Why rangefinder and not SLR?

[Blake Werts]

Hello all,

I've recently started using a rangefinder and enjoy just about everything about it. I have a friend who has started "learning photography" that will be visiting soon and I know that I'm going to have to explain the choice of a rangefinder over an SLR. This fellow is quite technical so a "just because" isn't going to satisfy...

Please help me: why do we prefer rangefinders over SLRs?

[funkaoshi]

If you want to snap photos with wider angle lenses, focusing is a bit easier with a rangefinder than the split screen in an SLR. The lenses and bodies are also a fair bit smaller than their SLR counterparts. They are a little bit quieter too.

[Solinar]

Because of digital I shoot both a DSLR and a RF. Other than the Playstation camera controls, my second pet peeve with the DSLR is its mirror slap and ensuing black out of the finder. A RF lacks this paparazzi feature.

[bmattock]

Please help me: why do we prefer rangefinders over SLRs?

I don't prefer rangefinders over SLR cameras. I prefer rangefinders for what they are best at.

Some of those things include:

* Quieter than a typical SLR.
* Smaller and lighter than a typical SLR.
* Work better in low-light due to a brighter viewfinder.
* Don't have to try to focus and compose through filters.

I do not use rangefinders obsessively. Yes, they can be used for macro, but I think that's a waste of time when an SLR can do it much better. Same for telephoto beyond 100mm or so.

Each type of camera (rangefinder, slr, tlr, point-n-shoot, etc) has its advantages and disadvantages. Using a camera according to its advantages makes sense, like using the right knife in the kitchen. Using a camera because you prefer it, even if another is better for the job is also understandable. But using a camera type obsessively out of some dislike for other sorts doesn't make much sense.

So, final answer - I use rangefinder cameras when it makes sense to do so, or because it gives me pleasure. Otherwise, I use other types.

[fdigital]

I find that I take different pictures on rangefinders - they have a lot more feeling - a lot more of a human interaction feeling about them. When I take pictures with SLRs they seem to be more clinical and technical.

I once read that rangefinders capture moments in time, SLRs create pictures. Or something to that effect.
I think it's VERY true.

[Roger Hicks]

Smaller, lighter, quieter bodies; MUCH smaller, lighter, often faster lenses; easier to focus in poor light; easier to hold still (most people reckon they can hold an SLR steady for twice as long as an SLR); less obtrusive ('jobsworths' tend not to regard them as 'professional' cameras); continuous viewing...

Cheers,

R.

[bmattock]

I find that I take different pictures on rangefinders - they have a lot more feeling - a lot more of a human interaction feeling about them. When I take pictures with SLRs they seem to be more clinical and technical.

I once read that rangefinders capture moments in time, SLRs create pictures. Or something to that effect.
I think it's VERY true.

The camera does not know what it is taking a photo of. If one takes 'human' photos and the other 'clinical' shots, that is down to what you have between your ears.

Some people find themselves feeling more artistic when wearing a beret and smoking clove cigarettes. I doubt the clothing changes the paint around on the canvas.

[BillP]

The camera does not know what it is taking a photo of. If one takes 'human' photos and the other 'clinical' shots, that is down to what you have between your ears.

Some people find themselves feeling more artistic when wearing a beret and smoking clove cigarettes. I doubt the clothing changes the paint around on the canvas.

No, but I agree with Fdigital. I use a rangefinder differently, I find different shots, and I feel different when using it. It is less clinincal, and more involving. If I get it wrong with my DSLR (which I reserve for tele and macro) then nine times out of ten it is because there is some setting somewhere that I have got wrong, and like the dumb machine it is, it has acted upon it. When using my IID if I make a mistake I have made it directly. I only have four controls to work, after all.

Find a book by Jeremy Clarkson (Yes THAT one). It's called "You've Got Soul". It's about machines that transcend their inanimate beginnings to become something more in use. So it is with a rangefinder, for me, anyway. YMMV.

Regards,

Bill

[bmattock]

No, but I agree with Fdigital. I use a rangefinder differently, I find different shots, and I feel different when using it. It is less clinincal, and more involving.

You say *I*, but then you put the result of that onto *it*.

I think my car drives better after I wash it. But it doesn't. That's just me.

A minor form of anthropomorphizing, I'd say. Nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't work well in a logic discussion of how a rangefinder works differently than an SLR. In this sense, it doesn't. That's the person holding it.

[payasam]

For decades I used film SLRs and RFDRs pretty much interchangeably for ordinary work. Saw no difference in the results, felt no difference in use. That's to say, I agree with bmattock: though I can understand that fdigital's experience -- a subjective matter -- may be something else.

[Leighgion]

Hello all,
This fellow is quite technical so a "just because" isn't going to satisfy...


A "just because" never satisfies. It's an answer you use with yourself. If used on others, it should only because you're trying to be frustrating, in which case I must fully support your friend ignoring your pleas of mercy while he kicks your butt. :)



Please help me: why do we prefer rangefinders over SLRs?

I actually don't prefer rangefinders over SLRs. To me they're specialist cameras and reasons for using rangefinders are extremely technical. What I like about them:

1. Compact & light
2. Very Quiet, especially if fixed lens & equipped with leaf shutter
3. Can be held steady at slower shutter speeds

Leaving aside the retro appeal of my Canon QL17 which is not specific to rangefinders, that's pretty much it. Every reason I have for using an RF as opposed to an SLR ends up boiling down to one of that triad of traits.

