Rangefinders is an old camera design from the 1930's where you focus by aligning two images on a small viewfinder on top of the camera. Later on SLR replaced this by adding a movable mirror in...
Rangefinders is an old camera design from the 1930's where you focus by aligning two images on a small viewfinder on top of the camera. Later on SLR replaced this by adding a movable mirror in front of the film, allowing to see through the lens and directly focusing that way. Because the mirror take space, SLR lenses sits further away from the film as in rangefinder. As a result if you put a rangefinder lens on a SLR camera you can only focus very close objects and it works as a macro lens. Here I used a vintage Russian lens (Industar 50mm f3.5) on a Canon 100D DSLR.
That's pretty cool, and some nice shots too! I guess it's a little like what happens with an extension tube then, but without the extra hassle. I've heard tubes can make the image darker too, does...
That's pretty cool, and some nice shots too!
I guess it's a little like what happens with an extension tube then, but without the extra hassle. I've heard tubes can make the image darker too, does that happen with this setup?
I've been getting into macro photography myself over the last few months, and it's been fun learning about the optics and different techniques.
I'm not too sure about the brightness, I haven't compared to a properly fitted lens, but should have the same effect as an extension tube (didn't knew that was a thing).
I'm not too sure about the brightness, I haven't compared to a properly fitted lens, but should have the same effect as an extension tube (didn't knew that was a thing).
I've never had much of a problem with extension tubes and the image darkening, although you do tend to need a bit more light for macro anyway. Personally I love my extension tubes. I think they're...
I've never had much of a problem with extension tubes and the image darkening, although you do tend to need a bit more light for macro anyway.
Personally I love my extension tubes. I think they're less hassle than any other technique except a dedicated macro lens. You just attach the tubes to your lens and slap it on. Less bother than reversing a lens and a bit easier (imo) than magnifying filters (plus you don't need different filters for different lenses - one set of tubes works with everything). The non-brand Chinese ones are generally fine if you're using older/manual lenses, but can be wobbly with more advanced functions - my £20-from-ebay tubes are fine in manual mode but do struggle a bit controlling my AF lenses. But AF in macro can be awkward even at the best of times, and I often end up manually tweaking the focus anyway.
As an aside, those Russian primes are bloody gorgeous. They're pretty cheap to buy, even now and because they're mostly M42 you can get adaptors for just about every lens mount going. Although I currently a Jupiter-8 f2 stuck on my X-mount adaptor. Which isn't the worst situation tbh.
I have to protest this description of rangefinders. Popular rangefinder cameras first started being produced in the 1930s, but rangefinders continued to be popular into the 1970s (with use in some...
I have to protest this description of rangefinders.
Popular rangefinder cameras first started being produced in the 1930s, but rangefinders continued to be popular into the 1970s (with use in some areas remaining common much later), and many of the most iconic rangefinders (eg, the Leica M series) only started production in the 50s. 35mm SLRsalso first started being produced in the 1930s—for example, the Kine Exakta and Praktiflex—and large format SLRs existed as far back as the 19th century.
SLRs and rangefinders thus coexisted for most of their development, each with advantages and disadvantages. Some of the disadvantages of SLRs were gradually addressed by technological advances (eg, pentaprisms addressing the viewfinder angle problem, automatic diaphragms addressing the viewfinder brightness problem, microprism and split screen focusing screens making focus easier and faster, autofocus being developed), but others are inherent to SLRs, such as size (limited by the mirror), noise, shutter lag, and lens design. The development of good mirrorless digital cameras likely came out of some of these fundamental disadvantages.
Rangefinders, meanwhile, were much quieter, could be much smaller, had negligible shutter lag, could have better wide angle lenses, and were generally much faster and easier to reliably focus than SLRs, thus making them more suitable for things like street photography and journalism; their disadvantages are related to composition (no way to see depth of field, parallax problems with framing, difficulties with framing for interchangeable lenses, etc). Comparing earlier models, the difference in focusing speed is extreme, and while SLRs improved, they never really reached the speed and reliability of manual focusing with a rangefinder: it is arguably autofocus in the 70s/80s, rather than the SLR, that replaced rangefinders.
Additional to this, rangerfinder-like designs didn't completely go away. Leica and a few others never stopped making them and Fujifilm have been doing rangefinder-y things in their very popular...
