What is Rangefinder

<p>At Olympus websites under Pen it listed the Pen-F as "Iconic Rangefinder". I wonder what rangefinder? The digital version has an EVF and the film version is an SLR. In fact back in 63 it was a great achievement to make an SLR that looked like the Pen F.<br>

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/digitalcameras/pen.html?icn=topnav&ici=camerasnav_olympus-pen</p>

<p>There were also rangefinder versions of the Pens</p>

But this "iconic rangefinder" isn't. It's only made to look like one. And the original Pen F was a special camera, because it was an slr.

Actually, I don't think there were any rangefinder Pens. I had a Pen EE, a Pen S and a Pen D, all had just

viewfinders.

<p>Looks very cool and a lot like a rangefinder but definitely not a rangefinder.<br /><br />"Rangefinder style cameras were all the rage in 1963..."<br />Actually, by 1963 rangefinder cameras were obsolete. The Nikon F came out in 1959. What year did the Pentax SLR come out? <br /><br />I think this is an embrassing case of marketing hype, clearly ignorant of what a rangefinder is and likely too young to know from personal experience what was hot in 1963 and too lazy to do the research to find out. There are probably photography wannabes who will think this looks retro and buy it for its styling. Might actually be a good camera for all I know. If you wanted to say the styling was inspired by iconic rangefinder cameras, that would be reasonable. But when you call it a rangefinder when it obviously isn't, real photographers are laughing.</p>

The "rangefinder" label gets put on a lot of mirrorless cameras. It's a sort of nostalgia thing. But aside from the Leica Ms,

none of them actually have rangefinders. Rangefinders are very complex mechanisms that add cost and aren't

necessarily with AF and live view EVFs.

<p>Of course except for Leica nobody is making digital rangefinders but a camera that looks like the film Pen F is called "Iconic Rangefinder" is funny to me because the original Pen F is iconic SLR. And sure nowaday to sell mirror-less they are afraid of the term SLR because they wanted to say they are not SLR.</p>

<p>There have been many items (in different fields also) named in such a ridiculous way. As someone already said, we just have to laugh at it. However, the marketing effects of these ridiculous names may be good. </p>

<p>I think Olympus makes the Pen F in Long Thanh so may be you can check it out there John.</p>

<p>Craig Shearman, I don't think it's precisely accurate to say that rangefinders became obsolete for all photographers when SLRs became available. They didn't become obsolete for photographers who preferred shooting with normal or only slightly-wide-angle lenses, or who preferred the compactness of rangefinders, or who had ingrained parallax correction imprinted in their brains from long use of rangefinders. Some photographers added SLRs to their kit, but kept a favorite rangefinder for what it especially offered. It's not like they couldn't still take good pictures with that rangefinder, just because their new (bigger and heavier) SLR offered certain kinds of new versatility.<br>

I moved from childhood box cameras to an SLR, but I remember watching adults more dedicated to photography than my parents using rangefinders, adjusting their setting with great care. </p>

<p>The Fuji XPro1 and XPro2 have an optical rangefinder. Except for Leica M, film and digital, other rangefinder cameras have been discontinued.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Fuji XPro1 and XPro2 have an optical rangefinder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They have an optical viewfinder but don't have the rangefinder.</p>

<p> Leica with the obsolete rangefinder still has 3 models to choose from brand new in 35mm. However your bank account will be obsolete if you buy one.</p>

About that recurring obsolescence: an optical rangefinder is a fine instrument that allowed finding the range, i.e. measure the distance instead of guestimating the distance. And it was much faster than focussing view camera style.<br>How well a rangefinder works depends (in short) on the width of the base, and hence they works best with short focal length lenses where most relevant differences in range occur at small distances , i.e. where the (small) rangefinder base is relatively large. With longer lenses the precision is not that great, which is one reason why Leitz was one of the first companies offering SLR style focusing with their mirror housings.<br>Reflex cameras (whether single lens or twin lens) offered view camera style focusing, but without the hassle of real view cameras. But they were bigger (though not necessarily by much).<br>Leitz continued to point out that rangefinders do better with short focal length lenses. But that's not so. That is: the question is, if so, by how much and whether that is relevant. And everyone knows the answer since way back when: focussing a short focal length lens is not a challenge, is easy to do with as much precisions as is required, whatever way it is done. Even guestimate zone focussing often works well enough. That a rangefinder works better with wide angles than ground glass focussing is part of the Leica Myth. You could explain why it could have been, but in the real world it's just not true. It's (as other parts of the Leica Myth are too - they had a clear line of thinking in their marketing: just turn any negative into a positive) an inversion of that fact that a rangefinder sucks using longer lenses.<br>The only reasons why rangefinders still are with us today are that rangefinders camera do not produce the noise a SLR camera does (though, again as with the size issue, there are SLRs that are not much noisier than a Leica. Mirrorless digital are, of course, also not very noisy), that they can be smaller and also cheaper to make than reflex cameras, and that people like a retro-thing.<br><br>That last thing is just about the only relevant reason left, and is why we see a non-rangefinder camera made to look like and advertised as one.