Where do they shine: SLR versus Rangefinder

[texchappy]

Pretty new to the rangefinder scene. My elementary understanding is that Rangefinders are generally better for wide to normal and SLR's are generally better for normal to telephoto. I also understand that the lack of mirror slap makes telephotos more stable at slow shutter speeds.

What are the other areas where the two systems lend themselves to really shining? Where are they less so?

Bonus question: where do modern systems (mirrorless etc) exceed these advantages?

TIA,
Tony

[bgb]

I like my rangefinder as it's easy to focus using my left eye and it's very quiet.
I'm able to focus & frame the slr easier but for most street shots a rangefinder with it's almost silent shuter is better.
Rangefinders don't do telephoto so it's slr or get closer.
No experience of mirrorless but as we are talking digital vs film there are a whole lot of differences ... I like the X100 but only because it would be a digital GSN in my hands.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by bgb

I like my rangefinder as it's easy to focus using my left eye and it's very quiet.
I'm able to focus & frame the slr easier but for most street shots a rangefinder with it's almost silent shuter is better.
Rangefinders don't do telephoto so it's slr or get closer.
No experience of mirrorless but as we are talking digital vs film there are a whole lot of differences ... I like the X100 but only because it would be a digital GSN in my hands.

Well, not too well beyond short telephoto ranges. 75mm is no problem I have found, with the frameline being just the tiniest bit smaller than the 50mm frame in most M's that have framelines for 75mm frames.

90mm to have any degree of comfort, you really need a higher magnification viewfinder. In my M3, the 90mm frameline is similar to the size of the 50mm frameline that was in my M6 and M4. 90mm would be similarly comfortable in the Bessa R3 I imagine, with its high magnification finder also.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by texchappy

Pretty new to the rangefinder scene. My elementary understanding is that Rangefinders are generally better for wide to normal and SLR's are generally better for normal to telephoto. I also understand that the lack of mirror slap makes telephotos more stable at slow shutter speeds.

What are the other areas where the two systems lend themselves to really shining? Where are they less so?

Bonus question: where do modern systems (mirrorless etc) exceed these advantages?

TIA,
Tony

For me, the things I like best about rangefinders, are that the absence of a mirror gives a nice boost in hand-holdability (down to 1/15 with conscious application, for me). That and the ability to see outside the frame, I enjoy very much. Smaller lenses are also very nice too, and something those who say you can get slr's just as small as rangefinders, often neglect to mention.

Will let others chime in for slr's, as they don't really hold too many advantages for what I shoot. My digital slr currently fills the gaps my rangefinders leave, and for me, that is the digital colour file, telephotos for my portrait shooting, and high frame rate capabilities. Little bit of tripod mounted night shooting too. The main one though for me, is that of having a flexible tool.

[Lss]

Originally Posted by texchappy

What are the other areas where the two systems lend themselves to really shining? Where are they less so?

For me personally, it is pretty simple. Rangefinder rules the human world (human-size and human-distance) and pretty much everything that appears as such. SLR rules whatever appears smaller due to size or distance. Focus tracking is the most obvious exception where (AF) SLR creeps into (MF) rangefinder land.

Bonus question: where do modern systems (mirrorless etc) exceed these advantages?

Again for me personally, inherently nothing. In practice I am beginning to prefer the mirrorless systems (now that they are finally getting very good) to SLR systems due to size and some features that EVF allows better than optical TTL. And they are usually good for video, too. Video quality on DSLR's can be amazing but is not versatile enough for my use. Video on a digital rangefinder (when/if we see it) will probably be the same as on mirrorless systems.

[thegman]

For me, I don't find range finders "better" for anything, I do find them fun and easy to use though. Generally, I think viewing through the lens is a positive for any focal length, so SLR wins for me there. I do find focusing much easier, especially in low light using a range finder though. The lack of mirror slap is good, although I'm not sure how much difference it actually makes.

I'd say range finders shine with normal (28/35/50/90mm) focal lengths in low light. I'd say SLRs shine for everything else. I don't get the argument that range finders are better for wide angle, except that the wide angle lenses for RFs tend to be tiny. The angle of view of say a 15mm lens is so extreme that if you're up close to a subject, what you see in the accessory finder, and what the lens sees are very, very different.

For me it's more about the pleasure of a range finder, more than any kind of technical advantage. In medium format it's also about size/weight though, big difference between a GF670 and a Pentax 67... In 35mm you can probably get a OM or Pentax smaller than a Leica.

[n5jrn]

SLR's are great for the things that RF's have difficulty at: focal lengths beyond short telephoto and macro photography to name two.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by thegman

For me, I don't find range finders "better" for anything, I do find them fun and easy to use though. Generally, I think viewing through the lens is a positive for any focal length, so SLR wins for me there. I do find focusing much easier, especially in low light using a range finder though. The lack of mirror slap is good, although I'm not sure how much difference it actually makes.

I'd say range finders shine with normal (28/35/50/90mm) focal lengths in low light. I'd say SLRs shine for everything else. I don't get the argument that range finders are better for wide angle, except that the wide angle lenses for RFs tend to be tiny. The angle of view of say a 15mm lens is so extreme that if you're up close to a subject, what you see in the accessory finder, and what the lens sees are very, very different.

