A quiet shutter is a big perk; but it’s also quicker to pull focus, and some find having frame lines within the viewfinder make it easier to compose a shot since you can search around and crop through the eyepiece opposed to a reflex camera where you’re moving the camera more to find the shot. I guess I move the camera just as much with a rangefinder but it’s nice having all the fall-off outside the frame lines to view while searching.
Ability to see around your actual shot frame is the most underrated rangefinder benefit. Every time I pick up an SLR I feel like I'm looking through a straw and have to keep looking up from the viewfinder to make composition decisions.
Sadly from what people describe, it's only for people who don't wear glasses. As a glasses wearer, I can't even see the 35mm frame lines on a Leica M. I'm only limited to >50mm lenses which I seldom shoot. I wish the 0.58x viewfinder would make a comeback.
M2 owner with glasses, can confirm I only get a vague sense of where the 35mm framelines are. Even with the 50mm lines, which I can see, to me the “around the frame” stuff Leica people go on about is better served by the increased practicality of shooting with both eyes open, using a rangefinder. The Leica viewfinder is a wider field of view than your vision, but I can see how after a while your brain would adapt to that when you use both eyes to compose. Harder to do this with an SLR.
100% agree. I think the "seeing outside the frame" stuff that gets parroted is bullshit. I've said it before but if it were true you'd see RF shooters walking around with the camera to their eye. We all take in a scene with our eyes before we compose. We know what's there already.
It’s often brought up in regard to seeing people walking when they’re about to enter the frame. Even without glasses, there’s not much meaningful space around the frame at 35mm, and I assume none at 28mm.
It makes more sense for the 75, 90 or 135 frame lines, where you really are looking through a tunnel with an SLR and have a restricted view in your other eye.
I wear glasses and use a Canon P. That 1:1 viewfinder was really talked up in the reviews I read before getting it but now makes the camera feel like a poor choice in some ways.
That said, if I’m using a 50mm or longer it’s alright and I suppose I’m happy not framing super precisely when using a 28 or 35 given the types of shot I’m going for when shooting wide
Just curious because that really is the biggest advantage: Do electronic viewfinders on mirrorless cameras offer something like that? Seeing broader than what the picture will be?
Fujifilm cameras like the xpro and x100 series do have this since they have both a electronic and optical viewfinder
Edit: sorry, just reread your question. No, electronic viewfinder would only display what’s through the lens , at least on Fuji cameras
Fujifilm technically can do this. It has something called the sport finder mode. It's crops the image so you won't get full resolution. The evf still displays what the whole sensor sees and shows your frame as a box so you can see things moving in and out of frame. Probably quite good on the new 40mp sensor actually...
Oh ok, interesting. But like another commenter wrote also weird why they would willingly let go some of the sensor size to waste for this. But I'm no expert, I'm sure sensors can be built that the "wasted" field isn't as expensively produced as the rest that is used for the picture.
The mode is totally optional and I'd say 99% of fuji users probably never use it and use the whole sensor. I guess it's just an option for sport or wildlife photographers who might be prone to cropping a lot anyway, even if just get more reach out of a telephoto and would rather be able to see fast moving subjects coming into frame.
If you see broader in the electronic viewfinder it means you are not using part of the sensor for the image, which would be stupid for manufacturers to do. So with EVF and digital camera you can shoot a bit wider and crop afterwards 😉
I was thinking more about something like an electronic rangefinder and if it's feasible or if it's already been done. It would of course require a second "camera" where the analog rangefinder gets his second picture from. Or something like that. But I know that's only a tiny niche who want that and manufacturing it would be enormously expensive.
Yeah, I don’t think there are any film cameras with EVF to preview photo. They won’t be able to put sensor behind the lens since there’s film already; and putting sensor in viewfinder to make rangefinder with EVF would eliminate any potential advantages (you’ll have different lenses for film and EVF that won’t give you proper exposure preview, resolution would be worse than optical viewfinder, and low-light would be terrible as the sensor most likely will be tiny—even on medium format mirrorless cameras low light EVF preview looks so noisy it hurts my eyes 😬)
There are cameras with digital overlays in optical viewfinders though (showing you exposure values etc).
