What is so good about Rangefinders.

[zafar1]

Hi

 

I am new to photography have recently learned about Range finders. I am

interested in learning about what is the deal with range finders, specially as

compared to other 35mm cameras (e.g. SLR).

 

I can get matter of fact description of technology but I can't get the real

scoop on why people use range finders and under what conditions is this a

favorable format.

[adrian bastin]

That little mirror in an SLR is very expencive in things which get in the way of the image making process; mechanical complexity, noise, weight and bulk. A rangefinder doesn't get between the lens and image recording surface, which has another bonus of better WA lens designs.

[wai_leong_lee]

Scoop harder with Google.

[l._david_tomei1]

When you're on a rangefinder forum, questioning the value of the rangefinder versus SLR designs seems to be like questioning deeply held convictions. Actually, the complexity of a good rangefinder camera is comparable to that of an SLR, especially when the camera may have additional optics to correct for parallax and the field size of different lenses, and light metering. After all, in an SLR, what you see in the viewfinder is what the film sees since you are looking through whatever lens is attached up front. With an SLR, you never have to wait to find that you have terrible lens flare or inadequate DOF.

 

The mirror that sits in the optical path before firing the shutter is relatively minor and in no way should interfere with the view from either the photographer or from the the film's POV. Whereas, rangefinders present a view that only emulates that seen by the film. You could have the cap on the lens while shooting for all the camera cares.

 

Personally, I use DSLR's and my old F3 Nikon for the same reasons that I had when I first sought out my Pentax H1a SLR many years ago when I began in photography. However, I enjoy and collect rangefinders because the technical designs are far more varied and creative compared with the rather invariant SLR design that was ushered in back 45 years ago fundamentally varying little since then except for the electronics.

 

For me, it boils down to personal preferences which are not based on any clear and compelling technical advantages for either design.

 

David

[ronald_moravec1]

RF camera are quieter in general, focus 50mm and shorter lenses more accurately. 90 is about equal. While the RF mechanism is more very complex, it takes no part in the actual picture exposure unlike an SLR mirror. Smaller. Wide angle lens designs can have less distortion of straight lines.

 

SLR allows you see the actual picture and is better with tele lenses and for close work like copying without having to add an additional reflex housing.

[adrian bastin]

Unbeatable image maker you can wear anywhere.

[sattler123]

I use both RFs and SLRs/DSLRs. RFs are mainly for folks doing street photography who want to be un-obstrusive. If you are interetsed in landscape, action, sport, or bird photography, then a SLR/DSLR is unbeatable. You should understand that rangefinders are a niche market - not too many folks are using them anymore. Because of the flexibility of SLRs and the fact that what you see in the viewfinder is what you will actaully get when you take the picture and the advantage of being able to use filters (and see their effect!), SLRs have won over most photographers. I enjoy using both, but I see the limitations of both and frankly, if I had to chose only one camera, it would be my Canon 5D.

[ron_breeze2]

Compact, lightweight, unobtrusive, accurate focusing, extremely compact and sharp optics,

no mirror vibration, two- eyed viewing of scene, "fast" aperture lenses for available light

photography, focal length preview before mounting a lens to determine composition,

durability, quiet to near silent operation, with certain lenses a pocketable outfit that you will

take with you when you might leave a larger, heavier camera outfit at home and of course

unsurpassed image quality. I'm sure I can think of more but it's time to go to work.

[don_e]

"I can't get the real scoop on why people use range finders"

 

I get more keepers with a rf.

[michael_dimarzio]

This is a fair question, and the correct forum.

 

I like not having a penta prism sitting on top of the camera, the small form factor and that I can get attractive photos at 1/5 of a second (60% of the time) without a battery.

 

If you are interested in RF cameras, you should borrow one and try it out. They make great travel cameras also.

[SCL]

I personally think every photographer should have at least one RF and one SLR. Different tools for the job of taking pictures. I agree with the idea of trying out each to see what best suits your style and capabilities...some people have extreme difficulty using RF cameras.

[l._david_tomei1]

Hmmm... After reading the comments and thinking it over, I take my comment back. I have to face reality and I wish I had a DRF. Quiet, I don't have to lockup the mirror when I use exposures of more than 1/10 sec, and I like something square. However, there aren't many options out there.

[ben_ballard]

Without having a mirror reflex mechanism between the lens and the film, there is more freedom for the lens design (resulting in better lenses in many cases) and no need for the complex mechanism that flips the mirror up and closes down the aperture just before the shutter is fired, and then opens back the aperture and flips the mirror back down. A rangefinder is therefore quieter and has less vibration (like using mirror lock-up on some SLRs).

 

Another advantage is with focusing, but it depends on the quality of the camera. With a really good (expensive) rangefinder like a Leica or a Mamiya 7, the viewfinder is incredibly bright, and it has a large and very clean rangefinder image making focusing very easy even in low light.

 

I have several 60's era Japanese rangefinders: a Minolta Hi-Matic 9, a Minolta AL, and a Konica Auto S2. Out of these, the Konica has the brightest rangefinder, but it is nowhere near as clear and bright as the Leica. Still, if you are open to buying an extra camera for fun and experimentation, one of these 60's era rangefinders is a great way to start. They have excellent optics and are very inexpensive.