The list of things I don't like about RFs are touted advantages I'm indifferent to is longer. I don't find rangefinders easier to focus overall as often I struggle with the patch being over something that's difficult to see. I don't really feel a big advantage to continuous viewing. Framelines & parallax frustrate me greatly. While I like wide lenses, I don't really prefer them for general use, so the norm for fixed-lens rangefinders really isn't ideal for me. I'd much rather my QL17 & XA have a 50mm than 40mm and 35mm respectively.

Ultimately, I'm mostly an SLR guy who uses rangefinders for the specific styles of photography I'm interested in that I find them better suited to, which perhaps makes my POV valuable for the question of explaining the choice of RF over SLR to a new SLR user.

I'd say be as reasonable as you can and clearly separate the things can be argued as technical advantages of using an RF from the things that are just personally appealing.

[Roger Hicks]

You say *I*, but then you put the result of that onto *it*. . . A minor form of anthropomorphizing, I'd say. Nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't work well in a logic discussion of how a rangefinder works differently than an SLR. In this sense, it doesn't. That's the person holding it.
Dear Bill,

But equally, an adze finishes wood differently from a plane, and there's a difference between an egg fried in a wok or in a flat-bottomed frying pan.

The tool does work differently -- continuous viewing (and therefore more engagement with the subject, in the view of many), easier to hold still (most people find it so, anyway), no zooms, etc. -- and therefore it is hardly surprising that people take different pictures with different cameras.

In other words, the tool shapes the photographer's vision, just as the photographer's vision shapes the choice of tool.

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Of course, another reply to the original question is,

Which do you prefer? Apples or pears? Why? And does it matter to me? (Unless you are visiting and I want to stock the fruit bowl.)

Cheers,

R.

[bmattock]

Dear Bill,

But equally, an adze finishes wood differently from a plane, and there's a difference between an egg fried in a wok or in a flat-bottomed frying pan.

The tool does work differently -- continuous viewing (and therefore more engagement with the subject, in the view of many), easier to hold still (most people find it so, anyway), no zooms, etc. -- and therefore it is hardly surprising that people take different pictures with different cameras.

In other words, the tool shapes the photographer's vision, just as the photographer's vision shapes the choice of tool.

Cheers,

R.

A specialist in the history of wood-shaping, could, no doubt, tell the difference between wood finished with an adze and a plane. Many could no doubt tell the difference between an egg cooked in a variety of ways.

What I am hearing here is a person describing how using one sort of camera makes them 'feel' as opposed to another - perfectly valid observation. But then they extend that to say that the camera itself takes different photos - one warm and engaging, the other cold and clinical. This, I reject.

Let's put it this way - if a robot arm held a camera - rangefinder and then slr - and took photos with it, the results would look the same to any level of technical analysis. The camera simply does not know what it is taking photos of, and neither, presumably, would the robot.

That there are differences in the resulting photos must therefore be down to the photographer. If you say that using a rangefinder makes you feel differently, and therefore you take different photos, I have no problem with that. If you say that rangefinders and SLRs take different photos - this seems absurd to me. They don't take different photos - you do.

There would be nothing stopping an SLR aficionado from likewise pronouncing that he takes more human photos with an SLR. I'm sure such a person can be found. If he then were to proclaim that therefore, SLR cameras take more 'human' photos, I'd disagree with him as well.

I think that there is an interesting leap taking place. One describes how a certain camera makes them feel and the frame of mind it places them in, and then transfer that from themselves to the camera, as if the camera possessed that attribute - it does not.

The rangefinder camera certainly possesses a number of objective qualities that differ from that of an SLR and make it the logical choice for a number of applications. The 'feeling' of the photos it takes is not one of them; that's internal to us.

[CK Dexter Haven]

I gotta agree with bmattock. It's all how YOU perceive what you're doing. There's no inherent "coldness" in an SLR. Tons of photographers have captured "involving" imagery with SLRs.

I also don't understand this comment:
"If I get it wrong with my DSLR (which I reserve for tele and macro) then nine times out of ten it is because there is some setting somewhere that I have got wrong, and like the dumb machine it is, it has acted upon it. When using my IID if I make a mistake I have made it directly. I only have four controls to work, after all."

Either way, it's YOU who have gotten it 'wrong.' How is the IID not a "dumb machine?"
I have a 5D, and it, similarly, only has "four controls to work." If someone were to tell me it has more, i'd suggest those other controls were built for the next owner. No matter how complex a camera may look, there are always going to be simple ways to use it. On the 5D, i set ISO (have to do the same thing on my Ikon/M7). I set aperture (same thing...). I set shutter speed (same thing...). I focus (same thing...). Simple pimple.

The idea that a rangefinder somehow captures life more honestly is rather ridiculous. There is the potential for a truth if the user adopts a different identity when using various cameras. I can easily believe that RF users are channeling HC-B when shooting with their Leicas. They approach subjects differently, stalk them, wait for "decisive moments," etc. SLR guys are probably less likely to idolize dead guys and "obsolete" equipment. But, then, you can't count that as a 'rule,' because there are some of us who shoot with both, and who also have a HEALTHY : ) respect for our predecessors....

