MP Guy
06-10-2005, 20:03
Rangefinder Renaissance: Practical and Aesthetic Arguments for Choosing a Rangefinder
One of the most striking images in photographic history is Andreas Feininger’s “The Photojournalist”. The image is compelling for its suggestion of the melding of camera and photographer. In the image the photographer’s eyes have been replaced by the lens of his Leica and its external finder. The effect makes us think about the relationship between human vision, the eye of the camera, and the role of photography in the modern era. Feininger’s photograph speaks of the dehumanization of vision and the increasing unity of man and technology. With the rise of practical and widespread photography in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, photography supplanted painting, printing, lithography and drawings as the primary way people accessed the world beyond their locale. Where before their view of the world was literally created by human hands, it was now coolly and faithfully reproduced on silver nitrate and cellulose. In this sense, photography can be seen as just another permutation of the brutality and the dehumanization of the modern world. I would argue against this however. The camera is unique among artistic tools in that it can be both eminently human and devoid of human agency – the difference lies solely in the vision of the operator. A paintbrush cannot automatically paint a still life, but an automatic camera can properly focus and expose a photograph without any human help, save for the trigger of the shutter release. It is this moment that separates man from machine. Through the conscious choice of subject and the method by which it is recorded, photography ceases to be the mere chemical reaction of silver nitrate to light and it becomes an art. While technical choices (lens, film, aperture, shutter speed, development etc) have an impact on the resulting art, the foremost factor is the photographer’s unique vision. Of all the types of camera now available, the rangefinder camera provides the closest link between the photographer and his or her subject, making it an excellent tool for the aspiring photographic artist.
Though the majority of professional photography today is done with SLR cameras, the rangefinder camera retains the most intimate connection between the photographer and their subject. The consistently bright viewfinder and the ability to see the area around the subject allows for an involvement with the subject that is rarely present in an SLR system; even more rare in the upside down, inside out world of twin lens reflex or view cameras. Alone among other types of cameras, the rangefinder shows the world almost exactly as it is, leaving the photographer the choice as to whether they will try to portray it as they see it or with different characteristics. The difference between looking through rangefinders and SLR’s is like the difference between looking through a telescope and looking through a window. Indeed, with long telephotos on SLR’s this is essentially what you are doing. Even with a 50mm “normal lens”, the SLR shows you an area that corresponds to looking ahead with blinders on. The rangefinder removes those blinders, allowing you to see the area around the field of view of the lens.
The rangefinder’s viewing system can also help create a connection with the subject. With certain types of rangefinders, the viewfinder is at or near 1:1 magnification, allowing the photographer to shoot with both eyes open. This action allows the photographer to be both an observer and a participant in the scene in a way that is impossible with another type of camera. Furthermore, with its main viewing window at far left, the rangefinder obscures much less of the photographer’s face, often putting the subject more at ease than with a larger SLR which totally obscures the photographer’s face. Since the face is the most important indicator of intention, having the face clearly visible can help temper the subject’s reaction. With their face clearly visible, the photographer is able to interact as an equal with the subject, where the SLR user is more likely to be as faceless, anonymous or as hiding behind their camera. The rangefinder is simply less threatening than the larger SLR.
Single Lens Reflex cameras are incredibly useful tools for the extremes of photography – very long telephoto work, extreme macro photography, or very fast action that demands fast auto-focus and high frame rates. Yet for general-purpose photography, the rangefinder is a superior tool, particularly for the photographic artist. Compared to SLR’s, rangefinders tend to be smaller, quieter and lighter than their equivalent reflex cameras. Much of their advantage in size and discreetness comes from their ability to leave out the complicated and bulky mirrors and prisms required for an SLR to function. A rangefinder only needs a shutter, a method to advance the film and a system to focus the lens – the SLR must provide a means to view the lens’s image oriented properly (the image forms on the film upside down and inverted left to right), and it must provide a way to expediently remove this viewing aid, stop down to the working aperture, release the shutter, expose the film, and return the shutter, aperture and mirror to their original positions after exposure. The speed required to do this in a quick manner (milliseconds) is quite high. Though it is accomplished in a fraction of a second, an SLR still has a greater time lag between when the photographer presses the shutter release and the film is exposed than does a rangefinder camera. Though the time scale we are talking about is microscopic, it still has bearing on real photographic situations, most notably “the decisive moment” as articulated by Henri Cartier-Bresson. The obvious example of this phenomenon is Bresson’s “La Gare Saint-Lazare, Paris”.
