View Full Version : rangefinder attribute demonstrated?
Anyone has a photo that they believe shows the advantage of using a rangefinder? I mean a photo that shows how the viewfinder itself provided some advantage.
mostly for me it is seeing through the viewfinder so I can see what is about to happen, like someone walking into my frame so I can either take the picture before that or after if I dont want that person in it. Hard to show that but I will give it a go:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3524/3271437921_b0e483f4f5_o.jpg
I saw this guy was coming in with this motorcycle so I waited until he was there and snapped him in the shot too.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3147/2853297356_54253a417b_o.jpg
There was a lot of people moving in the background here so I waited until I had a moment where it was clearer and took that shot.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/2729026370_13e94879a1_o.jpg
Saw him coming and waited the extra split second before taking the shot so I could have everything bunched together better in the shot which might not have looked as good without the guy on the right or different if just parts of him were in the shot or if he was in front of the kid and I had not noticed when I took the shot because in that split second between where I could not see him and could have seen him in a SLR finder.
For me the RF is about being small, quiet and quick. The view doesn't really help me, in fact I prefer looking through my D200 to any of my RF's. But the D200 shouts at people, my RF's are stealthy Ninjas. :)
Anyone has a photo that they believe shows the advantage of using a rangefinder? I mean a photo that shows how the viewfinder itself provided some advantage.
the alternative …
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/2808723079_65d4e0d286_b.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/2808723079_65d4e0d286_b.jpg)
... I think not
As an addition to Avotius post...
BTW shot by zi
It took me less than one second to compose, focus and shoot this photo. When I finished, the lady asked me if I wanted to take a photo of her... This has been with the Zeiss Ikon and 35/2 Biogon at f 4.0, probably around 1/1000th of a second. This particular camera/lens combination is better at delivering stunning results in the street than anything else that I have ever tried.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2373/1944993365_148fe9c20c_b.jpg
In addition to the advantages stated above, I also like the infinite field-of-view seen through a bright viewfinder on a rangefinder camera. I find it makes composing a photograph easier. Looking through an SLR, the background is usually a blur and I find using the DOF preview is cumbersome and darkens the view too much.
The assumption that you're shooting blind outside the frame with an SLR intrigues me. It depends on the size of the SLR and whether you are able to shoot right eyed or not IMO. With a small example like the early Nikon F or Olympus OM it's not the case ... your free eye can see a lot of information and movement past the camera and although you're not actually seeing it in the viewfinder you can be well aware of what's happening outside the frame.
As for the actual space outside the framelines in a rangefinder, depending on the viewfinder magnification and what lens you're using, it's really not that much!
Anyone has a photo that they believe shows the advantage of using a rangefinder? I mean a photo that shows how the viewfinder itself provided some advantage.
Er... No. But that doesn't stop me from using mine. I think you're missing the point and like many, many, many people, assume it's the camera that makes the difference. It ain't, it's the person using it and it's down to what you're most happy using. There's nothing I can do with a RF that you can't do with an SLR.
If you're looking for a reason to buy a RF, just do it, you'll understand the reason later - and if you don't, stick to SLRs, there's nothing wrong in that.
[Edit]P.S. Actually, I've recently started to use SLRs again and I'm starting to wonder what it is I like so much about RFs. It's difficult to justify them other than perhaps in size and weight.
NathanJD
06-24-2009, 07:01
Well yes if you cannot shoot with your right eye most cameras are pretty awful, especially rangefinders where you right eye would be looking at metal, at least with a Nikon F you could see.
I'm left eyed. i've tried it with my right and it just feels funny. i tend to only bring the camera right up to my eye to frame a shot i want to be 'perfectly' framed. it's nice being able to see everything through the viewfinder though and perhaps for a left-eyed guy like me that's why i like them so much. i tend to look and wait, then when i see a shot coming i bring the camera to my (left) eye with the other one closed and keep watching until everything's where i want it to be. unless i'm not feeling overly confident at which point i shoot from the hip.