So, back to the original question. I like rangefinders because:
1. They're smaller, for the most part, than the SLRs i would want to own, when lens is included.
2. There is a great deal of variability in the lens range. A wide choice. I own Canon and Contax SLRs, and have owned Nikon, as well. For each system, i realistically have a choice of one or two 50mm lenses. One or two 35mm lenses. With the M-mount, i could choose between ten. And, if you're as particular as i am about 'lens character,' CHOICE is an addictive element.
3. I'm supposed to be able to handhold an RF at slower shutter speeds than an SLR. But, i'm beginning to doubt that. I haven't done any stringent tests, and my 'loose' tests haven't presented any truths.... But, i don't feel as steady with an M7/Ikon as i do with a Canon or Contax SLR. And, last night, comparing a Rolleiflex with a Hasselblad, the Hassy felt much more steady. But, that idea is still in my head....
4. RFs don't look like expensive, professional cameras. They look 'old.' Like antiques. When shooting in certain enviroments where it isn't safe, that's an advantage - to look like i'm using something not worth stealing.
5. I just enjoy variety. I like being able to choose an SLR for one purpose and then an RF, just to see things differently, and to feel like i'm doing something different. It isn't an inherent advantage of the camera - it's just that it's 'something else.'
6. RFs look and feel cool. If they didn't, i probably wouldn't use one, despite the above. I have a camera fetish. What can i do?

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bill,

I see your point, but equally, because cameras are not used by robots -- at least, not for anything but the most basic record photography -- I am less than convinced by your argument.

Let us take a reductio ad absurdum: a Gandolfi 8x10 'takes different pictures' from a Minox B. Is this down solely to the person behind the camera? I think not.

In any case, the interaction between the photographer and the camera is inescapable, so all talk of robots and controlled conditions is essentially nugatory. If the camera operates differently, the operator will use it more or less differently.

The only question is whether the difference in operation between an SLR and an RF is sufficient to necessitate (or even merely encourage) a different modus operandi. I suggest that most people find this to be so.

Cheers,

Roger

[tripod]

The photographer-camera system often effects the type of pictures taken with different styles of cameras. Think of LF view cameras vs P+S digi cams as examples. Bill, you are being more precise in your argument than is necessary here. Some would characterise it as nit-picky. Sometimes it's called for, other times, not so much.

[BillP]

*sigh*

It's a pleasant Sunday afternoon. I have better things to do than to split hairs.

Bill, I apologise if my use of language was insufficiently clinical for you.

But I stand by what I said; the tool influences the end result, both by it's "performance envelope" and by the way it's form and function effects the way I hold and use it.

CK (loved you in the film, btw). Both are dumb machines. One, however, is a much simpler machine than the other. The DSLR contains processors that make decisions based on factors that I have not input. There is a longer "line of communication" between my eye and brain and the final image. In the IID that chain is about as short as it can be. Is that clearer? Compare it to driving a modern sportscar and one from the 1960s. Both will transport me from A to B, both can wind me up in the ditch, but I will be more involved in the process of driving in the model from the 1960s than I am in the present-day model. I can switch off the traction control, and put the gearbox into manual, but I cannot bypass the engine management system.

Regards,

Bill

[BillP]

The only question is whether the difference in operation between an SLR and an RF is sufficient to necessitate (or even merely encourage) a different modus operandi. I suggest that most people find this to be so.

Cheers,

Roger

My point, in a nutshell. Thank you Roger.

Regards,

Bill

[bmattock]

The photographer-camera system often effects the type of pictures taken with different styles of cameras. Think of LF view cameras vs P+S digi cams as examples. Bill, you are being more precise in your argument than is necessary here. Some would characterise it as nit-picky. Sometimes it's called for, other times, not so much.

I'm actually thinking in terms of the original question.

Posit a visitor who is dubious about the 'difference' between an SLR and a rangefinder with regard to one being superior for a particular use.

I would attempt to convince said visitor with objective, logical, provable points.

If I chose to delve into how my resulting photographs were different because of how said camera system affected me emotionally, I would make sure I specified that as a 'subjective feeling' rather than objective analysis.

Both are valid - but one does not win an argument with a skeptic by describing how something feels.

Nit-picking? Perhaps. I prefer to keep my objective facts and subjective feelings in different boxes. Letting them play together is how we get poor choices for elected officials.

[literiter]

I like my Leica because the Babes think it's cool. At least the Babe at my house thinks it's cool.

I asked her, if she thought I looked cooler with the Leica more than the Nikon and she said it was the Leica for sure, but the Nikon with the 300mm telephoto was really hot.

I'm in my 60s so I don't know what she's talking about.

(Why does this stuff get so darned serious??)

[BillP]

Posit a visitor who is dubious about the 'difference' between an SLR and a rangefinder with regard to one being superior for a particular use.

I would attempt to convince said visitor with objective, logical, provable points.



That's fine, Bill, provided your hypothetical visitor was from the planet Vulcan. The "man on top of the Clapham omnibus", would, I venture to suggest, glaze over and start wondering what was for tea before you got to your third "proof".

People are not machines.

Regards,

Bill

[bmattock]

People are not machines.

On the contrary. Some are just badly programmed.

[charjohncarter]

Two weeks ago I went to the Track Meet with my SLR and a 200mm lens, last week I wentto the Track Meet with my Leica IIIf and a 135mm Hektor. It sure was easier to shoot with the runners and jumpers continually in my view. And the images were better, I think because of the continual view.

