Why rangefinders?

[Forest_rain]

I've usually owned film SLRs up until recently, when I picked up a Voigtlander Vitomatic II. I notice that there are a number of people who are "Strictly rangefinder users" and this site that is dedicated to rangefinders.

I haven't had any pictures developed yet, but the Vitomatic II seems quite easy to focus - lining up the images seems like an intuitive way of getting good focus, even though this model supposedly has a "dim" rangefinder patch. I can see having trouble in low light or doing flash photography with this particular model since the reflection is difficult to see in low light.

However, it is so compact, it is like the RX100 of film cameras. I mean it's literally probably 1/3rd of the size of my Praktica LTL3. I imagine it's great for street photography, because it's fairly inconspicuous.

The aesthetic of the Canon 7, Leica type models is quite nice also. It's very sleek compared to an SLR.

I'm just wondering why rangefinders are so popular. I often see rangefinder bodies go for much more than comparable SLR models.

Seems like there was a "SLR revolution" at some point was switching to SLRs, because you could "see what you were taking pictures of", however, I don't see this being too much of an issue, except when using multiple focal lengths, where you might have to recalibrate the rangefinder if you switch (I think?)

So why did you choose a rangefinder? They seem great, the compact form factor seeming to be the biggest virtue, but I'm curious what draws you to them.

 

[Pál_K]

The "SLR revolution" was in the early 1960's - led by Nikon among pros and, later, Pentax, Minolta, Canon, and many others.

Even though some SLRs are equal in size to larger rangefinders (e.g. Pentax ME), the appeal of the rangefinder is its compactness, quietness, and the bright wide view through the viewfinder.

Different styles and types of photography favor certain cameras over others, so some will favor rangefinders for their type of photography.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,


1, The shutters are very quiet; no mirror slap or bounce.

2, No DoF problems through the VF

3, When SLR's became popular the Leica lenses were state of the art

4, Compactness; look at (say) Konica C35 and Olympus XA. Both RF's and so accurate focussing before AF appeared in compact cameras.

5, Politics came into it; Germany had a good reputation for engineering quality going back decades and Japan's reputation had been ruined by a lot of cheap and nasty copies.

6, Lots of good legacy lenses about at low prices and, lastly, if you have a good system why change it?


Regards, David

 

[raydm6]

I was initially amazed by the diminutive lenses - all things being equal with their SLR counterparts.

 

[gavinlg]

Rangefinders are THE superlative camera for taking everyday photos, or documentary style photos.

They're:
- quiet
- unobtrusive
- transparent in use (no mirror blackout, can see around the frame)
- simple (not littered with buttons and pointless 'other' controls)
- at least as fast as AF/slr cameras to focus once you're used to them, and usually faster
- perfect for zone focussing

And the lenses are tiny and superb.

SLR's are better for sports, wildlife, macro and maybe landscapes. But I hardly shoot any of those 🙂

 

[css9450]

The gear junkie in me led me to buy rangefinders.... And TLRs and folders. Eventually I will stumble into a 4x5 system I can afford.

For what I shoot, SLRs probably are the most capable. I realize that is an outlier opinion on a rangefinder forum, but it is what it is.

 

[Scrambler]

I think for me it was just trying things. One thing leads to another, next thing you have a few rangefinder cameras. I have more that are not RF. But I like the RF experience. The range of lenses that it works with is fairly limited compared to SLR but there are some advantages for wide angle lense design. We do forget that the 35mm SLR was born in the 30s, was popular with professionals well before Pentax or Nikon (Asahi Pentax 1957, Nikon F 1959, Exakta 'Kine' 1936). The movie Rear Window predates the SLR Revolution of the 60s, and uses an Exakta. The setup wouldn't have worked with a Rangefinder because a 400mm lens wouldn't have helped the viewfiinder enlarge anything. But with wide to normal lenses the RF is more precise than an SLR.

What is the appeal? For me, the direct viewfinder & the view outside the frame. Then the massive interchangability of the lenses, from prewar design masters to Soviet cheapies to new Leica moneypits, and a lot of places between these. A fixed-lens RF is about as meaningful as a fixed-lens SLR (and I have owned one!) Try a CLE, a Canon 7, a Voigtlander Bessa Rx or a Leica, then you might catch the idea. Make sure you take 2 or more lenses with you. See if you catch the bug.