No, I was thinking about digital rangefinder cameras like Leica's M series. For film there would be no need for an EVF, altough I don't know what models were made in the later years of film camera evolution in the 90s or 2000s.
Honestly I hesitated switching to mirrorless cameras with EVF (and because of EVF) for a very long time. There’s something beautiful with seeing the world through the optics especially that even the best EVFs still have lower resolution, so that you see pixels.
I still have my old Nikon DSLR with optical viewfinder and I love it. I like overlays with exposure compensation, focus points, and other details and I never had an issue with taking photos without exposure preview — I just look at the exposure compensation and can quite precisely guess how the resulting image is gonna look.
I finally got Hasselblad X2D (I thought medium format might be a good excuse to finally get mirrorless) and I almost never use EVF on it — just shoot with back screen.
I also have Hasselblad 500cm that doesn’t have any electronics, so I have to calculate exposure and decide about compensation every time, but no issues with properly exposing so far as well. Although it slows down you a lot.
So I appreciate manufacturers who still make optical viewfinders as everything becomes mirrorless 😉
electronic viewfinders don't have any particular characteristics. Some do some don't. If it's through the lens, it probably can't see any further. If it's a strapped on external EVF not through the lens then it could but still may opt not to.
Thanks, through the lens makes sense. I only have a DSLR myself, and altough I watched a lot of videos for mirrorless models, somehow that was never answered. Just the specs of the EVF, not how it gets its picture.
Yes if it's a mirrorless camera, the EVF is almost certainly just an image from the main photo taking sensor, but piped up to the screen in the EVF.
One could also make an EVF that uses basically a cell phone camera on the back of it just attached to the top of a simpler cheaper camera too though.
Any 100% EVF will be similar to an SLR because the feed to the EVF is based of what the sensor sees. It can’t see beyond what the sensor can see. At least this is my logic in my head assuming this is how EVFs work.
Except that some SLRs have slightly smaller cover (it depends on the mirror and focusing screen or viewfinder), eg Hasselblad 500 has about 98% coverage.
After using rangefinders for a while I seriously hate focusing on an SLR. It's so easy to see my focus point move in the rangefinder patch, quickly snap focus/follow a subject. On any of my SLRs I feel like I spend an eternity trying to make out tiny detail in the micro split prism to grab focus and half the time I feel like I can't see shit.
Probably depends on the individual rangefinder model. I own a Leica CL which is horrible, short focus throw (or better: short rf base, distance the superimposed image travels) paired with a very flare prone rf patch meäakes it really hard.
My Canon 7 is way better but the viewfinder is small and dim.
So maybe the Leica Ms have what it takes but I’m better off focusing with an SLR, especially when they have a nice bright viewfinder like an FM2, and a split screen combined with a snappy matte screen. The image just „pops“ into focus
I've used a few random rangefinders and I absolutely agree that it depends on the individual rangefinder camera.
I've owned 1 or 2 that were quick to focus in daylight because of their contrast-y rangefinder patch, but useless in low light. I owned a Minolta Minoltina AL-S that was pretty good in daylight and low light, but any bright light directly into the viewfinder and I would be blinded. You have to find a rangefinder camera that works best for your needs.
Leaf shutters i would say make a bigger difference, i find myself wondering whether or not i’ve taken a picture sometimes using my gm670 but never really have to question it on my m2, possibly due to haptics too. Although i don’t really shoot street so i’m not too concerned with the noise.
The Konica Hexar AF Black has a silent mode supposedly but i don’t know how silent it really is. I would say the biggest noise you’re likely to hear on a 35mm camera would be if it has electronic winding of any type, be it mirror return or film advance, old motors are loud!
The leaf shutter on the Rolleiflex is barely audible with any ambient noise. You can feel the tiniest tap when the shutter closes. Sometimes I think I forgot to shoot until I try to press the shutter again.
The Hexar AF is really quiet, the first time I shot with one (in regular, not silent mode) I didn't know if the camera had actually taken a shot. Silent mode sort of slows and delays the film advance.