[BillP]

On the contrary. Some are just badly programmed.

...and they are the ones that will tend not to be engaged, informed or swayed by a purely logical argument. Like it or not, they are in the majority, and one must cut one's cloth accordingly. ;)

Regards,

Bill

[Thardy]

I can carry my RF all day without my neck hurting (compared to my dslr), take photos in very low light with the f/1.4 lens, and the thing is not so conspicuous.

[Leighgion]

There would be nothing stopping an SLR aficionado from likewise pronouncing that he takes more human photos with an SLR. I'm sure such a person can be found.



You need look no further. I am he.

To me, a rangefinder forces me to be much more clinical than an SLR. If I'm not, my pictures will be out of focus and improperly framed. Why? Consider the following:

I. Focus

An SLR's entire view changes as you focus. While extra focal aids are in the center, you can look at any part of the image to help you focus and if you're out of focus, you know it because the view is blurry.

A rangefinder's focus is all in a patch at the center and the overall view is crisp all the the time. The split image works best with objects with clear edges that aren't necessarily available. I have not only ended up with shots completely blurry because I forgot to focus at all since everything looked crisp, there are shots I've just had to give up on because there was nothing I could use to get a clear split image off of.

II. Framing

An SLR gives a through-the-lens view that's generally 90-100% of the actual image area. Most aren't 100%, but the loss around the edges is small and more importantly, absolutely consistent from shot to shot.

A rangefinder has framelines that not only can go invisible in the wrong light, they move in your viewfinder as you focus. Oh and the beautiful thing? The movement is a feature because of the need for parallax correction. Yet another thing I must pay careful mind to that's bleeding attention away from like... composing my shots.

No, I don't secretly hate rangefinders and the problems above can fairly be largely ascribed to the fact I'm more experienced with SLRs than RFs, but even as experience makes these issues less of a problem, they don't become any less true.

SLRs are generally a much smoother experience for me than RFs. However, I do not extrapolate from that that because I've taken much more dramatic and beautiful pictures with my SLRs, that SLRs are inherently more dramatic and beautiful. That's just as ridiculous as claiming that rangefinders are more human.

Different tools shape how the wielders use them, but that shaping is not consistent between different wielders.

[Zenjitsuman]

An Dslr with live view feature is a lot like a rangefinder, you are able to see the scene without all the RF issues or the limitations of the Slr viewfinder.

For most situations the noise of an slr is not that significant especially if you can use a 135mm lens and stand further away from your subject.

Image stabilization gives rough parity on handheld shooting almost the same as a rangefinder.

[Quercus]

I like using both RF and slr and even tlr - but more importantly is what the camera itself actually feels like to use. My favourite 35mm camera of all time is the rollei 3003 because it works for me that is followed by the pentax ME super or MX in slr have had both canon ae-1 and nikon f2 and hated both of them the of course there is the diminutive olympus RC or any Rollei 35 especially the SE as for interchangeable RFs both the contax IIIa and Ikon ZI just feel right in my hand. The mamiya 330 feels more natural oddly than any rolleiflex and almost any 120 mamiya slr just works the way I want it to ....but if really asked to settle on one camera for life it would have to bean MPP Mark VII with an angulon takes probably the slowest pictures every but it feels nice when I do.

Just find the camera that works for you

[mcgrattan]

I like and use both. Some of the issues mentioned aren't a huge deal for me.

handholding -- I have pretty steady hands. I can handhold my stabilized dSLR for at least as long as I can handhold my rangefinder cameras without shake. I can handhold my old film SLRs for within half a stop of the same sort of speeds I can handhold my rangefinder.

I don't really think that using a rangefinder versus using an SLR really changes my modus operandi. The 'tunnel' view of the SLR is sometimes a little isolating, but I suspect I generally take the same sort of pictures with both. Perhaps with an SLR I think a bit more in terms of depth of field and will often use it compositionally more than with a rangefinder.

For me the big change isn't between SLR and rangefinder but between medium format with a waistlevel finder and 35mm cameras that I hold to my face. I find myself thinking and composing completely differently with a waist level finder.

The relatively smaller size and quieter shutter does make a difference but my Pentax P5/P50 isn't really that much larger than a rangefinder. I think there's not a massive difference between a biggish rangefinder and a small manual-wind SLR with a single 50mm lens. An OM body or the smaller Pentax bodies are pretty compact.

The shutter blackout is a biggish deal for 'street' type work, so if I was shooting a lot of street stuff or candid portaits I'd definitely prefer the rangefinder [or a TLR which I also like for 'street'].

My choice to use rangefinder cameras comes down to liking the smallish size of them, the relative lack of noise, the continual view through the finder and the look that certain lenses give. However, these are all a matter of degree, and I can get pretty close on all of those things with an SLR.

[PetarDima]

nice thread, wise thoughts from everybody :)

These days, DSLR vs. RF camera topic have different conclusion:
I wrote DSLR, because they are more optimised for that kind of work -
which was critical in SLR era: as we can see, there are some new moments in this story:
- DSLR camera is smaller & smaller
- it has Shake Reduction
- it has live view
- some of them are very quiet( Canon 40D silent live view shooting )
Bottom line:
I hope that one day we'll see affordable RF digital body will full frame sensor:p

[agman]

Because I have a choice.