Bresson’s image demonstrates “the decisive moment” – the absolute peak point of interest – in this scene, it is the symmetry of the man and his reflection before he touches the surface of the water, destroying the mirror-like surface. Given how close the man’s foot is to the water, I would dare say that had Bresson been using an SLR, he would have missed the shot. This may be a counterfactual (especially since they were only invented the year that Bresson took the photo, 1932), but the fact remains that the rangefinder allowed Bresson to see exactly was about to unfold and the camera reacted as quickly as he did. This type of camera was certainly the only type capable of making such an image at the time when Cartier-Bresson took the photograph. Another advantage of the rangefinder has in recording “decisive moments” is that it is one of the only types of camera that actually allows the photographer to see the scene as the exposure is being made. Unless an SLR has a special pellicular mirror, then when the photographer makes the exposure the viewfinder blacks out entirely. Though the viewfinder is usually only blacked out for a fraction of a second, it still obscures the “decisive moment” – the camera prevents you from seeing the very moment that has been captured. With a rangefinder, the moments before, during and after exposure are equally visible. This allows the photographer to truly involve herself with the scene, judging the development of the scene and photographing it exactly as it happens. The lack of a mirror blackout makes it easier to photograph fleeting expressions, as well as making it easier to judge exactly what the scene was at the moment of exposure (certainly less of an advantage now than it was before the widespread popularity of digital photography).
Though today’s SLR cameras tend to have more automation and features than rangefinders, rangefinder have a number of distinct technical advantages, particularly in terms of lens design. The following is a table of rangefinder camera advantages and disadvantages.
They are almost always smaller, quieter, and lighter than equivalent SLR cameras.
They are often simpler in operation, leaving the photographer to worry only about the essentials – lens choice, focus, aperture and shutter speed.
They have a single bright viewfinder for focusing all lenses. This means that your f/4 lens is as easy to focus as your f/1.4 lens. Since the focal length and speed of the lens do not affect the precision of the focusing, it means that rangefinder cameras can focus wide-angle lenses with extremely high precision. This is a particularly important feature for high-speed wide-angle lenses like the 35mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.2 offerings by Leica and Voigtlander. Unfortunately, this same advantage can become a disadvantage with lenses in the longer telephoto ranges – 135mm and above depending on speed, viewfinder magnification and the rangefinder baselength. Some rangefinders with shorter baselengths (Voigtlander models) can have difficulty focusing even 75mm or 90mm lenses at close range if they are f/2 or faster.
It is easier to make high-quality, economical wide-angle lenses for rangefinder cameras than it is for SLR cameras. Wide-angle lenses normally require that the rear element be very close to the film plane in order to achieve infinity focus. Rangefinder cameras have no mirror that has to swing out of the way of the lens path during exposure. This allows rangefinder wide-angle lenses to be smaller, lighter, cheaper (one hopes) and of higher quality than comparable lenses for SLR cameras.
This same absence of a mirror gives a rangefinder camera a distinct advantage in terms of in-camera vibration. As discussed earlier, every modern SLR camera features a mirror that must swing out of the way extremely quickly and the aperture stopped down so that the shot can be executed when the photographer depresses the shutter release. Beyond simply blacking out the viewfinder, every time an SLR camera is fired, the mirror slaps the top of the camera sending vibrations throughout the camera body and creating a rather significant amount of noise depending on the camera. These vibrations can have a very significant effect on image sharpness. For this reason, many SLR cameras include a feature to lock the mirror in the up position for critical use. With rangefinders, the only causes of vibration in the camera body are the shutter and the photographer. This also allows rangefinders to be shot handheld 2-3 stops slower than an SLR. A photographer with a steady hand can usually take usable shots down to 1/8th of a second or even less with a 50mm lens.
Though they are often overlooked, rangefinder cameras are excellent tools for both learning photography and for practicing it at a serious level. When visiting a camera store, a serious amateur is almost always guided towards an SLR or a “prosumer” digital camera. While most rangefinders are still film cameras, it is still possible to excel in a digital world using a rangefinder. If you must have digital built into the camera, the Epson RD-1 is an excellent rangefinder that features a 6mp sensor with very high quality output. Another option which many photographers (including myself) choose is to shoot on film and scan when necessary. This approach gives the photographer maximum versatility. They can shoot black and white or color with equal facility, and it opens up the possibility of shooting transparency film, which is still absolutely unrivaled in terms of projection quality. Film, particularly black and white negative film and Kodachrome slides, also has an archival life which is likely to greatly exceed that of any current digital storage media. If one chooses to archive digitally, it is of critical importance to make regular backups and transfer to new media promptly so that the old formats do not become obsolete (when was the last time you used a floppy disk?). Quality film scanners such as the Minolta Scan Dual IV only cost a few hundred dollars and they are capable of delivering resolution that is unmatched except by medium and large format digital backs. Digital has not completely forsaken the rangefinder market however. As mentioned above, Epson already has the highly regarded RD-1, and Leica has announced its intention to have a Digital M by 2006. Zeiss and/or Voigtlander will both probably enter the fray with digital rangefinders in the near future. At the moment, it is probably best to stick with film. With that in mind, I will offer some suggestions for camera lens combinations for new users of varying budgets. My prices are taken from Adorama camera and are accurate as of May 31, 2005.
