File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Newfaggy question here;

How exactly do rangefinder cameras work? I'm most familiar with SLRs and TLRs but have had no real exposure to rangefinders. I've always been curious about them, what makes the rangefinding tick?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Okay, hold up your finger in front of your face. Focus on it with your eyes. Now, close your left eye. Then, switch to your right eye. See how your finger seems to jump? That's because of parallax differences.

A rangefinder works based on that principle. There's another little window on the camera (the smaller one to the left of the viewfinder in that picture) with a prism inside of it that directs that image over so that it's overlaid on the viewfinder (generally in a small patch in the center). Since it's slightly offset from the viewfinder, it's got a slightly view of the scene. So how do you focus? You make the image of the thing you want in focus overlaid rangefinder patch line up with the viewfinder image. The system's calibrated such that, when the viewfinder and rangefinder images line up, the thing that's aligned is in focus.

It's a lot easier to do than it is to explain.
>> Anonymous
okay, I get that about as much as I possibly can without messing with it in person.

I ask because I'm considering picking up a cheap Fed 2 from a Ukraine source for a couple of bucks. I know they're not the greatest things on Earth but I don't want to make a huge investment in a rangefinder right now.
>> Anonymous
I would say pick up a fixed lens rangefinder to get to know the system then if you are set on a rangefinder get a Voigtlander Bessa in Leica screw mount (same as FED 2) or Leica M mount which can use an adapter for the screw mount lenses. Cheap russian glass

The Bessa's have nice viewfinders, and a great lightmeter but I haven't ever used a Leica so I can't compare
>> Anonymous
can you autofocus with these?
>> Anonymous
>>147716
...
DOT FUCKING DOT DOT
>> Anonymous
>>147716
One line of rangefinder, the Contax G, could autofocus. But you don't need it, especially not with a rangefinder.
>> Anonymous
even if you are attracted to the Contax G, it probably isn't too good of an idea because it apparently lacks a true collectors status (not my words..) and doesn't have a good enough range of lenses and accessories to justify buying into a system just for autofocus
>> Anonymous
>>147731
Don't listen to this. The Contax G-mount has several great lenses for it.

It's still a better idea to get an M-mount camera than anything: a M2 or M4 if you want to use wide-angle lenses, or an M3 if you don't. It'll take all sorts of great M-mount lenses from Leica, Konica, Zeiss, and Voigtlander, and an insanely large range of lenses in the M39 screwmount with an adapter.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>147763
$600 minimum for a totally manual film camera without so much as a light meter?

I'd call that outrageously expensive. I understand why they cost so much, but it's still outrageously expensive for what they are.
>> Anonymous
I've seen them go on eBay for $300-400, in good condition, and a new lightmeter can be had for $100 more.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>147776

see, that's a funny matter of perception. i'm a filmfag, and 600 bucks for a sensor crammed into a plastic body seems ridiculously expensive for a camera to me. that's not even counting in obsolescence.

on the other hand, 600 bucks on a leica will get you a top-of-the-line rangefinder that'll last until you drop it into some magma.
>> Anonymous
>>147776
I don't think that's outrageously expensive because I don't measure a camera by the number of "features" it has. I'd rather something simple, well made, and well thought out over something with 650,000 AF points, a 12,000 segment computerized metering system, and handling inspired by a pointy cinderblock and rendered in ultra-space-aged composite thermoplastic.

I would venture to say that many of the DSLRs on the market today are outrageously expensive. After all they're all just made of injection molded plastic (and maybe a little metal in some cases) and robotically-assembled PCB... There's no craftsmanship involved, and once machinery and R&D are paid for cameras are probably just a few bucks a piece to make.
>> Anonymous
>>147813
They also take 10's of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of pictures with little to no issues.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>147819
I'm over 40,000 or 50,000 pictures on on my Digital Rebel XTi (it rolls over at 9,999 and I've lost count) with no problems not caused by my own stupidity (pro tip: put the camera away before eating appetizers with drippy sauce. My control wheel has been a little bit sticky ever since). Tens of thousands of shots is nothing for modern cameras. It's only impressive on film cameras because that many shots would take you a long-ass time to shoot.

(Granted, "tens of thousands" and even "hundreds of thousands" is probably an extraordinarily conservative estimate of the useful lifetime of a Leica. I'm just saying, tens of thousands of exposures isn't as much as it might seem to a filmfag)

>>147797
External light meter is a hassle. I use one (well, a PowerShot A95) when I'm shooting with my TLR.

>>147808
When doing that cost/value calculation, be sure to count in the cost of film in the overall cost of the film camera. Like I said, I've taken over 40,000 shots on my SLR. Even if you assume $1/roll for the film and $1/roll for developing, my $800 SLR is way ahead of the curve.

>>147813
I totally understand the Leica appeal, and hope to some day own one. I'm just saying, in terms of features and sheer convenience, a Leica is beaten by the Canon Sure Shot 80 Tele that I bought for $2.82 with a free roll of film at a thrift store last month. The Sure Shot featured an internal light meter with auto exposure, and auto focus. Oh, and a zoom lens. And a motor drive.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>147861

36 masterpieces for a buck is pretty good i would say!

lolollllolololololololololloololollllollollololol
>> Anonymous
>>147861
You just don't get it. That's fine though, the more people who would rather buy digital rebels than Leicas, the more Leicas I can afford.
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>147861
QFT man.

also, OP said he didnt want to spend much on a rangefinder as hes not sure if hell like it, so its hardly fitting to go and reccomend a leica just cos itll last forever.

OP; may i suggest a canonet as they are easy to find on the bay and come in a wide range of prices from cheap to about $100USD.

do a search for a canonet QL28, QL25, QL19 or QL19.
also check out this guys site, he covers most affordable and some high end rangefinders from a lot of brands.
i can personally reccomend the canonet QL19 and GIII17 as i have them. they come with a fairly accurate lightmeter and the lens on the GIII 17 is pretty sweet too for a 30 y/o camera :)
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>147884
its not like you have your face planted against the VF like a rangefinder/slr when using a tlr. My Kodalux is mounted on the side, its almost seamless to take a reading from it.
Sunny 16 is a bit more difficult to get accurate with digital because of its narrow degrees of latitude, thus its not so forgiving.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>147890
>its not like you have your face planted against the VF like a rangefinder/slr when using a tlr.
Yeah, but we're talking about rangefinders ITT. :-P I just used my TLR as an example since it's the only camera I regularly use without a built-in meter (well, except for my Diana, but the lack of metering in that doesn't really count since I couldn't change the exposure settings even if it had a meter)

>Sunny 16 is a bit more difficult to get accurate with digital because of its narrow degrees of latitude, thus its not so forgiving.
Which is why learning with digital would be ideal. If you can sunny-16 on Digital, you can sunny-16 on anything.
>> Anonymous
>>147884

Don't underestimate the handiness of an external meter. I love the external meter on my Bessa L, it 's fantastic for discreet street shooting. Adjust focus & exposure at the hip, bring to eye and take the shot, put it away. Clean as you please.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>147893
Hm. Interesting. Hadn't considered that.
>> Anonymous
>>147884

Try your Powershot for now. Doesn't it have a little four-way controller looking thing that functions like two command dials? That'll do for shooting in daylight.

>>147894
Yeah, this is actually the best way to shoot with a rangefinder, according to most opinions I've read: everything is set 90% of the way before it ever gets near your face. If you're familiar with the focal length and it's not something too long, that'll even include having a basic idea of the composition.

The technique works for SLRs, too, but it's less popular, I guess because of all the automation and in-viewfinder information they have these days. But it's very discreet when done right.
>> Doitle
What brands are known for their rangefinders besides Leica?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>147930

konica, contax, zeiss, voigtlander.

actually, every single major manufacturer has at least one rangefinder in their line up.
>> Anonymous
>>147930
Right now, Voigtlander makes the Bessa series and Zeiss makes the Ikon series. (They're all actually made by Cosina.) IIRC, Bessa is entry-level and Ikon is mid-level.

Olympus, Rollei, and Canon made some great fixed-lens rangefinders in the '70s.

Minolta made a copy of the Leica CL, a smaller, cheaper, more modern M-mount camera which was originally a Leica-Minolta collaboration.

Pre-M, the big rivalry (like Canon and Nikon today) was Leica rangfinders against Contax rangefinders. Leicas were smaller, more reliable, and had quieter shutters. Contaxes were more technologically advanced. There are good Soviet copies of both the Leica and Contax designs.

Nikon also got its start, pre-F, with great rangefinder cameras.
>> Doitle
While poking around ebay and looking at some rangefinders I decided to search for some DSLRs too and ran accross a Digital Rebel XT that someone was advertising as having 3x optical zoom. No Lenses included.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
if i become stupidly rich with more money than sense (i.e. American), i'll be getting a Nikon S3
>> Anonymous
>>147884
If you think it's your lack of control wheels that are preventing you from learning to meter with your eyes, you are sadly mistaken. You can learn to interpret light without ever taking a single picture. It's only your refusal to take the time that is preventing you from learning.

>>147949Minolta made a copy of the Leica CL...
The Minolta CL isn't a copy, it's the exact same camera made on the exact same assembly line. They were marketed with the Minolta name in Japan and a few were sold in the west as well. It wasn't a collaboration so much as Leitz licensed the name and lens designs for a camera designed and built by Minolta. The Minolta CLE is an updated version of the CL that was made without input from Leitz, but is still a very good an in many ways better camera.

Some other great rangefinders not yet mentioned are the Konica Hexar (a very nice M-mount rangefinder with TTL metering and a motor drive) and the Hasselblad X-Pan (a panoramic rangefinder made by Fuji).

>>147893
This is how I shoot whenever I'm going handheld, whether it be with a Leica or a DSLR, or a TLR. I take an incident reading in the approximate light where I will be working to give me a baseline, then compensate by eye for each photo. With my Leica, I even usually have the focus set in the right area before the viewfinder ever reaches my eye. I just fine focus, finalize composition, and shoot.
>> Anonymous
>>147946
Except Pentax. Those faggots.
>> Anonymous
Excuse me for the off-topic, gentlemen, and for the newbieish question, but I was wondering what's so special about the Leica cameras.

I suppose the characteristic coloration of classic film Leica cameras could be replicated with Photoshop (Leica itself gives a software to do this).

Apart from the rangefinder and the noctilux lens, what's so exquisite about Leica cameras?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>147912
>Doesn't it have a little four-way controller looking thing that functions like two command dials?
Not the A95. They hadn't implemented that yet. In Manual mode, I have to hit 'set' to switch between setting Aperture and setting Shutter speed. It's even more annoying than using the button-plus-wheel method on my XTi.

>>147975
>You can learn to interpret light without ever taking a single picture
Bright sunlight = f/16 with shutter speed equal to 1/ISO. Everything else follows from that.

I know how to do it on an intellectual level, but I need to be able to practice so I can get to the point where I can just turn to the appropriate shutter speed and aperture automatically without having to think about it for a long time and do the math in my head and go "Okay, wait, so I'm using ISO400, which means my aperture needs to go...which direction again? Crap. Um. Shit, there goes my shot."

So yeah, you can learn the basics without ever taking a picture *in theory*. I meant that I need to actually practice it to get that knowledge from procedural memory to muscle memory.