Why do you like rangefinders (or not)?

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica is the only manufacturer today producing a digital rangefinder camera. It also still produces a film rangefinder camera. I believe Cosina has stopped production of the Zeiss Ikon film camera (praised for its big bright range/viewfinder), although Voigtländer film cameras are still available in various models. I do hate autofocus compacts being referred to as "rangefinders"!

 

What, then, is the future for the rangefinder as a breed of camera? Some people appear to be keen to see the introduction of Leica AF M lenses, including zooms, and would prefer "focus peeking" to using a manual rangefinder.

 

Some people find rangefinder focusing too fiddly. Yes, it can be fiddly, no, it is not always easy or quick in some situations, yes, it's a complex precision mechanism and can go out of alignment, but I still like using a rangefinder! Partly, this may have to do with my first serious camera being a rangefinder (an Olympus 35RC when I was 12). I find rangefinders super accurate and fast enough in most situations, including low light. Precision is the main advantage, in my view. By comparison, I would manual focusing by squinting at an LCD too slow and hard to see in bright light.

 

What's your view?

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello David,

 

Nicely put.

 

I like the challenge that is there with every click of the shutter: Of using precision mechanisms in circumstances where: A significant portion of the operator's success in these operations is dependent on: A reasonable ammount of knowledge & skill on the part of the operator: In a number of diverse areas.

 

The operator also needs to posess a certain degree of skill in the operation of the mechanisms themselves.

 

I also like that these mechanisms are capable of taking really good pictures.

 

The closest thing today to a Kardan B in the 24mm X 36mm format.

 

And: They are reasonably modifiable as well as being reasonably portable.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[earleygallery]

Well, reading recent threads, especially those for the 'Mini M' it seems that a large proportion of members can't wait to get their hands on an EVF only M body!

 

If Leica do move in that direction it's hard not to imagine them also going down the AF route at the same time, although I doubt they can keep the M mount and have AF lenses, so we will mostly likely see a new system.

 

Of course if we have AF we no longer need the complexity of a rangefinder......I'd say it's a case of when, not if, the M as we know it is replaced by a new 'M' type system.

 

Whilst the rangefinder cameras and manual lenses continue to sell so well I'm sure they will continue, but I'd be amazed if Leica don't have some draft concepts they're working on in the meantime.

 

(oops I didn't answer the main question) I like the rangefinder Leica because with typically wide - standard lenses, I find the focussing quick and accurate. I use my rangefinder Leica's primarily for 'street' and travel photography. I also simply like my lllf and M2 as pieces of equipment and the results I get from the Leica and Voigtlander lenses I use.

[pgk]

I like coincident rangefinder focusing. To me this is a very positive manual focus method, reliant entirely on user input and decision making. I prefer it to any auto-focus or 'virtual' (ground glass or electronic) or other system that I've tried.

 

I like the REAL live-view through the viewfinder and find the area surrounding the frame selected to be an additional help when composing.

 

I like the compact, well built feel of an M series body, the simple layout and even the straightforward 'ergonomics'.

 

In short I enjoy using a Leica M series rangefinder and am so used to using one that I don't have to think much about how to use it and can concentrate on actually taking photos.

 

These are all personal opinions.

 

As for the future, who knows? I suspect that there will always be a minority of users who like M series rangefinders like myself and whilst there are enough to let Leica build them and make a profit, the future is secure.

[wattsy]

although I doubt they can keep the M mount and have AF lenses, so we will mostly likely see a new system.

 

The M mount is obviously a simple mechanical connection. I don't see why Leica couldn't build a new line of AF lenses and an AF capable body to 'drive' them which also accepts traditional M lenses (the latter manually focussed via an EVF). What is obviously not possible is to introduce a new line of AF M lenses that would work on existing bodies. Of course, Leica could introduce an entirely new system but in doing so they wouldn't be able to tap into a 50+ year old market of devoted M users. I think that the introduction of AF lenses is inevitable at some point (possibly as soon as the next Photokina) but IMO it would be inconceivable for any new AF M body not to be backwards compatible with conventional M lenses.

 

Incidentally, CV have recently discontinued the 'A' line of Bessa cameras. Leica may soon end up as last man standing when it comes to the manufacture of "35mm" rangefinder cameras.