Budget outfit number one: Voigtlander Bessa R2A $550 and 35mm f/1.7 Ultron $385 = $935
Budget outfit number two: Voigtlander Bessa R3A $550 and 50mm f/1.5 Nokton $345 = $895
Classic Outfit = User Leica M3, 50mm Collapsible Summicron and Weston Master V meter = About 1000 dollars depending on condition.
Leica “starter kit”. Leica M7 and 50mm f/2 Summicron = $3500
Money is no object kit: Leica M7 or MP ($2600+ depending on options and whether you do a la carte). 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit ASPH ($2600+400 for finder), 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH ($2570), 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH ($2200), 75mm f/1.4 Summilux ($2750) = Arm, leg and/or $13,120 without tax or shipping.
Obviously, one does not need to spend 13,000 dollars to have a complete rangefinder kit. There are many sources for used items, which even in mint condition can save you 50% over a new item. Keep in mind that there are 80 years worth of rangefinder cameras and lenses to choose from – much of them made extraordinarily well. A 50 year old Leica M3 will almost certainly outlast today’s modern SLR’s. Also, Voigtlander’s series of lenses are very high quality and perform extraordinarily well; in most cases the lay person (and even the experienced photographer) would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between them and the Leica glass. My recommendations for buying new equipment in the USA would be to go to Tony Rose (popflash.com), Adorama Camera (adorama.com), Stephen Gandy (cameraquest.com), Rich Pinto (photovillage.com), or B&H Photo (bhphotovideo.com). For used equipment, the rangefinderforum.com classified section, photo.net’s Leica forum, keh.com, Kevin Cameras, Camera West and Ritz Collectibles are all good choices. Of course, Ebay is another excellent source, but it can be more risky.
I hope this article has been helpful in demonstrating the advantages of rangefinder cameras, and has helped you make an informed decision as to whether they are right for your type of photography. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
One of the most striking images in photographic history is Andreas Feininger’s “The Photojournalist”. The image is compelling for its suggestion of the melding of camera and photographer. In the image the photographer’s eyes have been replaced by the lens of his Leica and its external finder. The effect makes us think about the relationship between human vision, the eye of the camera, and the role of photography in the modern era. Feininger’s photograph speaks of the dehumanization of vision and the increasing unity of man and technology. With the rise of practical and widespread photography in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, photography supplanted painting, printing, lithography and drawings as the primary way people accessed the world beyond their locale. Where before their view of the world was literally created by human hands, it was now coolly and faithfully reproduced on silver nitrate and cellulose. In this sense, photography can be seen as just another permutation of the brutality and the dehumanization of the modern world. I would argue against this however. The camera is unique among artistic tools in that it can be both eminently human and devoid of human agency – the difference lies solely in the vision of the operator. A paintbrush cannot automatically paint a still life, but an automatic camera can properly focus and expose a photograph without any human help, save for the trigger of the shutter release. It is this moment that separates man from machine. Through the conscious choice of subject and the method by which it is recorded, photography ceases to be the mere chemical reaction of silver nitrate to light and it becomes an art. While technical choices (lens, film, aperture, shutter speed, development etc) have an impact on the resulting art, the foremost factor is the photographer’s unique vision. Of all the types of camera now available, the rangefinder camera provides the closest link between the photographer and his or her subject, making it an excellent tool for the aspiring photographic artist.
Though the majority of professional photography today is done with SLR cameras, the rangefinder camera retains the most intimate connection between the photographer and their subject. The consistently bright viewfinder and the ability to see the area around the subject allows for an involvement with the subject that is rarely present in an SLR system; even more rare in the upside down, inside out world of twin lens reflex or view cameras. Alone among other types of cameras, the rangefinder shows the world almost exactly as it is, leaving the photographer the choice as to whether they will try to portray it as they see it or with different characteristics. The difference between looking through rangefinders and SLR’s is like the difference between looking through a telescope and looking through a window. Indeed, with long telephotos on SLR’s this is essentially what you are doing. Even with a 50mm “normal lens”, the SLR shows you an area that corresponds to looking ahead with blinders on. The rangefinder removes those blinders, allowing you to see the area around the field of view of the lens.