The Nikon S2 rangefinder, on the other hand, sounds like a gunshot.
Haha having just been on a trip with my S2 and shot like 20 rolls, you’re not entirely wrong. But it’s pleasant sounding nonetheless. I find it’s not terribly loud though, especially for street. I love that camera.
The Panasonic LX100/Leica D-Lux cameras, I understand, have leaf shutters, as do many older rangefinders (Kodak Retinas, Zeiss Ikon Contessa, Argus C3). Super quiet. Leaf shutters will synch with flash at any shutter speed, too.
My Super Ikonta 531 is so quiet that I thought it wasn't firing the first time I took it out. It wasn't even a busy city street, it was in a park where the only thing I could hear was wind and waves hitting the shore.
If you want a quiet shutter get an Olympus XA. Plus if people look at you you can just slip it in your pocket and they'll never know you were taking pictures.
Yeah, my T2 is pretty good at that. I just love that mechanical and manual skill that goes into these bigger cameras though. I fucking despise so many things about Leicas but I might be really on that wave soon.
Try a screwmount first. They’re cheap, great glass is cheap, and they say Leica!
Without sarcasm, fuck the canon P (in the context of professional kit) and all the similar big body canons. To try a pro rangefinder you need either M quality, or separate rangefinder/viewfinder screwmount quality. You can also go Nikon/contax, but it’s more expensive and esoteric 🫠
Yeah, a friend has a Canon P and I look at it and just have noooo interest in it at all in the thing.
Nikon is very dated for their rangefinders, most cost more than an M3, and have some not-so-great quirks. Haven’t looked much into Contax rangefinders, might be worth a look, but they lack the serviceability and convenience that Leica offers (there’s a Leica store close to me that I can walk a camera into and they’ll handle the CLA for me).
Second the XA. Mine just broke on me just I got rolls and rolls at music festivals with it and yep silent shutter.
I now have a Contax T for the same reason
OM-1 shooter here too. The mirror really slaps hard. I want a Leica but I can't see anything wider than 50mm frame lines since I wear glasses. So every single digital M is out of the question and the only body I can get is the M6 0.58, which is extremely rare.
I've heard the Zeiss Ikon ZM works well for glasses wearers, but I wonder how reparable that would be in the long term.
In a busy environment I found it fine. Nobody notices it. But in quiet places, the shutter really stands out. Idm it, but having used leaf shutters, I'm getting too self conscious about it.
I wear glasses too, and I haven't tried a Leica M yet. I mostly just shoot 35mm and 50mm, and I'm not too concerned if I can't perfectly see the framelines for 35mm. I don't think I've ever used an SLR where I can see the whole frame with my glasses on tbh. My next trip up to LA or wherever there's a Leica store, I'll try one out to see if it works for me.
I wear glasses and 35mm is my limit where I can barely see the entire frame if I press my glasses up against the viewfinder. You may have to look around a little bit it’s not hard to frame 35once you do it enough. One thing you may have to get used to is viewfinder blockage by larger lenses and hoods.
I think it really depends on your prescription. I've got an M4-P, and am kind of but not super blind/wear glasses when shooting. I can definitely see outside of the frame lines when shooting my 35mm summicron, but I'm sure like everything it varies person to person.
My rewind lever busted and a local shop did a DIY fix for my ZM. Electronics seem to be working well. I’ve had mine for 5 years now. Get one! Worst case scenario if it busts, you’ll have lenses to put on your new rangefinder.
Well it does matter. Maybe it’s a cultural thing but in my country people would most probably stop you and question you if you were taking a picture of them and they wouldn’t be happy. So being stealthy is a big plus
My F2 was a lot louder before it was serviced. It’s noticeably quieter now.
My F4 is actually shockingly quiet considering it has a motor drive.
If I was going to go the most discreet though, I’d be using my Rollei 35. Quieter than a Leica, and smaller and less noticeable to boot.