[Blake Werts]

Fantastic discussion! Just the type of information that I was looking for.

Apprecaited!
Blake

[fdigital]

Dear Bill,

But equally, an adze finishes wood differently from a plane, and there's a difference between an egg fried in a wok or in a flat-bottomed frying pan.

The tool does work differently -- continuous viewing (and therefore more engagement with the subject, in the view of many), easier to hold still (most people find it so, anyway), no zooms, etc. -- and therefore it is hardly surprising that people take different pictures with different cameras.

In other words, the tool shapes the photographer's vision, just as the photographer's vision shapes the choice of tool.

Cheers,

R.

Bingo!


Bill,
I think you made reference to cars somewhere in this post - Let me put it this way: I used to drive a circuit a car. It was a small, light, rear wheel drive, front engined japanese car from the 80s which is now a cult car across the world. The motor was a high revving, peaky 1600cc 16v 4cyl, that sucked in from individual throttles, an aluminum trumpet on each throttle. As such the noise the motor made on acceleration was like a mechanical symphony of angriness. The interior was stripped out, with a roll cage, race seats etc. The car was very very fast around corners and able to displace many higher powered cars on the circuit.

I sold that last year and start of this year I bought a brand new Mazda 3 - a small front wheel drive economy car. It's much heavier, much less peaky, and a lot duller to drive, albeit more comfortable.

When I drove the circuit car, it was hard not to drive it quickly - every corner you want to go faster and faster and you rev it just to hear the noise it makes. In contrast, my current mazda sounds very subdued and dull in comparison, and is sloppy around corners. Granted it's very nice to just cruise around in, and makes getting to work less of a hassle - no smelling like petrol or climbing out of racing seats.


In conclusion to this long spiel, the cars characteristics change the way that I drive - same goes with cameras. When shooting with a rangefinder I feel like I am part of the actions, when as with the SLR I feel I am from the outside looking in, dissecting the action. My results reflect that. I feel my SLR shots have a better technical quality about them, and my rangefinder shots are better emotionally.

[Pitxu]

I take better photos when I wear my beret.

[bmattock]

When shooting with a rangefinder I feel like I am part of the actions, when as with the SLR I feel I am from the outside looking in, dissecting the action. My results reflect that. I feel my SLR shots have a better technical quality about them, and my rangefinder shots are better emotionally.

All of which are valid points why YOU prefer a rangefinder. It is still not valid to say that 'rangefinders' possess some quality that 'SLR' cameras do not and then refer to your feelings to describe them. They do not possess those qualities - you do.

[bmattock]

I take better photos when I wear my beret.

I prefer a fez, but I can be persuaded to wear a porkpie. A beret on me would look like a toadstool cap perched on an egg.

[Leighgion]

Music makes me invincible.

Music may not make you invincible.

[hugivza]

My goodness, what an exciting debate on "horses for courses"- quotes from Lord Denning, with shades of the late Charlton Heston at the NRA and philosphy thrown in for good measure. Given the high proportion of sunny days here and the declining ozone hole, I prefer an Akubra as it covers up my receeding locks or what remains thereof.

I like RF's for their relatively light weight, their compactness and quietness, and that they represent a sense of nostalgia - a 1950's Contax is not just an RF it is the height of mechanical precision and so has an aesthetic value to me which late model SLR's do not have. I like SLR's when parallax might be a problem, attaching big lenses, or doing macro work, or where TTL metering might be critical.

Pixtu I understand that Basque music has much in common with Celtic music (Milledoro et al); I am not sure where the invincibility stems from, but I would avoid tall buildings for a while just in case it's an Irish myth.

[fdigital]

All of which are valid points why YOU prefer a rangefinder. It is still not valid to say that 'rangefinders' possess some quality that 'SLR' cameras do not and then refer to your feelings to describe them. They do not possess those qualities - you do.

You're right, but because this is a public forum, where opinions are expressed, and opinions are asked of, I expressed mine.

I love the toadstool on a perched egg thing! haha

[bmattock]

You're right, but because this is a public forum, where opinions are expressed, and opinions are asked of, I expressed mine.

I love the toadstool on a perched egg thing! haha

I have no objections to opinions. I have several, so if you run short, you can have one of mine.

I merely note:

I have a friend who has started "learning photography" that will be visiting soon and I know that I'm going to have to explain the choice of a rangefinder over an SLR. This fellow is quite technical so a "just because" isn't going to satisfy...

To me, 'feelings' about rangefinders fit into the 'just because' clause. If we had been asked to wax poetic on the artistic urge, I'd be in there with you, plus I'd include the fondle factor, often overlooked when selecting kit.

[Holmz]

The only real catching reason (IMO) is that the RF-lens are not required to leave room for the mirror as the SLRs need to.
I am assuming that enables the RF to have better optics than an SLR.

But full lens quality might not come into play, unless your using good film(?)

[kshapero]

For me the DSLR is mechanical but damn good at it. My Rf is just plain fun and more tactile to hold. I go back and forth, pros and cons, sometimes ad infinitum. Soon I'll be medicated and all will be good. Glenlivit does the trick.

