Are LF rangefinders realistic?

<p>I've done a fair bit of work with a conventional 5x4 field camera & I'm reasonably comfortable with that way of working, which typically (in my case anyway) is very slow indeed. I've recently been inspired by Richard Renaldi's work, made with a 10x8, to see if I can work more quickly with an LF camera. The thing that really makes me slow is the whole focus / dark cloth / film holder saga. So, I've noticed that there are at least a couple of families of 5x4 rangefinders -- Wista made one, and MPP made a whole series and there are probably others. it seems to me that I could use one of those with the filmholder in place, then just pull out the dark slide and take a picture, which would be relatively quick (the emphasis being on 'relatively').</p>

<p>The question is: is the focussing accuracy of those cameras good enough to get reasonably reliable results without having to stop down to f/64 all the time? Obviously I'm not going to use the thing wide open, but I'd like reasonably short exposures. My guess is that it must be, since they existed, but I also wonder whether people didn't just burn a lot of film with them to get good results.</p>

<p>Any other tricks for working more quickly would be welcome (other than 'don't use LF': I know that one!).</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>If the rangefinder is cammed/calibrated for the lens in use it will be very accurate. Framing may not be as precise as you'd like and you'll have to give up movements.</p>

Linhof cams lenses for their camera from 72 to 360mm. Never use f64 on 45 unless you want to intentially degrade the

image. Most 45 lenses are diffraction limited at 22 and that is where you will get optimal performance. Also, a rangefinder won't give you more DOF at any aperture. But it will tell you that you are in focus at a specific distance.

<p>Bob: sorry, I was trying to make a play on words on the group f/64 people: I don't think I even have a lens which goes to f/64 and don't often stop down below f/22 as you say (in desparation in bright sun without an ND filter perhaps). My only aim with a rangefinder is to make focussing much quicker while still being acceptably accurate, so I don't have to get people to wait for ages while I faff around with a dark cloth.</p>

<p>I wouldn't know why it shouldn't work out.<br>

Looking at a Technika with a 270mm f5.6 Tele Arton next to a Leica with 90mm f2, the Linhof has a physically longer range meter base and the Leica suffers from it's rangefinder's negative magnification that optically shortens the already shorter base further, while both lenses seem to demand the same focusing precision wide open. Also the Linhof kit was individually matched at the factory, i.e. custom ground RF cam + infinity stops adjustment, while Leica built both pieces separately to (hopefully) meet specs.<br>

Drawback of the Linhof: Your eye has to travel quite a bit from RM to OVF, so every shot will be like focus & re-compose, but if you have the light to stop down a bit everything should work out fine.</p>

Not really, you would refocus if the subject moves or the camera to subject distance changes, not because your eye

moves the 7 odd inches from the rangefinder window to the Multi Focus Optical Finder's window.

<p>All those Speed Graphic pressmen can't have been wrong.</p>

<p>My first experience with large format was using a 4x5 Graflex Pacemaker Speed Graphic with a 127mm f/4.7 Kodak Ektar. The Kalart rangefinder worked very well. I often used the Graflex flash and reflector, with the old #25 press bulbs. Those flash bulbs made a big difference when working handheld, so you might want to consider using some sort of flash unit. </p>

<p>Back then I wanted to produce the kind of work Weegee (Arthur Felig) was known for: dark, gritty, B&W street photography, done quickly. I recall reading he also used a 4x5 Speed Graphic, preset at f/16 and 1/200 second, with a focus distance of 10ft and flashbulbs. I almost started wearing an old fedora and a trench coat. If it worked for Weegee, it was good enough for me.</p>

<p>I used that Graflex setup for a while and traded it away. I guess I got tired of people thinking I was crazy, and also picking up those spent, hot bulbs. Things became a lot easier when I got a Rolleiflex 3.5F. </p>

 

 

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the various replies. I think I will try to find an MPP (I'm in the UK, they are pretty common here). </p>

<p>(I must guiltily confess that I have realised that I want one partly out of a combination of GAS and not wanting to break my lovely Chamonix, which are not good reasons: I should just use up the existing camera).</p>

<p> ^ For what it's worth , I have a Busch Pressman D with which I use the Kalart range finder that<br>

came with it and have been most happy with the results . The Kalart is adjustable for a range of<br>

lenses and isn't that hard to do . I have found however that the film holders ( the ones with the slot<br>

along the long side ) vary over .5 mm in their film plane position , easily attended to with a couple<br>

of paper spacers between the film holder and camera back . Regards Peter</p>

<p> A picture is worth a thousand words they say !</p><div></div>

<p>News shooters used them for decades without problems. Why do you think they won't work now?<br>

Where do you think "f/8 and be there" came from?</p>

<p>Zelph: I suspect the requirements of someone whose images were going to be published in a newspaper in terms of sharpness are probably rather lower than that of someone aiming to make relatively large prints like me. I also think that people doing the job professionally tend to get very good at it, which I likely won't. Sorry: I should have made both those things clear in my original question!</p>

<p>(I've also always assumed that the point of 'f/8 and be there' was 'unless you are there you will not get the picture, so be there and stop fiddling with the camera', not 'use f/8'.)</p>

<p>A focusing system is a focusing system. A rangefinder is as good as any, hence the name, range..... finder. The key it to have it well calibrated, but if that is taken care of (usually a very simple thing to do), then you will get pics that are just as sharp as using your gg. Leica shooters are pretty fussy about sharpness, and their rangefinder system has been working fine for what, a hundred years? The format size is irrelevant. If it is accurately set up, it works. </p>

Steve, you are over simplifying. The accuracy of a rangefinder system is dependent on the base of the rangefinder, the

wider the base the more accurate it becomes. For Leica the longest rangefinder coupled lenses were usually a 135mm.

Longer then that Leica offered the Visoflex reflex focusing attachment.

On a rangefinder 45, like a Master Technika the rangefinder system can be coupled with lenses from 72mm up to 360mm.

The long range of the coupled lenses is limited by the bellows length and the length of the cams that are available for the cameras.