Why rangefinder and not SLR?

[literiter]

I like my Leica because the Babes think it's cool. At least the Babe at my house thinks it's cool.

I asked her, if she thought I looked cooler with the Leica more than the Nikon and she said it was the Leica for sure, but the Nikon with the 300mm telephoto was really hot.

I'm in my 60s so I don't know what she's talking about.

(Why does this stuff get so darned serious??)

 

[BillP]

Posit a visitor who is dubious about the 'difference' between an SLR and a rangefinder with regard to one being superior for a particular use.

I would attempt to convince said visitor with objective, logical, provable points.

That's fine, Bill, provided your hypothetical visitor was from the planet Vulcan. The "man on top of the Clapham omnibus", would, I venture to suggest, glaze over and start wondering what was for tea before you got to your third "proof".

People are not machines.

Regards,

Bill

 

[bmattock]

People are not machines.

On the contrary. Some are just badly programmed.

 

[charjohncarter]

Two weeks ago I went to the Track Meet with my SLR and a 200mm lens, last week I wentto the Track Meet with my Leica IIIf and a 135mm Hektor. It sure was easier to shoot with the runners and jumpers continually in my view. And the images were better, I think because of the continual view.

 

[BillP]

On the contrary. Some are just badly programmed.

...and they are the ones that will tend not to be engaged, informed or swayed by a purely logical argument. Like it or not, they are in the majority, and one must cut one's cloth accordingly.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Thardy]

I can carry my RF all day without my neck hurting (compared to my dslr), take photos in very low light with the f/1.4 lens, and the thing is not so conspicuous.

 

[Leighgion]

There would be nothing stopping an SLR aficionado from likewise pronouncing that he takes more human photos with an SLR. I'm sure such a person can be found.

You need look no further. I am he.

To me, a rangefinder forces me to be much more clinical than an SLR. If I'm not, my pictures will be out of focus and improperly framed. Why? Consider the following:

I. Focus

An SLR's entire view changes as you focus. While extra focal aids are in the center, you can look at any part of the image to help you focus and if you're out of focus, you know it because the view is blurry.

A rangefinder's focus is all in a patch at the center and the overall view is crisp all the the time. The split image works best with objects with clear edges that aren't necessarily available. I have not only ended up with shots completely blurry because I forgot to focus at all since everything looked crisp, there are shots I've just had to give up on because there was nothing I could use to get a clear split image off of.

II. Framing

An SLR gives a through-the-lens view that's generally 90-100% of the actual image area. Most aren't 100%, but the loss around the edges is small and more importantly, absolutely consistent from shot to shot.

A rangefinder has framelines that not only can go invisible in the wrong light, they move in your viewfinder as you focus. Oh and the beautiful thing? The movement is a feature because of the need for parallax correction. Yet another thing I must pay careful mind to that's bleeding attention away from like... composing my shots.

No, I don't secretly hate rangefinders and the problems above can fairly be largely ascribed to the fact I'm more experienced with SLRs than RFs, but even as experience makes these issues less of a problem, they don't become any less true.

SLRs are generally a much smoother experience for me than RFs. However, I do not extrapolate from that that because I've taken much more dramatic and beautiful pictures with my SLRs, that SLRs are inherently more dramatic and beautiful. That's just as ridiculous as claiming that rangefinders are more human.

Different tools shape how the wielders use them, but that shaping is not consistent between different wielders.

 

[Zenjitsuman]

An Dslr with live view feature is a lot like a rangefinder, you are able to see the scene without all the RF issues or the limitations of the Slr viewfinder.

For most situations the noise of an slr is not that significant especially if you can use a 135mm lens and stand further away from your subject.

Image stabilization gives rough parity on handheld shooting almost the same as a rangefinder.

 

[Quercus]

I like using both RF and slr and even tlr - but more importantly is what the camera itself actually feels like to use. My favourite 35mm camera of all time is the rollei 3003 because it works for me that is followed by the pentax ME super or MX in slr have had both canon ae-1 and nikon f2 and hated both of them the of course there is the diminutive olympus RC or any Rollei 35 especially the SE as for interchangeable RFs both the contax IIIa and Ikon ZI just feel right in my hand. The mamiya 330 feels more natural oddly than any rolleiflex and almost any 120 mamiya slr just works the way I want it to ....but if really asked to settle on one camera for life it would have to bean MPP Mark VII with an angulon takes probably the slowest pictures every but it feels nice when I do.

Just find the camera that works for you

 

[mcgrattan]

I like and use both. Some of the issues mentioned aren't a huge deal for me.

handholding -- I have pretty steady hands. I can handhold my stabilized dSLR for at least as long as I can handhold my rangefinder cameras without shake. I can handhold my old film SLRs for within half a stop of the same sort of speeds I can handhold my rangefinder.

I don't really think that using a rangefinder versus using an SLR really changes my modus operandi. The 'tunnel' view of the SLR is sometimes a little isolating, but I suspect I generally take the same sort of pictures with both. Perhaps with an SLR I think a bit more in terms of depth of field and will often use it compositionally more than with a rangefinder.

For me the big change isn't between SLR and rangefinder but between medium format with a waistlevel finder and 35mm cameras that I hold to my face. I find myself thinking and composing completely differently with a waist level finder.

The relatively smaller size and quieter shutter does make a difference but my Pentax P5/P50 isn't really that much larger than a rangefinder. I think there's not a massive difference between a biggish rangefinder and a small manual-wind SLR with a single 50mm lens. An OM body or the smaller Pentax bodies are pretty compact.

