Rangefinder vs. SLR Cameras: Main Differences

[cgw]

Incredible that anyone thought my initial comment was anything but tongue-in-cheek!LOL

Bizarre...

 

[wfooshee]

Incredible that anyone thought my initial comment was anything but tongue-in-cheek!LOL

Well, see, that's what smileys are for. Without those, your post is interpreted by the words actually shown on our screens...

 

[RAZKY]

Well, see, that's what smileys are for. Without those, your post is interpreted by the words actually shown on our screens...

No doubt I ought to research the meanings of those sillyco - er, emoticons. And for sure I do tend to overestimate my audience. Time for a belated new year's resolution.

 

[wfooshee]

Well, without personal knowledge of you as a person, or your personality, the only reference anyone has to your statement or question is the literal words on the page. With nothing to indicate sarcasm or humor, there simply is no sarcasm or humor interpreted...

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Briefly, I do not believe the view through the range finder captures the same image on the film. It has been a while, but when I used my split image range finder to focus the camera lens on the object I was shooting, I really did not pay much attention to the background coverage.

 

[cgw]

And for sure I do tend to overestimate my audience. Time for a belated new year's resolution.

That might be trying harder not to insult them. Just a thought...

 

[limr]

All right, y'all, settle down. This is waaaaay too much drama for a thread that may have just been a hit-and-run posting. OP hasn't been seen since the thread was posted.

Just step away from the keyboard.

 

[RacePhoto]

Briefly, I do not believe the view through the range finder captures the same image on the film. It has been a while, but when I used my split image range finder to focus the camera lens on the object I was shooting, I really did not pay much attention to the background coverage.

Briefly you are 100% correct. SLR you see what you are going to get or in some cases less, but still it's the same focus and lighting and you are looking though the lens. You see what the sensor will see. Pretty simple.

A rangefinder only uses the split images to focus based on distance and because the lens isn't in the same place as the viewfinder, you won't get the same as what you see. In fact, the closer you get, the more off center and lower the image will be, from the viewfinder image.

ps most rangefinders you can't change the lens. If you can, then you need to change the viewfinder, or have one that has areas marked out to match the different focal lengths. All kinds of problems beyond simple parallax errors.

 

[RAZKY]

ps most rangefinders you can't change the lens. If you can, then you need to change the viewfinder, or have one that has areas marked out to match the different focal lengths. All kinds of problems beyond simple parallax errors.

Leica solved that issue about 90 years ago!

 

[Joel Bolden]

Starting in the early 60's I was a U.S. Navy "Spook" and when we required a camera, we were issued Leicas. I've no idea what model, probably M3's. My own personal camera at the time was a Brownie Hawkeye. Anyway, we were given different lenses to use depending on the job. I recall using lenses up to 1000mm(on a tripod), but we were given smaller ones also. Again, no idea(or I simply can't remember) what they were. The Navy's logic was simple: any idiot can combine two yellow windows and come up with at least a halfway decent shot. But we never received any complaints, or at least I didn't, on image placement in the frame. Now, of course, I wish I had those camera/lenses.

 

[wfooshee]

Leica solved that issue about 90 years ago!

Not exactly "solved..." The wide-angle lens requires a new external viewfinder that sits on top of the camera, and the telefoto lenses shoe frame marks in the viewfinder. With their longest lens, the area framed in the viewfinder is actually quite small.

 

[RAZKY]

Not exactly "solved..." The wide-angle lens requires a new external viewfinder that sits on top of the camera, and the telefoto lenses shoe frame marks in the viewfinder. With their longest lens, the area framed in the viewfinder is actually quite small.

I was referring to the Visoflex as having solved the parallax issue. And yes, the rangefinder learning curve can be a bit steep for some users.

 

[RacePhoto]

Leica solved that issue about 90 years ago!

Not everyone has a Leica, or can afford one.

I seem to remember a little extra box in the viewfinder for close ups, but not which camera. I mean it could have been a folding Hawkeye. And my Kodak Retina doesn't have interchangeable lenses. But on the positive side, a rangefinder is much easier to operate and as someone else pointed out, very durable. They cost less and take very suitable images.

The viewfinder has no blackout?

 

[webestang64]

And yet again the OP has not come back. Is it any wonder why I deleted my post from Ken Rockwell.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Let all remember that we are talking film, and the number of variables available on the cameras back then, were nearly infinite. Dozens of companies vied for the top sales spot and hundreds more featured "improved" designs.

SLR were expensive, making the Twin Lens Reflex and cut film "Press" common for those would wanted something better than a cheap point and point models. Everyone had their favorite, mine was a 127 format Yashica TLR .

I really do not remember folks worrying about knowing the exact coverage of the scene. If it was in the view finder it was on the photo. Only when SLR became affordable was the "See what you are getting" hype become more common.

Yes, occasionally when trying to do closeup shots it could be annoying. I would have to focus the TLR then, move the camera's film lens into the position of the viewing lens. It was just the way it was done.