Explain Digital Rangefinders to me?

[Brian Lowe]

I know what Digital Rangefinders are.

I want to know your thoughts on what is so magical or special about them?

Why some prefer to use rangefinder cameras and why?

I have used rangefinder cameras in the past but that was so long ago and I have forgotten about them (I am suffering from a pre-senior moment).


My inquiring mind wants to know, lean and remember, lol


Brian

 

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

Great question, Brian!
I, too, could never quite figure that out for myself.
And I bet here at OPF we have a chance to find out
Standing by for the answers ...

 

[Asher Kelman]

I know what Digital Rangefinders are.

I want to know your thoughts on what is so magical or special about them?

Why some prefer to use rangefinder cameras and why?

I have used rangefinder cameras in the past but that was so long ago and I have forgotten about them (I am suffering from a pre-senior moment).


My inquiring mind wants to know, lean and remember, lol


Brian

Let me start:

Rangefinder cameras have the longest pedigree of multishot handheld cameras.

The lenses available, even years old are often better in many ways than most modern DSLR lens counterparts especially in the below 100 mm focal length categories. The lenses are also much smaller and lighter. Also there now are new amazingly superb lenses.

Rangefinders are much smaller as they don't need that huge space for a mirror.

The shutters are quiet; one can use them where a DSLR would be a disturbance.

They are socially less intrusive.

The controls are usually all analog and more accessible: less pressing several buttons at once or menu hunting.

No mirror to lock up, no mirror to cause vibration.

A more intimate connection between the camera and the photographer.

Oh yes, a name Leica or Zeiss is you can afford it!

Asher

I didn't mention focus, since I have mixed feelings.

 

[Sean DeMerchant]

I
Why some prefer to use rangefinder cameras and why?

The classic reason for the preference for rangefinders that I have seen expressed is that they contain crop marks rather than a subset of the scene allowing one to more easily and rapidly compose. There are also the issues of size and appearance. An old beat up Leica does not look nearly as expensive as an SLR even though it may have cost more money.

enjoy,

Sean

 

[Jason C Doss]

Smaller and lighter interchangeable lenses are good... so why are there no digital rangefinders with interchangeable lenses yet?

 

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

Jason,

Smaller and lighter interchangeable lenses are good... so why are there no digital rangefinders with interchangeable lenses yet?

It's purely my speculation, but imagine a rangefinder with a 600mm attached to it. One little tiny shake - and you're shooting the wrong tree

Same goes about 2:1 180mm macro.
The focusing window should provide a view at least comparable to the lens being used. Since you can't replace the window - what's the point of replacing the lens?

Just my thoughts...

 

[Jason C Doss]

True if you're using just the window, Nik, but wouldn't using the LCD to compose be a big advantage? Just imagine a P/S style camera with interchangeable lenses. I'd think there'd be a market for something like that.

 

[Ben Lifson]

"Why Rangefinder?" A MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION

Because for most small camera work about the way we live now, and involving lenses of focal lengths 90mm and less (and some would argue for 135mm lenses) The Rangefinder Camera Is Obviously The Only Camera to use.

SLRs are the last kind of camera anyone should use for this kind of work.

In fact, SLRs and this kind of work constitute a contradiction in terms.

The reasons for this are too many, too detailed and too complicated for this tired photographer even to attempt to explain at 9:34 pm after a day of making 500 exposures with a Canon 10D on a tripod for what is essentially a table-top still-life project and of looking at hundreds of his own pictures and a number of black and white pictures -- both scans via Internet and paper prints just received by FedEs -- from a photographer in Pennsylvania, 10 color pictures from Haifa by an Israeli photographer/soldier who, at the front, saw two of his good friends in his unit die from Hesbollah bullets right next to him, and about 25 Infrared photographs of Venice, Naples and Rome, online, by an emerging Italian phogoraph: and with about 80 black and white pictures to go over tonight by a Mid Western photographer who has a book coming out soon and the introduction's writer is here to go over his piece with me, and the photographs, of course.

BUT SOON I WILL EXPLAIN WHY THERE IS NO OTHER CAMERA THAN A RANGEFINDER CAMERA FOR SMALL CAMERA WORK CONCERNING THE WAY WE LIVE NOW.

yrs

Ben

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks, Ben.

I'm so sorry about those friends who were killed. It is so tragic and painful.

As to rangefinders, for personal work, they are a different experience.

I will wait to see how you explain it with your own greater experience, as I was seduced by a Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm lens and my Rangefinder experience receded.

Now I read you writings on the RD-1 /2 and Panasonic/Leica cameras and realize I should go back to my roots for more considerate work.

Asher

 

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

Jason,

True if you're using just the window, Nik, but wouldn't using the LCD to compose be a big advantage? Just imagine a P/S style camera with interchangeable lenses. I'd think there'd be a market for something like that.

Such a market exists, I think, and it's called entry level dSLR...

Rangefinders are fairly limited in what they can do due to the lack of fine focusing capabilities.
It does not mean you can't take beautiful pictures with them (this is an art, after all), but they are targeted to mid-focal-length range shooting only...

Only MHO.

 

[Brian Lowe]

Smaller and lighter interchangeable lenses are good... so why are there no digital rangefinders with interchangeable lenses yet?

Ah, but there is the Epson R-D1 it supports over 200 L/M-mount lenses.

