Looking through the lens with an SLR instead of looking through a rangefinder patch is by far the biggest difference between the two. Anybody who composes their images very carefully is better off with an SLR. Because of parallax distortion the image taken through the lens can come out quite differently than what you see through the rangefinder. There is a certain amount of guessing involved. You have to know that and I think that's why an SLR is better for beginners. The smaller form factor is the biggest selling point of rangefinder cameras if you ask me. Not just the body. The lenses are also significantly smaller than SLR lenses. If you cary more than one lens with you that is were you start to feel the difference. I take my Contax G1 (yes, that is considered a rangefinder ;) ) with me a lot more than my SLR. There is no way to say which one is generally better than the other, though.
Pre-war Zeiss Ikon Contax over Leicas any day. Weighs 2 pounds, pure brass, last a lifetime (except the shutter ribbon-- breaks every 70 years) and very ergonomic
The BEST camera, between a Rangefinder and an SLR/DSLR is actually the one you're familiar with or know how to use and feel comfortable with. I once had 2 SLRs (film era) and a Rangefinder as back up for certain situations. I had to do a Christening. The pastor did not want to hear the click-clack sound (someone was audio-recording) so I used the more silent Rangefinder, which is also easier to carry since it is not as large as an SLR/DSLR. Actually, there was more to the story than merely the "sound." The pastor was severely reprimanded since the church had no such policies in place and that pastor had not objected to SLRs during other Christenings.
@@winstonli8081 I'm a Leica fan boy but I must admit that the Zeiss Ikon Contax is an absolutely amazing camera. I wouldn't say that they are better than leica though, they are just for different people. I'm a leica guy and I will be the first person to admit our cameras are a bit overpriced and over hyped, however I pay for the insane amount of things available for the camera. However for those trying to get a like new camera and spend under $1,000 usd the Zeiss Ikon Contax is an amazing choice, being the fact that for the price they are probably the best second only to the admittedly over priced Leica's. However its all personal preferance to be honest, if you got some good film and some good glass thats all that really maters. Other than that who cares if I got a Leica lol, I use aftermarket lenses anyway.
Rangefinders were the “Point and Shoot” camera’s for the masses back in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s...they weren’t that technologically advanced compared to the SLR manufacturers of the day. Now, there is no doubt that Leica elevated their profile with high end, luxury products, Rangefinders. But Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, Ricoh etc Rangerfinders we’re not necessarily more expensive compared to their respective contemporaries of the day. SLRs had many more options based on the buyers budget. Just my 2 Cents.
Yeah, I don't see how rangefinders are really that much more expensive as long as you're not buying Leica. I see Canon rangefinders in vintage stores the same price or even cheaper than SLRs
TheKiwiJobes Absolutely. But I don’t think you necessarily need a Leica to have a good experience with rangefinders. I think that’s common knowledge though. Especially nowadays with cell phones, the classic line, “the best camera is the one you have with you”!
I don't think it's correct to say Leica elevated their profile because Leica basically built the first real 35mm rangefinder (and what we would call a typical rangefinder nowadays) ever. The Leica predates all 35mm SLRs as we now them today. So rangefinders were high end devices from the very beginning. Other than SLRs, the rangerfinder thechnology was barely enhanced over the years (Leica introduced TTL-metering as late as 1980). But I wouldn't say that other than Leicas rangefinders in general were cheap cameras for the masses. The Nikon S for example is also quite reputable (and still by no means cheap).
@@NJ1810 Yep. For example, what's the Leica M (or any other rangefinder) equivalent of Nikon F100 or F5? Except Contax G2, I'm not aware of any RF which provides plenty of modern automation like SLR does.
I just found a Canon AE-1 Program at the local thrift shop. I love it! Thank you for your videos, they have inspired me to shoot film in the first place!
I use a Ricoh 500G (rangefinder), and I love the "point and shoot" feel that it gives. It has most of the characteristics you indicated for the rangefinder, but it is a fixed lens. And I paid it 20 $ on a flea market.
@@888pil It requires 1,3v batteries, so the best solutions are: - Zinc Air hearing aid batteries (1,35v) - an adapter with a smaller battery, like this: www.smallbattery.company.org.uk/sbc_mr44_adapter.htm Don't use regular 1.5v ones, it would cause metering errors.
@@philippegervaise4857 thanks for your reply! have put the camera through extensive restoration and should be ready for a test roll now. I'll be going with the zinc batteries as you said as they're so cheap. fingers crossed the meter works! :)
I took Photography class in my sophomore year of high school. And I fortunately got the chance to shoot and develop film, I loved it so much I was heartbroken when my teacher said he was no longer doing it. So eventually I forgot about it and moved on to digital. So thank you for awakening my love for film again!
Just got my first rangefinder! I’m excited to try street photography because it seems way easier to pre-focus without the viewfinder and click off a shot or many rapid fire shots without anyone noticing.
Not really, for landscape photography, the range finder is arguably better as you don't have that light passing so close to the film when you're not taking shots. For pretty much every other form of photography, the rangefinder is inferior. The closer the shot, the less useful the viewfinder is. For macro, it's completely worthless as you won't see any of what you're taking a photo of through the viewfinder.
I started with a rangefinder years ago(30 something years ago). I didnt know much about photography and it was a struggle SLR certainly improved the experience. However what I realized is there is a different between a point n shoot and a real rangefinder. since getting back into film Ive noticed a decent rangefinder I still am able to see what I need to for composure.
As discussed by other contributors, the old Soviet rangefinder camera are a good way to get a Leica-like experience at lower cost. There are also some little gems like the Canon 7. There are many inexpensive fixed lens rangefinder cameras by Agfa, Canon, Konica, Minolta, Olympus, Petri, etc. that are worth trying as well. Some of these are absolutely lovely. Nevertheless, there is no shame in having a SLR, where there is the option of using premium lenses mounted on a cheap body, which could be upgraded to a premium body later. The main thing is, however, all of them use traditional photographic film, and thus provide that special creative experience which goes with the medium. It is good to see that there are many young people like King Jvpes keeping this craft alive, and inspiring others to do the same. Good video!