I think that trying to demonstrate the difference between a rangefinder and an SLR is a little bit futile too - you can't tell per say from the shot that it's a sure rangefinder shot it's about the moment and how you feel about the camera and how at ease you and those around you are (including those in the frame).
Joe public tend not to take rangefinders as seriously and so i believe they have less of a knee-jurk reaction of fear when they see you pointing one at them that they are going to end up on a billboard or in a magazine or whatever, as silly as that may sound.
Of the above posted pics I see nothing that couldn't have been taken wth an SLR ... I was expecting to see some hand held low light shots taken at 1/4 sec or similar which is where the lack of mirror slap does make some difference!
Pickett Wilson
06-24-2009, 10:20
You really can't tell the difference. And I suspect that was the point the OP was trying to make.
kshapero
06-24-2009, 10:26
Good point Keith but I still likes looking at Avotius (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/member.php?u=3840)'s photos.
I would not have even attempted this one with an SLR.
J-8 at f2 and the camera--either Zorki 3m or Bessa R, cant remember--was at 1/8 or 1/10.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/105/308360497_9bab9b4bf0_o.jpg
Or this one:
Bessa R and CV21 wide open. 1/15 or 1/8. (Yes it has been cropped.)
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1286/1344084048_72ee8586a6.jpg
Rob
Pickett Wilson
06-24-2009, 13:26
Well, IS with the SLR would take care of that slow speed problem. :)
Or a honking big flash!
:D
Or, more seriously, I could be using faster film; those were both 400 speed. Wlagreen's/Fuji for the color and BW400CN for the other one.
Rob
I hate to spoil the party but I can get pretty sharp results down to 1/8 sec with my OM-1 ... hold the aperture preview button down which effectively disconnects the mechanism that moves the aperture blades during shutter accuation and the camera virtually has no more kick than my Leica M2!
I took a picture of Liz Sunday. I was using my FM2n. She said, "I blinked." I said, "Oh--I thought you might have. Don't blink this time."
If I had been using a RF, then I would have told her, "You blinked."
--michael
Keith, my particular disadvantage with a slow shutter and an SLR is that I blink or flinch while the VF is blacked out. If I look over the top of the camera, I do much better! My only SLR currently is an EOS Elan IIe, I like it quite a bit for most things, but for low light, I prefer any of my RFs.
Rob
Keith, my particular disadvantage with a slow shutter and an SLR is that I blink or flinch while the VF is blacked out. If I look over the top of the camera, I do much better! My only SLR currently is an EOS Elan IIe, I like it quite a bit for most things, but for low light, I prefer any of my RFs.
Rob
You're right of course and generally in a low light social situation I will use my M2 or ZI ... I have used my Oly for the same thing though out of curiosity and couldn't really pick any consistent difference in my results.
I sometimes find the rangefinder's framing accuracy a bit vague though and have noticed that I tend to crop my results slightly more often when shooting with one.
Well, the bright lines do get hard to see if it's really dark. Then I just look through the center of the VF and crop after if I need to.
Rob
I hate to spoil the party but I can get pretty sharp results down to 1/8 sec with my OM-1 ... hold the aperture preview button down which effectively disconnects the mechanism that moves the aperture blades during shutter accuation and the camera virtually has no more kick than my Leica M2!
I was playing with my OM-1 the other day and noticed how little kick the mirror has too especially compared to my Minolta x700 and Canon digital stuff. Unfortunately I cant get my hands on the batteries for the camera and just have not got around to sticking film in it. Though I would say my M6 does move a lot less then my OM1 when the shutter is fired.
I enjoy switching at times between my M's and Nikon F3HP... Sometimes its a hard decision as to which kit to take. The requirements that will always push me to the M over the SLR is when size of the kit I need to carry matters and whether I consider the environment I will shoot in will have me shooting a lot without using the viewfinder. Zone focusing on an SLR lens is nothing short of useless...
