Thanks for this and I love shooting with a rangefinder! I’m shooting with the Fuji X-Pro 2 and I wished fujis had that focus square in the optical view finder!
Great video! The M240 was my daily carry camera for three years, now it’s the M10-D, but the thing I love most about rangefinder vs all other cameras is that they aren’t TTL view. In a DSLR you look through the lens, usually at the widest aperture, so you see the shallow depth of field, and that can limit your composition. In a mirrorless system it’s even worse. You see a screen showing what it thinks your exposure is, so if you are in a high contrast lighting environment, your view is always too dark or too light. With a rangefinder, I just see a focus patch, and frame lines. I have to use my knowledge of exposure, and imagine my final result. I find that is so much more rewarding.
what I love about the viewfinder on a rangefinder is that you are kinda visualising a million different options for composition at once, I feel like looking through the lens limits your creativity (although a good DSLR's viewfinder is still beautiful compared to mirrorless, just a shame they have to be so bulky)
I've often thought about upgrading to the M-D or the M10-D, but they're hard to find these days. I love the analog feeling of not having a screen and relying on your instincts of the exposure triangle to get the shot. How have you enjoyed that experience? Also, I never considered the view finder on a DSLR or mirrorless setup to be off. That's a great point. Thanks for watching.
I've never had the privilege of owning a DSLR, but I've often thought about purchasing an original Canon 5D. I hear those are the best for that experience. Maybe I'll give it a try next. Thanks for watching.
@@Stephen-krohn the M10-D is, without reservation the “best” camera I’ve personally ever used. By that I mean I connect with it perfectly, and feel I produce my best work with it. I also have an SL2 and Q2M, both excellent cameras, but I always carry the M10-D.
I have some voigtlander rangefinder film cameras and I ended up getting a Fujifilm X-M1 with an optical viewfinder just to complicate my life :) it’s so much rewarding than having the camera shooting by itself 😎👍🏻
Thank you for speaking in a normal tone of voice and at a normal speed. So many Leica videos have the host talk so slow, that it drives me crazy. That said, I'm constantly hearing Leica shooters talk about this extra view of the scene outside the frame lines. I'm calling BS. First, 25% of that view is blocked by the lens. And if you're using a 35mm lens, as you indeed are, there is very little extra you're seeing. You might be seeing 28mm. And what's really coming into the frame? Like when I'm photographing a person, I shoot that person and I go on about my day. It never happens that some other mysterious person enters the edge of my frame and then I shoot that person instead of the person I picked up the camera to shoot. And, to make matters worse with this claim, most people today are shooting on iPhones and Mirrorless cameras. And virtually all of these shooters are holding the camera at arms length and getting 100x MORE of the real world in their vision than a Leica shooter is when they look through a rangefinder viewfinder. To me, this whole thing about seeing outside the frame is just something that Leica shooters hear from other Leica shooters and gets endlessly repeated, but has no basis in fact or in real world shooting.
I think the comparison is to EVFs (not holding the device at an arm’s length). It makes more sense with a focal length like 50mm when looking through the viewfinder.
@@benkendall When you see iPhone shooters and mirrorless shooters using their cameras are they using them at arm's length? Yes, they are. And those 2 categories probably account for 80% or more of all photographs taken today. So I'm still calling BS on this claim. It's just something one Leica shooter said, and then another person said it and it just gets repeated all the time, but has no real basis in fact. Tons of Leica shooters use a 35mm lens. The viewfinder shows 28mm. There's not a whole lot of extra to see.
To each their own. Shot with an SLR and Leica M2 and M3 and for my photo graphic experience and style I just like range finders more. Also for me, I think with a range finder I can frame faster because everything is clear in focus while with an SLR if your shot was close and you’re now shooting more distance things can be blurry (my SLR’s are pre auto focus). One thing for sure if you have a slow lens the range finder view is much brighter than a see through lens SLR….for film not talking about digital.
Haha gotta love RUclips's way of pushing you into new gear :-) I see you're a central Texas photographer as well. I'd be happy to meet up and let you try it before you purchase one. If you're interested send me a DM on Instagram @stephenkrohn. Thanks for watching.