Additional to this, rangerfinder-like designs didn't completely go away. Leica and a few others never stopped making them and Fujifilm have been doing rangefinder-y things in their very popular XPro, X100 and XE series digital cameras. I personally think it's a much nicer form factor than SLR and have been shooting an XE for quite a few years now. I know a couple of professionals who carry an X100 as a candid/street camera over the much bigger and louder SLR options (half my wedding was shot on an X100 for that very reason)
Rangefinders is an old camera design from the 1930's where you focus by aligning two images on a small viewfinder on top of the camera. Later on SLR replaced this by adding a movable mirror in front of the film, allowing to see through the lens and directly focusing that way. Because the mirror take space, SLR lenses sits further away from the film as in rangefinder. As a result if you put a rangefinder lens on a SLR camera you can only focus very close objects and it works as a macro lens. Here I used a vintage Russian lens (Industar 50mm f3.5) on a Canon 100D DSLR.
That's pretty cool, and some nice shots too!
I guess it's a little like what happens with an extension tube then, but without the extra hassle. I've heard tubes can make the image darker too, does that happen with this setup?
I've been getting into macro photography myself over the last few months, and it's been fun learning about the optics and different techniques.
I'm not too sure about the brightness, I haven't compared to a properly fitted lens, but should have the same effect as an extension tube (didn't knew that was a thing).
I've never had much of a problem with extension tubes and the image darkening, although you do tend to need a bit more light for macro anyway.
Personally I love my extension tubes. I think they're less hassle than any other technique except a dedicated macro lens. You just attach the tubes to your lens and slap it on. Less bother than reversing a lens and a bit easier (imo) than magnifying filters (plus you don't need different filters for different lenses - one set of tubes works with everything). The non-brand Chinese ones are generally fine if you're using older/manual lenses, but can be wobbly with more advanced functions - my £20-from-ebay tubes are fine in manual mode but do struggle a bit controlling my AF lenses. But AF in macro can be awkward even at the best of times, and I often end up manually tweaking the focus anyway.
As an aside, those Russian primes are bloody gorgeous. They're pretty cheap to buy, even now and because they're mostly M42 you can get adaptors for just about every lens mount going. Although I currently a Jupiter-8 f2 stuck on my X-mount adaptor. Which isn't the worst situation tbh.
I have to protest this description of rangefinders.
Popular rangefinder cameras first started being produced in the 1930s, but rangefinders continued to be popular into the 1970s (with use in some areas remaining common much later), and many of the most iconic rangefinders (eg, the Leica M series) only started production in the 50s. 35mm SLRs also first started being produced in the 1930s—for example, the Kine Exakta and Praktiflex—and large format SLRs existed as far back as the 19th century.
SLRs and rangefinders thus coexisted for most of their development, each with advantages and disadvantages. Some of the disadvantages of SLRs were gradually addressed by technological advances (eg, pentaprisms addressing the viewfinder angle problem, automatic diaphragms addressing the viewfinder brightness problem, microprism and split screen focusing screens making focus easier and faster, autofocus being developed), but others are inherent to SLRs, such as size (limited by the mirror), noise, shutter lag, and lens design. The development of good mirrorless digital cameras likely came out of some of these fundamental disadvantages.
Rangefinders, meanwhile, were much quieter, could be much smaller, had negligible shutter lag, could have better wide angle lenses, and were generally much faster and easier to reliably focus than SLRs, thus making them more suitable for things like street photography and journalism; their disadvantages are related to composition (no way to see depth of field, parallax problems with framing, difficulties with framing for interchangeable lenses, etc). Comparing earlier models, the difference in focusing speed is extreme, and while SLRs improved, they never really reached the speed and reliability of manual focusing with a rangefinder: it is arguably autofocus in the 70s/80s, rather than the SLR, that replaced rangefinders.
Additional to this, rangerfinder-like designs didn't completely go away. Leica and a few others never stopped making them and Fujifilm have been doing rangefinder-y things in their very popular XPro, X100 and XE series digital cameras. I personally think it's a much nicer form factor than SLR and have been shooting an XE for quite a few years now. I know a couple of professionals who carry an X100 as a candid/street camera over the much bigger and louder SLR options (half my wedding was shot on an X100 for that very reason)
Thanks for the precision, my historical description was certainly a bit hasty.