For me it's more about the pleasure of a range finder, more than any kind of technical advantage. In medium format it's also about size/weight though, big difference between a GF670 and a Pentax 67... In 35mm you can probably get a OM or Pentax smaller than a Leica.

Probably more to do with the greater ease with which rangefinder wides can be designed, rather than ultimate useability of those same wides.

[semilog]

SLRs are easier to focus precisely, especially in fast-moving situations, allow more precise framing, and don't impose parallax error.

Rangefinders are usually quieter, usually smaller, don't have the "professional" looking prism hump, and because of their shorter flange-to-film distance allow smaller wide angle lenses that often have superior performance. Rangefinder focusing can be very accurate, but it's an indirect system that is more subject to loss of calibration than that in a good SLR.

I enjoy using the RF focusing mechanism (it is fun) but I don't pretend that it's technically superior to a good MF SLR screen or a good AF system. If the RF mechanism actually offered higher focusing performance, Nikon and Canon would still be making RF's for professional use. We all know how that story ended.

From my perspective the biggest advantage of the viewfinder is the framing system, which lets you frame the whole scene with great depth of field. In contrast, the SLR shows you only what the scene looks like with the lens wide open (or, on SLRs with modern focus screens, at f/2.8). DoF preview has never worked particularly well with SLRs because of the extent to which it just darkens the field.

The notion that mirror movement is a major contributor to hand-held sharpness is, with modern well-designed SLRs, incorrect. Mirror inertia is a technical problem that was largely solved over twenty five years ago.

[Spanik]

RF is quieter and that's the only point they have. If you are into flash then maybe a higher flash synchro might be an advantage.

Otherwise, any SLR is easier and faster to focus at any distance, with any focal length. You actually know what you are framing without parallax and without any accesory finder that you can loose. With any SLR you can use speeds higher than 1/500 and generally with better accuracy and long time stability. An SLR isn't any larger or heavier unless you compare wildly different lenses/camera's. With any SLR you actually have an idea of what will be in focus and what will not be in focus. If you use the build-in lightmeter of an SLR it will actually measure what is coming through your lens and not that spot of light that is shining on your meter.

And finally... it is almost impossible to make a photo of the backside of your lenscap with an SLR.

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by Spanik

RF is quieter and that's the only point they have. If you are into flash then maybe a higher flash synchro might be an advantage.

Otherwise, any SLR is easier and faster to focus at any distance, with any focal length. You actually know what you are framing without parallax and without any accesory finder that you can loose. With any SLR you can use speeds higher than 1/500 and generally with better accuracy and long time stability. An SLR isn't any larger or heavier unless you compare wildly different lenses/camera's. With any SLR you actually have an idea of what will be in focus and what will not be in focus. If you use the build-in lightmeter of an SLR it will actually measure what is coming through your lens and not that spot of light that is shining on your meter.

And finally... it is almost impossible to make a photo of the backside of your lenscap with an SLR.

This pretty much nails it. Rangefinders are fun, but SLRs are the way to go for reliability and accuracy in most applications. But hey, I shoot TLRs and field cameras. Nothing wrong with shooting a variety of different types of camera systems.

[dct]

Originally Posted by n5jrn

SLR's are great for the things that RF's have difficulty at: focal lengths beyond short telephoto and macro photography to name two.

Speaking strictly of RF (not "RF looking mirrorless cameras") they are not usefull for tele and macro, as you mention correctly. And I would add zoom lenses and complex master/slave flash setups too.
Otherwise I like the very compact design of RF bodies and lenses, compared to the clunky SLR lenses with the same aperture. And RF cameras shine for composition in my view: Very bright viewfinder and at the most a frame preview of six "standard" (28/35/50/85/90/135) focal lenghts without the need of changing the lens. Theses are in my opinion the most important fun factors using RF.
Of course, modern mirrorless cameras infiltrate both classic RF and (D)SLR domains and show additional benefits which may be important for the one or the other.

(Added remark: reading again my post I see I'm talking mostly of where RF cameras shine and not SLRs. Odd, but you see my mindset)

[Spanik]

RF is quieter and that's the only point they have. If you are into flash then maybe a higher flash synchro might be an advantage.

Just came to the realisation that this is only valid if the RF uses a leaf shutter lens. Otherwise even this isn't true.

[Rune]

I think the main difference between a rangefinder and a SLR in some situations is psychological rather than technical; you can do the same thing (that is; taking photos, which is probably the reason for using a camera..?), but you feel different. Partly because you are using a different tool, and partly because an optical viewfinder makes you perceive the world in a slightly different way ("closer to reality" in a way).

Perhaps the biggest difference occurs when you are taking a portrait; the person you photograph can see more of your face, because you are not hiding so much of your face behind a rangefinder than with a SLR. Thus, your subject get more of the feeling of interacting with another person than interacting with a camera. Same thing with mirrorless, and I love the way you can handle the camera almost as a TLR, using the tilted screen.

