Question about Rangefinders

Ben1223 · 12th November 2005

Hi,
I know nothing about rangefinders but I'm very intrigued by it.
Why would one use a rangefinder over an SLR?
Is it diffucult to use?
Would it suit a certain person or personality?
What does a coupled rangefinder mean?
Are there different types of rangefnders?
Pls educate me.
Thx.

yellowfinsg · 12th November 2005

rf are usually smaller in size and dun look so "intimidating"
i use one because there is no mirror slap and i can handle slower speed like 1/15 or 1/8 with nice results.
but the rf focusing need some practise to get used to it.

The_Cheat · 13th November 2005

Here's a popular site-article comparing SLR and RF: http://www.photoethnography.com/Clas.../focusing.html

Ben1223 · 13th November 2005

Originally Posted by The_Cheat

Here's a popular site-article comparing SLR and RF: http://www.photoethnography.com/Clas.../focusing.html

Thanks. Very informative.
The site mentioned:
"The lenses are also made differently, because the rangefinders have more back focus space so the lens do not have to use what is called a retrofocus design. So the quality of the pictures are different (not better, different). "

I wonder what he means by "quality of the pictures are different".

juggler · 14th November 2005

Originally Posted by yellowfinsg

rf are usually smaller in size and dun look so "intimidating"
i use one because there is no mirror slap and i can handle slower speed like 1/15 or 1/8 with nice results.
but the rf focusing need some practise to get used to it.

Maybe in the past, they won't look "intimidating" as they are small compared to SLRs. But today's compact digital cameras are so slim that you can slip one inside your shirt pocket.

My reason for having an interest in these RF is that their lens can be manually focused and operate without battery.

sabrewolf · 14th November 2005

What good is a lens that can be manually focused and operated without battery

Of course if its the body its another story

BTW in regard to the non-retrofocus design, the lack of mirror in RF it enables wide angle lenses that is miniature compared to the SLR counterpart.

student · 14th November 2005

Many lenses can be operated without battery, and these are the manual film cameras. When an equipment canbe operated with battery, then one is not at the mercy of batteries. All one needs is the ability to read light.

There are many advantages in the designs of rangefinder cameras.

Two of the the reasons why rangefinders were so popular to documentary photographers iare the facts that (1) you can "see" outside the frame. Meaning you can see what is outside the frame and what is inside the frame - the interaction between "outside" and "inside", and (2) The other is that at the point of clicking the shutter, there is no blackout like in SLR or DSLR, so you know exactly what was taken.

Ben1223 · 14th November 2005

If rangerfinders need to be manually focused in general then won't that make you stand out in the streets more? Make you less inconspicuous and slower, as opposed to using a camera with autofocus (and a wide angle lens) where you can trust the camera and generally shoot from the hip.
Does a rangefinder really help you become faster and inconspcuous when streetshooting?
Pls share your experiences.

kex · 14th November 2005

i think depend alot on technique,my RF is usually pre focused at F16 under good light..

so i know from 2m onwards,my image will be in focus..

when lighting is low,i roughly preset my focus b4 framing the shot ..

it's quite addictive,especially when u get the hang of it.

Ben1223 · 15th November 2005

Originally Posted by kex

i think depend alot on technique,my RF is usually pre focused at F16 under good light..

so i know from 2m onwards,my image will be in focus..

when lighting is low,i roughly preset my focus b4 framing the shot ..

it's quite addictive,especially when u get the hang of it.

So you prefocus and depend on depth of field keeping things sharp starting from a certain distance onwards. So you can basically walk around and take shots without checking focus all the time. But that can be done with slrs right? Using a wide angle and the hyperfocal scale of the lens set it to f11 or f16 then everything starting from a certain distance to infinity will be sharp.

student · 15th November 2005

Originally Posted by Ben1223

So you prefocus and depend on depth of field keeping things sharp starting from a certain distance onwards. So you can basically walk around and take shots without checking focus all the time. But that can be done with slrs right? Using a wide angle and the hyperfocal scale of the lens set it to f11 or f16 then everything starting from a certain distance to infinity will be sharp.

Think about this. Which is faster?

Autofocus (which requires the elecrtronics to hunt for the subject to focus on, hopefully the right subject!) or no focus -meaning that it was already in focus? Zone focussing. I have a picture of a galloping donkey what was taken with me chasing after the donkey. Picture was tack sharp!

This was what kex was referring to. Even so, this "technique" is very elementary. Let me tell you how one very experienced photographer did it, with his Leica.

He knew how to read light and the f-stop and shutter speed required. Without looking at the camera dials, he turned the f-stop and shutter speed to the one he wanted, all the time keeping his eyes on the hunt. He knew instinctly by turning the barrel of the lens the distance. At the right moment, he raised the camera to his eyes, and perhaps with just a slight adjustment of his head, he brought everything to focus!

student · 15th November 2005

Originally Posted by Ben1223

So you prefocus and depend on depth of field keeping things sharp starting from a certain distance onwards. So you can basically walk around and take shots without checking focus all the time. But that can be done with slrs right? Using a wide angle and the hyperfocal scale of the lens set it to f11 or f16 then everything starting from a certain distance to infinity will be sharp.