The rangefinder’s viewing system can also help create a connection with the subject. With certain types of rangefinders, the viewfinder is at or near 1:1 magnification, allowing the photographer to shoot with both eyes open. This action allows the photographer to be both an observer and a participant in the scene in a way that is impossible with another type of camera. Furthermore, with its main viewing window at far left, the rangefinder obscures much less of the photographer’s face, often putting the subject more at ease than with a larger SLR which totally obscures the photographer’s face. Since the face is the most important indicator of intention, having the face clearly visible can help temper the subject’s reaction. With their face clearly visible, the photographer is able to interact as an equal with the subject, where the SLR user is more likely to be as faceless, anonymous or as hiding behind their camera. The rangefinder is simply less threatening than the larger SLR.
Single Lens Reflex cameras are incredibly useful tools for the extremes of photography – very long telephoto work, extreme macro photography, or very fast action that demands fast auto-focus and high frame rates. Yet for general-purpose photography, the rangefinder is a superior tool, particularly for the photographic artist. Compared to SLR’s, rangefinders tend to be smaller, quieter and lighter than their equivalent reflex cameras. Much of their advantage in size and discreetness comes from their ability to leave out the complicated and bulky mirrors and prisms required for an SLR to function. A rangefinder only needs a shutter, a method to advance the film and a system to focus the lens – the SLR must provide a means to view the lens’s image oriented properly (the image forms on the film upside down and inverted left to right), and it must provide a way to expediently remove this viewing aid, stop down to the working aperture, release the shutter, expose the film, and return the shutter, aperture and mirror to their original positions after exposure. The speed required to do this in a quick manner (milliseconds) is quite high. Though it is accomplished in a fraction of a second, an SLR still has a greater time lag between when the photographer presses the shutter release and the film is exposed than does a rangefinder camera. Though the time scale we are talking about is microscopic, it still has bearing on real photographic situations, most notably “the decisive moment” as articulated by Henri Cartier-Bresson. The obvious example of this phenomenon is Bresson’s “La Gare Saint-Lazare, Paris”.
Bresson’s image demonstrates “the decisive moment” – the absolute peak point of interest – in this scene, it is the symmetry of the man and his reflection before he touches the surface of the water, destroying the mirror-like surface. Given how close the man’s foot is to the water, I would dare say that had Bresson been using an SLR, he would have missed the shot. This may be a counterfactual (especially since they were only invented the year that Bresson took the photo, 1932), but the fact remains that the rangefinder allowed Bresson to see exactly was about to unfold and the camera reacted as quickly as he did. This type of camera was certainly the only type capable of making such an image at the time when Cartier-Bresson took the photograph. Another advantage of the rangefinder has in recording “decisive moments” is that it is one of the only types of camera that actually allows the photographer to see the scene as the exposure is being made. Unless an SLR has a special pellicular mirror, then when the photographer makes the exposure the viewfinder blacks out entirely. Though the viewfinder is usually only blacked out for a fraction of a second, it still obscures the “decisive moment” – the camera prevents you from seeing the very moment that has been captured. With a rangefinder, the moments before, during and after exposure are equally visible. This allows the photographer to truly involve herself with the scene, judging the development of the scene and photographing it exactly as it happens. The lack of a mirror blackout makes it easier to photograph fleeting expressions, as well as making it easier to judge exactly what the scene was at the moment of exposure (certainly less of an advantage now than it was before the widespread popularity of digital photography).
Though today’s SLR cameras tend to have more automation and features than rangefinders, rangefinder have a number of distinct technical advantages, particularly in terms of lens design. The following is a table of rangefinder camera advantages and disadvantages.
They are almost always smaller, quieter, and lighter than equivalent SLR cameras.
They are often simpler in operation, leaving the photographer to worry only about the essentials – lens choice, focus, aperture and shutter speed.
They have a single bright viewfinder for focusing all lenses. This means that your f/4 lens is as easy to focus as your f/1.4 lens. Since the focal length and speed of the lens do not affect the precision of the focusing, it means that rangefinder cameras can focus wide-angle lenses with extremely high precision. This is a particularly important feature for high-speed wide-angle lenses like the 35mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.2 offerings by Leica and Voigtlander. Unfortunately, this same advantage can become a disadvantage with lenses in the longer telephoto ranges – 135mm and above depending on speed, viewfinder magnification and the rangefinder baselength. Some rangefinders with shorter baselengths (Voigtlander models) can have difficulty focusing even 75mm or 90mm lenses at close range if they are f/2 or faster.