I like both & both have their place. For "start-up" SLR is the way to go as you directly "see what you get" but you can get cheap rangefinders to try too... eg old Olympus XA. Where rangefinders can excel is absolute optical quality on wide angle. For an SLR to get enough space behind the lens for the mirror means beam expanders being part of the lens "package" to get an adequate back focal length on short focal length lenses (complex & expensive) whereas the rangefinder only needs the space for the shutter so can get away with less complex lenses doing a much better job.
I picked up a Mamiya ruby for £5 and that started my journey... Absorlutely loved it. The range finding patch is mislinded verticly but never failed to take a acceptable focused shot.
I was a Nikon guy in my 20s. Then I became a Sony guy and had the a6000s and the a7ii and a7iii. I abandoned them upon shooting a friends m6. I know have an m6 and m10 and am completely in love with Leica . I only use a 35 or 50 lens . Don’t ever see myself going back to slr.
I learned photography on a Yashica FX-3 manual SLR. I've accumulated manual SLRs, point-and-shoots, compacts, and digital cameras I've picked up over the years, but I always wanted to try a rangefinder because it is a different shooting experience. They are the traditional street camera because they are light-weight, simple, unobtrusive, and very quiet. There is no mirror slap with the associated vibration. It doesn't look like a journalist's professional camera, so it doesn't draw much attention, The lenses tend to be small and of a wide fixed length, but fast and sharp. You have to use your feet to compose a shot. It makes you think about your subjects in a different way. They also have a cool factor, as fewer people have a working one and they are usually more vintage and made out of metals with chrome rather than plastic. They are kind of like the vinyl records of cameras. They are back in fashion, so much so that modern digital versions are available. Today I won a 60's era Yashica Electro 35 GSN at auction. I've come full circle and I'm looking forward to that new photography experience again.
Both are for different people, I'm a range finder fan boy. But I love the om-1. I use them in different situations. I think most people would agree however, if they needed one camera to last their entire life that didn't take up much space at all (SLR lenses compared to their range finder counterparts are Gigantic) a fully mechanical range finder would be the best option.
This is a thoughtful video man. I appreciate it. However in the end, a camera is a tool to take make art. I think a really cool thing to do would be to show to make identical photos with both cameras with the same focal length and same film stock. This will show ppl the differences in lens character as the most and prove that they both eventually do the same thing. After 3 years of experimenting myself. I’ve come to realize that i need to have both for myself. For portraits and precision framing i llike having a dslr, for street, speed and simple shooting I’ll always go with a rangefinder (especially for zoning) so yeah, they pretty much make the same kinda photos. Its the way the photo is made that differs. Keep up the great work buddy
I love the idea of a rangefinder for street photography and such, but as I get older I have a harder time getting in focus, at least with the Canonette GIII I had. Every SLR I've had came with a split prism which I have a much easier time getting good results with.
i remember watching this video half a year ago when i was doing research for my first manual film camera after a reto ultra wide and slim u and many other people reviewing and talking about it really helped me figure put the canon f1 was the camera for me thank you.
Shot with an SLR for most of my photography journey. I was convinced that I didn't need a rangefinder. I even thought rangefinders were inferior in most ways. Earlier this year, I got my hands on a Canon rangefinder and it was an absolute game changer. I've never taken sharper images in my life. I now shoot with my rangefinder 80% of the time.
As someone who shoots Digital and analogue, i love my olympus 35 RC rangefinder. She's so small and light and silent and so damn sharp and always performing great. I just find myself using her so much more often as she's tiny and i always (!) Have her with me. Digital is for work, she's for fun. 200% Recommend.
Thanks for this video! I used SLRs for years and then started to use different rangefinders which I am really enjoying. Great to have this side by side comparison, don’t think I would have been able to explain things as clearly as you did!
This is a good summary about the advantages of Rangefinder vs SLR. Leica is known for its stream of important contributions to the advancement of photographic technology and its dedication to making the hightest quality, dependable, compact, lightweight cameras. I would like to clarify that, essentially, for over HALF A CENTURY, 1900 to 1955, ALL cameras for the general public were NON-SLR; either fixed focus, TSLR (mostly for serious or professional photographers) or TLRs (Twin-Lens Reflex cameras, similar but not the same as SLR, mostly for professionals and relatively expensive). The first RANGEFINDER camera to be "mass-marketed" was the 3A Kodak Autographic Special of 1916 (...)". Although the Leica/Leitz company did a lot to innovate and perfect the rangefinder camera, that does NOT mean that, pre SLR, you could either buy a Leica or wait till 1955 to buy a SLR camera. In 1955, new Leica camera with a 55mm Leitz lens sold for about $240, or about $2350 in 2020 dollars. Cameras made for the mass market (mainly, the Kodak Brownie camera) became available in 1900 and were mostly fixed focus or (starting around 1920-39) estimate focused. Rangefinder cameras began to show up in the 1930a. In general, TLRs have been around since the 19th century and are similar to SLRs, but we are discussing cameras for non-professionals. For further information, search "rangefinder cameras," "Single-lens reflex cameras" and "History of the single-lens reflex camera" at en.wikipedia.org/. Those pages go into more detail about the details and relative advantages and disadvantages of the rangefinder, SLR, DSLR and other options. Ken Rockwell's website is, over all, the best guide to everything cameras that I have encountered: www.KenRockwell.com .
I dont think too much about such things but I feel like rangefinders focus faster, although in the era of digital it don't matter all so much. I'l pretty fast with SLRs though =p
Been looking for rangefinder vs SLR everywhere but still haven't found answer until I stumbled upon your video. I made up my mind, now I'm going for SLR. Thank you 😁
I has a Pentax MX SLR, fully manual. Imo, range finder cameras aren't inherently more expensive. I think the companies that made both SLR's and range finders sould for roughly the same. Like Leica M vs R or Contax RTS vs G. The problem is that range finder cameras became niche products, and were typically a compact street photo aparat of a pro.