CK Dexter Haven
06-24-2009, 16:07
• I've never really understood the claim that that little 'extra' bit in the rangefinder window helps you to 'see what's coming' — so, therefore, the RF has some advantage for shooting action. A rangefinder is about the worst tool for shooting anything that moves, unless you're content to shoot without focusing and rely on a stopped down lens for DOF. There's a pretty big contradiction here. No one (in their right mind) shoots sports with a rangefinder. And, that has nothing to do with the telephoto issue.
And, doesn't the subject have to be moving pretty slowly in order for the photographer to catch it, first, outside the framelines, and then track it into the framelines? Something that moves two millimeters within the viewfinder is really giving you such ad advantage? Versus servo-tracking AF that can allow you to catch a moving subject at F1.2 and not have to rely on zone focusing?
• I've had two M7s and now an Ikon, and have also owned a Mamiya 6 and now a Bronica RF645. I haven't noticed any advantages with low light/slow shutter speed capability with the RFs over well-dampened SLRs like a Contax RX or Aria, and now a Nikon F6. Contrarily, i like having a motor driven camera with continuous drive, so that the second frame doesn't have any effects of pressing down on the shutter release.
• I have the Aria and a Nikon FE2 that are effectively the same size as my Ikon. And, the Nikon 50mm 1.8 Series E is almost a pancake lens, so size isn't really an issue.
• Definitely, the reason why i keep coming back to RFs has more to do with the range of lenses than the body/viewing system. I don't like rangefinders. Someone above said he finds SLR composing more distracting, because too much of the image in the finder is out of focus. For me, it's the opposite. It's distracting to me to see everything in focus, because i then have to mentally 'translate' what i'm seeing into what i'm expecting in the picture. I never shoot at smaller than f5.6 - unless i have to shoot a landscape or somesuch. And, if i am shooting a landscape or whatever, it's so far away from me/the lens that shallow DOF in the viewfinder isn't an issue. There typically isn't that much in the foreground that will even be shown out of focus.
• Blinking. Even with a rangefinder, we're talking about 1/500 of a second for the shutter, and 1/blink of a second for the eye. Even through a rangefinder, i wouldn't bet on whether a blink had been recorded. With an SLR, you may have a suspicion. With a RF, you have a gut feeling Either way, don't you have to reshoot? In 30+ years, i can't remember ever getting a blink on a contact sheet where i wasn't expecting it.
• The picture of the doofus with the SLR and flipflops is moot. There are doofi with RFs, too. Maybe fewer of them, but that's on account of most people preferring SLRs. Besides that, that camera isn't so big anyway. The only people who think SLRs are big, cumbersome, unwieldy, unstealthy are us rangefinder folks. Somehow we get a bit nancy after getting used to small cameras. I used to use a Pentax 67 and a Mamiya RZ67 - both handheld, for 8-10 hours of fashion photoshoots. Now, looking at either one of those cameras makes my head hurt....
• If HCB started in the 60s or 70s, he'd have used a Nikon F, and he'd have made the same types of pictures.
bkrystad
06-24-2009, 19:00
Hmm. I shoot RF and SLR, and like them both. But for six months I've been getting to know a Minolta CLE with an M-Rokkor 40mm on it, and I'm really enjoying the experience of composition. I've attached a shot of the CLE viewfinder with 28mm brightlines on the outside and 40mm on the inside. The experience is just completely different from composing with my Minolta SLR, and I appreciate the difference.
Can I point to a picture that was made better with my CLE than my XD-11? No. I only use one camera at a time.
I've also attached a sports photo taken with a Yashica Lynx 14e. I may not be in my right mind, but damn that game was fun.
I saw this guy was coming in with this motorcycle so I waited until he was there and snapped him in the shot too.
Are you deaf?
kemal_mumcu
06-24-2009, 19:57
For me the only advantage of the RF finder has been that it forces you to think outside the box/camera as to what you're trying to frame. My Leica is a teacher, it forces me to shoot from the minds eye or heart rather than the clear parameters and preview of the SLR. Composing with an SLR is a treat and a visual sensation.
