| Photography Forum: Camera Equipment News Forum: |
 |
Q. Rangefinders
Asked by Chris Cheng
(K=62) on 5/14/2003
|
Hi, I've used SLRs before but I have never had the oppoturnity to use a RF camera. I was wondering if there is any significant difference in the use of a RF camera? I know like SLRs RF cameras can also change lenses but if I use a longer lens (lets say 200mm) how could i tell what i am focusing at using the cameras viewfinder? Please enlighten me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Milner
(K=1653) - Comment Date 5/14/2003
|
There are significant differences, some of them bad and some good.
To look at disadvantages first, the scene is viewed through an auxiliary lens system, not through the taking lens. Very wide angle or long lenses cannot be accomodated in this fixed viewfinder, so you need auxiliary viewfinders which clip into the accessory shoe. You need to focus in the main viewfinder and compose the shot with the auxiliary finder.
There is also a problem with parallax error when the subject is close to the camera. Some rangefinders have compensation for this, but it is not as good as an SLR.
Depth of field can only be estimated. You cannot stop down and view the result.
Finally, the use of polarising and graduated neutral density filters is difficult.
However, there are advantages as well.
Firstly, rangefinders are quieter and less prone to shutter vibration, because they do not have a mirror. They can be used at lower shutter speeds.
You can also see the scene throughout the shutter action.
Heavy filters, such as red or infra-red do not affect your view of the scene.
Although wide angle lenses can require an auxiliary finder, because of the lack of a mirror, the lens can protrude into the camera more and this helps good wide angle design.
Rangefinders are more compact than SLRs.
Although SLRs seem to have the upper hand in popularity, rangefinders have never gone away. They are considered particularly useful for street photography and some kinds of photo-journalism.
There are several recent models available (Leica MP, Bronica RF645 and so on) though they are for the upper end of the market. There do not seem to be cheap rangefinders available, like there are cheap SLRs.
|
|
|
|
David Goldfarb
(K=7611) - Comment Date 5/14/2003
|
Good comments above.
If you want to try out a rangefinder and want something current that's not quite in the price range of a Leica, look at the new Bessa-R series, which has been getting very positive reviews.
Also there are a fair number of older fixed-lens rangefinders that aren't too expensive. I have a Voigtlander Vitessa-L from the 1950s that is well made and has an outstanding lens (Ultron 50/2.0), and can usually be found for around $250-350, depending on condition. There are also some nice fixed-lens rangefinders from the 1970s that are pretty good, like the Canonets.
Check out www.cameraquest.com, for some good info on rangefinders and some of the classic models.
|
|
|
|
Mark E
(K=216) - Comment Date 5/14/2003
|
I have my eye on the Contax G2... what a beautiful package!
|
|
|
|
Richard Thornton
(K=26442) - Comment Date 6/9/2003
|
More rangefinder advantages with some brands are that you can see the subject OUTSIDE the taking frame to better judge when the suject comes into the picture, there is no blackout time for the mirror so you can always tell if a flash has fired and there is a different "3-D" way of looking through the viewfinder which is quite unlike an SLR.
Consider also the Voitlander (Cosina)variations. They have many types and styles, all reputed to be very good, interchangable with Leica products and much, much cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Meryl Arbing
(K=321) - Comment Date 6/17/2003
|
I have both SLRs and rangefinders and they are strong in different areas. Certainly the rangefinder (Contax G2) is much smaller than the SLR and, because it has no mirror for the lenses to avoid, the lenses are smaller and lighter as well. The 85mm lens for the SLR is enormous compared to the 90mm for the rangefinder. So, when I want to travel light (and still retain the flexibility of interchangable lenses) I take the rangefinder.
Rangefinders determine focus by calcluating the distance to the subject and moving the lens. They can be autofocus (like the Contax)or manual focus (like the Leica) just like SLRs can be either manual focus or autofocus. But, because you aren't looking through the same lens as the one that takes the picture, you could 'focus' a rangefinder without a lens attached to the body at all (why you would WANT to do that I'm not sure...but you could) which, of course, you can't do with an SLR. With an SLR, you focus the lens; with a rangefinder, you focus the body!
Of course, one of the many limitations of a rangefinder is the lack of long telephotos. I think that Leica has a 135mm and the Contax G2 only goes up to 90mm but, the problem is not focusing but framing. The Contax has a telescoping viewfinder which changes with the different lenses that are attached. The Leica uses 'framelines' which essentially, show you where the edges of the frame will be. At the long end of their range, the framelines are pretty small amd, while you can see outside the framelines, the important stuff is inside them.
So don't expect to be shooting a 200mm lens with a rangefinder just as you shouldn't expect to do macro shots with one either...for that, you need to stick with the SLR.
|
|
|
|
|
