Can someone tell me why people love rangefinders so much? What makes them preferable to SLRs? Personally, I favor actually seeing the image I'm going to get through the lens before taking it.
Thanks! Ty
What's the deal with Rangefinders?
(37 posts) (13 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
The first thing that comes to mind is that they're smaller. Eliminate the mirror and the prism and you get a much smaller, compact body.
The second thing that comes to mind is that the lenses can be designed much better optically as they can get as close to the sensor as necessary because there's no mirror in the way.
Note these are coming from somebody who has never used a rangefinder. I'm just restating what I've heard before. Otherwise, I'm with you :^D
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah, they're weird though. There's a parallax thingy where what you see is not what you get because the viewfinder is not looking through the lens, so you need to account for that. And I think focusing is easier since the viewfinder is larger.
I've also never used a rangefinder. :D
But also, I've wanted to buy a Nikon SP2 (I think) when it popped up on the B and H used list.
But it was over $1000!
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
-
-
According to WikiPedia:
To compensate for this, rangefinder users often use zone focusing, which is especially applicable to the rapid-fire approach to street photography.
Huh?
Posted 3 years ago # -
And a picture:
Can we please get an explanation from somebody who's actually used a rangefinder please? :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Rangefinders represent a different experience when you shoot them. I shot F3HP's for years before I got a Contax G2. After getting the G2 I never used the F3's for anything but macro or the rare times I needed a very long lens. Optically the Zeiss lenses were better on the wide end (21/2.8 Zeiss vs 20/2.8 Nikon and the 28/2.8s) and on the long end (90/2.8 Zeiss vs 105/2.5 Nikon) both were astounding, but that was not the deciding factor.
The big factor in using a rangefinder is you stay "in-the-scene" when taking your photographs. As fast as the mirror/shutter mechanism is in an SLR, at the second of capture you can't see. With a rangefinder you can see and maintain eye contact through-out the entire experience. Unless you've tried it, you just can't appreciate it.
I had no intention of migrating from F3s to G2. I bought the G2 for a business trip to Rome because I couldn't bring a set of Nikons and maintain my professional business image. The G2 with 28, 45 and 90 was so compact that I could get away with it. To my great surprise it changed the way I shot and completely revitalized my photography.
If I could afford an M9 with 21, 28, 35, 50 and 90, I would buy it immediately. Don't get me wrong, I love my D90 and plan to get a D300s. Nothing better for macro in my opinion, but there's just something about shooting with a rangefinder I prefer.
Unless you've tried it, you can't quite understand. A virgin talking about sex.
Posted 3 years ago # -
OK, but what about focusing?
Thanks Ted :^D It looks like I'll add that to my list of photography-related stuff I need to try...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Re focusing - my G2's were autofocus (easily as fast as DSLRs). The Leica's use a split image. I always thought of zone focusing as predictive - guess how far away, integrate DOF and set camera - get's you pretty close with a wide angle at f8.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Gotcha :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Split image focusing rangefinder cameras are offering is much faster then anything SLR concept can do, brighter viewfinder and clearly seen split image are very helpful when you are focusing manually.
The other advantage is much less vibrations caused by SLR mirror banging upside down while shooting.
Lenses, especially wide ones, could be made much smaller, sharper and with better distortion control because they could be much closer to a focal plane so there is no additional diffraction and distortion caused by retro focus design.
The drawbacks are the parallax or different angle of view you get from what you see in viewfinder and what is recorded (older models also had rangefinder in a separate and smaller window than viewfinder), much less accurate non TTL metering and AF (best approach was reflective metering that was not nearly as accurate or sensitive as SLR) and you could not see the effect of filters you are using.
But in a digital age I presume we are not talking about old film age rangefinders but modern sensor based ones. Current sensor based designs are using same sensor for electronic viewfinder, metering and AF and, at current technology, it is not as fast or accurate as SLR approach and it will probably will not be in a foreseeable future. It would be probably better to make a dual headed design using one higher sensitivity and less resolution sensor with built in AF and metering elements for viewing and second one for real shooting.Posted 3 years ago # -
There is something about a fully manual non-electronic RF. I like the fact that you don't need a battery with most, and that they will survive the zombie apocalypse.
