Why a Rangefinder instead of SLR ???

Having done a little more research and reading you comments I think I'm heading towards the Olympus 35RC it's classic looks ( I know it is a classic) and the ability to work without batteries has done it for me. I love using my various Russian Cosmic cameras by Lomo but the fact they are all view finders sometimes means anything closer than infinity is a hard to judge focus wise and if nothing else trying to master a range finder will be a new experience.
 
Why a Rangefinder instead of SLR... hmmm, i've struggled with that one to be honest. I've tried with rangefinders - i've got a pig iron Fed3 which I kind of enjoy using despite barely being able to discern the focus because the rangefinder is so dim (it only needs a clean, but for the 1 roll every 3-4 years it gets, i CBA with the dismantling etc.), I've a Yashica Electro 35 (with the 2 add on wide and tele lenses) that is much nicer to use than the fed, and has a lovely lens on it, and the focusing is pretty easy as well. I've also borrowed a couple of more upmarket RF's - the Voigtlander and a Leica, and, they were brilliant in their own ways....

BUT, and I think it's just down to conditioning from years and years of looking through a SLR viewfinder, I just can't get my head into framing using the little silver lines for anything other than native lens length, and REALLY can't get my head around add-on viewfinders. I just pretty much want to see what the image is through the viewfinder for 95% of the time I'm shooting, and rangefinders get in the way of it for me.

Probably the only exception i'll eventually make is if I ever get a chance to shoot an Xpan - I pretty much know that if I do use one in anger, I'll have to end up getting one, but that'll be despite it being a rangefinder, not because it is...

So, there's my dilemma - I like the idea of RF's, I've tried to get into them, and would like to be able to wrap my head around 'em, but somehow (probably because of not just using one to the exclusion of all else for 6 months of exhaustive shooting- which probably isn't going to happen in my lifetime on ANY camera!) I just can't...
 
niko said:
@moomike hi mike thanks again for that amazing offer, but thinking overnight I don't think I would use a zoom compact much (its a fixed lens auto focus I will look out for) and it would be such a shame for it to just sit here.
So I think someone else could offer it a better home than me, thanks again mate nik
Click to expand...

No worries at all mate (y)
 
Snip:
TheBigYin said:
So, there's my dilemma - I like the idea of RF's, I've tried to get into them, and would like to be able to wrap my head around 'em, but somehow (probably because of not just using one to the exclusion of all else for 6 months of exhaustive shooting- which probably isn't going to happen in my lifetime on ANY camera!) I just can't...
Click to expand...
Exactly, stick with your EOS 30; small, light, quiet, point, just look and it's focused, shoot, job done, next shot! (y) If you want to take a bit more time over it and your eyesight is good then use a classic manual focus SLR. Whilst I can see the nostalgic fun side of 35mm rangefinders I just can't understand all this doe-eyed, idol-worship stuff that some of them seem to attract. :confused:
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Having done a little more research and reading you comments I think I'm heading towards the Olympus 35RC it's classic looks ( I know it is a classic) and the ability to work without batteries has done it for me. I love using my various Russian Cosmic cameras by Lomo but the fact they are all view finders sometimes means anything closer than infinity is a hard to judge focus wise and if nothing else trying to master a range finder will be a new experience.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't regret the 35RC Brad! I had one for a little while but sold it on because I couldn't easily use it with zone focus/ hyperfocal distance (it doesn't have markings on the lens barrel showing the depth of focus for various apertures). I used the MR-9 battery adapter from the small battery company (about £30 to buy) and it metered really well on negative film. The results from when I took it on holiday loaded with Tri-X absolutely blew me away.
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Having done a little more research and reading you comments I think I'm heading towards the Olympus 35RC it's classic looks ( I know it is a classic) and the ability to work without batteries has done it for me. I love using my various Russian Cosmic cameras by Lomo but the fact they are all view finders sometimes means anything closer than infinity is a hard to judge focus wise and if nothing else trying to master a range finder will be a new experience.
Click to expand...
The 35RC is a cool little camera. The 35RD is much nicer, and is also small (to the point where it almost feels like I should get rid of my 35RC). The 35RD has better quality optics as well.

You can’t really go too wrong with a 35RC though.
 
Ste_S said:
Nailed it.
For practicality there's a reason everyone (apart from Leica fetishists) abandoned rangefinders for SLRs
Click to expand...

Indeed. 20 million lemmings can't be wrong :D.

Actually, although I don't use rangefinders normally, they do have a couple of differences that might make them more suitable for some types of photography, both connected with a lack of mirror.

1. Less delay between pressing the release and the exposure being made, as no need to wait for the mirror to clear out of the way.
2. Quieter operation, as no mirror sounds.

These could result in less camera vibration and hence sharper photos.

