Okay, I’ll admit it: I’m a camera fiend.
So, I’m checking out the new B&H Photo catalogue, and I’m looking at the rangefinder cameras. The Voightländer bodies start at a reasonable $300. But the Rollei costs $1,020 for the body, plus another $650 for the lens. A Nikon S3 2000 kit with a lens goes for $2,500. Leica bodies range from $2,800 to $3,500, and a normal 50mm f2.0 lens costs $1,200.
I have an ancient Argus C4 that I bought used for $20 with a lens, Tiffen skylight filter and pouch, case, and original box. Guess what? It takes light through the lens and puts it on the film. Takes nice pictures.
Okay, so the Argus C4 is built a bit like an early Datsun compared to the Rolls Royce-like Leica. But is a Leica really 150-200 times better?
SLRs have (obviously) TTL focusing. They have the same TTL metering and aperture-priority exposure modes, and manual exposure modes, as the rangefinder cameras. (And not all rangefinders have auto-exposure.) Nikon’s ad states:
So aside from nostalgia, why are rangefinder cameras so expensive?
I’m guessing it’s an economy of scale thing, as well as supply and demand. Although I can see why the supply is limited, I don’t see why the demand exists.
Indeed. Rangefinder cameras were the cat’s pyjamas 40 or 50 years ago. An SLR does everything a rangefinder does, and often offers more features and better ergonomics. A rangefinder camera may have been compact ‘back in the day’, but now they’re really no smaller than a typical SLR.
The rangefinder cameras you see nowadays are usually disposables or cheap plastic ones with with parallax viewfinders. (The old Argus uses the more-advanced double-image focusing.) Underwater cameras, such as my Nokonos IV and V, or other makes, have parallax viewfinders for obvious reasons. Most non-SLR digital cameras have a parallax viewfinder to back up their viewing screens. So there’s a place for non-SLR cameras – cheap disposables or otherwise inexpensive cameras, or special-purpose cameras. Why make high-end rangefinder cameras at all, but for the relatively small market? And if high-quality rangefinder cameras are to be made (obviously there is a market for them), why must they be so expensive (except for the Japanese re-creation of the Voigtländer)?
I’m from the SLR generation, so there’s no actual nostalgia in using a rangefinder. But I appreciate old technology, and my $20 Argus gives me a taste of it.
The only argument I know for the rangefinder is the lack of noise and vibration. You don’t get “mirror slap” in a rangefinder, so taking a picture is less noisy than with an SLR. I don’t see that justifying an extra 1000 dollars, though.
Rangefinders have their advantages (I don’t personally use one at the moment but I have and would again if one of the ones I prefer came available)
Since they don’t have mirrors like SLRs they’re quieter and therefore more useful in certain situations (photographing people without being heard as an example). They’re every bit as accurate as SLRs as long as the rangefinder mechanisms are coupled to the lenses correctly - Rangefinders, especially older ones, are often described as “coupled” or “uncoupled.” A coupled rangefinder automatically adjusts the lens as the image is focused. An uncoupled one doesn’t.
Since they don’t have the mirrors the bodies are generally smaller relative to the film size - compare a Leica M series camera with a Leica R series and you’ll see what I mean.
Some photographers swear by them and as I said, I have nothing against them, I just prefer my Hasselblad. But, if I could get a Fuji medium format rangefinder at a reasonable price (less than $500) I’d go for it. I had one once and it was a great camera.
One other thing to consider is aesthetics. We’re all guilty of buying a particular model of whatever, car/camera/microwave/sexual aid, because we just like the way it looks and handles, even if another variety is every bit as good but just looks different. Rangefinders are often quite beautifully constructed and just feel good in the hand.
Heh. You guys haven’t heard my Argus. Let’s just say I wouldn’t want to snap a photo if there’s an edgy cop around!
I’ll have to see a high-end camera in person. My cheapo C4 is roughly the same size as my OM-1 (which is the smallest of my 35mm SLRs); except for the lens, which is smaller.
I do like the looks of the Leica (silver; not black), but unless I win the lottery or find a kick-ass job I can’t justify a price that’s fully a third of a used Aaton.
Hey, Johnny!
I wanted to bump this since I found the link I was looking for the last three days.
Popular Photography’s message boards have a long-running (two and a half years now) thread called In Praise of the Canonet, Dammit!
I gotta warn you, though, it’s 69 pages long, with over 1300 responses. I’m not an RF photogragher, but these people are passionate, and I’m sure you’ll enjoy the conversations.