The framelines for me on an M2 are only a suggestion or a guide.
The whole 'seeing outside the lines' preaching concerning RFs has been lost on me so far.
Dave Wilkinson
06-24-2009, 20:00
I have a photo that shows the advantage of tightening a bolt - with a socket-wrench, as opposed to a ring-spanner!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Sarcophilus Harrisii
06-24-2009, 20:40
Anyone has a photo that they believe shows the advantage of using a rangefinder? I mean a photo that shows how the viewfinder itself provided some advantage.
Photographing fireworks would probably work well with a rangefinder, as opposed to an SLR, wouldn't it? A few weeks ago our neighbours put on a display during the annual fireworks night we have here in Tasmania. At that time I didn't own a rangefinder (I've since bought five, though!) so, I was shooting Provia with my EOS630 before switching to Superia with my EOSRT. For various unimportant reasons, I was not able to position myself at the optimum distance for capturing the full bursts and was a little too close, but I was stuck with this constraint and had to make the best of it. Most of my shots were multiple exposures on bulb using a remote release. With the 630 I had my fingers crossed most of the time the shutter was open - thinking, "Gee, hope I got that one!" - but it was, of course, impossible to know for sure with the mirror up. With the RT, I could actually monitor the bursts through the finder, to verify that I'd recorded them, and open or close the shutter exactly when needed to achieve this. I would think that a rangefinder would be equally as good as an RT or even better in this situation, yes?
Another great thing is that it takes the guesswork out of determining that the flash has actually fired. Buying an RT was a good move for me because it got me switched on to the idea of rangefinder ownership.
Perhaps others may not feel the issues I've touched on above to be of importance to them, but as a relatively inexperienced photographer, I certainly noticed the difference on the night.
Cheers,
Brett
Dave Wilkinson
06-24-2009, 21:12
Let's face it - apart from personal equipment preferances, the main advantage is noise, or the lack of it!, ( I've allways liked leaf-shutters for this reason ) when close to a subject, but I'm sure the picture examples given, could have been taken with almost anything.
Dave.
• I've never really understood the claim that that little 'extra' bit in the rangefinder window helps you to 'see what's coming' — so, therefore, the RF has some advantage for shooting action. A rangefinder is about the worst tool for shooting anything that moves, unless you're content to shoot without focusing and rely on a stopped down lens for DOF. There's a pretty big contradiction here. No one (in their right mind) shoots sports with a rangefinder. And, that has nothing to do with the telephoto issue.
And, doesn't the subject have to be moving pretty slowly in order for the photographer to catch it, first, outside the framelines, and then track it into the framelines? Something that moves two millimeters within the viewfinder is really giving you such ad advantage? Versus servo-tracking AF that can allow you to catch a moving subject at F1.2 and not have to rely on zone focusing?
For street shots, which is moving action, the bit around the frames is a huge advantage, especiall with 50mm and above lenses. A SLR will give you a tunnel vision and you will have to scan around to see what is happening. The 35mm lens on the M8 (roughly 50mm FF) gives a lot of space outside the frameline and help me anticipate at lot of movement, even with cars and wide-open.
See this shot for example at F1.4 :
http://blog.yanidel.com/2009/06/09/topless-over-the-seine-river/
Seeing the car coming outside the frames helped me anticipate the click. I could also focus on composition.
With a 24mm lens, this advantage does not exist anymore yet I love the big bright finder ..
http://blog.yanidel.com/2009/06/24/losing-control/
This shot was easier (not for my safety) as the car was coming in front.
Of course, I would never shoot a 100m dash with a rangefinder (unless I need only one shot)
Brian Sweeney
06-24-2009, 21:55
A wide-base Rangefinder provides more accurate focus for lenses up to ~100mm than does an SLR. I have an easier time focussing a fast lens on the RF than I do with a comparable lens on an SLR.
http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=575
Plus, you can't get a 50mm Sonnar for an SLR.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.