Yes, you can prefocus with an SLR using a wide angle lens. But at the point of exposure, you still do not know exactly what you had taken - because of the mirror.

Terence · 15th November 2005

Student, I guess that would be alright by some folks. With my SLR and RF cams, I sometimes shoot without looking through the viewfinder when using a wide angle lens.

Ben, I think the draw which rangefinders have over me is that it slows one down and think about the shot. Going back to the basics with manual focusing and manual film advance seems novel in this day and age of digital photography. Even the one and only digital RF, the Epson R-D1, still has a film advance lever which needs to be cocked prior to each shutter release.

Gosu_John · 15th November 2005

Originally Posted by Terence

Student, I guess that would be alright by some folks. With my SLR and RF cams, I sometimes shoot without looking through the viewfinder when using a wide angle lens.

Ben, I think the draw which rangefinders have over me is that it slows one down and think about the shot. Going back to the basics with manual focusing and manual film advance seems novel in this day and age of digital photography. Even the one and only digital RF, the Epson R-D1, still has a film advance lever which needs to be cocked prior to each shutter release.

ah yes... the film advance is a religious experience I must certainly say. I have had friends taking nonsensical shots just to get a chance to crank it.

kex · 15th November 2005

Originally Posted by Ben1223

So you prefocus and depend on depth of field keeping things sharp starting from a certain distance onwards. So you can basically walk around and take shots without checking focus all the time. But that can be done with slrs right? Using a wide angle and the hyperfocal scale of the lens set it to f11 or f16 then everything starting from a certain distance to infinity will be sharp.

yes,u can do this with the SLR as well,RF might be less noisy without the mirror.my FM is really loud

i use the pre-focusing technique on most of my personal shoot,since the only AF camera i have is the D70/F601 which is only for work.

Ben1223 · 15th November 2005

Originally Posted by student

But at the point of exposure, you still do not know exactly what you had taken - because of the mirror.

Hmmm... very true especially with slow shutter speeds.

student · 15th November 2005

Originally Posted by Ben1223

Hmmm... very true especially with slow shutter speeds.

Actually, even with fast shutter speed. For example, with a SLR you may not know if the person you are photographing actually close his eyes at the time of exposure. With a rangefinder, you KNOW if his eyes are closed or not.

Ben1223 · 15th November 2005

Originally Posted by student

Think about this. Which is faster?

Autofocus (which requires the elecrtronics to hunt for the subject to focus on, hopefully the right subject!) or no focus -meaning that it was already in focus? Zone focussing. I have a picture of a galloping donkey what was taken with me chasing after the donkey. Picture was tack sharp!

This was what kex was referring to. Even so, this "technique" is very elementary. Let me tell you how one very experienced photographer did it, with his Leica.

He knew how to read light and the f-stop and shutter speed required. Without looking at the camera dials, he turned the f-stop and shutter speed to the one he wanted, all the time keeping his eyes on the hunt. He knew instinctly by turning the barrel of the lens the distance. At the right moment, he raised the camera to his eyes, and perhaps with just a slight adjustment of his head, he brought everything to focus!

I agree with you. Prefocusing is "faster" since it's already in focus. That's why I like wide angle primes and hyperfocal focusing.

Your friend must be really experienced. Must be using sunny 16 rule for setting the exposure and knows how to judge the distance. And he really knows his equipment.

Personally I'd like to develop such skills as well but I grew up in a generation with the modern meter.

I never handled a rangefinder but can you really turn the lens barrel without looking at it and know at what distance it's set? Does the design of RF cameras and lenses enable you to do that? You know just by touch/feel?

Ben1223 · 15th November 2005

Originally Posted by student

Actually, even with fast shutter speed. For example, with a SLR you may not know if the person you are photographing actually close his eyes at the time of exposure. With a rangefinder, you KNOW if his eyes are closed or not.

I see, then you can reshoot.

kex · 15th November 2005

It is the best and easiest lens to learn to pre-focus. This skill is one of the keys to using a Leica well. To recap for those who may not already know this (most Leica photographers know this, I'm sure), it is simply to look at the distance to the object you wish to focus on and set the focus on the camera by feel, without having the camera to your eye and without using the rangefinder. Push the tab all the way to the right [directions relative to behind the camera of course] and you're on infinity; place the tab pointing directly down, and you're focused at about five feet. In between those positions, you can learn to eye the distance and set the tab for the focus that is proper for that distance. I did it by first shoving the focus to infinity, then getting the "feel" for how far I should pull it back based on what my eyes were looking at. If you practice this every night for five minutes in your living room, you get very good at it very quickly. Then, as you walk around looking at the world with your M, you can automatically change the focus continuously for whatever happens to catch your eye. Without ever holding the camera to your eye, you are always ready for a quick grab shot. And again, the slight WA focal length aids you here, by covering up errors with its more generous d.o.f. It is perfectly practical to use an MP / 35 'Cron combo all day without once ever referring to the light meter diodes or the rangefinder patch. In fact, I would go so far as to say that any photographer who carefully meters and focuses every single shot is simply not using the Leica correctly.

copied from an article from the web.