The shutter blackout is a biggish deal for 'street' type work, so if I was shooting a lot of street stuff or candid portaits I'd definitely prefer the rangefinder [or a TLR which I also like for 'street'].

My choice to use rangefinder cameras comes down to liking the smallish size of them, the relative lack of noise, the continual view through the finder and the look that certain lenses give. However, these are all a matter of degree, and I can get pretty close on all of those things with an SLR.

 

[PetarDima]

nice thread, wise thoughts from everybody

These days, DSLR vs. RF camera topic have different conclusion:
I wrote DSLR, because they are more optimised for that kind of work -
which was critical in SLR era: as we can see, there are some new moments in this story:
- DSLR camera is smaller & smaller
- it has Shake Reduction
- it has live view
- some of them are very quiet( Canon 40D silent live view shooting )
Bottom line:
I hope that one day we'll see affordable RF digital body will full frame sensor

 

[agman]

Why FR and not SLR?

Why FR and not SLR?

Because I have a choice.

 

[Blake Werts]

Thanks Much

Thanks Much

Fantastic discussion! Just the type of information that I was looking for.

Apprecaited!
Blake

 

[gavinlg]

Dear Bill,

But equally, an adze finishes wood differently from a plane, and there's a difference between an egg fried in a wok or in a flat-bottomed frying pan.

The tool does work differently -- continuous viewing (and therefore more engagement with the subject, in the view of many), easier to hold still (most people find it so, anyway), no zooms, etc. -- and therefore it is hardly surprising that people take different pictures with different cameras.

In other words, the tool shapes the photographer's vision, just as the photographer's vision shapes the choice of tool.

Cheers,

R.

Bingo!


Bill,
I think you made reference to cars somewhere in this post - Let me put it this way: I used to drive a circuit a car. It was a small, light, rear wheel drive, front engined japanese car from the 80s which is now a cult car across the world. The motor was a high revving, peaky 1600cc 16v 4cyl, that sucked in from individual throttles, an aluminum trumpet on each throttle. As such the noise the motor made on acceleration was like a mechanical symphony of angriness. The interior was stripped out, with a roll cage, race seats etc. The car was very very fast around corners and able to displace many higher powered cars on the circuit.

I sold that last year and start of this year I bought a brand new Mazda 3 - a small front wheel drive economy car. It's much heavier, much less peaky, and a lot duller to drive, albeit more comfortable.

When I drove the circuit car, it was hard not to drive it quickly - every corner you want to go faster and faster and you rev it just to hear the noise it makes. In contrast, my current mazda sounds very subdued and dull in comparison, and is sloppy around corners. Granted it's very nice to just cruise around in, and makes getting to work less of a hassle - no smelling like petrol or climbing out of racing seats.


In conclusion to this long spiel, the cars characteristics change the way that I drive - same goes with cameras. When shooting with a rangefinder I feel like I am part of the actions, when as with the SLR I feel I am from the outside looking in, dissecting the action. My results reflect that. I feel my SLR shots have a better technical quality about them, and my rangefinder shots are better emotionally.

 

[bmattock]

When shooting with a rangefinder I feel like I am part of the actions, when as with the SLR I feel I am from the outside looking in, dissecting the action. My results reflect that. I feel my SLR shots have a better technical quality about them, and my rangefinder shots are better emotionally.

All of which are valid points why YOU prefer a rangefinder. It is still not valid to say that 'rangefinders' possess some quality that 'SLR' cameras do not and then refer to your feelings to describe them. They do not possess those qualities - you do.

 

[bmattock]

I take better photos when I wear my beret.

I prefer a fez, but I can be persuaded to wear a porkpie. A beret on me would look like a toadstool cap perched on an egg.

 

[Leighgion]

Music makes me invincible.

Music may not make you invincible.

 

[hugivza]

My goodness, what an exciting debate on "horses for courses"- quotes from Lord Denning, with shades of the late Charlton Heston at the NRA and philosphy thrown in for good measure. Given the high proportion of sunny days here and the declining ozone hole, I prefer an Akubra as it covers up my receeding locks or what remains thereof.

I like RF's for their relatively light weight, their compactness and quietness, and that they represent a sense of nostalgia - a 1950's Contax is not just an RF it is the height of mechanical precision and so has an aesthetic value to me which late model SLR's do not have. I like SLR's when parallax might be a problem, attaching big lenses, or doing macro work, or where TTL metering might be critical.

Pixtu I understand that Basque music has much in common with Celtic music (Milledoro et al); I am not sure where the invincibility stems from, but I would avoid tall buildings for a while just in case it's an Irish myth.

 

[gavinlg]

All of which are valid points why YOU prefer a rangefinder. It is still not valid to say that 'rangefinders' possess some quality that 'SLR' cameras do not and then refer to your feelings to describe them. They do not possess those qualities - you do.

You're right, but because this is a public forum, where opinions are expressed, and opinions are asked of, I expressed mine.

I love the toadstool on a perched egg thing! haha

 

[bmattock]

You're right, but because this is a public forum, where opinions are expressed, and opinions are asked of, I expressed mine.

I love the toadstool on a perched egg thing! haha

I have no objections to opinions. I have several, so if you run short, you can have one of mine.

I merely note:

I have a friend who has started "learning photography" that will be visiting soon and I know that I'm going to have to explain the choice of a rangefinder over an SLR. This fellow is quite technical so a "just because" isn't going to satisfy...

To me, 'feelings' about rangefinders fit into the 'just because' clause. If we had been asked to wax poetic on the artistic urge, I'd be in there with you, plus I'd include the fondle factor, often overlooked when selecting kit.