Rangefinder vs SLR Camera, which is best?

[bradleymasson]

Apples and oranges. They both have their strengths. I bought a Konica iiia and I love it. A lot of fun to shoot with. The quality of the old rangefinder cameras can be amazing. My Konica is in mint condition. Such a treasure.

[justlikeswimming]

Thanks for reviewing these 2 camera formats! Initially I used only SLRs, 35mm and medium format. Now I frequently use rangefinders. Using them has made me a better photographer, forcing me to imagine what the photo will look at the selected F-stop and be more selective when focusing, making good use of the depth of field scale. Many people prefer the SLR WYSIWYG, but if you 'stop down' the view is often too dim to make out the details anyway. So for landscapes, street photography, and any photo not requiring a narrow depth of field the rangefinder works well, if not better, than the SLR. Being able to see more of the scene through a rangefinder is a great advantage! I encourage everyone into film cameras to try out a good rangefinder.

[js]

Rangefinders tend to be more compact. I think of them as a walk-around camera where I slow everything down.

SLR have more lens options and so are more suited to different environments. Faster lenses or Macro for instance.

I love both and own a selection of RF and SLR.

[alfredojosecasanovapereira]

Amazing video! I was definitely interested in the cycling theme in the intro. And the canonet is a beautiful camera. Your videos on Yashica cameras have guided me a lot, I would like one on the fx3 because I think it is a beautiful SL

[atroche]

At the end of the day the choice is subjective. I actually like both styles of cameras. I really enjoy quietness of the leaf shutters and the focus lever on most rangefinders.

[anta]

Well, it depends on what kind of photography you are going to do.
For macro, or anything with tele/zoom lens, SLR is definitely the proper choice.
Rangefinder is typically suited for primes like 50mm and shorter. Usually for street/documentary photography.

The dealbreaker is if you are shooting medium format. Any SLR bigger than 6x6 is't fun for travelling, since it's heavy and bulky. You'll want a RF.

[Narsuitus]

I shoot rangefinders and SLR cameras.

My favorite rangefinder is a Leica M6 with 21/35/90mm lenses. Other rangefinders I have owned and used are Argus, Minolta, Canon, Contax, and Fuji.

My favorite SLR camera is a Nikon F2 with prime lenses that range from 14 to 1000mm and zoom lenses that range from 14 to 200mm. Other SLRs I have owned and used are Pentax, Fuji, and Mamiya.

I use the rangefinder when I need to shoot quietly and discreetly.

I use the SLR when I need to configure the focusing screen, view finder, camera back, and lenses to capture images of a variety of subjects.

[mahardi.k.a]

i got mine the canonet ql17 2nd gen (made in Japan). the differences with the GIII is the battery check system on 2nd gen ql17 canonet can be seen through needle inside the viewfinder. the coating of the lens (since its made in Japan) is yellowish colored coating rather than bluish purple on the GIII. the other differences is on the rewind knob shape. and last one is as you said as well, the logo "QL" and "GIII".

IMO, i prefer the 2nd gen!!! great cameras indeed

[andrewinaustintx]

A nice comparison of the two 35mm builds. Needless to say amateur photographers prefer a 35mm SLR. For street photography, I prefer a 35mm RF or even better a 35mm viewfinder camera with a folding lens. I have a Voigtlander Vito IIa from 1954 with a viewfinder that would drive most 35mm aficionados stark raving crazy. I still use it, in addition to a Rollei 35S.

While a PFC in the US Army back in 1972, the major plus of the 35mm rangefinder camera was it cost. It was common to find a year or two old 35mm RF for $50 or less from another soldier needing fast money. I say that because I waited until I was graduating from college to buy my first 35mm SLR.

At today's prices - the 35mm RF to SLR price comparison is completely reversed. I can find a 1980'ish 35mm SLR with a decent lens for less than half or the normal eBay asking price of a Canonet QL17 GIII. For example: a battery dependent, Nikon FG with the 50mm series E lens is a fairly compact package and is usually available here in the USA for a thrift store price.

[Janusx]

One key difference between a Canonet and a AE-1 is the type of shutter. The Canonet has a leaf shutter that is more quiet and can sync flash at all shutter speeds. The AE-1 has a faster shutter speed of 1/1000 over Canonet's 1/500, but can only sync flash at 1/60 or slower.

[devroombagchus]

If the mount is correct, an SLR can take any lens. A rangefinder is limited to the built-in frame lines. Also, it cannot really do close ups or macro. Rangefinders also have a very small image for composing with e.g. 135mm. Still, I mostly use my rangefinder.

[chadroberts]

Hi I enjoy your videos and have even bought a couple cameras from you. I was wondering if you know much about the brand Kamero lenses. I have one for my Minolta SRT 202 and it performs surprisingly well. Just curious if it was a common brand and how it ranks with the other good Japan lens manufacturers.

[okaro]

Many those rangefinders use mercury batteries that are not available anymore. Using an alkaline battery instead makes the light meter inaccurate. AE-1 uses a standard battery and as it does not rely on the battery voltage for light measuring. AE-1 was the first microprocessor controlled camera.

The flash sync socket on the newer QLs is on the side.

[quitefranklyjosh]

I live and work in the Tokyo area as well. Is there a developing lab you recommend or do you self develop/scan? Thanks!

[Poorgeniu]

An SLR converter for a rangefinder sounds alot like it'll borrow the Olympus Pen F mirror setup or whatever came first.

[raywilson]

Keen to see this debate settled once and for all. <wink>

[cameraprepper]

SLR !!! "WYSIWYG", "What You See Is What You Get" ! I do not like rangefinder cameras, you do not know what you get, THAT you can see in a SLR Camera.