What's so funny about compact rangefinder cameras?

Somehow I feel the urge to tell the world about my reasons to use those peculiar little cameras. If you find this boring, it's perfectly ok, as like much of the stuff published on the WWW these are my unfiltered, unedited personal opinions.

First of all, I have to say that SLRs are OK. They really are. I keep on taking about 50% of my photographs with SLRs, and I doubt that I will ever stop doing so.

SLRs have the following principal advantages, as far as I am concerned:

• Interchangeable lenses. This is not much of a point if you own an interchangeable lens RF system (although focal lengths are limited there in the telephoto range.) For me it is, as I own only 50mm lenses for the two interchangeable lens rangefinders I have (the FED and the KIEV). You tell me I could easily change this? You're right. But for the time being, that's the way it is.
• WYSIWYG. An SLR shows you what you get on the photo to a much greater extent than any viewfinder camera can. You simply don't have to worry about parallax errors. You even can get fairly precise DOF prediction, at least under average or brighter lighting conditions. The only limitation is that the finder usually doesn't show you 100% of what's in the frame, but as you will be cropping anyway (slide frame, enlarger mask, paper format with different aspect ratio...) you're well advised to frame a little bit on the 'conservative' side anyway.

So why worry about any other camera type, provided you're prepared to shell out €100 for a decent manual everything SLR with a normal lens?

The above mentioned advantages can be very important, or SLRs simply can be required, for special purposes or critical work like macrophotography or anything that involves focal lengths above 135mm, they are not indespensable for all other kinds of photography. Here some of the advantages rangefinder cameras have might be more important to you:

• Far easier focusing of wide angle lenses. Due to their large DOF, wider lenses are kind of a pain to focus on an SLR. On a RF camera focusing wides is every bit as easy and accurate as focusing teles. Of course, the DOF also makes up for most of your focusing errors, but sometimes it can be quite rewarding when the focus of the final picture is exactly where you wanted it to be. Of course, this applies mostly to interchangeable lens cameras, but as most of the compact RF cameras are equipped with lenses in the 35-50mm range, it might apply there as well. Coincidence, coincidence: wide angle lenses for rangefinder cameras are usually easier to design and more compact than those for SLRs, as there's no need to leave room for the mirror swing and the lenses can therefor be designed straightforward, without the need for retrofocus designs like with SLR lenses.
• Silence and lack of vibration. In any SLR you have a mirror that slaps up and down when you take the picture. Not in a rangefinder camera. In the fixed lens examples you don't even have a focal plane shutter but a leaf shutter, the movement of which is undirected and so even less suited to cause camera shake. While with any SLR I tend not to shoot slower speeds than 1/f hend held (1/2f is even better), with your average leaf shutter RF you can easily go down to 1/15 or even 1/8 with a 40mm lens, provided your hands don't shake too much and you hold your breath while taking the picture. As I (YMMV) would not go beyound 1/60 with a similar lens on an SLR, this gives you two extra stops of light to avoid flash or use slower film. OTOH, leaf shutters are usually limited to a top speed of 1/500, but as you have slower film in your camera anyway this won't bother you too much.
• You see what's outside the frame. Hey, didn't I sell quite the contrary as advantage #2 of the SLR? Not quite. Yes, you have parallax and shrinkling field problems when focusing closer (although they can be corrected quite nicely, as in the Konica S2), but seeing what's outside the frame (or about to get inside) can be invaluable in street photography or simply to make composition a lot easier. You don't have to wiggle your camera around, you just stand, look, and can decide whether a little bit more of the tree on the left hand side would suit your picture or not.
• Compactness. Even the clumsier RF cameras like the Yashica Electro or those with interchangeable lenses are a lot more compact and easier to carry around than your average SLR. THis is partly due to the fact that you will carry no (or at least: less, and more compact) extra lenses. Most of the time you can do with an eveready case (I love 'em, most people hate 'em. You can get away without one, but don't forget the camera.) and maybe a second lens in your coat pocket or a filter in your shirt pocket, while your SLR mate is hauling a big ugly photo bag that contains, among others, his 300/2.8 telephoto that he paid so much for and won't leave at home just in case. (If you're into wildlife photography, forget what I just said and keep your 300 and SLR.) This urge or compactness causes people to buy 28-200 megazooms for their SLRs and carry them around on holiday, when they could take better photographs with an Olympus XA or Stylus Epic and a little bit of walking. But that's outdated, the same people are currently selling their gear and aquire digital compacts.</>

So what is for what? If you want to go wide, travel light and take it easy, go for an RF. If the thought of on single lens in the slightly-wide-to-normal range doesn't bother you, go for a compact RF. If you want long telephoto, macro and/or 100% accurate framing for slide shows, go for an SLR. If you want this plus AF and bells and whistles, go for an AF SLR.

If you can't decide, like me: try both, use both according to the situation, and never be angry you don't have your other camera with you.

I have to add something to the last paragraph, even if it has not much to do with the topic of this article: You can develop a certain nonchalance to photo equipment.
For the time being, I can (and usually do) leave the house (or hotel room, or whatever) with one camera and one lens. Be it a compact RF with 40 mm or an SLR with 135mm, I just take the pictures that fit the gear, and I seldom miss that big Tamrac case with gazillions of lenses and filters. It's sometimes nice to return the other day with another lens, but I can live without it. Call me mad. But I think this helps focusing (no pun intended) on taking pictures, not changing lenses.

jm2c

(You can actually have a bit of the best of both worlds with a TLR, but that's another story).