[earleygallery]

Ian, I'm just not sure that the current M mount could enable the designer to incorporate the necessary electrical connections for an AF lens. As you say, it's a simple mechanical connection and was never designed to be anything other than that.

 

My guess would be a new mount, slightly larger, to allow for presumably larger lenses (incorporating the AF gubbins) and wider flange for the necessary contacts.

 

One would expect Leica to ensure compatibility (via an adaptor) for older lenses, as is their tradition.

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ian, I'm just not sure that the current M mount could enable the designer to incorporate the necessary electrical connections for an AF lens.

 

Maybe I haven't thought it through enough but couldn't an AF M body power and communicate with an AF M lens via a few gold contacts (somewhat like the Contax G mount shown here)? I accept that the lenses themselves might need to be a little larger (though Contax demonstrated that they don't need to be anything like the size of SLR AF lenses) but I don't see the necessity for a larger mount. Of course, an adaptor might be a way of retaining compatibility with non-AF M lenses (similar to what was required going from LTM to M) but it strikes me as an inelegant solution if a mount change isn't strictly necessary.

[TomB_tx]

While AF, live-view, etc. may be necessary to be "like the other guys" in today's marketplace, such fluff features drive some of us away. I have other brands of dSLRs just to use my old manual lenses on them. Yet as I visit the user's forums, the most common issues are complaints about autofocus; either being inaccurate or focusing on something other than the user wanted. I find it much more direct and simpler just to manually focus on what I want, instead of trying to out-smart the computer to do the job correctly. The optical RF is still the best system for me.

More features are not always better. I much prefer a clean design that gives enough flexibility for control without needless complication. That's why I spent my retirement bonus on an M9. It still has more fluff than I'd like, but was as close to a digital M6 as I could find.

But Leica needs to aim at the future market; not us old guys. So I see their products and my wishes diverging more.

[earleygallery]

Maybe I haven't thought it through enough but couldn't an AF M body power and communicate with an AF M lens via a few gold contacts (somewhat like the Contax G mount shown here)? I accept that the lenses themselves might need to be a little larger (though Contax demonstrated that they don't need to be anything like the size of SLR AF lenses) but I don't see the necessity for a larger mount. Of course, an adaptor might be a way of retaining compatibility with non-AF M lenses (similar to what was required going from LTM to M) but it strikes me as an inelegant solution if a mount change isn't strictly necessary.

 

I really don't know but looking at a typical M lens it simply doesn't have the space for contacts like the Contax (which was designed that way from the start of course).

 

Maybe it can be done, but I personally doubt it, from just looking at the body/lenses.

[pgk]

... couldn't an AF M body power and communicate with an AF M lens via a few gold contacts...

Anything is possible BUT...

 

If Leica ever produce an interchangeable lens camera the size of an M, wouldn't it make more sense NOT to be constrained by modelling it around an old lens mount? Wouldn't it be better to produce a new and more versatile/future-proof bayonet? An adapter to allow M type lenses should be easy enough provided the flange to sensor distance allowed it (a given I would say), as it should be a lot easier to fit simple mechanical lenses to an electronic camera than engineer an electronic mount around a mechanical one.

[jaapv]

I want to buy a rangefinder (humor) | Leica News & Rumors

 

[Paul J]

I originally bought a rangefinder because I had to, to use the lenses I wanted.

 

But now I love the rangefinder, probably in an equal amount because it allows me to see so much more than what is inside the frame. To see and anticipate what is happening outside the frame and to more easily compose with that in mind. Any time spent with your eye out of the finder to look around means the chance of a missed opportunity.

 

I prefer manual focussing and I love the patch system the M has to offer. I don't like manual focussing an SLR so much.

 

I've said it before...I think it's close to the perfect system.

[spydrxx]

I grew up with rangefinders (actually viewfinders and separate rangefinders in my case), and found them to be easy to use and rapid to deploy. My first SLR experience (an Exa) was much more fiddly, but I shortly came to appreciate the virtues and drawbacks of each system and have lived happily thereafter choosing whichever worked best in a given situation. Initially I poo-pooed the AF systems now so prevalent, but as failing eyesight began to take its toll, I came to appreciate its value as well. These days I still use both...RFs and TLRs mostly for slower and more contemplative work, and DSLRs with Af for catch as catch can stuff and some product shots. It's nice to have choices. I'll probably go down in our family history as the dinosaur who liked RF cameras and DOS based computers

[NZDavid]

I'm not so sure about the DOS computers but it seems rangefinders really do keep on going strong. Why should't they? Sort of a bit like an early Land Rover -- they may need adjusting and fixing from time to time but when they are in perfect working order they keep on doing what you want them to.

