Question about rangefinders

[majicman]

I have never used a rangefinder and I am wondering what is so nice about rangefinders? Also what is so different about them from other cameras?

[herron]

I don't know that it's a matter of nice...not to me anyway. Maybe some of our other members can fill that in. I do know that most of my rangefinders have very quiet shutters, and are considerably smaller and less obtrusive than an SLR. Biggest drawback to me...back then, none of mine ever came with interchangeable lenses -- couldn't afford those that did.

[backalley]

big pros are they are usually smaller and lighter and the lenses are small and light compared to slr.
cons, can't do macro or long lenses, usually more expensive for lenses and bodies.

fixed lens rf cameras are usually the quietest, have good lenses generally and today are cheap.

joe

[nikonbob]

There are RFs and then there are RFs. The simplest, quietest and cheapest are the non interchangeable lens ones with leaf shutters. From there you go to interchangeable lens RFs with a variety of shutters and varying amounts of noise generated by the shutters. All are generally quieter than an SLR mainly due to no mirror slapping up and down at every shot. This also makes hand holding at 1 to 2 stops slower than with an SLR possible. The RF lenses are also normally smaller that the equivalent SLR lens. Focusing with wide angles is generally more accurate than with an SLR. The weight difference between using a Nikon FM2n with a 35mm F1.4 Nikkor and a Leica M with a 35mm F1.4 Leica lens is so close as to be non existent and the size of the outfits are surprisingly close. You view the scene that you are about to shoot through a separate view finder and not through the lens as in an SLR. This has the advantage of not having mirror black out at the moment of the taking of the picture but also introduces parallax error if focusing at closer distances. That in turn is taken care of by compensating, moving, frame lines on the RF. With the RF you are limited to about 135mm as the longest lens that can be accurately focussed because of the rangfinder focussing mechanism itself. Rangefinders are also not easy to use for macro work. If you generally don't shot macro, don't use long lenses or need a high burst rate then a RF should work nicely for you. I use both types depending on what I am doing and enjoy both. I hope that has not been too long winded and rambling to answer you question in part.

Bob

[kiev4a]

I've had RFs off and on over the years but the SLRs have got most of the use--probably because I wear glasses and they just don't seem to match up well with RFs. I like to see pretty much exactly what will be in the photo and that's hard to do with an RF--at least for me.
I love the feel of a Leica M2 or M3 (I've owned three at one time or another). But an M3 is heavier than some SLRs--not really that compact. The only time I've ever really used an RF is when I had a Leotax (Leica II copy) and a Canon 35mm lens I used on it. It was so compact I could take it anywhere. I do the same thing now and then with a Zorki or FED 1 and Jupiter 12 lens. That's even smaller than most leaf-shutter 35mm RFs. The other problem for me with RFs is they don't focus as close as an SLR and Paralax can be a problem.

[mickeyobe]

How about that mirror blackout?
I carefully frame my picture and sqeeeeeze the shutter release.
The mirror jumps up.
The shutter opens and closes.
The picture is made. "The decisive moment."
What possible difference can it make to my picture if I see anything in the viewfinder after the fact?

Mickey
An old Exakta user and devil's advocate.

[nikonbob]

Mickey

It is just a noted difference, not that it makes much difference to most people including me. Maybe more of a theoretical advantage to see if you subject has moved as you are taking the exposure.

Bob

[paulatukcamera]

I bought my first rangefinder (a Kodak lllC) after having had a variety of reflex cameras for over a decade.

AS a proud father of two, I wanted to take decent pictures of them playing. The reflex did not do this satisfactorily (remember this was in M/F days)

Yes, I agree, you can focus very accurately with an SLR, but not on a fast moving object! You either take a "grab" shot or you rack back and forth to get the best focus point. With a rangefinder you tend to "pre-focus" and when the two images coincide "click"

On the subject of interchangeable lensed rangefinders, you can buy a decent one for a fraction of Leica prices.

German Camera Suggestions (Guide prices in brackets):
Werra V - Werramatic £60
Baldamatic III £50
Super Paxettes £30
Paxette Automatic £30
Retina IIIS £40
Regula Supermatic £30
Lordomat £40

All the above are relatively cheap because they are not thought of as the "first elite" but they are workmanlike and robust

A Werra or Paxette is similar in size to a Konica S3 or Minolta Hi-matic S11 and half the price.

Most Syncro-Compur shutters are very quiet and that makes them ideal for taking pictures unobserved. I would estimate at about a third of the noise an SLR makes

Paul

[doubs43]

mickeyobe said:

How about that mirror blackout?
I carefully frame my picture and sqeeeeeze the shutter release.
The mirror jumps up.
The shutter opens and closes.
The picture is made. "The decisive moment."
What possible difference can it make to my picture if I see anything in the viewfinder after the fact?

Mickey
An old Exakta user and devil's advocate.

Mickey, it very much depends upon your subject and if there is movement. If you're taking portraits the subject can blink or close their eyes as your mirror rises and you won't know it until you develope the film. The lag between tripping the shutter and the mirror rising to allow the shutter to fire can mean the difference between the "decisive instant" and missing it altogether. An SLR requires anticipating the right instant while the RF will take what you see in your viewfinder when you trip the shutter. That becomes a moot point when there's no movement involved.

