Bill Pierce
Well-known
We've all confessed on this forum to what our favorite non-rangefinder cameras are, and, in some cases, presented specific reasons for using them. But, in most cases, it's just been that we enjoy using them.
Here's the flip side to why other cameras. Why a rangefinder? In the old days, it was pretty obvious. Rangefinders couldn't focus long or macro lenses. And the conventional viewfinder built into the camera didn't do a very good job with these lenses either. But early SLR's like the Kine Exacta didn't have an instant return mirror or auto diaphragm. You might just as well put your long lenses or your macro lenses on a reflex housing like the Visoflex on a Leica as put them on an SLR. For sports photographers, Norm Goldberg motorized Leicas and built Visoflexes with pellicles (beam splitters) or micro switches that triggered the motor when the mirror was out of the way. It was that or motorized Hulchers that shot at frame rates that make even today's fastest DSLR's look pokey.
When cameras like the Pentax introduced the instant return mirror and the auto diaphragm (It stopped itself down; you cocked it open after you took the shot.) using wide and normal lenses on an SLR became a real possiblity. But the optical wedge (SLR rangefinder spot) and the microprism just didn't have the focusing accuracy needed by highspeed wide-angles and normals. A pretty standard rig was two RF bodies for your wide and normal, an SLR for your long lens (unless, of course, you were Gene Smith, who used to use up to six bodies).
Autofocus on SLR and DSLR bodies have leveled the playing field. There are certainly differences in autofocus performance even with different camera models from the same manufacturer, but the days when focusing accuracy with wides and normals used at their maximum apertures absolutely demanded a rangefinder have passed.
So, why do we use rangefinder cameras? I used to own 9 Leicas - 3 around my neck, 3 in the hotel room and 3 in the shop getting lubed and adjusted. That was pretty common. Today I use one (yes, there are more in the closet) with maybe a second lens in my pocket. It's almost always with me, but it's shooting personal pictures. (In the last survey, we saw a lot of members using DSLR's for "professional work" but doing projects and personal pictures with an RF.) I use an M8 because it's small and because it's image quality in a big print eats those other small cameras alive. It ought to; it cost 10 times as much - and that was without a lens.
I would like to know why you use rangefinders?
Bill
Here's the flip side to why other cameras. Why a rangefinder? In the old days, it was pretty obvious. Rangefinders couldn't focus long or macro lenses. And the conventional viewfinder built into the camera didn't do a very good job with these lenses either. But early SLR's like the Kine Exacta didn't have an instant return mirror or auto diaphragm. You might just as well put your long lenses or your macro lenses on a reflex housing like the Visoflex on a Leica as put them on an SLR. For sports photographers, Norm Goldberg motorized Leicas and built Visoflexes with pellicles (beam splitters) or micro switches that triggered the motor when the mirror was out of the way. It was that or motorized Hulchers that shot at frame rates that make even today's fastest DSLR's look pokey.
When cameras like the Pentax introduced the instant return mirror and the auto diaphragm (It stopped itself down; you cocked it open after you took the shot.) using wide and normal lenses on an SLR became a real possiblity. But the optical wedge (SLR rangefinder spot) and the microprism just didn't have the focusing accuracy needed by highspeed wide-angles and normals. A pretty standard rig was two RF bodies for your wide and normal, an SLR for your long lens (unless, of course, you were Gene Smith, who used to use up to six bodies).
Autofocus on SLR and DSLR bodies have leveled the playing field. There are certainly differences in autofocus performance even with different camera models from the same manufacturer, but the days when focusing accuracy with wides and normals used at their maximum apertures absolutely demanded a rangefinder have passed.
So, why do we use rangefinder cameras? I used to own 9 Leicas - 3 around my neck, 3 in the hotel room and 3 in the shop getting lubed and adjusted. That was pretty common. Today I use one (yes, there are more in the closet) with maybe a second lens in my pocket. It's almost always with me, but it's shooting personal pictures. (In the last survey, we saw a lot of members using DSLR's for "professional work" but doing projects and personal pictures with an RF.) I use an M8 because it's small and because it's image quality in a big print eats those other small cameras alive. It ought to; it cost 10 times as much - and that was without a lens.
I would like to know why you use rangefinders?
Bill