[mfunnell]

I use SLRs and rangefinders with roughly equal frequency but usually for different tasks. For me (ymmv) the key differences at wide-to-short-telephoto focal lengths are:

a) with an SLR I tend to see only what's in frame and not much outside, whereas with an RF I see both what's both included and excluded by my framing; and...

b) with an SLR I see what's in focus only wide open and have to imagine what would be included by stopping down, whereas with an RF I see everything in focus and have to imagine what will be excluded by opening the aperture.

This means I tend to compose differently with an RF than with an SLR. Not better, not worse, just differently. I find those differences often suit me better one way for some subjects and the other way for others.

Also, I often find RF cameras give me more precise focus - but that may be more technique than camera differences (though there are theoretical advantages to RF focus at these focal lengths I'm far from sure my results are due to that: I think personal ineptitude trumps theory there).

...Mike

P.S. Yes I can shoot and SLR both-eyes-open and see both in-frame and out-of-frame. But it only works with a 50mm lens else I get queasy. And, yes, DOF preview on an SLR sort 've works but not really for fast hand-held work.

[TheHub]

Personally I find rangefinder cameras to be lighter and smaller. I also shoot a lot with available light, sometimes all the way down to 1/8 of a second. With an SLR the mirror slap would make that kind of photography impossible.

[alcaraban]

Why rangefinder? It depends on the subject:
1/8 sec. handheld (for night shots).
Quieter shutter (for concert pictures).
No mirror black-out (so you can see the subject when you press the shutter).

Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with a SLR.

[williams473]

Thought I’d add a voice to the minority opinion…

I prefer SLRs to rangefinders for similar reasons to one other person in this thread - accurate framing being the most important consideration for me. I know exactly what I'm getting in the frame when I take images with my SLR, whereas when I shoot with a rangefinder, I am often surprised when looking at my negatives on the light box to find that my images on the film do not match up with the way I remembered seeing them at the moment of exposure. Composition is one of the absolute most critical aspects in making a photograph, especially on the street with little or no time to prepare, and the SLR is just way more accurate at providing me consistent results. I also enjoy being able to actually see what depth of field I have, and I am much faster to focus with an SLR – I like how the image just snaps into focus, whereas with the rangefinder I have to check and recheck my focus if I think it is critical. That said, lower quality SLR lenses can be difficult to focus, but with higher quality lenses, they snap into focus very nicely.

Mirror slap doesn't bother me at all - people talk about it like it shakes the camera in your hand like it's a running engine or something - I've done lots of handheld shooting at 1/4 - 1/30 with both SLRs and rangefinders, and see no difference in the results - the movement of the subject (I rarely shoot a purely static scene) at these speeds is going to blur the image anyway. Or, unless you brace the camera against your body, a light pole, or whatever is available, hand shake is going to be more of an issue than mirror slap in blurring the image.

Faster lenses are a bonus for rangefinders to a point, but the one or two stops gained could be made up by pushing my film or lowering shutter speed, plus most super fast rangefinder lenses are prohibitively expensive for me to buy, if I want to buy what is considered the best in rangefinder lenses. My SLR Nikkor lenses are considered some of “the best” (please let’s not get into it) in the SLR world, and yet they are pretty cheap on Ebay.

Also "mirror blackout" is not a major drawback for me either - honestly, even 1/60 of a second is such a short time to be "blacked out" that I doubt it really matters as much as everyone thinks, - I mean, it's basically like blinking. For Art, product, wedding or travel shooting, I don't see how continuos viewing is a great advantage. If stopping fast action is what you need to do, as in sports photojournalism, you’re not going to be using a rangefinder anyway. You’re going to blaze away 25 frames in a couple seconds with a DSLR.

Of course I can’t deny that rangefinders are lighter and quieter, they are nifty looking, and I enjoy using one occasionally. But the only practical advantage outside of weight and shutter sound that I can think of is that I use yellow filters often, and it's nice to have a non-yellow image of the world through the viewfinder, as I do with my SLR. Then again, I'm usually shooting black and white so I'm not thinking in color anyway.

[Gumby]

Thought I’d add a voice to the minority opinion…

Me 2. Once all the hair is split and there is only dandruff remaining, this is one of the few times when I'm left with the impression that I actually understand and agree with BM. I use a variety of cameras including 35mm RF, and 35 and MF SLRs. My comfort-zone is mostly with the SLRs, perhaps because that is where most of my experience lays. But in the end I can produce a decent photo with any of them.... and few (if any) could tell the difference. The lightness/quietness of the 35mm RF is what generally drives me to choose that camera over any of the others; a need to be guaranteed professional results always drives me toward a SLR; the viewer/user of my photos generally don't care or can't tell... unless there is uncorrected convergence, in which case I would have used a view camera to start with.

[Kevin]

Looking forward, I can hold my Leica M6 in one hand behind my back and simultaneously set shutterspeed, aperture and focus. It's a trick I learned years ago that I cannot do with any other camera I own.

[Spider67]

The camera does not know what it is taking a photo of. If one takes 'human' photos and the other 'clinical' shots, that is down to what you have between your ears.

Some people find themselves feeling more artistic when wearing a beret and smoking clove cigarettes. I doubt the clothing changes the paint around on the canvas.

.....user reads post puts back beret on wardrobe, starts searching for his HCB pipe.....read again if he can find other hints to look more like it!;)

[dee]

Just a thought , but there is a far wider choice of SLR ? DSLR camera for an ex-beginner , I love my rangefinders , but maybe they are an aquired taste ? Outside mainstream ?