The other advantages include quietness and size. The 35mm f/3.5 Elmar with caps on would slip into my father's watch pocket and the 90mm f/4 Elmar into a jacket pocket. A Leica IIIa with VIDOOM finder and collapsed 50mm lens easily fit the other jacket pocket.... a compact package that covers 90% or more of most photographic opportunities.

Walker

[jody]

I like both. I dont really see much advantage with either. But just like to use them. I dont use long lenses so it doesnt matter.

[SidW]

majicman said:

I have never used a rangefinder and I am wondering what is so nice about rangefinders? Also what is so different about them from other cameras?

It's partly a matter of history. If you weren't focusing on a screen, you had to focus by setting the distance, which you had to estimate or judge or guess; so someone made small rangefinders. Then the rangefinder was built-in and coupled - the Leica was the first step (or one of them) on the road towards automation.

The SLR solved the problem of parallax and made macro-photography much easier.

Then came all the other newfangled gimmicks that you either accepted with relief or deplored as destroying the joy of real photography - exposure meters, coupled exposure meters, TTL metering, coupled flash, zoom lenses, auto-focus ....... Plenty of topics for eternal debates that filled evening after evening while glass after glass were emptied.

Another part is the legends, that gently lure you into one path or another. Camera preferences are also driven by s=d=ct==n.

And another part is the great phographers whose work helped create the legends and provide models for everyone to embrace (there we go again) or reject.

And another part ....

[mickeyobe]

Walker,

I have never found shutter lag to be a problem with my SLR's. It was extremely annoying with non SLR digitals. So bad that I found I was wasting and losing many shots so I switched to Digital SLR which like film SLR's Has no appreciable lag.

You are right about missing a blinking eye when using an SLR. But I would never give up the use of my 24-70mm or 70-210mm zooms or my 600mm mirror or my bellows or lens reversing ring for the blink of an eye. I would much rather take a couple of extra pictures.

Yes. For action shots I almost always prefocus. but rather than rely on a tiny superimposed or split image to tell me when to shoot I merely press the button when the subject reaches the prefocussed distance.

Quietness and size. Rangefinders win hands down. I couldn't possibly slip my T90 into my pocket. It is usually around my neck ready for whatever. And it certainly makes a lot of noise, like a dentist's drill and a door lock operating together. But it is a gratifying sound. Definitely not to be used in the middle of a dramatic aria though.

Should I mention Parallax?

I think both of us are right. To each his own.

Mickey

[John Parry]

SidW

Good grief - you don't use an exposure meter do you? !!

Mickey

You're never going to give up anything!

Regards - John

[kiev4a]

I believe RF v. SLR is strictly a matter of personal taste. As to the focusing issue, especially with sports, unless you are using an AF camera you almost have to focus on a spot and let the action come to you. Even with an RF you can't (at least I can't) focus on an object that is rapidly moving.

I''ve always been lousy at properly framing a subject using a rangefinder viewfinder. As stated earlier, I think wearing glasses is one of the reasons why it is difficult for me.

On the other had, the most beautiful sound in the world is a Leica M3 shutter at a slow speed.

[PeterW]

Hi Paul,
Been a bit busy recently looking after the reprints business and just caught up with the posting where you wrote:

On the subject of interchangeable lensed rangefinders, you can buy a decent one for a fraction of Leica prices.

German Camera Suggestions (Guide prices in brackets):
Werra V - Werramatic £60
Baldamatic III £50
Super Paxettes £30
Paxette Automatic £30
Retina IIIS £40
Regula Supermatic £30
Lordomat £40

All the above are relatively cheap because they are not thought of as the "first elite" but they are workmanlike and robust

I know they're not German but don't forget the Zorki 4 (or 4K if you want lever wind), and the FED 4. They're pretty plentiful in the UK, and most were imported by the old T&OE company that checked all the cameras before sending them out, so apart from stiff focus threads (Russian Yak Grease again!) all the ones I've found worked fine. They've also got the advantage of diopter adjustment in the finder.

The Zorkis imported into the UK had Jupiter 8 lenses as standard, which I've found excellent. The Feds had N-61 lenses, not much difference in performance but not quite as good as the Jupiter IMHO, purely subjective.

With focal plane shutters they're not quite as quiet as a Compur, but far quieter than an SLR. I used to use them mainly for candid street and market shots, but must admit I haven't given any of them an airing for some time.

At the moment I've got two Zorki 4s, two Zorki 4Ks and two Fed 4s, and none of them cost me more than £15. Two cost me considerably less.

For looks I prefer the older Zorkis and FEDs, particularly the Zorki 2 and FED 2 (clones of the Leica II) but they're getting a bit more pricey nowadays.

There's also the Contax built in Russia, aka Kiev, but they seem to be fetching quite high prices at the moment. Also, being more complex than the Zorkis and Kievs they require more care in assembly - something for which the Russian factories were not famous. I've come across more non-working Kievs than Zorkis or FEDs. But if you get a good Kiev they're a nice camera.

You can find some Zorki shots (an earlier Zorki C) in the Picture Galleries on my website among those from 1960s to 1980s, and the shots taken in the Moroccan Sahara in 1972 were with a Kiev 4A. If you've got a few minutes to spare drop by and have a look. The address is
www.peterwallage.com

PeterW