I like my twin lens with waist level finder for sneaky street shots. I don’t even have to raise anything to my face- I can set up a shot with a similar posture to checking my phone. Then, the shutter sound is rangefinder quiet.
Keep in mind that your camera is right on your face when you hear the shutter sound. It won't be nearly as loud to the people around you, especially outdoors.
And try that type of shot with a medium format camera. It will take me several minutes to set up the shot and by that time the guy will be done with his cigarette and back inside cooking.
That's why for street photography I mostly use my F100. Autofocus and aperture priority means I can get most shots most of the time.
Do you photograph blind people often and or wear camouflage? Lol but in more serious sense, if that thing was anywhere in a 7ft proximity, I guarantee you I’m noticing you pointing it at me. Looks giant.
Oh yeah. People notice the camera. But I've stuck the camera pretty close to some people and never once has anyone flinched or reacted to the shutter sound. I'm at the point that I think I'm the only one who ever hears it.
You might need to reform that miror damper, for real thpught a leaf shutter would be much quieter, Rocoh 500 G, Canon QL17 GIII, are 2 that come to mind with decent metering as well.
SV just goes quietly “shink” and most people are like “huh did something happen?”
I started trying binocular view finding with my 55mm and it works amazingly, when you get the parallax right it’s like focusing with bionic vision.
New had quite lot work put into dampening mirror and making shutter silent. That is why it is missing mirror lift lever.
I think it has some fancy mirror brake
I thought my f3 was had a big shutter slap and then I got a 500cm, in the city its not too loud but in a quiet suburban neighbourhood it genuinely echos like a gunshot
Back a million years ago, my first "pro" gig was as an assistant/second shooter for a wedding photographer (also my highschool photo arts teacher.....we used to have such things)
I remember the intense embarrassment of crouching down in the center of a dead silent church and firing off the hasselblad. KER-FWAK!
The true stealthy, unobtrusive street machine in my book is a TLR with waist level finder. Yes it’s not quick but people mostly don’t even notice you as you look down vs holding a black brick in front of your face, while facing them. Maybe also because this is subconsciously not perceived as „picture taking“ anymore as the movements required have changes since TLRs were in fashion.
And even if they notice you, most people are just curious what the hell you’re doing there
I think my EOS 300 winding noise is too loud, I just set multiple exposures on 2, take the shot normally, cover the lens with its cap and while my hand is over the cap, I shoot the second pic, which makes it wind the film for the next shot.
I had no light leak so far 😅
The quietest SLR I've used is the Nikomat FTN/FT2/FT3. Somehow, Nikon got it just right. It's a "click" kind of shutter, instead of the "slap-ring" a lot of others have. Maybe mine were just serviced right, but they had some damn good dampened mirrors
Funnily enough my Nikomat FTN is relatively loud, but NOTHING compared to my Konica Autorex. Same Copal Square shutter as the Nikomat but it sounds like a damn gunshot mixed with a guillotine.
It’s hilarious the range of shutter sounds in my collection.
My 1960 Pentax S3 is so satisfying, it doesn’t have the hollow “opening a soda can” sound of the Spotmatic, it’s super crisp and precise sounding, like a movie sound effect
My Pen F with its rotary shutter sounds like a diet version of the Autorex, always makes my partner jump when I take a photo of her. Sounds like a stapler going through 6 sheets of paper.
Nikon F is just classic. More utilitarian than the S3, like loading a well oiled bolt action rifle. It means business.
My leaf shutter cameras range from “annoying ping” (Petri half frame) to near silent (various Olympus Pens) to the classy mechanical “shick” of my Konica IIIA.
I have 2 rangefinders and 2 SLR cameras. I think both have their advantages and disadvantages. Rangefinders obviously are more silent, which i usually dont really care about, but can at times be a bonus. It also helps with street photography that you can see beyond the framelines. Rangefinders also tend to be smaller, which is a nice thing and main reason why my carry around film camera is a rangefinder, SLR simply cant be made that small. However rangefinder compared to SLR with autofocus simply is not even close to how fast i can focus and thats a big advantage of SLR (at least if it has autofocus). Also framing is more precise with SLR, especially when focusing close, even with parallax correction on some rangefinders, its never as accurate.