And dare I add that not having a mirror in the way means that the lens can be closer to the film plane without fouling anything? As short focal length lenses have, in the absence of being designed as retrofocus, have to sit closer to the film, this do actually make them easier to make for rangefinders. Remove the constraint of a retrofocus design, and the lens designer's job becomes easier (read either better or cheaper lenses). It's said that the wide angles on rangefinder design cameras are better than those that have to accept the additional compromise of a retrofocus desgn.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
Indeed. 20 million lemmings can't be wrong :D.

Actually, although I don't use rangefinders normally, they do have a couple of differences that might make them more suitable for some types of photography, both connected with a lack of mirror.

1. Less delay between pressing the release and the exposure being made, as no need to wait for the mirror to clear out of the way.
2. Quieter operation, as no mirror sounds.

These could result in less camera vibration and hence sharper photos.

And dare I add that not having a mirror in the way means that the lens can be closer to the film plane without fouling anything? As short focal length lenses have, in the absence of being designed as retrofocus, have to sit closer to the film, this do actually make them easierr to make for rangefinders. Remove the constraint of a retrofocus design, and the lens designer's job becomes easier (read either better or cheaper lenses). It's said that the wide angles on rangefinder design cameras are better than those that have to accespt the additional compromise of a retrofocus desgn.
Click to expand...

Stephen, I actually agree with most of your argument here. But I had to chuckle at "the lens designer's job becomes easier (read either better or cheaper lenses)" in the context of Leica being the only remaining rangefinder maker!

ETA: OTOH, I had a Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2 and it was a stonking, tiny lens, not too expensive, either. But I gave up my Bessa rangefinder because building even a small collection of focal lengths would have cost more than I'd spent on all my cameras to that point, by far!
 
Last edited:
Stewart Bell back in the 1970s wrote that with the advent of computers to do the lens calculations, designing a good lens was no more expensive than designing a bad one. If you know how involved the calculations were to see how a particular design would perform, and how long they took, you'd see the big difference computers made. But even simpler calculations don't remove the truth that all designs are a compromise, and if you can ditch one of the constraints it becomes easier to juggle the others. All this is in the abstract.

In the real world, prices will be affected by difficulty of manufacture (cost of materials, amount of time spent on quality control etc.) and economies of scale. This leaves out profit margins, and what makers think they can get away with. Rangefinders are now the minority, so it's hard to say what the prices would be like if there were equal lens sales across the types. Leitz will always be a special case.

I have heard it said that the W/A Mamiya lenses on their rangefinders are optically superior to those on their SLRs. To be honest, I can't quickly think of another manufacturer where a side by side comparison like this is possible.
 
Last edited:
ChrisR said:
Stephen, I actually agree with most of your argument here. But I had to chuckle at "the lens designer's job becomes easier (read either better or cheaper lenses)" in the context of Leica being the only remaining rangefinder maker!
Click to expand...

Cosina make the Voigtlander Bessa rangefinders (they use the brand under licence), as well as a bunch of lenses (known as CV lenses, for "Cosina Voigtlander"). The CV 15mm f4.5 is one of the best super wides ever made for a rangefinder. Reckoned to easily be on a par with similar focal lengths from Leica and Zeiss, if not actually better.
 
Mr Badger said:
Snip:
............... Whilst I can see the nostalgic fun side of 35mm rangefinders I just can't understand all this doe-eyed, idol-worship stuff that some of them seem to attract. :confused:
Click to expand...


You are off my Christmas card list @Mr Badger - Only got a couple of cards/pressies to buy now - both to Mrs Leica :runaway:
 
Last edited:
Nomad Z said:
Cosina make the Voigtlander Bessa rangefinders (they use the brand under licence), as well as a bunch of lenses (known as CV lenses, for "Cosina Voigtlander"). The CV 15mm f4.5 is one of the best super wides ever made for a rangefinder. Reckoned to easily be on a par with similar focal lengths from Leica and Zeiss, if not actually better.
Click to expand...
Cosina also make many of the Carl Zeiss lenses under contract to Zeiss.
 
If you’re comparing RF vs SLR lenses from the same manufacturer, there’s Leica R vs M and Zeiss ZF/ZE vs ZM as well. Zeiss’ 35mm Distagons in ZM and ZF.2 would be a good starting point, as well as their 50mm Planars.
 
I wasn't; others may be. My original point was that it was suggested that retrofocus designs (specific to short focal length lenses, to avoid the need for mirror lock up due to the lens fouling the mirror - as was the case with the early Nikon 20mm lens, for example) resulted in an extra set of compromises in the optical design that in turn resulted in short focal length lenses for rangefinders being optically superior. The suggestion was, as far as I recall, made specifically with Mamiya cameras in mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top