Being practical ...

[fawate]

One of the reasons that I enjoy a rangefinder is because it doesn`t look professional. In fact, when I walk around with an M6, people simply ignore me (just another stupid guy with a funny old obsolete camera). In some occasions, I believe that security guards would not have let me take pictures if I was carrying some "pro-looking camera", whatever that may be.

[literiter]

When I was a little younger (in 1966) I got a temporary job with a studio photographer, helping him take pictures of refrigerators for a catalog. He did not do "art", but he was extremely meticulous. I did the very creative job of hoisting stuff out of trucks. As far as his cameras "look but don't touch".

He was a arrogant, belligerent old prick but in those few weeks he gave some advice:

"Don't worry about the equipment, concentrate on the image, the choice of equipment will present itself."

"If you have a camera, chances are you have the camera you need. If you don't think you have the right camera, you'll never have the right camera, consider camera sales."

He only had 4 cameras a 4x5 Linhoff, a odd camera that took 3 negatives with a filter for each color (that worked very well for his dye transfer stuff), a old Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad.

When I asked him if I should get a Pentax or a Nikon, he merely turned his back, shook his head and said, "Don't f**k with that, boy."

[btgc]

When I asked him if I should get a Pentax or a Nikon, he merely turned his back, shook his head and said, "Don't f**k with that, boy."

absolutely great !


As for original question - my first RF, Electro 35 with 1.7 lens cost me about equivalent of memory card for DSLR. That's the answer.

OK, it's fixed lens and thus completely different story and category when compared to DSLR, while Olympus haven't produced DSLR with fixed lens as they did in film era.

[Robin P]

Proof that logic can be defied.

I find SLRs easier to focus, my SLRs look old fashioned, the shutters on the CV Bessas that I had were nearly as noisy as an SLR, my Pentax ME with 40mm pancake was smaller than many RFs, my SLR shots require less cropping because I can trust the viewfinder etc......etc......

BUT - looking around the house I can see that the majority of the photos I have printed and hung on the wall were taken with a Rangefinder!

Cheers, Robin

[MickH]

How about settling this once an for all with a shoot-off. Post your best RF shot and your best SLR shot. It'll be soooo easy to decide which is the better camera.

;)

Cheers.

[myoptic3]

I don't get many photos of the back of my lens cap since I went back to an SLR. I do miss the smallness and thinness of the RF cameras, but I had difficulty focusing quickly w/ them. Having the image in the viewfinder actually agree w/ what the lens is seeing makes the picture taking experience better for me for some reason.

My subjective experience is that a SLR feels more alive to shoot with, and a RF camera feels more disconnected and dead. I expect the viewfinder to black out for a tiny amount of time, as the shutter is firing. With a RF camera it is unsettling to never see the image come in and out of focus, or never see any confirmation that the shutter has fired. Seeing all that extra stuff in the viewfinder that isn't going to be in the picture is confusing for me as well.

Old habits of attachment die hard though, as I still find myself looking at the RF cameras on the auctions. They look so neat, and are so much fun to play with. I just don't enjoy shooting w/ them very much.

[Kevin]

I don't get many missed-focus photos since I started using rangefinders. I do miss being able to hide my complete head behind a slr when drunken, but I had difficulty shooting and communicating with my subjects at the same time. Having the viewfinder on the side of the camera makes the picture taking experience better for me for some reason.

My subjective experience is that a rangefinder feels more alive to shoot with, and a SLR camera feels more disconnected and dead. I hated when the viewfinder blacked out for that tiny amount of time, as the shutter is firing. With a SLR camera it is unsettling to never see exact focus in dark places, or never see any confirmation that the shot was okay. Seeing all that extra stuff in the viewfinder that isn't going to be in the picture makes framing so much easier.

Old habits of attachment die hard though, as I still find myself looking at the old SLR cameras on the auctions. They look so bulky, but I just don't enjoy shooting with them very much.

[literiter]

I prefer medium format these days, and I like to hike in the back country. That leaves me with one lightweight choice; a folding rangefinder camera. So I'll take my Super Ikonta "C" or "IV".
I used to take a Nikon F3hp with some lenses but that stuff is heavy, then a Leica M4-P and two lenses, still a little heavy.
Now just a Super Ikonta, some film, a very light monopod and a Weston Master IV. If I want to shoot slides I'll take my Leica instead.

[Matt White]

Hello all,
Please help me: why do we prefer rangefinders over SLRs?

Because deep in the mechanism of each rangefinder camera there resides a tiny part of the eternal soul of Henri Cartier-Bresson. This enters the subconscious mind of the well-attuned photographer via the shutter release finger and whispers "Maintenant, mon ami." very softly at each decisive moment.

Of course, Leicas possess a larger trace of HCB's spirit than other rangefinders, and thus his whisper is louder and more urgent. Which is why Leica users take better photographs than anyone else.

[Keith]

Interesting thread that has just caught my attention. I put all my rangefinders aside a few weeks ago and have been using my OM-2 for daily shooting where I work. With the 50mm F1.8 fitted and the 85mm and 28mm in the carry kit it's the do all solution for me at the moment.

I really like the framing accuracy of the Olympus SLR over a rangefinder and I'm finding it hard to go back to my Ikon or Hexar ... this kit really is superb and I'm very happy with the result's it's producing!