Definitely an SLR guy. Rangefinders like Leica do look nice and their haptics are awesome, but it never ‚clicked‘ for me (pardon the pun). Give me a 35mm or medium format SLR any day and I am happy. I shoot primarily Mamiya and Canon.
Hey man I just wanna say thanks for getting me into film, just today shot off my first 2 rolls of film at a car show and had the most fun shooting in a long time 😊 Just hope they come out alright😅
I've tried several rangefinders over the years but personally prefer slr's. Personally, I don't think one is better than the other just offer a different experience :)
The light Ray's from mirrorless & rangefinder lenses go right to the sensor & allows for unique rear element designs... Aside from that I don't see what the difference is aside from price
My solution: have both. And have more than one each type so that when one needs CLA you still have the other. Or have one more just in case. Maybe one more as a beater. And maybe one more to photograph your camera collection.
SLRs are like looking into another world. Rangefinders are just like looking out your window. I remember the awesome first time experience of looking through the viewfinder of an SLR. It got med hooked right there. Started saving up for my first camera, the Nikon F. Nikon F was of course based on their own RF-camera - the SP and the heritage goes back to Contax. The next big wow came with the 28mm wide-angle. So my suggestion to anyone who's trying to lure somebody into photography is: Just lend him/her your film SLR with a 28mm. Rangefinders are kind of a meh.. - first time, and more of an aquired taste. (I have 3 RFs)
Found a Mamiya Super Deluxe Rangefinder at the thrift store the past weekend. Still works beautifully. Ran through my first roll of film in twenty years. My only other film experience was 110 when I was 9 years old. 😅
On the cheaper side of the range-finder’s family : Canon Canonet QL17 Giii (with proper manual settings available), or my current favorite, the dirt cheap Yashica Electro 35 G serie (semi-auto, aperture priority only). Both with f 1/1.7 fixed fast lenses. Lots of fun for a small price.
I got into Film photography for the rangefinders but quickly realized that I hate them. You mentioned that rangefinders are better for people with glasses but I completely disagree. I struggle with the focusing and find it way easier to focus on SLRs, possibly because I usually shoot wide open, so it's easier for me to see if I'm out of focus or not since there is a very visible difference. I do still love the look of rangefinders though and I'm eyeing a Minolta Hi matic on ebay right now 😊
Well it is easier to focus on an SLR, but still size and glass (in my opinion) is on the rangefinder side specially with the leicas, contax Zeiss. The Olympus 35 sp is a good choice also
Re SLR's being cheaper this is not the case, not all Rangefinders are Leica's ;) The Olympus 35 range for instance, many are at an almost give away price and yet have excellent metering, superb build quality and first class lenses. Indeed the Olympus 35 SP is often touted as having one of the best lenses of any camera made... Not a criticism (!) I really enjoy your work here but could not let that comment pass without a correction. As you say, horses for courses, you can get cheap rangefinders and cheap SLR's and vice versa, personally I love shooting both.
Better? Depends... SLR's are _better_ for macro, micro and tele. RF's tend to work better for street. Nevertheless, you can turn a Leica into an SLR of sorts and do street photo with a Nikon. *Been there, done that.*
The same differences could be applied to some medium format cameras. You've got both rangefinder and SLR model medium format cameras, plus you have the TLR. More options in medium format than 35mm. Hmmmm. Maybe a 35mm vs. 120 comparison video?
The only thing that can add is with a range finder camera you may not have a meter to begin with. Most slr's have some sort of adopt meter on up to a complex Matrix metering. Lastly, style of shooting with dictates what camera will be best used.
I was collecting the cameras of different Peter Parkers and I found out that in The Amazing Spider-Man franchise Andrew’s Peter uses Yashica Electro 35 GSN which is a rangefinder. I recommend that one with a fixed f/1.7 lens 48mm I suppose and with its ease of use (semi auto with aperture priority) and cheap price (should cost around 60-80 bucks) it is a good one as an introduction to rangefinders. I still use it especially at concerts because it is simple and lightweight and also compact. I still have an SLR for other things but Yashica Electro 35 is the one that I would carry casually
Hey Jvpes, can you tell me where I can buy a shutter button like that? I really like the look of them. I think they compliment the camera very well. I currently own a Nikon FM2
I have a Nikon F60 and a Vivitar V3000N but both of them had to be sent for servicing due to fungus. I'm a beginner and wanted to get into film photography. Which one is the best one to start with?
I have and like both. Zorki 4k rangefinder with the Jupiter 8 50mm F2 which I enjoy using. £50. Produces awesome results. Look for vertical lines to help with focusing on a rangefinder cameras. Nikon Fe with a 50mm f2 Nikkor lens. Bought for £100 with lens. Leica is a good investment if you take out a mortgage.
I generally always prefer an SLR except in the follow category - Medium format cameras. A rangefinder model in that category is much smaller and lighter than a Hasselblad, for example, which is similar to a regular 35 mm SLR in all the ways which matter. But my old Mamiya 6 camera is very small and lightweight, and is also a rangefinder style camera. The parallax error bugs me, but not too much.
May be a better battle with the 120 film cameras. Things like the RB vs the mamiya 7. This has a huge difference. You won't really have a problem carrying a 135 SLR. Thats just more of an design question there.
I'm shooting with Petri7, a very cheap japaneese rangefinder. If you are happy with just onboard lense (which is good) and having fun with rangefinder workflow, that's it.
For shooting film, rangefinder is the way to go. 1. shooting film is mostly for hoppy or self use instead of commercial nowadays. 2. Range finder is more interested to play with, smaller, and rarer.
Any recommendations for cheapish rangefinders, preferably with full manual control? My "main" camera is a rangefinder style mirrorless and I'd kinda just want to learn the technology it came from without breaking the bank.