It is easier to make high-quality, economical wide-angle lenses for rangefinder cameras than it is for SLR cameras. Wide-angle lenses normally require that the rear element be very close to the film plane in order to achieve infinity focus. Rangefinder cameras have no mirror that has to swing out of the way of the lens path during exposure. This allows rangefinder wide-angle lenses to be smaller, lighter, cheaper (one hopes) and of higher quality than comparable lenses for SLR cameras.
This same absence of a mirror gives a rangefinder camera a distinct advantage in terms of in-camera vibration. As discussed earlier, every modern SLR camera features a mirror that must swing out of the way extremely quickly and the aperture stopped down so that the shot can be executed when the photographer depresses the shutter release. Beyond simply blacking out the viewfinder, every time an SLR camera is fired, the mirror slaps the top of the camera sending vibrations throughout the camera body and creating a rather significant amount of noise depending on the camera. These vibrations can have a very significant effect on image sharpness. For this reason, many SLR cameras include a feature to lock the mirror in the up position for critical use. With rangefinders, the only causes of vibration in the camera body are the shutter and the photographer. This also allows rangefinders to be shot handheld 2-3 stops slower than an SLR. A photographer with a steady hand can usually take usable shots down to 1/8th of a second or even less with a 50mm lens.
Though they are often overlooked, rangefinder cameras are excellent tools for both learning photography and for practicing it at a serious level. When visiting a camera store, a serious amateur is almost always guided towards an SLR or a “prosumer” digital camera. While most rangefinders are still film cameras, it is still possible to excel in a digital world using a rangefinder. If you must have digital built into the camera, the Epson RD-1 is an excellent rangefinder that features a 6mp sensor with very high quality output. Another option which many photographers (including myself) choose is to shoot on film and scan when necessary. This approach gives the photographer maximum versatility. They can shoot black and white or color with equal facility, and it opens up the possibility of shooting transparency film, which is still absolutely unrivaled in terms of projection quality. Film, particularly black and white negative film and Kodachrome slides, also has an archival life which is likely to greatly exceed that of any current digital storage media. If one chooses to archive digitally, it is of critical importance to make regular backups and transfer to new media promptly so that the old formats do not become obsolete (when was the last time you used a floppy disk?). Quality film scanners such as the Minolta Scan Dual IV only cost a few hundred dollars and they are capable of delivering resolution that is unmatched except by medium and large format digital backs. Digital has not completely forsaken the rangefinder market however. As mentioned above, Epson already has the highly regarded RD-1, and Leica has announced its intention to have a Digital M by 2006. Zeiss and/or Voigtlander will both probably enter the fray with digital rangefinders in the near future. At the moment, it is probably best to stick with film. With that in mind, I will offer some suggestions for camera lens combinations for new users of varying budgets. My prices are taken from Adorama camera and are accurate as of May 31, 2005.
Budget outfit number one: Voigtlander Bessa R2A $550 and 35mm f/1.7 Ultron $385 = $935
Budget outfit number two: Voigtlander Bessa R3A $550 and 50mm f/1.5 Nokton $345 = $895
Classic Outfit = User Leica M3, 50mm Collapsible Summicron and Weston Master V meter = About 1000 dollars depending on condition.
Leica “starter kit”. Leica M7 and 50mm f/2 Summicron = $3500
Money is no object kit: Leica M7 or MP ($2600+ depending on options and whether you do a la carte). 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit ASPH ($2600+400 for finder), 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH ($2570), 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH ($2200), 75mm f/1.4 Summilux ($2750) = Arm, leg and/or $13,120 without tax or shipping.
Obviously, one does not need to spend 13,000 dollars to have a complete rangefinder kit. There are many sources for used items, which even in mint condition can save you 50% over a new item. Keep in mind that there are 80 years worth of rangefinder cameras and lenses to choose from – much of them made extraordinarily well. A 50 year old Leica M3 will almost certainly outlast today’s modern SLR’s. Also, Voigtlander’s series of lenses are very high quality and perform extraordinarily well; in most cases the lay person (and even the experienced photographer) would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between them and the Leica glass. My recommendations for buying new equipment in the USA would be to go to Tony Rose (popflash.com), Adorama Camera (adorama.com), Stephen Gandy (cameraquest.com), Rich Pinto (photovillage.com), or B&H Photo (bhphotovideo.com). For used equipment, the rangefinderforum.com classified section, photo.net’s Leica forum, keh.com, Kevin Cameras, Camera West and Ritz Collectibles are all good choices. Of course, Ebay is another excellent source, but it can be more risky.
I hope this article has been helpful in demonstrating the advantages of rangefinder cameras, and has helped you make an informed decision as to whether they are right for your type of photography. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.