[snegron]

I don't prefer rangefinders over SLR cameras. I prefer rangefinders for what they are best at.

Some of those things include:

* Quieter than a typical SLR.
* Smaller and lighter than a typical SLR.
* Work better in low-light due to a brighter viewfinder.
* Don't have to try to focus and compose through filters.

I do not use rangefinders obsessively. Yes, they can be used for macro, but I think that's a waste of time when an SLR can do it much better. Same for telephoto beyond 100mm or so.

Each type of camera (rangefinder, slr, tlr, point-n-shoot, etc) has its advantages and disadvantages. Using a camera according to its advantages makes sense, like using the right knife in the kitchen. Using a camera because you prefer it, even if another is better for the job is also understandable. But using a camera type obsessively out of some dislike for other sorts doesn't make much sense.

So, final answer - I use rangefinder cameras when it makes sense to do so, or because it gives me pleasure. Otherwise, I use other types.



Well said! This sums up my reasons as well. I will also add that there is a certain joy in using different cameras that can not be explained. I have gotten to the point that I rarely change lenses anymore.

I have certain camera/lens outfits that I shoot with and look forward to shooting with them. Examples; when I'm in a wide angle film mood I will use my F2A with a Nikkor 24mm 2.8, or F3HP with Nikkor 35mm 2.0; when I'm in the mood to capture candids of my daughters I use my S2 with 5cm 1.4 or Nikon F with 50mm 1.4; when I want to capture an image I would like to enlarge and frame I will use my Mamiya RB67 with 90mm or Mamiya 645 with 80mm 2.8, etc. Each camera/lens outfit puts me in a different mood for different shooting.

[FrankS]

Recently I put some film in a couple of my slr's and forced myself to use them. (Nikon F4, Minolta XK) I finished the film and now they're sitting on the shelf again and a Rollei 35T is in my work bag.

[jky]

Purchased a DSLR in December.... then just recently an M8. Now the DSLR is seeing less and less sunshine. Although I'm not yet sold on the M8, I enjoy the experience much more when using this gear (& when using the M6). Couple things I love about RFs:
1. Viewfinder
2. The user's involvement in the process.
... was going to include size & shutter sound, but re. size - there's dslr's & slr's out there (E420 & OM series) that are approx the same size as RFs & re. sound - well those Oly DSLR's are pretty quiet (probably a little more so than the M8).
This (photography) is just a hobby for me so #2 above gives me a lot of pleasure.

BTW, Frank... how's that Rollei 35?

[FrankS]

jky, the 35T is lovely! With a bunch of cameras on hand, there is quite a competition for my attention. I have a roll of film to develop from it and the second roll is in the camera, so I actually have not seen any results yet, but it functions well. I bought it to give it to my daughter, but she found the total manual operation with scale focusing too over-whelming to use. Since I coveted it so much, I traded her a Pentax K1000 and some lenses for it!

[jky]

Good to hear, good to hear, Frank... sometimes I regret getting rid of it, but I'm glad it's in good hands getting good use!

Sorry to the OP to have hijacked this thread...

[x-ray]

Dear Bill,

But equally, an adze finishes wood differently from a plane, and there's a difference between an egg fried in a wok or in a flat-bottomed frying pan.

The tool does work differently -- continuous viewing (and therefore more engagement with the subject, in the view of many), easier to hold still (most people find it so, anyway), no zooms, etc. -- and therefore it is hardly surprising that people take different pictures with different cameras.

In other words, the tool shapes the photographer's vision, just as the photographer's vision shapes the choice of tool.

Cheers,

R.

Did you ever post on this forum under the name MAGUS?

What happened to our old friend?

[Rhoyle]

For me, it's very simple. Much better wide angle performance. I use an SLR for tele and RF for wide. Both for normal.

[Spider67]

"Because deep in the mechanism of each rangefinder camera there resides a tiny part of the eternal soul of Henri Cartier-Bresson. This enters the subconscious mind of the well-attuned photographer via the shutter release finger and whispers "Maintenant, mon ami." very softly at each decisive moment"
....that explains it! I always wondered why my non Leica RF had such a tacky magic! It was an Impersonation of HCB sould done by Saturday live nights Rob Schneider!
Now in earnest that´s a poetic explanation and at lest for me true....

[papasnap]

apologies if anyone has already said this (as I'm in a rush tonight, I had to skim some of the replies) - but an excellent reason to shoot with an RF is the unique and amazing selection of lenses available. An M-Mount rangefinder can mount anything from a pre-WWII leica to a brand new ZM zeiss, even to a modified canon 50mm f0.95, and can cover a huge range of aesthetics and budgets. In fact the thing that got me interested in RF in the first place was the wonderful voigtlander 35mm f1.2 nokton - a lens that has no equivalent in the SLR world.

Of course, the SLR world has it's own selection of lenses that have no equivalent in the RF world (in particular, I'm thinking of lenses faster+wider than a 28mm f2, such as the Canon 24mm F1.4 L prime).

As an aside, personally I quite like the idea of having a film RF for shooting where my own subjective existence/experience is an integral part of the image (a sort of "gonzo photography"), and for having a DSLR for where the external event/environment is more important than my own preferences (or for when I'm out of provia :P ), but that's just my own preferences..

cheers! papasnap