Over the years, I have used and still use a variety of 35mm and medium format rangefinder cameras and SLR cameras. In addition to your reasons for using a rangefinder over an SLR, here are a few additional reasons: 6. When shooting events (such as quiet classical music concerts, golf tournaments, audio recording studios, funerals) where the operational noise of a mirror slap would be obnoxious, I prefer to use a quiet rangefinder. 7. When shooting with dark filters (such as dark red, dark neutral density, dark infrared) (but not dark polarizers or dark graduated neutral density) with the filter mounted on the lens, it is easier to focus with the rangefinder vs. with the through-the-lens SLR.
Lol this comment section makes me want to argue with the whole internet haha. If you never used a true rangefinder just say that 😅😅 great video! Sorry the algorithm sent this to potatoes haha
I dont know what you did to the algorithms, but they're punishing you with the most dense responses ever lol. I hope for your sake that you are not seeing this nonsense on all your videos.
The whole argument of SLR’s vs Range finders is like apples and oranges….in the end some ppl like oranges, some like apples more then some really don’t care about the arguments and like both.
saying that zone focus is a benefit to shooting with a rangefinder is silly, any manual focusing camera can do that, the only camera that is using something unique to achieve a similar result is the Ricoh Gr series that have had a feature called snap focus, it overrides the AF to shoot at a set distance for the depth one wants when you press the shutter. Modern AF cameras have pretty much eliminated the need to zone focus, so to continue to use it is because one has chosen to use a manual focus camera. For me the choice to use a rangefinder is usually because one has made and emotional choice not a best tool choice. Way back in the early film days the advantage of a rangefinder was easier focus in dim light, lighter cameras, easier lens design and quieter shutters, on the other hand slrs became the more versatile alternative because as lens designers got better the depth, variety and options for optics was much larger. Modern mirrorless cameras are now quick to focus, smaller, quiet (depending model) and have an amazing choice in optics. At the end of the day, the best choice of camera is the one you have with you, whether it is a manual focus rangefinder or a cell phone all that matters is the image one captures works for the user.
You are entirely wrong on multiple points here. I'd suggest you endeavor to understand that your preference doesn't dictate the purpose of gear-- it only dictates which gear you use. Crazy that has to be pointed out to adults these days, but here we are.
I don't get the zone focus thing as being a benefit of using a rangefinder. Zone focusing works on any lens on any camera. Personally I don't get the point of using zone focus on a camera that is so much fun to focus manually, but even if someone did want to use zone focus, they can do so on any camera/lens combination. Granted, many lenses don't show the DoF scale on the lens itself but it's still pretty simple to learn distances will be in focus using your preferred aperture and shooting distance combination. Saying zone focusing is a benefit of using a rangefinder would be like saying, "When I use a rangefinder, I am not limited to shooting only 36 frames like I was back in the film days. I can shoot thousands of images before my card fills up." The statement is true, but that characteristic has nothing to do with the camera being a rangefinder. It applies to every digital camera. Zone focus applies not only to every digital camera, but to every film camera as well.
@@benkendall Zone focusing isn't connected to the tab/muscle memory thing. Zone focusing means I set the camera to 8 feet at f/8 and then I shoot everything at that setting for the next hour or whatever. The tab is useless in that scenario. The tab comes into play when I'm starting the focus process. It's easy to learn that putting the tab at 6pm is close to the correct focus for 5ft away, for example. It gives me a starting point to fine tune the focus.
@@JohnRicard Zone focus doesn't have to be by your rules. For instance, I absolutely don't set F8, focus at a certain depth, then leave it there for a "few hours." I swap between focus depths constantly, and switch aperture too. The focus tab muscle memory is *definitely* a real thing. I know where to position at F8 to be hyperfocal, I know where to position at F5.6 to focus at 3 meters. I often swap between the two from one shot to the next, along with other "spots" I have set by memory. You don't have to guess and fine tune at all. You know where it's in focus, you tab to that depth, you step into that range-- or your subject does. If I were to need the distance scale for visual reference because the tab was missing- which is true with my Voigtlanders on my Sony body- then I have to fiddle and look down. If I have to guess depth then fine tune, then I'm fiddling with manual focus while my subject likely disappears. So it goes with street shooting. Especially here in Manhattan.
@@SourPlanet Might make for an interesting video, "Does Zone Focusing Actually Work"? I'm a staff writer for FStoppers and I could certainly get it picked up there, although it might be embarrassing if we did shoot the video and the concluding was the technique didn't actually create sharp photos. Let me know if you'd be interested in pursuing the idea though.
@@JohnRicard I don't need an article on the subject to confirm what I see literally every single day. I have thousands of perfectly sharp photos using zone focus. As do hundreds of other photographers, now and throughout history. Like many things in photography and art: if it isn't working, that's a problem solved with practice
The Rangefinder story is such drivel! If something enters my 28mm frame, I could never adjust in time! Nobody could! Not seeing thru the lens is in my view, idiotic. Sorry. Sure one can focus very accurately, but I love seeing beautifully. An older SLR, easily obtained, for price of a filter on that red dot! Many lenses available And not at a King's ransom!! Most good SLR lenses have same marking for Zone focus! You do know the depth of field tables on lens, for a 5x7" print! Bigger, make adjustments to smaller f-stop! Refrain from that old story! My success was with SLR, in major pro assignments! Airlines , Auto companies, Fashion! Seeing is everything! I own 3 leica M's!
Totally agree. There are literally zero advantages of rangefinders over SLRs. Actually, just one…size. Still, there’s a reason why SLRs became the dominant form factor.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for this and I love shooting with a rangefinder! I’m shooting with the Fuji X-Pro 2 and I wished fujis had that focus square in the optical view finder!
They do bro lol hit the switch to the left and a focus box will pop up. You can make it peak or do split image.
Great video! The M240 was my daily carry camera for three years, now it’s the M10-D, but the thing I love most about rangefinder vs all other cameras is that they aren’t TTL view. In a DSLR you look through the lens, usually at the widest aperture, so you see the shallow depth of field, and that can limit your composition. In a mirrorless system it’s even worse. You see a screen showing what it thinks your exposure is, so if you are in a high contrast lighting environment, your view is always too dark or too light.
With a rangefinder, I just see a focus patch, and frame lines. I have to use my knowledge of exposure, and imagine my final result. I find that is so much more rewarding.
what I love about the viewfinder on a rangefinder is that you are kinda visualising a million different options for composition at once, I feel like looking through the lens limits your creativity (although a good DSLR's viewfinder is still beautiful compared to mirrorless, just a shame they have to be so bulky)
I've often thought about upgrading to the M-D or the M10-D, but they're hard to find these days. I love the analog feeling of not having a screen and relying on your instincts of the exposure triangle to get the shot. How have you enjoyed that experience?
Also, I never considered the view finder on a DSLR or mirrorless setup to be off. That's a great point. Thanks for watching.
I've never had the privilege of owning a DSLR, but I've often thought about purchasing an original Canon 5D. I hear those are the best for that experience. Maybe I'll give it a try next. Thanks for watching.
@@Stephen-krohn the M10-D is, without reservation the “best” camera I’ve personally ever used. By that I mean I connect with it perfectly, and feel I produce my best work with it.
I also have an SL2 and Q2M, both excellent cameras, but I always carry the M10-D.
Another photographer suggested that I use the histogram when shooting with EVF cameras. This helps so much with determining correct exposure.
Love my 240 for many of these same reasons
Really good explanation and practical advice. Thx!
I have some voigtlander rangefinder film cameras and I ended up getting a Fujifilm X-M1 with an optical viewfinder just to complicate my life :) it’s so much rewarding than having the camera shooting by itself 😎👍🏻
Thank you for speaking in a normal tone of voice and at a normal speed. So many Leica videos have the host talk so slow, that it drives me crazy. That said, I'm constantly hearing Leica shooters talk about this extra view of the scene outside the frame lines. I'm calling BS. First, 25% of that view is blocked by the lens. And if you're using a 35mm lens, as you indeed are, there is very little extra you're seeing. You might be seeing 28mm. And what's really coming into the frame? Like when I'm photographing a person, I shoot that person and I go on about my day. It never happens that some other mysterious person enters the edge of my frame and then I shoot that person instead of the person I picked up the camera to shoot. And, to make matters worse with this claim, most people today are shooting on iPhones and Mirrorless cameras. And virtually all of these shooters are holding the camera at arms length and getting 100x MORE of the real world in their vision than a Leica shooter is when they look through a rangefinder viewfinder. To me, this whole thing about seeing outside the frame is just something that Leica shooters hear from other Leica shooters and gets endlessly repeated, but has no basis in fact or in real world shooting.
I think the comparison is to EVFs (not holding the device at an arm’s length). It makes more sense with a focal length like 50mm when looking through the viewfinder.
@@benkendall When you see iPhone shooters and mirrorless shooters using their cameras are they using them at arm's length? Yes, they are. And those 2 categories probably account for 80% or more of all photographs taken today. So I'm still calling BS on this claim. It's just something one Leica shooter said, and then another person said it and it just gets repeated all the time, but has no real basis in fact. Tons of Leica shooters use a 35mm lens. The viewfinder shows 28mm. There's not a whole lot of extra to see.
To each their own. Shot with an SLR and Leica M2 and M3 and for my photo graphic experience and style I just like range finders more.
Also for me, I think with a range finder I can frame faster because everything is clear in focus while with an SLR if your shot was close and you’re now shooting more distance things can be blurry (my SLR’s are pre auto focus).
One thing for sure if you have a slow lens the range finder view is much brighter than a see through lens SLR….for film not talking about digital.
I just became your 100th subscriber! :)
So funny I was just about to buy the m240 but not sure if I should. And RUclips popped your video out
Haha gotta love RUclips's way of pushing you into new gear :-) I see you're a central Texas photographer as well. I'd be happy to meet up and let you try it before you purchase one. If you're interested send me a DM on Instagram @stephenkrohn. Thanks for watching.
@@Stephen-krohn you in Texas too? Let’s go!
Over the years, I have used and still use a variety of 35mm and medium format rangefinder cameras and SLR cameras.
In addition to your reasons for using a rangefinder over an SLR, here are a few additional reasons:
6. When shooting events (such as quiet classical music concerts, golf tournaments, audio recording studios, funerals) where the operational noise of a mirror slap would be obnoxious, I prefer to use a quiet rangefinder.
7. When shooting with dark filters (such as dark red, dark neutral density, dark infrared) (but not dark polarizers or dark graduated neutral density) with the filter mounted on the lens, it is easier to focus with the rangefinder vs. with the through-the-lens SLR.
Lol this comment section makes me want to argue with the whole internet haha. If you never used a true rangefinder just say that 😅😅 great video! Sorry the algorithm sent this to potatoes haha
I love my M240...
I dont know what you did to the algorithms, but they're punishing you with the most dense responses ever lol. I hope for your sake that you are not seeing this nonsense on all your videos.
The whole argument of SLR’s vs Range finders is like apples and oranges….in the end some ppl like oranges, some like apples more then some really don’t care about the arguments and like both.
viewfinder blockage is driving me nuts 😭
that's why I really like Kiev cameras, there's no lens peaking through viewfinder
saying that zone focus is a benefit to shooting with a rangefinder is silly, any manual focusing camera can do that, the only camera that is using something unique to achieve a similar result is the Ricoh Gr series that have had a feature called snap focus, it overrides the AF to shoot at a set distance for the depth one wants when you press the shutter. Modern AF cameras have pretty much eliminated the need to zone focus, so to continue to use it is because one has chosen to use a manual focus camera. For me the choice to use a rangefinder is usually because one has made and emotional choice not a best tool choice. Way back in the early film days the advantage of a rangefinder was easier focus in dim light, lighter cameras, easier lens design and quieter shutters, on the other hand slrs became the more versatile alternative because as lens designers got better the depth, variety and options for optics was much larger. Modern mirrorless cameras are now quick to focus, smaller, quiet (depending model) and have an amazing choice in optics. At the end of the day, the best choice of camera is the one you have with you, whether it is a manual focus rangefinder or a cell phone all that matters is the image one captures works for the user.
You are entirely wrong on multiple points here. I'd suggest you endeavor to understand that your preference doesn't dictate the purpose of gear-- it only dictates which gear you use. Crazy that has to be pointed out to adults these days, but here we are.
Smol. Best for street
it is range focusing, zone is for metering
Thats the "zone system." Zone focus is accepted nomenclature for decades. Probably because you're setting a zone of focus lol
Benefit 6: street cred.
I don't get the zone focus thing as being a benefit of using a rangefinder. Zone focusing works on any lens on any camera. Personally I don't get the point of using zone focus on a camera that is so much fun to focus manually, but even if someone did want to use zone focus, they can do so on any camera/lens combination. Granted, many lenses don't show the DoF scale on the lens itself but it's still pretty simple to learn distances will be in focus using your preferred aperture and shooting distance combination. Saying zone focusing is a benefit of using a rangefinder would be like saying, "When I use a rangefinder, I am not limited to shooting only 36 frames like I was back in the film days. I can shoot thousands of images before my card fills up." The statement is true, but that characteristic has nothing to do with the camera being a rangefinder. It applies to every digital camera. Zone focus applies not only to every digital camera, but to every film camera as well.
They’re just better suited for it…easier to build muscle memory with lenses that have focus throws and hard stops.
@@benkendall Zone focusing isn't connected to the tab/muscle memory thing. Zone focusing means I set the camera to 8 feet at f/8 and then I shoot everything at that setting for the next hour or whatever. The tab is useless in that scenario. The tab comes into play when I'm starting the focus process. It's easy to learn that putting the tab at 6pm is close to the correct focus for 5ft away, for example. It gives me a starting point to fine tune the focus.
@@JohnRicard Zone focus doesn't have to be by your rules.
For instance, I absolutely don't set F8, focus at a certain depth, then leave it there for a "few hours." I swap between focus depths constantly, and switch aperture too. The focus tab muscle memory is *definitely* a real thing. I know where to position at F8 to be hyperfocal, I know where to position at F5.6 to focus at 3 meters. I often swap between the two from one shot to the next, along with other "spots" I have set by memory. You don't have to guess and fine tune at all. You know where it's in focus, you tab to that depth, you step into that range-- or your subject does.
If I were to need the distance scale for visual reference because the tab was missing- which is true with my Voigtlanders on my Sony body- then I have to fiddle and look down. If I have to guess depth then fine tune, then I'm fiddling with manual focus while my subject likely disappears. So it goes with street shooting. Especially here in Manhattan.
@@SourPlanet Might make for an interesting video, "Does Zone Focusing Actually Work"? I'm a staff writer for FStoppers and I could certainly get it picked up there, although it might be embarrassing if we did shoot the video and the concluding was the technique didn't actually create sharp photos. Let me know if you'd be interested in pursuing the idea though.
@@JohnRicard I don't need an article on the subject to confirm what I see literally every single day. I have thousands of perfectly sharp photos using zone focus. As do hundreds of other photographers, now and throughout history.
Like many things in photography and art: if it isn't working, that's a problem solved with practice
"More bokeh" ?? ...
The Rangefinder story is such drivel! If something enters my 28mm frame, I could never adjust in time! Nobody could! Not seeing thru the lens is in my view, idiotic. Sorry. Sure one can focus very accurately, but I love seeing beautifully. An older SLR, easily obtained, for price of a filter on that red dot! Many lenses available And not at a King's ransom!! Most good SLR lenses have same marking for Zone focus! You do know the depth of field tables on lens, for a 5x7" print! Bigger, make adjustments to smaller f-stop! Refrain from that old story! My success was with SLR, in major pro assignments! Airlines , Auto companies, Fashion! Seeing is everything! I own 3 leica M's!
try using a 50, viewing what is outside the frameline is very useful, and I am always fast enough to adjust to stuff coming in or out
Totally agree. There are literally zero advantages of rangefinders over SLRs. Actually, just one…size. Still, there’s a reason why SLRs became the dominant form factor.
lol what a response. "Nobody could!" Meanwhile range focus means you literally don't have to focus, so time for acquisition is a non-issue.
Thanks Karen…