Zorki (esp. 4 and 4K) look really interesting plus there were a lot of affordable Japanese fixed lens cameras for reasonable prices. In MF it is a little tougher (easier to find affordable TLRs) but Mamiya Press models and some of the folders are fairly affordable but the folders can be a bit quirky.
Both have strong and weak points. Obviously RF is poor for closeup work but much easier for those of us with older eyes and glasses. Very long lenses also work better for SLRs. However the SLR is loud, bulky, and vibration prone compared to a RF. They are also more complex and thus can be less rugged. SLR focusing and viewing can be improved with a waist level finder for those so equipped. A lot of the MF have that option. The TLR is another quite viable option for some uses with a somewhat different set of trade offs.
Agfa made rangefinders as well! The Agfa Ambi Silette in particular was known as "the poor man's Leica" - I've got one and it's great. The only thing is that you can't attach a strap to it, and it's very, very heavy.
My grandpa used to have 2 cameras I took them and fortunately one is a SLR and the other is a range finder Which one should I use plz give me your opinion
Hi M8. I think if somebody want really hard to start with rangefinders that somebody should look for an old soviet cameras. They are dirt cheap and have great lenses for m39 screw mount like old industars 61L/D 55/f2.8 or even real leica lenses for this mount(if you have load of cash ofcourse). My soviet rangefinders is fed5 but you alse have tons of zorka cameras to buy online with lens included for 50-60 usd on ebay in europe they are even cheaper. Leicas and Voigtlanders are indeed much better but not this much better to fill the price gap between them and their soviet counterparts. Greetings from Poland #minoltagang
If you want a viewfinder camera but don‘t want to drop that much money for a leica, I can recommend searching for a Voigtländer. They are to be found for 30-150$ depending on what model/lens you want
SLR which have a viewfinder with 100% view are the best choice ! Fx Canon F-1. I will rather have a point and shoot camera than a rangefinder camera, fx Minox 35 ML or Leica Minilux.
When talking about film shooting, I don't know why people being obsessed with this kind of so call "Pure Mechanic Camera", but on the other hand, this kind of people will also obsessed with those so call "High end automatic AF compact film camera" such as Contax T2/T3. If you are really want to take good photos with film, why no one talk about those modern SLR like Nikon F80/75/100 or Canon 300V? This camera gives you everything you need and want, and also can do full manual without problem, and the most important is they are cheap and have abundance choice of lens/flash and accessories. The only reason people loves those mechanical cameras or high end compacts, because they think it is trendy to use them.
Everything has pros and cons and everybody has to choose... Rangefinders are smaller, with silent shutter sound and with reduced weight - you can shoot at slower speeds when compared to heavier SLRs on the other hand they are expensive, you cant shoot telephoto lenses, the composition is all about guessing The SLRs are cheaper, robust built, faster shutter speeds, you can compose everything through the lens and know what you will get but they are heavier, bulkier, louder ... I personally preffer the SLRs... either Nikon FM2n or Pentax SP which are quite compact (however I do want to try that small Olympus bodies like OM1 or OM4Ti or maybe Pentax MX) or when something automated (but big) - the Canon EOS 3 I also have a Zorki 4 (buying Leica these days is really stupid for me) - it has something of its own but not quite my cup of tea (or at least not now...)
For IQ lens size and speed and distortion. I think RF are better. Slr got point on versatility. For street rf generally better than slr except the slr has waist level finder
Looking through the lens with an SLR instead of looking through a rangefinder patch is by far the biggest difference between the two. Anybody who composes their images very carefully is better off with an SLR. Because of parallax distortion the image taken through the lens can come out quite differently than what you see through the rangefinder. There is a certain amount of guessing involved. You have to know that and I think that's why an SLR is better for beginners. The smaller form factor is the biggest selling point of rangefinder cameras if you ask me. Not just the body. The lenses are also significantly smaller than SLR lenses. If you cary more than one lens with you that is were you start to feel the difference. I take my Contax G1 (yes, that is considered a rangefinder ;) ) with me a lot more than my SLR. There is no way to say which one is generally better than the other, though.
I honestly like slrs better but rangefinders have a certain luxury about them.
Pre-war Zeiss Ikon Contax over Leicas any day. Weighs 2 pounds, pure brass, last a lifetime (except the shutter ribbon-- breaks every 70 years) and very ergonomic
The BEST camera, between a Rangefinder and an SLR/DSLR is actually the one you're familiar with or know how to use and feel comfortable with. I once had 2 SLRs (film era) and a Rangefinder as back up for certain situations. I had to do a Christening. The pastor did not want to hear the click-clack sound (someone was audio-recording) so I used the more silent Rangefinder, which is also easier to carry since it is not as large as an SLR/DSLR. Actually, there was more to the story than merely the "sound." The pastor was severely reprimanded since the church had no such policies in place and that pastor had not objected to SLRs during other Christenings.
@@winstonli8081 I'm a Leica fan boy but I must admit that the Zeiss Ikon Contax is an absolutely amazing camera. I wouldn't say that they are better than leica though, they are just for different people. I'm a leica guy and I will be the first person to admit our cameras are a bit overpriced and over hyped, however I pay for the insane amount of things available for the camera. However for those trying to get a like new camera and spend under $1,000 usd the Zeiss Ikon Contax is an amazing choice, being the fact that for the price they are probably the best second only to the admittedly over priced Leica's.
However its all personal preferance to be honest, if you got some good film and some good glass thats all that really maters. Other than that who cares if I got a Leica lol, I use aftermarket lenses anyway.
How about mirrorless?
@@vimal-cliobconsulting Rangefinders are mirrorless 😇
Rangefinders were the “Point and Shoot” camera’s for the masses back in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s...they weren’t that technologically advanced compared to the SLR manufacturers of the day. Now, there is no doubt that Leica elevated their profile with high end, luxury products, Rangefinders. But Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, Ricoh etc Rangerfinders we’re not necessarily more expensive compared to their respective contemporaries of the day. SLRs had many more options based on the buyers budget. Just my 2 Cents.