[jose_angel]

When I want the smallest sized camera with the maximum image quality, and sophisticated metering system, AF zoom lenses or motor drives are not needed, I take a RF.

[ron_breeze2]

"the fact that rf's dont focus close than 3 feet is a real issue for me and why I use canon

dslr's most of the time. Having said that, there are many a classic lens made only for rf

cameras..."

 

Vinnie you need to check out the CV 15mm and 12mm Heliars for focusing closer than 3

feet.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I like the way my digital Zorki connects to my iMac.

[SolaresLarrave]

Kelly, you need a 12MP Kiev. Those ones really rock!

[rod_sainty2]

To add the good points above, I'd like to point out the flaw in this common assumption:

 

"in an SLR, what you see in the viewfinder is what the film sees"

 

That statement assumes that the SLR mirror, which has to flip up and down over the life of the camera, was set and always remains in perfect alignment. I've seen several SLRs with mirrors that were plainly lower on one side than the other. Without perfect mirror alignment, the light path from lens to viewscreen will be shorter or longer than that from lens to film. Result: Out of focus photographs from your perfectly focussed SLR lens.

 

That flapping mirror will also vibrate the camera during the exposure and blur the perfectly focussed image. It also requires the camera to have a mirror box, which bulks up the camera. So, as the first respondant said, SLR viewing has a considerable inherent cost that does not add to image quality, and often detracts from it.

[marek_fogiel]

There are 4 huge advantages:

 

1- you can compose better in most cases, because you see everything in focus, so you are

aware of the background and the surroundings too, this makes the RF's very fast to use -

faster than the fastest SLR's

2- without the mirror induced vibration the pictures come out sharper in most cases

3- below 75mm you do not need retrofocus lenses, and you focus more accurately, so the

image quality is better

4- the last big advantage could actually be the first: you can carry a RF camera with you

always, every day and you don't get tired of it, so when you have a photo to make, you

make it, and only photos that get taken can be seen later...

[kelly_flanigan1]

With a slr you never see what you shot; the mirror is up during the exposure.

[marc_bergman1]

Here is a test that compares the hand-holding capabilities between rangefinders and SLRs. The test was done by Erwin Puts who is known for his writings on Leica lenses.

<p>

<a href="http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/vibration_reduction_compare.html">Rangefinders versus SLRs.</a>

<p>

[andy_piper2]

For me, it comes down to this:

 

1. The lenses are often substantially smaller (focal length for focal length), first because

they do not need to allow room for a swinging mirror, second because they don't need to

allow space for auto-aperture (and auto-focus) hardware inside the lens, and third

because RF lens makers tend to play to these advantages by making each lens as small as

possible for it's specs, rather than conforming to some consistent filter size.

 

Compare almost any RF lens to an equivalent SLR lens, and the RF will be smaller - often

much smaller. I don't even worry about whether Leica lenses are "better" or not - just that

they are at least as good as an SLR lens in 1/2 to 1/3rd the volume and weight.

 

2. The direct window viewfinder is a different way of seeing the world - a silver line

around more-or-less what is going to be in your picture (all of it sharp) rather than a dark

room with a pretty color slide (the SLR screen) of what your picture will look like - with

things in and out of focus.

 

An SLR shows me the PICTURE - my RFs show me the SUBJECT. I prefer the results I get

using the RF view of the world.

 

3. I plain old LIKE manual split-image focusing. Snapping the images together is a part of

my photographic "backswing".

 

Unfortunately the split-prism SLR screen has almost disappeared under the tsunami of AF

squares and tick-marks and so on. The only 35mm-sized SLRs that still even offer them

are the Canon EOS1 cameras (maybe the Nikon F6/FM10?). Certainly in digital the EOS1

bricks are the only ones.

 

Whatever other reasons I have for liking RFs, I actually switched to them the moment I

realized that Nikon had permanently abandoned MF-oriented viewfinder screens. They

went their way - and I went Leica's way.

[leicaglow]

1. I can connect with my subject with an RF. Can't explain why. Maybe less hardware between your eye and the subject.

 

2. More connection to my camera and the camera is an extension of my eye / view.

 

3. I can hand hold shots at a much slower shutter speed than other cameras.

 

These relate more to my Leicas than other RFs I own.

[s_j_goffredi]

I use both RF and SLR depending on the job. For close ups, macro and telephoto work an SLR is superior, for wide angle, available light (handheld) and those occasions when you want to be unobtrusive (e.g.weddings) a RF is better. That said everyone has their own preferences and will find what works best for them. Try a RF and an SLR with a 50mm lens on both and see which you find you take the better pictures with and which you like the feel/erganomics of most.

[don_e]

"An SLR shows me the PICTURE - my RFs show me the SUBJECT."

 

That's very good. I like that. Explains a lot to me about my recent 'conversion' to rf.

 

Also, rangefinders do not look like weapon pods on the Imperial Deathstar. That's good for my kind of photography.