afraid. When I want to be a little creative with a camera that stuff just confuses the hell out of me.

I like simple cameras. The Leica M2 or M4-P are about as simple as I like. Focus, aperture, shutter.