Yeah, I don't see how rangefinders are really that much more expensive as long as you're not buying Leica. I see Canon rangefinders in vintage stores the same price or even cheaper than SLRs
@@nightsbeatswitchgood canon rangefinders generally were just okay. Leicas are just an all round lovely experience.
TheKiwiJobes Absolutely. But I don’t think you necessarily need a Leica to have a good experience with rangefinders. I think that’s common knowledge though. Especially nowadays with cell phones, the classic line, “the best camera is the one you have with you”!
I don't think it's correct to say Leica elevated their profile because Leica basically built the first real 35mm rangefinder (and what we would call a typical rangefinder nowadays) ever. The Leica predates all 35mm SLRs as we now them today. So rangefinders were high end devices from the very beginning. Other than SLRs, the rangerfinder thechnology was barely enhanced over the years (Leica introduced TTL-metering as late as 1980). But I wouldn't say that other than Leicas rangefinders in general were cheap cameras for the masses. The Nikon S for example is also quite reputable (and still by no means cheap).
@@NJ1810 Yep. For example, what's the Leica M (or any other rangefinder) equivalent of Nikon F100 or F5? Except Contax G2, I'm not aware of any RF which provides plenty of modern automation like SLR does.
I just found a Canon AE-1 Program at the local thrift shop. I love it! Thank you for your videos, they have inspired me to shoot film in the first place!
I use a Ricoh 500G (rangefinder), and I love the "point and shoot" feel that it gives. It has most of the characteristics you indicated for the rangefinder, but it is a fixed lens. And I paid it 20 $ on a flea market.
i just got one of these! can i ask what battery solution you went with?
@@888pil It requires 1,3v batteries, so the best solutions are:
- Zinc Air hearing aid batteries (1,35v)
- an adapter with a smaller battery, like this: www.smallbattery.company.org.uk/sbc_mr44_adapter.htm
Don't use regular 1.5v ones, it would cause metering errors.
@@philippegervaise4857 thanks for your reply! have put the camera through extensive restoration and should be ready for a test roll now. I'll be going with the zinc batteries as you said as they're so cheap. fingers crossed the meter works! :)
I took Photography class in my sophomore year of high school. And I fortunately got the chance to shoot and develop film, I loved it so much I was heartbroken when my teacher said he was no longer doing it. So eventually I forgot about it and moved on to digital. So thank you for awakening my love for film again!
I don't know if you can still be in the Minolta Gang, you recomended 4 cameras before the Minolta.... you traitor 😉
Thibault du Baret Minolta Gang 4Life Vato.
wkwkwk
#Minoltagang 4life Vato
lmao that was the right on my thoughts tho
just bought my first film camera, a Minolta SRT 201, in the shop getting some work done but I'm looking forward to shooting with it when I pick it up.
Just got my first rangefinder! I’m excited to try street photography because it seems way easier to pre-focus without the viewfinder and click off a shot or many rapid fire shots without anyone noticing.
1:46 Ranchfinders
Neither is “better.” They are just different.
That's what my mother says about me and my brother
Not really, for landscape photography, the range finder is arguably better as you don't have that light passing so close to the film when you're not taking shots.
For pretty much every other form of photography, the rangefinder is inferior. The closer the shot, the less useful the viewfinder is. For macro, it's completely worthless as you won't see any of what you're taking a photo of through the viewfinder.
No slr is better
@@luisisaiasmontesrico9610oof that means she didn’t want to hurt your feelings. Your brother is definitely the better child. 😂
Thanks Karen.
I started with a rangefinder years ago(30 something years ago). I didnt know much about photography and it was a struggle SLR certainly improved the experience. However what I realized is there is a different between a point n shoot and a real rangefinder. since getting back into film Ive noticed a decent rangefinder I still am able to see what I need to for composure.
As discussed by other contributors, the old Soviet rangefinder camera are a good way to get a Leica-like experience at lower cost. There are also some little gems like the Canon 7. There are many inexpensive fixed lens rangefinder cameras by Agfa, Canon, Konica, Minolta, Olympus, Petri, etc. that are worth trying as well. Some of these are absolutely lovely. Nevertheless, there is no shame in having a SLR, where there is the option of using premium lenses mounted on a cheap body, which could be upgraded to a premium body later. The main thing is, however, all of them use traditional photographic film, and thus provide that special creative experience which goes with the medium. It is good to see that there are many young people like King Jvpes keeping this craft alive, and inspiring others to do the same. Good video!
The early kievs are hidden gems in my opinion
Love my F3. Been thinking about getting a Nikon S2 or S3. But for now I am SLRs all the way. Love your videos JP. SALAMAT PO!
I like both & both have their place.
For "start-up" SLR is the way to go as you directly "see what you get" but you can get cheap rangefinders to try too... eg old Olympus XA.
Where rangefinders can excel is absolute optical quality on wide angle. For an SLR to get enough space behind the lens for the mirror means beam expanders being part of the lens "package" to get an adequate back focal length on short focal length lenses (complex & expensive) whereas the rangefinder only needs the space for the shutter so can get away with less complex lenses doing a much better job.
I picked up a Mamiya ruby for £5 and that started my journey... Absorlutely loved it. The range finding patch is mislinded verticly but never failed to take a acceptable focused shot.
I was a Nikon guy in my 20s. Then I became a Sony guy and had the a6000s and the a7ii and a7iii. I abandoned them upon shooting a friends m6. I know have an m6 and m10 and am completely in love with Leica . I only use a 35 or 50 lens . Don’t ever see myself going back to slr.
Man I can’t afford a Leica LENS HOOD lol.
buy a camera secondhand from a thriftstore or craigslist. i bought mine for 25 euros from Facebook marketplace
@@wokolie8813 you.. bought a Leica online for €25? That's unbelievably lucky!
