I have been doing a lot of research the past couple days into a new concept for me: the rangefinder style of camera. Most of you, like me, are probably quite uninitiated when it comes to rangefinders, but we still probably have heard at least one name, the epitome of rangefinders: Leica.
We hear the term “SLR” all the time, and really start to think it just means “big camera with exchangeable lenses”. Minus the “big” part, so are rangefinders. When viewing an image through an SLR, you are looking through the lens, thus there is a need for mirrors that flop back and forth when you take a photo. With a rangefinder, you are not looking through the lens, but through a small window to the side. Sounded a bit disposable-camera-ish to me at first, but I realized it was actually a totally different approach to photography.
I was quite impressed with DPReview’s quick tutorial on the advantages and disadvantages of rangefinder cameras, so I will use some of their points as the outline here. If you click that link, you will have to scroll down to find what I am talking about, but in the meantime see a perfect example of a rangefinder camera…and no, that is not an old camera.
Fewer Moving Parts
Because the rangefinders do not have the mirror (which allows SLRs to allow the light either to the “film” or to the viewfinder), they have fewer moving parts. So, slower shutter speeds are possible, and they are much more quiet than SLRs. Plus, they are just going to be smaller: for less stuff, less space is needed.
No Auto Focus
To this, many will cry, “why NOT have auto focus?” Sure, it would make action shots near impossible, but many photographers simply want maximum control over their photography, and do not want to be pushed around by the way their camera’s auto focus works, doing things the way the camera wants.
In addition, I would add that I really miss my manual focus. Sure, I can manual focus on my modern digital SLR, but it is blasted hard! It is made for auto focus, and as such has lost the “old fashioned” manual focus helps in the viewfinder. You may remember the little split circle? Well, auto focus cameras (well, mine, at least) do not have that, and without some form of manual focus, it is hard to really see what is going on.
Rangefinder not Viewfinder
Since the photographer is not looking through the lens, getting a sense of depth of field is quite difficult. Besides that, though, there are several positives.
There is no “mirror black out” when the camera is taking a shot, so you continue to see what is going on without the distracting black outs (well, the “distracting” bit is up for interpretation, of course). Plus, the rangefinder is brighter than any SLR viewfinder, allowing you to be able to focus in much darker situations. Big plus if you ask me!
No Telephoto
Rangefinders are great for close up or wide angle photography, but if you want to use much beyond a 100mm lens, you are probably going to have a hard time. This is an interesting concept to me, but the size of what you see through the rangefinder does not change. You see the same amount (width, height, focal lenth, or whatever), regardless of whether you have a 20mm lens or 100mm lens on.
The rangefinder draws little lines for you to see what the lens will be seeing. Man…this is hard to explain. If you want to see what I am saying, I do suggest visiting the DPReview website’s great images looking through the rangefinder of the Leica M8 digital rangefinder camera.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I have fallen in love with the proverbial calendar girl. I have not held or shot a rangefinder in my life, that I know of, but it seems to fit right in with the type of photography I want to shoot.
I cannot remember the last photo I shot all automatic. It just never turns out the way I wanted. I spend a lot of time in the semi-automatic areas, mostly aperture priority mode. As for focus, well, after messing up countless photos trying to manual focus my digital SLR, I finally conceded that point and primarily auto focus now. And no, “human error” is not the problem. I never had a problem with my humble, all manual film camera, but I had that nifty little split circle to go with. I often shoot at wide open apertures, and that really makes focus sensitive.
Back when I bought my Nikon D100, I remember saying (though I do not remember to whom), “If there was an all-manual digital camera, I would buy it.” There were not then, but now, there are a few.
Alas! If I want all manual and want to take control of my focus again, I will just have to pick up my humble Vivitar film camera.
After years of never having held, or even seen, and Leica, just the other day, I ran into a store that had several of their cameras on display: the digital M8, the new film M7, and the simplified film MP. What fun!
And although I like the Leica ethos, I do not think an ethos it is an ethos worth US$5,000. I would love to have a tough-as-nails camera which leaves the camera controls in my control and not some computer chip’s, but I will just have to stick with my Nikon D100 for now. I will even have to admit that I appreciate my cheapo Vivitar film camera about as much as the Leica film cameras, and at original pricing, I could buy about 10 replacements for the price of a Leica!
I guess it all depends on what you are shooting, in what environment, and many other factors. Would I enjoy a Leica? Sure. I think I may hunt down an old Nikon first, though.
Just out of curiosity, why are rangefinders so expensive? I mean if they have less moving parts and all I would think that they would be slightly cheaper than they are. Maybe its because they are either really old, or new but the leica name makes it expensive? Anyways, I saw an old Nikon rangefinder today, just to let you know! It was quite expensive too!
Well, fewer moving parts does not necessarily mean something is cheaper. A hunk of gold has no moving parts, but costs a lot more than many complex machines.
Much of the expense is the craftsmanship. Leica cameras are known for being the toughest of the tough, and many hard core war photographers would go into the field with nothing but their trusty Leica. The bottom and top plates are solid brass for goodness sake! As Leica itself says, “the highest possible reliability and durability“.
Plus, though this has little to do with the cost of the camera body which is expensive all on its own, their lenses are known to be, if not the best, then pretty close to it. They even have an 50mm f/1 lens! Now, that is tough stuff!
Wow… f/1! what’s Nikon’s fastest current lense? 50mm f/1.4? I know Canon has a 50mm f/1.2… is it just so expensive to go one more f stop?
I do not know what Nikkor lens has the widest aperture. You would have to look at their website to find out.
Just today, though, I played with the 85mm f/1.4. I have the 85mm f/1.8 and really love the way it feels, but that f/1.4 feels really good! By “feels”, I am speaking of manual focus. My gripe about many lenses made for auto-focus is that they do not feel good when used in manual focus, but that 85mm f/1.4 still felt very nice, quite a bit nicer than most.
I also looked at a Canon 85mm f/1.2 (just for fun, since I do not own a Canon camera)! That thing was massive! I would give it maybe three times the size of my equal focal length f/1.8! Interestingly, Leica’s 50mm f/1 is not that much larger than their standard mini size. It is a pee-wee compared everything Canon or Nikon puts out.
The funny thing is, these are not even the difference of one stop. These are only fractions of a stop, but at the big end of the f/stop range, every little bit really does count for a lot.