Posted 3 years ago # -
No digital camera could ever be made power free, but I understand what you are saying ...
Posted 3 years ago # -
For shots where you can't live with the parallax error, you could have live view in a digital rangefinder.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ted's description is perfect. I love rangefinders for general photography. Adjusting the distance is so easy and quick. You actually see more than the frame in most RF cameras, depending on the lens you're using. A great comfort in my opinion.
I used a Leica III F for many years, but it became obsolete because of the lenses which were not coated (Horrible colors !). It was fine for B&W and I carried on until I ran out of time and film. Then digital came along… :o)
RF cameras work best with wide angles and normal (28, 35, 50 mm). So, if, today, Nikon produced a nice, small, sturdy, RF camera with a 35 mm lens, I would certainly buy one right now.
For those who never tried RF, find a shop which has some nice second hand Leica's and try them for yourself. You'll be surprised :o)
Posted 3 years ago # -
mb - I think the OP and most of us were talking about film RF's. Digital RF's by definition are electronic =d
Posted 3 years ago # -
You're right Pher. That's why I do hope that the electronic RF is good, really good ! If not, mine will stay on the shelf...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thanks guys, your input is highly enlightening. I'm not saying I'll ever invest in a rangefinder, but perhaps now I can appreciate them at least a little bit more . . . (maybe). :D
Posted 3 years ago # -
For my use an electronic viewfinder or a camera with LCD only is not a rangefinder. It must have an optical viewfinder - that great window Leica owners love so much.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think people confuse the word rangefinder with EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lenses). They seem to be mentioned together a lot. A rangefinder IS NOT the same as an EVIL camera. Completely different system. The only common denominator is they are both compact and have small interchangeable lenses.
If Nikon made a true rangefinder such as the M9 it would be very expensive and would be produced in limited quantities. It would be more for the serious collector or lucky photojournalist than for the masses. Also this camera would probably need a completely new set of small rangefinder lenses. A totally new Nikon system that is compatible with rangefinder lens of the past (Not Fmount)
An EVIL Nikon (sounds cool doesn't it) in a "pro" metal body that uses the Fmount would be more cost effective and would sell better IMHO. The only "con" would be the externally mounted optical viewfinder (old school cams had this too) and the slower AF. But I think Nikon and others will solve the limitations of EVIL AF. For me the lack of a built in OVF isn't a big deal as long as the EVF was bright with a high refresh rate.
We use LCDs to frame pics on our mobile phones now so why not in a small rugged compact EVIL camera?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hmmm, thanks for the opinions everyone. One of these days I'll really have to try out a rangefinder...what do you guys think of Nikon rangefinders?
I don't like this EVIL thing very much. As long as it doesn't come into DSLR's though, can't complain.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I used Leicas for years, and I agree with the above statements.
Unless you have experienced a Leitz lens...made in Germany, not Canada, no disrespect to the Canadians, you can't appreciate the sharpness and contrast of Leica lenses. Back when Leicas were king, I would bet anyone that out of five exact photos shot with five different cameras, one being a Leica, by the sharpness and contrast alone, I could pick the Leica shot. I never lost. It is not hard if you see them all together.
At one time I was the official photographer for a theatrical stage production. The producer made it explicit that NO Single Lens Cameras were to be used during any performance. The reason being was they were too noisy. During a quiet scene, you could hear a Nikon F half way up the house. You can trip the shutter on a Leica and never hear a sound three feet away.
The focus is much more accurate on a split image view finder. Manual focusing on ground glass can vary depending on the condition of your eyes.As you can tell, I'm a Leica fan, and will always be. If I had the $7,000 to invest in a M9 body and mucho bucks for several Leitz lenses, I would in a heart beat. But alas, I am no longer making my living with a camera, so I can only dream.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Robert - great glass is great glass, whether the lens is a Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon...
I've been surprised that many Leica shooters in the Rangefinder forum shoot non-Leica lenses on their M3s, M-etc, cameras.
I'd rather have a digital G2 than the M9, but I too would buy an M9 with lenses if I could invest the money.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