Anybody have this camera, can you share some of your thoughts about it and maybe so photos too?

 

[Ben Lifson]

If Asher's comment --

"A more intimate connection between the camera and the photographer."

were extended to

"...and a more intimate connection between the photographer and the subject"

you'd have the range finder's superiority in a nutshell.

I still have to explain and still haven't had the time and energy.

Soon, though.

Ben

 

[Nicolai Grossman]

No mirror to lock up, no mirror to cause vibration.

While this is a small point in letters, it's huge in effect: I can make decently sharp hand-held exposure exposures at 1/8 sec (1/4 on a good day) with a range finder, whereas the absolute best I can manage with an SLR--depending on the camera--is 1/15, more likely 1/30. That's a three stop advantage in low light! It's far worse with medium format, where I end up using MLU handheld a lot. As a general rule, I try not to shoot SLRs below 1/60 because of the mirror slap.

Oh yes, a name Leica or Zeiss is you can afford it!

This is certainly a nice way to go, but there are heaps of affordable rangefinders out there as well. For example, there's the classic Canon Canonet QL-17 Giii, which has a great [fixed] lens, great form factor, and can be had for about $100 US in good shooting condition.

The shutter lag is generally lower than SLRs because the iris is already stopped down and there's no mirror to get out of the way, all that's left to do is fire the shutter.

In addition to the Epson R-D1, there's the long-rumoured but supposedly imminent Leica M8 Digital.

On the connection thing, if we argue that simplicity increases connection, then toy cameras like Dianas and Holgas are in turn superior to rangefinders. This is consistent with my experience, too: when shooting toys, there simply are no real options other than maybe zone focus, which makes me see a scene as the camera does, and actually operating the camera becomes a formality. it goes from my head to the scene rather than my head to the camera to the scene, because half of the camera is in my head. I'm not doing a very good job of explaining it, but toys remove a layer of abstraction for me.

 

[Gary Ayala]

My first camara was a rangefinder (no meter). Use that sucker until the wire which manipulated the leaf shutter wore out. The shutter just hung there like an octopus with broken legs dangling in the breeze.

RF actually focus just fine ... equally as sharp as a SLR. I imagine that the ghost focusing system of a range finder is similar to the split image focusing of a SLR. I've used Leicas (now that is a sweet camera), the bright lines took some time to accommodate, nice to see what's arround the frame ... never had a real problem with going long or wide (never went very long) and the wider lens had "framers" which slipped into the flash hot shoe mount. Biggest problem was the parralex which occurred when attempting to focus close. Personally, I wouldn't mind a RF/dSLR for most shooting. Quiet, little vibration, lenses sharper than SLRs (I think that lens making is still a bit of an art form and the larger the glass the harder it is to make 'perfect'. Range Finder's lenses are very simple and small ... simple and small = "sharp" to a quality lens maker).

Gary

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

RF's used carefully can be focused more accurately than SLR's. The split images are brought together from a separation of almost 10 cm (Leica M) or 4-5 cm (Zeiss). That baseline is the source of that accuracy (as long as the mechanical tolerances are maintained in the lens to body coupling system). In an SLR with a split image screen, the baseline for the rangefinder is only a cm or so, much less than the size of the focusing screen, so even though mechanical tolerances are not an issue, it is inherently less able to resolve distances.

Of course both systems work quite well. It's ground glass focusing which is tough. And checking focus on the LCD on the back of my little digicam is just impossible.

 

[Don Lashier]

RF's used carefully can be focused more accurately than SLR's.

Indeed, I don't recall ever being surprised by oof shots in my rangefinder days.

It's ground glass focusing which is tough.

It wasn't so tough before they changed the screens for AF, but still not as easy af RF focusing.

IMO autofocus is a mixed bag but certainly a life saver for action shots.

otoh after giving autoexposure a fair trial I've abandoned it except for my p&s.

- DL

 

[Asher Kelman]

RF's used carefully can be focused more accurately than SLR's. The split images are brought together from a separation of almost 10 cm (Leica M) or 4-5 cm (Zeiss). That baseline is the source of that accuracy (as long as the mechanical tolerances are maintained in the lens to body coupling system). In an SLR with a split image screen, the baseline for the rangefinder is only a cm or so, much less than the size of the focusing screen, so even though mechanical tolerances are not an issue, it is inherently less able to resolve distances.

Of course both systems work quite well. It's ground glass focusing which is tough. And checking focus on the LCD on the back of my little digicam is just impossible.

Scott,

Has anyone actually tested that? It does seem reasonable, but the electronics might beat the odds by being more capable anyway.

Asher

 

[Sean Reid]

Smaller and lighter interchangeable lenses are good... so why are there no digital rangefinders with interchangeable lenses yet?

Actually, there are only digital rangefinders with interchangeable lenses: Epson R-D1 and Leica M8.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean Reid]

If Asher's comment --

"A more intimate connection between the camera and the photographer."

were extended to

"...and a more intimate connection between the photographer and the subject"

you'd have the range finder's superiority in a nutshell.

I still have to explain and still haven't had the time and energy.

Soon, though.

Ben

Hi Ben,

I agree that it is a very important question. People curious about this topic might also want to look at the introduction to my review of the Epson R-D1, an article that is freely available on Luminous-Landscape. See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml

Cheers,

Sean