12th November 2005	#1
Ben1223 Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Bedok, Singapore Posts: 548	Question about Rangefinders Hi, I know nothing about rangefinders but I'm very intrigued by it. Why would one use a rangefinder over an SLR? Is it diffucult to use? Would it suit a certain person or personality? What does a coupled rangefinder mean? Are there different types of rangefnders? Pls educate me. Thx.

12th November 2005	#2
yellowfinsg Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 112	Re: Question about Rangefinders rf are usually smaller in size and dun look so "intimidating" i use one because there is no mirror slap and i can handle slower speed like 1/15 or 1/8 with nice results. but the rf focusing need some practise to get used to it.

13th November 2005	#3
The_Cheat Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,263	Re: Question about Rangefinders Here's a popular site-article comparing SLR and RF: http://www.photoethnography.com/Clas.../focusing.html __________________ Send me a PM if you need me to comment on a picture or a series.

14th November 2005	#6
sabrewolf Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Jakarta, Indonesia Posts: 241	Re: Question about Rangefinders What good is a lens that can be manually focused and operated without battery Of course if its the body its another story BTW in regard to the non-retrofocus design, the lack of mirror in RF it enables wide angle lenses that is miniature compared to the SLR counterpart.

14th November 2005	#7
student Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,091	Re: Question about Rangefinders Many lenses can be operated without battery, and these are the manual film cameras. When an equipment canbe operated with battery, then one is not at the mercy of batteries. All one needs is the ability to read light. There are many advantages in the designs of rangefinder cameras. Two of the the reasons why rangefinders were so popular to documentary photographers iare the facts that (1) you can "see" outside the frame. Meaning you can see what is outside the frame and what is inside the frame - the interaction between "outside" and "inside", and (2) The other is that at the point of clicking the shutter, there is no blackout like in SLR or DSLR, so you know exactly what was taken.

14th November 2005	#8
Ben1223 Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Bedok, Singapore Posts: 548	Re: Question about Rangefinders If rangerfinders need to be manually focused in general then won't that make you stand out in the streets more? Make you less inconspicuous and slower, as opposed to using a camera with autofocus (and a wide angle lens) where you can trust the camera and generally shoot from the hip. Does a rangefinder really help you become faster and inconspcuous when streetshooting? Pls share your experiences.

14th November 2005	#9
kex Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: beebox Posts: 2,101	Re: Question about Rangefinders i think depend alot on technique,my RF is usually pre focused at F16 under good light.. so i know from 2m onwards,my image will be in focus.. when lighting is low,i roughly preset my focus b4 framing the shot .. it's quite addictive,especially when u get the hang of it.

15th November 2005	#13
Terence Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: I'm a Llama! Posts: 4,716	Re: Question about Rangefinders Student, I guess that would be alright by some folks. With my SLR and RF cams, I sometimes shoot without looking through the viewfinder when using a wide angle lens. Ben, I think the draw which rangefinders have over me is that it slows one down and think about the shot. Going back to the basics with manual focusing and manual film advance seems novel in this day and age of digital photography. Even the one and only digital RF, the Epson R-D1, still has a film advance lever which needs to be cocked prior to each shutter release. __________________ Visit my photo blog Email only please, NO PM!

15th November 2005	#20
kex Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: beebox Posts: 2,101	Re: Question about Rangefinders It is the best and easiest lens to learn to pre-focus. This skill is one of the keys to using a Leica well. To recap for those who may not already know this (most Leica photographers know this, I'm sure), it is simply to look at the distance to the object you wish to focus on and set the focus on the camera by feel, without having the camera to your eye and without using the rangefinder. Push the tab all the way to the right [directions relative to behind the camera of course] and you're on infinity; place the tab pointing directly down, and you're focused at about five feet. In between those positions, you can learn to eye the distance and set the tab for the focus that is proper for that distance. I did it by first shoving the focus to infinity, then getting the "feel" for how far I should pull it back based on what my eyes were looking at. If you practice this every night for five minutes in your living room, you get very good at it very quickly. Then, as you walk around looking at the world with your M, you can automatically change the focus continuously for whatever happens to catch your eye. Without ever holding the camera to your eye, you are always ready for a quick grab shot. And again, the slight WA focal length aids you here, by covering up errors with its more generous d.o.f. It is perfectly practical to use an MP / 35 'Cron combo all day without once ever referring to the light meter diodes or the rangefinder patch. In fact, I would go so far as to say that any photographer who carefully meters and focuses every single shot is simply not using the Leica correctly. copied from an article from the web.