[rbelyell]

like everything else, this is largely a matter of taste in that in most normal situations each system will perform well, so you should try both to see what you like about each and which better suits your style.

for action shooting, obviously continuous AF slr systems have an advantage. as well for telephoto beyond 135mm and macro. if these make up the bulk of your shooting, dont even consider RFs.

i chose RF because overwhelmingly i do not shoot the above, and for me the utter compactness without a drop in IQ was a major deciding factor. additionally, and quite subjectively, i felt the method of focusing coupled with knowing always what is just outside the frame, made me much more involved with the scene and the subjects. finally, wide angle and UWA to me have much less innate distortion and are cheaper and overwhelmingly smaller than their slr counterparts.
tony

[ferider]

I shoot film and use manual focus SLRs and RFs. When comparing those, I prefer RFs

1) for any focal length from 28 to 105mm. For normals and wider, RFs are physically more accurate than split screen SLRs, that's not just a preference. An M3 with a 90mm is a match in heaven.
2) use of non-retrofocal wides
3) no mirror slap
4) RFs are smaller, if you include the lens. Show me a small SLR 35/1.4 lens, for instance.
5) I hate looking through yellow or red filters in an SLR. Conversely, pol-filters are a pain on an RF.

In practice I therefore use SLRs for color, 180mm or longer lenses, and for macro. For everything else I love my RFs.

Roland.

[back alley]

an slr is like driving a car...could a nice car, a fast car, but it's still a car and you are inside and detached from your surrounding.
rf is like riding a motorcycle...sleek and you are out there with your subjects!

[Rune]

Not to forget: Any of my old russian rangefinders are chick magnets

In contrast, walking around with a big bazooka-like telezoom on your SLR will just make girls think you are a weirdo in need of something that will compensate for your lack of self esteem. You'll come across as The Pervert, The Stalker, The Creepy One etc.

So, rangefinders it is!
(and just to be a little bit serious: Carrying a rangefinder with a couple of lenses is usually way lighter than carrying a SLR with some lenses)

[Nokton48]

No real difference for me. I have decided I can live with my SLR's and felt the need to downsize somewhat. So now I am perfectly happy with my SLR's.

[RObert Budding]

Rangefinder pluses:

1. I like being able to view the area outside of the frame.
2. Small and compact.
3. Quiet

SLR pluses:

1. Long telephotos
2. Macro
3. Ability to accurately place graduated ND filter

[semilog]

Mirror slap has not been a significant issue in any well-engineered/high quality SLR produced in the last 20 years.

Are folks still comparing M4's to Nikkormats or something?

[Lawrence A.]

Hi. I'm new to the forums, and relatively new to rangefinders, having been given a Leica IIIb in great shape about two years ago, and then acquired a Bessa R recently. Most of my hand-held work over the years was done with an Olympus OM-1, and I tended to avoid big, hulking cameras with major grips. They just didn't fit. Wish I'd tried rangefinders years ago, as I find that for 90% of what I want to do working with them is a joy. SLR's have advantages for certain things that have already been mentioned. These days I just have more enjoyment shooting a rangefinder film camera or a mirrorless digital (Olympus E-M5) .

Thanks for being here. I look forward to participating in the group.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by semilog

Mirror slap has not been a significant issue in any well-engineered/high quality SLR produced in the last 20 years.

Are folks still comparing M4's to Nikkormats or something?

Not sure about the semantics of it, but I can definitely hold my M down to 1/15th of a second reliablly, whereas 1/30th of a second is the most I can reliably hold an slr down to. Not sure if this is mirror-related factors or not. I presumed it was, but the difference of a stop in handholdability has been quite noticeable to me in my shooting.

EDIT: both with 50mm lenses

[rbelyell]

Originally Posted by Rune

Not to forget: Any of my old russian rangefinders are chick magnets

In contrast, walking around with a big bazooka-like telezoom on your SLR will just make girls think you are a weirdo in need of something that will compensate for your lack of self esteem. You'll come across as The Pervert, The Stalker, The Creepy One etc.

So, rangefinders it is!
(and just to be a little bit serious: Carrying a rangefinder with a couple of lenses is usually way lighter than carrying a SLR with some lenses)

beautiful! an instant classic answer. i will steal it and use it in the future.
tony

[bugmenot]

In terms of reliability, even my Nikon F3 from 22 years ago, which has had ... 100's upon 100's of rolls put through it has not experienced a single hiccup.

In fact, I have never had it CLA'd, and the only service it has seen was light seal replacements. To this day, with Silver Oxide batteries, it works magnificently ...

I even had it professionally checked for shutter timings ... Spot on after 22 years of service to my photography ...

Which one of the Leicas or other rangefinders can function the same or be called remotely as reliable? My Nikon F3 feels smoother than a Leica M3, and yes, I have owned a Leica M3, and I realize it is blasphemy to say anything is smoother than a M3 on RFF.

And Mirror Slap? Please ...

PS: I also have a Pentax Spotmatic that has gone through a single overhaul in all its years, and really doesn't need routine CLA. The same can be said for most SLR's.