Viewfinder cameras

bndctcvl · 2006-09-12T15:10:00+00:00

Hallo, ich habe mal eine kleine Frage. Was haben Sucherkameras im Vergleich zu SLRs für Vorteile? Es muss doch einen Grund geben wieso die M-Leicas so bel...

bndctcvl

Hello, I’ve got a quick question. What are the advantages of rangefinder cameras compared to SLRs? There must be a reason why the M-series Leicas are so popular. Thanks in advance for your replies. Benny

RomanMS

Hi, One of the key selling points is the absence of mirror shake, which means the shutter is very quiet and vibration-free (or low-vibration).

arothaus

There must be a reason why the M-series Leicas are so popular.

They’ve got a red dot ;-) Leica in particular has its fair share of brand fanatics, and the question of whether to go for Leica or not often leads to arguments. But apart from Leica, there have been and still are several other rangefinder camera systems – in the past, mainly the Contax, and today the Zeiss-Ikon and the modern Bessas. As things stand, there will certainly soon be more analogue rangefinder cameras than SLR systems ;-) The main advantage lies in the absence of a mirror. Without the mirror slap, the camera is quieter and produces less vibration – experienced users can hold it steady for longer periods. Because the lenses are positioned closer to the shutter, there is no need for complex retrofocus designs in wide-angle lenses. This allows wide-angle lenses with a focal length of 35mm, 28mm or even less to be designed with a symmetrical lens configuration (e.g. the Biogon from Zeiss). There are situations in which the rangefinder is better suited for focusing than the focusing screen of an SLR camera, particularly as it gets darker. Last but not least, there are plenty of people who appreciate the fact that their subject does not disappear from the viewfinder the moment the shutter is released. Whether SLR or rangefinder camera – each has its pros and cons. Which is ‘better’ depends solely on the situation and the user’s preference. Apparently, there are people who haven’t touched their beeping plastic autofocus SLRs since they first got their hands on an M-series Leica – incidentally, the reverse is also true... Regards Andreas

Guido

Hi there! Viewfinder cameras are usually more compact than SLRs. A viewfinder camera (in my case, the cheap Russian ones :( ) fits easily into a jacket pocket. That’s often not possible with SLRs, and you can’t always take all that camera kit with you everywhere. The interchangeable lenses on viewfinder cameras are also usually much smaller than the lens barrels on SLRs. Cheers Guido

cfb_de

Hello Guido, Since there’s no cheap mirrorless camera, decent wide-angle lenses (e.g. Cosina/Voigtländer 15mm) remain reasonably affordable, and besides: http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b0478/Conte...12571e1002f1d7d You can’t do that with an SLR. Best regards, Franz

Wolfgg

Hello, It looks as though Zeiss brought out a 60-tonne tank to use as a tripod for the shoot. And as a test viewfinder camera, they’ve got a secret device with a suction-cup mounting plate, like on that Contax model. Or is something like that already officially available? Zeiss should also start getting into film production soon, so that we finally get a film that can keep up with their lenses. Regards, Wolfgang

max

Hi Benny, Fetishists also claim that a: a permanent view through the viewfinder is essential (the SLR goes dark when the shutter is released) and b: the shutter lag caused by the mirror flipping up is unbearable http://www.littman45single.com Both of these points naturally apply to TLRs as well, albeit at the expense of compactness According to the link, the Zeiss enthusiasts’ obsession with ‘maximum resolution’ has also been shelved. Regards Martin

cfb_de

Hello, It looks as though Zeiss has brought out a 60-tonne tank to use as a tripod for these shots. And as a test viewfinder camera, they’ve got a secret device with a suction-cup mounting plate, like on that Contax. Or is something like that already available officially?

Hello Wolfgang, The film was Orthopan from Spur, the camera a ZI (i.e. a better Bessa :-), the lens the 25mm Biogon. All standard off-the-shelf items and described as such on the site. Best regards, Franz

Wolfgg

Hello Franz, But with so many unknowns, the key issue with such resolution requirements is always the film’s position within the frame – or, to be more precise, whether the film lies exactly in the focal plane. In other words, factors that are difficult to assess, such as - how tightly the cartridge mouth grips the film - whether the cassette is full or nearly empty - whether the film is advanced quickly or slowly - temperature - Humidity - Is the camera tilted up or down when taking the shot - Is the shot taken immediately after film transport or much later - Winding direction - Tension from the take-up spool My first attempts with AgepeFF and Neofin Doku back in 1977 were disappointing in terms of resolution; as I now realise, this was also due to these many unpredictable variables. The topic of ‘suction plates’ is unlikely to be revisited by anyone, regardless of the film format. Regards, Wolfgang

cfb_de

Hi Wolfgang, Zeiss don’t have vacuum plates at the ZI. And now I know why nitpicking isn’t really worth it ;-) The first TMX in the Leica with the 90mm was revelation enough for me. When I get the chance, I’ll have a go at testing the Orthopan/Copex from Schain. That’ll probably be the next revelation – if nothing else, it’ll show just how bad my 50mm lenses for M42/FD/Leica-M/Pentax really are. So far, I still (?) reckon my lot are pretty good. Best regards, Franz

Wolfgg

Hello Franz, Even the Leica M I like to use—which I’ve modified to 6x9 format—and the Mamiya Universal have a flatness issue if the film isn’t advanced for a few days and is exposed immediately after the next film advance, because the film doesn’t run without deflection and the deflection point lies within the next frame after the film advance. The effect is most pronounced on the second frame (larger ‘net spool diameter’). However, the problem can be worked around. So that any newcomers reading this don’t think there’s a fundamental problem with film flatness: such issues only become relevant if you want to squeeze the absolute maximum out of the camera. You can achieve wonderful results without ever worrying about such things. Regards, Wolfgang