@@gavinarcher875 right, a shutter speed dial is $50 lol
I learned photography on a Yashica FX-3 manual SLR. I've accumulated manual SLRs, point-and-shoots, compacts, and digital cameras I've picked up over the years, but I always wanted to try a rangefinder because it is a different shooting experience. They are the traditional street camera because they are light-weight, simple, unobtrusive, and very quiet. There is no mirror slap with the associated vibration. It doesn't look like a journalist's professional camera, so it doesn't draw much attention, The lenses tend to be small and of a wide fixed length, but fast and sharp. You have to use your feet to compose a shot. It makes you think about your subjects in a different way. They also have a cool factor, as fewer people have a working one and they are usually more vintage and made out of metals with chrome rather than plastic. They are kind of like the vinyl records of cameras. They are back in fashion, so much so that modern digital versions are available. Today I won a 60's era Yashica Electro 35 GSN at auction. I've come full circle and I'm looking forward to that new photography experience again.
Both are for different people, I'm a range finder fan boy. But I love the om-1. I use them in different situations. I think most people would agree however, if they needed one camera to last their entire life that didn't take up much space at all (SLR lenses compared to their range finder counterparts are Gigantic) a fully mechanical range finder would be the best option.
This is a thoughtful video man. I appreciate it. However in the end, a camera is a tool to take make art. I think a really cool thing to do would be to show to make identical photos with both cameras with the same focal length and same film stock. This will show ppl the differences in lens character as the most and prove that they both eventually do the same thing.
After 3 years of experimenting myself. I’ve come to realize that i need to have both for myself. For portraits and precision framing i llike having a dslr, for street, speed and simple shooting I’ll always go with a rangefinder (especially for zoning) so yeah, they pretty much make the same kinda photos. Its the way the photo is made that differs.
Keep up the great work buddy
I love the idea of a rangefinder for street photography and such, but as I get older I have a harder time getting in focus, at least with the Canonette GIII I had. Every SLR I've had came with a split prism which I have a much easier time getting good results with.
i remember watching this video half a year ago when i was doing research for my first manual film camera after a reto ultra wide and slim u and many other people reviewing and talking about it really helped me figure put the canon f1 was the camera for me thank you.
Shot with an SLR for most of my photography journey. I was convinced that I didn't need a rangefinder. I even thought rangefinders were inferior in most ways. Earlier this year, I got my hands on a Canon rangefinder and it was an absolute game changer. I've never taken sharper images in my life. I now shoot with my rangefinder 80% of the time.
As someone who shoots Digital and analogue, i love my olympus 35 RC rangefinder. She's so small and light and silent and so damn sharp and always performing great. I just find myself using her so much more often as she's tiny and i always (!) Have her with me. Digital is for work, she's for fun. 200% Recommend.
Thanks for this video! I used SLRs for years and then started to use different rangefinders which I am really enjoying. Great to have this side by side comparison, don’t think I would have been able to explain things as clearly as you did!
This is a good summary about the advantages of Rangefinder vs SLR. Leica is known for its stream of important contributions to the advancement of photographic technology and its dedication to making the hightest quality, dependable, compact, lightweight cameras.
I would like to clarify that, essentially, for over HALF A CENTURY, 1900 to 1955, ALL cameras for the general public were NON-SLR; either fixed focus, TSLR (mostly for serious or professional photographers) or TLRs (Twin-Lens Reflex cameras, similar but not the same as SLR, mostly for professionals and relatively expensive). The first RANGEFINDER camera to be "mass-marketed" was the 3A Kodak Autographic Special of 1916 (...)". Although the Leica/Leitz company did a lot to innovate and perfect the rangefinder camera, that does NOT mean that, pre SLR, you could either buy a Leica or wait till 1955 to buy a SLR camera. In 1955, new Leica camera with a 55mm Leitz lens sold for about $240, or about $2350 in 2020 dollars.
Cameras made for the mass market (mainly, the Kodak Brownie camera) became available in 1900 and were mostly fixed focus or (starting around 1920-39) estimate focused. Rangefinder cameras began to show up in the 1930a. In general, TLRs have been around since the 19th century and are similar to SLRs, but we are discussing cameras for non-professionals.
For further information, search "rangefinder cameras," "Single-lens reflex cameras" and "History of the single-lens reflex camera" at en.wikipedia.org/. Those pages go into more detail about the details and relative advantages and disadvantages of the rangefinder, SLR, DSLR and other options. Ken Rockwell's website is, over all, the best guide to everything cameras that I have encountered: www.KenRockwell.com .
Just picked up a voigtlander Vito b and a Nikon fm. Amazing cameras
Just picked up the Minolta srt-200, and I'm super happy with it.
srt 101 its my fav 😭 but so expensive
I just got a Vitomatic 2a rangefinder for Christmas,my first ever experience with film photography,love it so far!
I dont think too much about such things but I feel like rangefinders focus faster, although in the era of digital it don't matter all so much. I'l pretty fast with SLRs though =p
Been looking for rangefinder vs SLR everywhere but still haven't found answer until I stumbled upon your video.
I made up my mind, now I'm going for SLR. Thank you 😁
I has a Pentax MX SLR, fully manual. Imo, range finder cameras aren't inherently more expensive. I think the companies that made both SLR's and range finders sould for roughly the same. Like Leica M vs R or Contax RTS vs G. The problem is that range finder cameras became niche products, and were typically a compact street photo aparat of a pro.
Definitely an SLR guy.
Rangefinders like Leica do look nice and their haptics are awesome, but it never ‚clicked‘ for me (pardon the pun).
Give me a 35mm or medium format SLR any day and I am happy.
I shoot primarily Mamiya and Canon.
Hey man I just wanna say thanks for getting me into film, just today shot off my first 2 rolls of film at a car show and had the most fun shooting in a long time 😊
Just hope they come out alright😅
Grandpa gave me a Nikon fm2 from Galen Rowell, beat up, but still working👏🏽
I've tried several rangefinders over the years but personally prefer slr's. Personally, I don't think one is better than the other just offer a different experience :)
Howie Mudge agreed!!
The light Ray's from mirrorless & rangefinder lenses go right to the sensor & allows for unique rear element designs... Aside from that I don't see what the difference is aside from price
Had to stop and really think am I a left eye shooter ? 😂📸
My solution: have both. And have more than one each type so that when one needs CLA you still have the other. Or have one more just in case. Maybe one more as a beater. And maybe one more to photograph your camera collection.
SLRs are like looking into another world. Rangefinders are just like looking out your window.
I remember the awesome first time experience of looking through the viewfinder of an SLR.
It got med hooked right there. Started saving up for my first camera, the Nikon F.
Nikon F was of course based on their own RF-camera - the SP and the heritage goes back to
Contax.
The next big wow came with the 28mm wide-angle.
So my suggestion to anyone who's trying to lure somebody into photography is:
Just lend him/her your film SLR with a 28mm.
Rangefinders are kind of a meh.. - first time, and more of an aquired taste.
(I have 3 RFs)
Found a Mamiya Super Deluxe Rangefinder at the thrift store the past weekend. Still works beautifully. Ran through my first roll of film in twenty years. My only other film experience was 110 when I was 9 years old. 😅
On the cheaper side of the range-finder’s family : Canon Canonet QL17 Giii (with proper manual settings available), or my current favorite, the dirt cheap Yashica Electro 35 G serie (semi-auto, aperture priority only). Both with f 1/1.7 fixed fast lenses. Lots of fun for a small price.
Yes a Leica is more expensive than a Nikon F3, but a Canonet ql17 is cheaper than a Nikon F5, so I wouldn't say that generally slrs are cheaper
Still wanting to see a pentax mx video
I got into Film photography for the rangefinders but quickly realized that I hate them.
You mentioned that rangefinders are better for people with glasses but I completely disagree.
I struggle with the focusing and find it way easier to focus on SLRs, possibly because I usually shoot wide open, so it's easier for me to see if I'm out of focus or not since there is a very visible difference.
I do still love the look of rangefinders though and I'm eyeing a Minolta Hi matic on ebay right now 😊
Well it is easier to focus on an SLR, but still size and glass (in my opinion) is on the rangefinder side specially with the leicas, contax Zeiss. The Olympus 35 sp is a good choice also
just bought a minolta hi-matic 9 rangefinder and now im not quite sure if this is the best choice since i'm also new to film cams.
I recommend the xg7.
Dirt cheap body and you can use the amazing minolta lenses
I am thinking if it's worth buying a Minolta Hi Matic F with 38mm 2.7 or a Revueflex ACX 50mm 1.9 or none of these two? What do you suggest?
:)
Re SLR's being cheaper this is not the case, not all Rangefinders are Leica's ;) The Olympus 35 range for instance, many are at an almost give away price and yet have excellent metering, superb build quality and first class lenses. Indeed the Olympus 35 SP is often touted as having one of the best lenses of any camera made...
Not a criticism (!) I really enjoy your work here but could not let that comment pass without a correction. As you say, horses for courses, you can get cheap rangefinders and cheap SLR's and vice versa, personally I love shooting both.
Better? Depends... SLR's are _better_ for macro, micro and tele. RF's tend to work better for street. Nevertheless, you can turn a Leica into an SLR of sorts and do street photo with a Nikon. *Been there, done that.*
The same differences could be applied to some medium format cameras. You've got both rangefinder and SLR model medium format cameras, plus you have the TLR. More options in medium format than 35mm. Hmmmm. Maybe a 35mm vs. 120 comparison video?
John Wilkinson let’s do it JDUB!
I have both and Iprefer the SLR camera. But should what you can and get your hands on. The best camera is the one you have.
The only thing that can add is with a range finder camera you may not have a meter to begin with. Most slr's have some sort of adopt meter on up to a complex Matrix metering. Lastly, style of shooting with dictates what camera will be best used.
I was collecting the cameras of different Peter Parkers and I found out that in The Amazing Spider-Man franchise Andrew’s Peter uses Yashica Electro 35 GSN which is a rangefinder. I recommend that one with a fixed f/1.7 lens 48mm I suppose and with its ease of use (semi auto with aperture priority) and cheap price (should cost around 60-80 bucks) it is a good one as an introduction to rangefinders. I still use it especially at concerts because it is simple and lightweight and also compact. I still have an SLR for other things but Yashica Electro 35 is the one that I would carry casually
Hey Jvpes, can you tell me where I can buy a shutter button like that? I really like the look of them. I think they compliment the camera very well. I currently own a Nikon FM2
I have a Nikon F60 and a Vivitar V3000N but both of them had to be sent for servicing due to fungus.
I'm a beginner and wanted to get into film photography. Which one is the best one to start with?
There's an antique store near me with a box of film cameras for $20 and under, mainly agfa rangefinders and a couple Nikon slrs
I have and like both.
Zorki 4k rangefinder with the Jupiter 8 50mm F2 which I enjoy using.
£50. Produces awesome results.
Look for vertical lines to help with focusing on a rangefinder cameras.
Nikon Fe with a 50mm f2 Nikkor lens. Bought for £100 with lens.
Leica is a good investment if you take out a mortgage.
Hey! Where do you find your wooden shutter bottom? They look awesome in your cameras!
I generally always prefer an SLR except in the follow category -
Medium format cameras. A rangefinder model in that category is much smaller and lighter than a Hasselblad, for example, which is similar to a regular 35 mm SLR in all the ways which matter. But my old Mamiya 6 camera is very small and lightweight, and is also a rangefinder style camera. The parallax error bugs me, but not too much.
What camera is the rangefinder
May be a better battle with the 120 film cameras. Things like the RB vs the mamiya 7. This has a huge difference. You won't really have a problem carrying a 135 SLR. Thats just more of an design question there.
I'm shooting with Petri7, a very cheap japaneese rangefinder. If you are happy with just onboard lense (which is good) and having fun with rangefinder workflow, that's it.
Wow, that intro was really engaging!
Yeah I did not take account of the glasses thing until I started shooting film on my slr lol. Its a little annoying but I make it work
What’s the most you would pay for the Nikon F3 in great condition?
$300
For shooting film, rangefinder is the way to go. 1. shooting film is mostly for hoppy or self use instead of commercial nowadays. 2. Range finder is more interested to play with, smaller, and rarer.
I gotta love the F3 man. My first film camera. Still my go to film camer
😍
I have both, rangefinder and slr and enjoy them
Any recommendations for cheapish rangefinders, preferably with full manual control?
My "main" camera is a rangefinder style mirrorless and I'd kinda just want to learn the technology it came from without breaking the bank.
Zorki (esp. 4 and 4K) look really interesting plus there were a lot of affordable Japanese fixed lens cameras for reasonable prices. In MF it is a little tougher (easier to find affordable TLRs) but Mamiya Press models and some of the folders are fairly affordable but the folders can be a bit quirky.
@@mkshffr4936 Thanks a lot!
Better? It’s all subjective, both are excellent!
Both have strong and weak points. Obviously RF is poor for closeup work but much easier for those of us with older eyes and glasses. Very long lenses also work better for SLRs. However the SLR is loud, bulky, and vibration prone compared to a RF. They are also more complex and thus can be less rugged.
SLR focusing and viewing can be improved with a waist level finder for those so equipped. A lot of the MF have that option.
The TLR is another quite viable option for some uses with a somewhat different set of trade offs.
Agfa made rangefinders as well! The Agfa Ambi Silette in particular was known as "the poor man's Leica" - I've got one and it's great. The only thing is that you can't attach a strap to it, and it's very, very heavy.
Why should I continue using film?
My grandpa used to have 2 cameras I took them and fortunately one is a SLR and the other is a range finder
Which one should I use plz give me your opinion
KIDDOOZ both
I hate youtube vids that don't have dogs in them. Good job!
my two favourite cameras in one video :)
I love your choices to compare. Those are the very best of both worlds! I love both of those bodies.
I’ve stumbled upon a canon AE-1 SLR & a Yashica Electro 35 Rangefinder online so I’m in such a struggle to pick which of the two to get
very informative, for me i prefer slr but rangefinder is always attractive 😬
Hi M8. I think if somebody want really hard to start with rangefinders that somebody should look for an old soviet cameras. They are dirt cheap and have great lenses for m39 screw mount like old industars 61L/D 55/f2.8 or even real leica lenses for this mount(if you have load of cash ofcourse). My soviet rangefinders is fed5 but you alse have tons of zorka cameras to buy online with lens included for 50-60 usd on ebay in europe they are even cheaper. Leicas and Voigtlanders are indeed much better but not this much better to fill the price gap between them and their soviet counterparts.
Greetings from Poland
#minoltagang
Rangefinder for Me 🥰
I own a Canonet 28 and it's amazing
David Piçarra picked one up a few weeks ago, having a lot of fun shooting with it but now I have film piled up waiting to get developed:)
Lovely cameras. I own a F3 hp my favorite SLR and a M3 SS with a Summicron. Different brushes.
If you want a viewfinder camera but don‘t want to drop that much money for a leica, I can recommend searching for a Voigtländer. They are to be found for 30-150$ depending on what model/lens you want
SLR which have a viewfinder with 100% view are the best choice ! Fx Canon F-1. I will rather have a point and shoot camera than a rangefinder camera, fx Minox 35 ML or Leica Minilux.
Depends. What am I shooting? Where?
It’s just like asking today which is better mirrorless camera or DSLRs.
Till this day, ever since I started film photography in 2015, I’m still on the Olympus OM-1 as my only film camera.
if you want to get a rangefinder you can get for cheap a leica copy called zenit or some other soviet rangefinder bodys
When talking about film shooting, I don't know why people being obsessed with this kind of so call "Pure Mechanic Camera", but on the other hand, this kind of people will also obsessed with those so call "High end automatic AF compact film camera" such as Contax T2/T3.
If you are really want to take good photos with film, why no one talk about those modern SLR like Nikon F80/75/100 or Canon 300V? This camera gives you everything you need and want, and also can do full manual without problem, and the most important is they are cheap and have abundance choice of lens/flash and accessories.
The only reason people loves those mechanical cameras or high end compacts, because they think it is trendy to use them.
It's also worth mentioning that the range of lenses for SLR's is far more extensive than those for rangefinders.
I got a zeiss contaflex for about $110 it has a fixed lens but it works good
Wooooooo. Another vid! Dope as usual man. Cheers! Always makes my day :))))
Never really got the hang of rangefinders so I’ve been a SLR guy forever. I did like the experience I had with a bessa though.
Rangefinder for me, I have more of them than I do SLR ... Still gotta lot of love for my Pentax Lx though
I have many film cameras, but I prefer my leica film cameras.... also others I like, it is just rangefinder focusing for me is the most precise
As always great video. The F3 is an amazing 35mm SLR. Cheers from Maryland!
Everything has pros and cons and everybody has to choose...
Rangefinders are smaller, with silent shutter sound and with reduced weight - you can shoot at slower speeds when compared to heavier SLRs
on the other hand they are expensive, you cant shoot telephoto lenses, the composition is all about guessing
The SLRs are cheaper, robust built, faster shutter speeds, you can compose everything through the lens and know what you will get
but they are heavier, bulkier, louder ...
I personally preffer the SLRs... either Nikon FM2n or Pentax SP which are quite compact (however I do want to try that small Olympus bodies like OM1 or OM4Ti or maybe Pentax MX) or when something automated (but big) - the Canon EOS 3
I also have a Zorki 4 (buying Leica these days is really stupid for me) - it has something of its own but not quite my cup of tea (or at least not now...)
For IQ lens size and speed and distortion. I think RF are better. Slr got point on versatility. For street rf generally better than slr except the slr has waist level finder
10 seconds in and already loving this