 

There must be some comparisons on the accuracy of a Leica M rangefinder versus AF.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see a hybrid Leica OF/EVF. Fuji has proved it's possible with the X-1 Pro, and having looked through the finder, I found both options looked bright and clear. Some EVFs are much better than other; some are plain nasty.

 

The Fuji doesn't have a rangefinder, though. A Leica M with a range/viewfinder and an EVF would surely add to the expense, but as Leica already costs and arm and a leg, perhaps not prohibitively so.

 

Here's a mad idea. I have wondered about the feasibility of bringing back an accessory rangefinder you could mount in the hot shoe (a latter day FOKOS?). It wouldn't connect to the lens cam, so you would have to transfer the reading manually, but it might be an alternative for those using MF lenses on AF bodies.

[digbyhp]

I got into rangefinders because of the extra compactness compared to SLRs. But I have to say, after several years of using both, that I have no particular affection for RF focussing, and I still much prefer the SLR view-through-the-lens way of seeing and focussing. But I'll never get both while I stick with film :-)

[nggalai]

Like spydrxx, I grew up with a rangefinder camera. It was the very first camera I had access to on my own, as a child. An uncle suffering from GAS in pretty much every aspect of technology bought himself an SLR (and another, and another …) and gave me his old Minolta.

 

After taking a 15 years break from photography, my first digital cameras were point-and-shoots, then Olympus PEN EVIL cameras. But it didn’t really work for me; as much as I enjoyed seeing the results of exposure compensation in real-time, I hated autofocus.

 

I found an Olympus XA in a thrift store and bought it for cross processing experiments. And got re-hooked on rangefinder focussing. Soon after, I bought an M3, then – as it was the only easily available digital rangefinder – the M9.

 

For me, the rangefinder is the primary reason I really got back into photography, and it’s pretty much the only reason I buy Leica. I blame my childhood. I’m sure if you’re used to it, you can just as easily focus a ground glass dSLR, but SLR bodies have never appealed to me – too large, too heavy, too many knobs and dials. The Minolta’s simplicity, coupled with its rangefinder, apparently made a huge impression on me and still is responsible for a bias towards rangefinders. I don’t have any “hard facts” why rangefinder photography is / could be “better”. I’m simply used to it on a basic level which makes me reach for rangefinder solutions every time, be it 135, digital, or middle format (Mamiya).

 

I hope Leica will stay healthy for another couple of decades. Or, alternatively, that competitors enter the digital rangefinder market – as unrealistic as this option is, considering where photo gear has been headed for the past 20 years or so.

 

Cheers,

-Sascha

[-Lss-]

What's your view?

For me personally, a rangefinder camera gives the best chance to get the shot.

 

Rangefinder focusing is intuitive, quick, and easy. It typically does not interfere with framing and capturing the moment. Lenses that have usable distance and depth of field engravings and that you can often focus reasonably well just by feel certainly play some role here.

 

Of course, the Leica M system, and many other rangefinders, have additional benefits such as small size, excellent image quality, and so on.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

Some early Alpa 35mm film cameras combined rangefinder focussing & thru the lens focussing in the same film camera body.

 

There is no technical reason that a rangefinder system & a thru the lens focussing system cannot be combined in a digital body.

 

It's probably easier to do this today than it was to do the same thing 50 or so years ago, when it was done by Alpa.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[sandro]

Many reasons why I like rangefinders (and don't use anything else): the simplicity of the system, giving me the chance to precisely focus where I want to. The main elements of photography are for me the crucial factors why I use Leica M camera's, with film, and nothing else (except once a year the Leica Z2X). Judging light and finding the right shutter/aperture combination, and the composition with the light available in the viewfinder. The result is that bad pictures are my mistake, and I try to learn from that. On top of that comes the feeling of the camera as a precision tool, which Leica succeeds in producing already for so many years.

Lex

[stuny]

I can focus rangefinders well but I don't like them only because they are not WYSIWYG ehough for me through the viewfinders, and I perfer good zoom lenses to prime lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear