My rangefinder cameras are taking over

[BrianL]

I too have found the rangefinder as my main camera more recently. My SLR is a MF that can be also used as a 35mm but while an excellent camera and a dear companion for several decades is not just to heavy and large for me to carry. I find the Leica CL to be just right with its 40mm lens and do not miss the features of an SLR at all.

[artfoto47]

30+ years ago when I got an M3, 35,50 & 90 my Nikon SLR stuff went on the shelf. Sadly, several years later it was stolen, so back to Nikon until I recently got a Kiev 2a. No M3, but still lots o' fun.

[Bateleur]

For many years I used SLR exclusively, mainly due to the type of photographs I took then, wildlife and nature necessitating telefoto and macro. Nowadays my subject matter is very different and am therefore almost 100% a rangefinder user. Being small and light even my back is much happier about the switch.

[Brian Legge]

I grew up on SLRs, starting with my parents Canon A1. It was the only type of camera I knew.

I got into rangefinders about a year ago and have been shooting either rangefinders or larger formats almost exclusively since. A mix - a medium format rangefinder - is my most recent obsession.

[darkosaric]

Well,

I have Leica M3 with summicron 50 and M6 with color skopar 35/2.5 - but still I am using more and enjoying more using Nikon F3 with 50 or 105/2.5.

[benjiboy]

Please, explain why.

Because it's a sweeping generalization that he does nothing in his assertion to substantiate, to me it's more like a statement of prejudice without any evidence to support it, which lenses ?, which SLR s ?, which range finder cameras ?

[andysig]

Like many people I eventually arrived at rangefinders. Somehow they just seem "right". I have kept just one SLR body with a macro lens simply because that is something rangefinders can't do. I find that rangefinders have got me taking far more pictures than I ever did with an SLR.

[philosomatographer]

Rangefinders are small, easy to handhold and quick to use, and best of all, the optics are sharper than SLR optics.

Don't get me wrong, I really like my Leica M3, but your sweeping statements are simply not true. Not only are there 35mm SLR cameras that are as small, or even smaller, than Leica M bodies (Olympus OM system comes to mind) but there are many SLR lenses that are demonstrably superiour to anything Leica or Zeiss has ever made for rangefinder cameras. Also (especially if you're hand-holding) lens sharpness doesn't matter - only the subject matters!

It all depends on the style of your photography. Of the many internet memes about rangefinders that are untrue (such as their supposedly superiour optics, better handholdability, etc) one that strangely does seem to be true, is that people seem to notice them less for spontaneous portraits. Just the other day I attended a party, and these two lovely ladies - even though I photographed them from about a metre away - was simply unaware that I had photographed them! If this was the first time this had happened, I could discount it, but it's a regular occurrence - people seem to have some sort of built-in response to an (especially if it's a black / modern-looking) SLR camera.

Really?

(Leica M3, Voigtländer Heliar 50mm f/3.5)

To the OP, enjoy your rangefinders! I have a different problem - my 4x5in view camera is taking over...!

[georg16nik]

@benjiboy & philosomatographer,
SLR wide angles are mediocre compared to RF ones.
The SLR ones use more complex optical scheme, more surfaces for the light to pass through, while the RF ones are simpler, easier to correct, perform better, have less distortion and so on.
RF can have 100% or more viewfinder coverage, while with SLR that is a challenge if You want a smaller body.
There is no SLR smaller than Leica I or II or even III*.. even the M bodies and lenses are tractors compared to the original Leica I system.
There is no 50mm SLR lens that is more compact than Leitz Elmar 1:3,5/50 and perform so good.
There is no wide angle SLR lens that is more compact than KMZ Russar MR-2 1:5,6/20, let alone being even close to its optical performance.

[Prest_400]

I really like my OM-1. The most "rangefinderish" SLR around (it seems). I've seen comparisons and it's very similar to an M3 in size. It's not very much bigger than an Olympus trip 35! I should use it more often.
I might have to try RF someday, although that my progression might be going to MF rather than using more 35mm.

I've got the "cheapest" OM line lenses and never been unhappy, they fill my needs for sharpness perfectly.