MP Guy
06-10-2005, 19:56
Rangefinders vs. Single Lens Reflexes: why do you want an SLR anyways?
First off, I must admit I own an SLR and a darned nice one at that. I’ve used SLRs for many years, and have always coveted, championed and loved them. Until I discovered rangefinders. I felt a little like Romeo realising that Rosalind wasn’t so hot after all.
My sudden change of heart, like Romeo’s, was incredibly confusing to my partner. Having pined for my SLR and sang her praises a thousand times, my switch in affection seemed a tad bit impetuous and certainly financially ill-advised, as far as my partner was concerned. What a world of pain it was explaining to her that I needed even more camera gear, and gear that wasn’t immediately compatible with my current cameras.
What on earth would drive someone to take their life in their hands like that? Several factors contributed to my walking down the rangefinder path. I noticed that because of its weight and size, I was often choosing to leave my SLR at home when out with friends or at events. The few times I did take it out in public, or to a restaurant, I felt like I was wearing astro-turf pants so many people were staring at me. Nothing says ‘serious photo-geek’ like an SLR with a half-decent fast lens on it. I felt as if I was putting a breadbox to my eye every time I wanted to take a picture. Looking through the viewfinder, the rest of my sight was completely obscured and I was completely cut off from everything that was happening outside of the barrel of my lens. Even if I managed to frame a shot without being noticed, the sound of the mirror moving and the motor drive ensured that the subject was aware of me right away. So much for any attempts at candid photography. Compared to my digitally-oriented friends with their p&s cameras, I looked really out of place and stopped taking pictures even when I managed to lug my beloved beast along. I started pining for a camera small and discreet enough to take anywhere, without sacrificing picture quality.
After some research, I made a semi-impulse purchase of an old fixed-lens rangefinder from the seventies, the Yashica GSN, not Juliet by any means, but certainly a Capulet (and a hot one at that). I was primarily motivated by the fact that the super-fast f1.7 45mm lens was about $300 cheaper than the equivalent lens for my SLR, and it came with its own camera to boot! This kind of logic helped justify my purchase to my partner and, instead of yelling at me for wasting money I could have used to move in with her again, she merely rolled her eyes. I consider that a victory.
The first big difference was in usage. The rangefinder is not nearly so attention grabbing due to its retro look and its smaller size (unless another rangefinder user sees you!). I felt comfortable taking it anywhere and not worrying about it getting in the way, slipping it in and out of a big pocket or having it slung under my arm hidden underneath a jacket. Being less encumbered with camera gear is a great thing; my partner likes that I can have my arm around her on a walk again without listing to port or having my SLR hit her in the small of the back with every other step, and I like that I can take it on errands having slipped it in a large jacket pocket or my ever trendy man-purse (or murse).
There are a bunch of reasons as to why a rangefinder lens and body combination is smaller than an SLR’s mostly having to do with camera design, but honestly, it’s not something I think about. What is important are the consequences of the differences in design between the two, which means a more compact and much quieter camera on the rangefinder side.
Quiet and small equals an increase in discretion that allowed me more time to compose images without people noticing. Not only that, but due to both the smaller lens and the retro look of the camera, I was suddenly far less intimidating when taking pictures. After all, not many people see a rangefinder and expect anything more than a snapshot photographer. My SLR was ‘serious’, as in “that’s one serious-looking camera there buddy…” whereas my new camera was ‘cute’. As a result of all that, my rolls of exposed film increased which is always a nice thing, considering my hit rate is still pretty low with any camera.
And then I got my film back.
Holy crap!
I’m not even sure what else to add to that. The pictures were awesome. The lens was extremely sharp, the colour rendition was beautiful, the separation of the subject was spot on, and the bokeh was like creamy smooth butter. Not only was my new lens smaller, it was better than my SLR’s. That hurt a little, considering the price difference. With some debate, one can safely say that some of the best if not the very best lenses for 35mm photography are made for rangefinder cameras, and given how much better they are than the impressive lens on my GSN I almost put my SLR up for sale right then and there. There is a reason that many of the people who are synonymous with photography use or used rangefinder cameras and I now know why.
Before I began with rangefinders, I had been worried about parallax error, or not seeing exactly what was to be on the film through the lens, like you can in an SLR, but I found that even in my GSN that this was not a problem at all. In fact, given that most SLRs do not have a 100% viewfinder, I found the change to a viewfinder which had more information rather than less, quite helpful. There is nothing worse than getting a print back from a carefully composed SLR picture only to find that the extra 6-8% of viewfinder that you couldn’t see seriously ruined your picture. Not only that but the extra room in the viewfinder (say 110% rather than 94%) allows easier anticipation of movement through the frame and greater control of the composition.
In a few short months I have come to realise a rangefinder is a camera that I take out more often, and from which I get better shots with quality as good or better than my SLR. Sounds like Juliet compared to Rosalind to me. If you are considering a SLR purchase, ask yourself what you want out of your photography. Unless you are set on using really long telephotos or specialized macro gear, I think you will almost definitely be better served with a rangefinder and a few good quality prime lenses. In fact, if I can get over my sentimentality, I may just sell my SLR to fund an interchangeable lens rangefinder, as I am certain there is one in my future. No one can keep Romeo and Juliet apart now, can they?