 

[Ambro51]

I worked in a camera department of a retail store in the mid ‘70s. There were Minolta, Pentax, Olympus and Nikkormat Cameras. After awhile, I realized they were just consumer products. Everyone had one. Yuk. ....my Leica IIIc was a game changer. I felt “quality”.

 

[Rob-F]

Rangefinders feel more like an extension of my eye and brain than SLRs do. The word "responsive" comes to mind.

 

[Out to Lunch]

All the above. But since the sixties it is no wonder working photographers moved to SLR's: lower cost; less tech issues; increased versatility.

 

[charjohncarter]

They are easier to carry around. And if you have eye problems I find better to focus.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I had no any other camera to choose from at parents home. I get used to FED-2 in using it as the only camera for years. And at least my nose grew big. I like RF shaped cameras to let it breath freely. At least my nose doesn't have to be squished...

 

[zuiko85]

Rangefinder style cameras have a set of advantages, but also disadvantages. It all depends on what your particular needs and or preferences are. That is why often you will see photographers with both types of viewing in their kit. I have for film, both a small quiet fixed lens rangefinder along with a SLR with a selection of focal lengths. Both 35mm.
There is no rule that a person has to stick to only one or the other.

 

[Brian Atherton]

35mm film rangefinders for me:

1. Left of body viewfinder (rather than centre) and no prism housing.
2. Bright optical viewfinder with framelines and area outside, and clear rangefinder patch.
3. I’m not bothered about using lenses longer than 50mm.
4. I’m not bothered about having close focus.
5. Quietness of operation.

 

[narsuitus]

So why did you choose a rangefinder?

I shoot rangefinder and SLR cameras.

My two favorite 35mm cameras are:
Nikon F2 SLR with prime and zoom lenses that range in focal length from 14mm to 2000mm.
Leica M6 rangefinder with three prime lenses (21mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, and 90mm f/2).

My two favorite medium format cameras are:
Mamiya RB67 SLR with prime lenses that range in focal length from 50mm to 250mm.
Fuji 6x7 and 6x9cm rangefinders with fixed 90mm normal lens and a fixed 65mm wide-angle.

I choose the rangefinder over the SLR on those occasions when I do not need:

1. longer telephoto focal lengths
2. shorter wide-angle focal lengths
3. macro lenses
4. tilt/shift lenses
5. zoom lenses
6. noisy mirror slap
7. vibrations from mirror slap
8. precise framing
9. precise placement of graduated neutral density filters
10. visual monitoring of depth-of-field




Leica M6 & Nikon F2 by Narsuitus, on Flickr


Medium Format Kit by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[zuiko85]

If one wanted to have a reflex (Film) body that was close to a rangefinder shape try a Olympus Pen F. Of course it’s a half frame but a charming little system nonetheless. No protruding mirror box or prism hump, it is very sleek and, the viewfinder is on the left end.

 

[Bill Clark]

I didn't use 35mm film rangefinders until I signed up with this forum.

Now I enjoy using them.

If you don’t have one try one out.

Recently spent two weeks helping our son, his wife and two children ages four and six. They have endless energy!

Used a Barnack (IIIf) and M4 to make some black and white family photographs.

 

[tbhv55]

For what I shoot, SLRs probably are the most capable. I realize that is an outlier opinion on a rangefinder forum, but it is what it is.

I'm not entirely sure that that's true. While this forum (by definition) is undoubtedly orientated toward rangefinders, I think that most on here would acknowledge the contribution that SLRs have made to the panoply of photography - and plenty of members seem willing to admit to favouring the SLR. 😉

The nice thing is that there's plenty of room for all approaches, on RFF. 🙂

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Why rangefinders? Because they look cool! What else is there?

I’d like to say that girls dig guys that use a rangefinder camera, unfortunately the only compliments I’ve ever received while out shooting with a rangefinder came from other guys. 😱

All the best,
Mike

 

[tbhv55]

Why rangefinders? Because they look cool! What else is there?

I’d like to say that girls dig guys that use a rangefinder camera, unfortunately the only compliments I’ve ever received while out shooting with a rangefinder came from other guys. 😱

I agree, Mike........ rangefinder cameras ARE cool.

As to your second point, I suspect that - at our age (I note that we're of a similar 'vintage' 🙁) - we're unlikely to receive many compliments for anything other than our cameras! 🙂