First off, I must admit I own an SLR and a darned nice one at that. I’ve used SLRs for many years, and have always coveted, championed and loved them. Until I discovered rangefinders. I felt a little like Romeo realising that Rosalind wasn’t so hot after all.
My sudden change of heart, like Romeo’s, was incredibly confusing to my partner. Having pined for my SLR and sang her praises a thousand times, my switch in affection seemed a tad bit impetuous and certainly financially ill-advised, as far as my partner was concerned. What a world of pain it was explaining to her that I needed even more camera gear, and gear that wasn’t immediately compatible with my current cameras.
What on earth would drive someone to take their life in their hands like that? Several factors contributed to my walking down the rangefinder path. I noticed that because of its weight and size, I was often choosing to leave my SLR at home when out with friends or at events. The few times I did take it out in public, or to a restaurant, I felt like I was wearing astro-turf pants so many people were staring at me. Nothing says ‘serious photo-geek’ like an SLR with a half-decent fast lens on it. I felt as if I was putting a breadbox to my eye every time I wanted to take a picture. Looking through the viewfinder, the rest of my sight was completely obscured and I was completely cut off from everything that was happening outside of the barrel of my lens. Even if I managed to frame a shot without being noticed, the sound of the mirror moving and the motor drive ensured that the subject was aware of me right away. So much for any attempts at candid photography. Compared to my digitally-oriented friends with their p&s cameras, I looked really out of place and stopped taking pictures even when I managed to lug my beloved beast along. I started pining for a camera small and discreet enough to take anywhere, without sacrificing picture quality.
After some research, I made a semi-impulse purchase of an old fixed-lens rangefinder from the seventies, the Yashica GSN, not Juliet by any means, but certainly a Capulet (and a hot one at that). I was primarily motivated by the fact that the super-fast f1.7 45mm lens was about $300 cheaper than the equivalent lens for my SLR, and it came with its own camera to boot! This kind of logic helped justify my purchase to my partner and, instead of yelling at me for wasting money I could have used to move in with her again, she merely rolled her eyes. I consider that a victory.
The first big difference was in usage. The rangefinder is not nearly so attention grabbing due to its retro look and its smaller size (unless another rangefinder user sees you!). I felt comfortable taking it anywhere and not worrying about it getting in the way, slipping it in and out of a big pocket or having it slung under my arm hidden underneath a jacket. Being less encumbered with camera gear is a great thing; my partner likes that I can have my arm around her on a walk again without listing to port or having my SLR hit her in the small of the back with every other step, and I like that I can take it on errands having slipped it in a large jacket pocket or my ever trendy man-purse (or murse).
There are a bunch of reasons as to why a rangefinder lens and body combination is smaller than an SLR’s mostly having to do with camera design, but honestly, it’s not something I think about. What is important are the consequences of the differences in design between the two, which means a more compact and much quieter camera on the rangefinder side.
Quiet and small equals an increase in discretion that allowed me more time to compose images without people noticing. Not only that, but due to both the smaller lens and the retro look of the camera, I was suddenly far less intimidating when taking pictures. After all, not many people see a rangefinder and expect anything more than a snapshot photographer. My SLR was ‘serious’, as in “that’s one serious-looking camera there buddy…” whereas my new camera was ‘cute’. As a result of all that, my rolls of exposed film increased which is always a nice thing, considering my hit rate is still pretty low with any camera.
And then I got my film back.
Holy crap!
I’m not even sure what else to add to that. The pictures were awesome. The lens was extremely sharp, the colour rendition was beautiful, the separation of the subject was spot on, and the bokeh was like creamy smooth butter. Not only was my new lens smaller, it was better than my SLR’s. That hurt a little, considering the price difference. With some debate, one can safely say that some of the best if not the very best lenses for 35mm photography are made for rangefinder cameras, and given how much better they are than the impressive lens on my GSN I almost put my SLR up for sale right then and there. There is a reason that many of the people who are synonymous with photography use or used rangefinder cameras and I now know why.
Before I began with rangefinders, I had been worried about parallax error, or not seeing exactly what was to be on the film through the lens, like you can in an SLR, but I found that even in my GSN that this was not a problem at all. In fact, given that most SLRs do not have a 100% viewfinder, I found the change to a viewfinder which had more information rather than less, quite helpful. There is nothing worse than getting a print back from a carefully composed SLR picture only to find that the extra 6-8% of viewfinder that you couldn’t see seriously ruined your picture. Not only that but the extra room in the viewfinder (say 110% rather than 94%) allows easier anticipation of movement through the frame and greater control of the composition.
In a few short months I have come to realise a rangefinder is a camera that I take out more often, and from which I get better shots with quality as good or better than my SLR. Sounds like Juliet compared to Rosalind to me. If you are considering a SLR purchase, ask yourself what you want out of your photography. Unless you are set on using really long telephotos or specialized macro gear, I think you will almost definitely be better served with a rangefinder and a few good quality prime lenses. In fact, if I can get over my sentimentality, I may just sell my SLR to fund an interchangeable lens rangefinder, as I am certain there is one in my future. No one can keep Romeo and Juliet apart now, can they?