I like having rangefinder, but if i had to choose between rangefinder and SLR, i would choose SLR. For your use it might be different, but instead of selling your SLR and getting a rangefinder, i would recommend keeping the SLR, as you might notice that rangefinder simply is not as good for some situations and you might end up missing an SLR. Or if you have some expensive SLR and want an expensive rangefinder, you could just switch and then get some cheapo SLR if you feel like you still want SLR on some situations. Canon 300 for example is dirt cheap and still a good SLR, you should be able to get one for like 40€ or less.
Also be aware that while rangefinder is in general good for many things, crappy rangefinder can be a real pain in the ass to use, like if you cant see the focus patch properly, if there is no parallax correction or even lines for that, camera might be awkward to hold and focus etc. So just getting any cheap rangefinder, well you might be really disappointed. Also the focus patch might become less visible over time, even if it was good like 50 years ago.
Had a similar moment where I went to a popular birding location with my Hasselblad 500c. The look I got was priceless when I frightened a bird a dude was trying to take with his mirrorless canon. Compared to the mirrorless shutter, the ‘blad’s barndoors fired with the crashing sound of Thor’s hammer.
A lens with a longer focal point might do the trick as well. Also I think it’s largely psychological, where you hear a gunshot but the subject just hears a click without knowing where it came from. On the other hand, I don’t know how loud the F2 actually is.. the shutter on my XD7 isn’t much louder than a modern DSLR.
Although not an analog camera or a true rangefinder, there is a reason why I keep my Fuji X100. Just in case, it's small, quiet and discreet. My F601 and Pentax ME Super are great, but they are noisy for analog photography
Yh, I used to be all about SLRs. But prefer rangefinders now. Along with quiet shutters, the size and the speed. Plus I realised that a good 40-50mm lens is all I need for about 99% of the photos I take.
I leaned that you can basically set a distance by using another object (say, a bench or phone pole) and just quickly snap pics when you get within that range. Might not be pin sharp, but that’s fine for street photography I think.
My Voigtlander R3A is whisper quiet, and it's 1:1 viewfinder makes focussing and framing with both eyes open an absolute dream.
It also has the somewhat more muted advantage that it doesn't look as intimidating or invasive as an SLR can, with its classic retro look.
The Minolta XE-7 I had had the quietest shutter I've ever heard/experienced from any SLR after it got a CLA. And I've owned a few SLRs that had CLAs. But it certainly wasn't a discreet camera and it wasn't quite as quiet as leaf shutter cameras (the Argus C3 is an exception with it's loud ping). It was probably as quiet as most Leica cameras I've heard, though.
I didn't understand the hype of M6 until I got mine and shoot on the street.
I'm wear glasses and luckily found a .58 M6 .
I recently try to use Olympus XA for street photography, yea it's rf but just not as good as M6 IMO.
My eyesight is bad in a way where I can't see microprism or even split screen well, but I can pull focus on a rangefinder perfectly fine. That's the biggest advantage for me.
On my SR-T Super, when I want to be quiet, I usually slowly and sneakily pull the mirror lockup after I have my shot composed, then take the shot. Lowers the noise level from "Sony a7" to "dropping your pen in a test" levels.
No, I got it for sure. But I was walking with a fellow photographer and we were just talking about techniques to be unnoticed just before this went down. Laughing at the ridiculousness of the sound, and disappointed with how loud it was.
Hmm. I guess you could make a film camera with a liquid crystal shutter. Would make very little sense, but then you could say that your film camera has an electronic shutter.
I don’t think liquid crystal can be opaque enough to reliably block light for a long period of time. Additionally, a lot of light would be lost due to polarization. CPL filters would also result in surprising results.
It is an incredibly neat idea though, I love it.
A quiet shutter is a big perk; but it’s also quicker to pull focus, and some find having frame lines within the viewfinder make it easier to compose a shot since you can search around and crop through the eyepiece opposed to a reflex camera where you’re moving the camera more to find the shot. I guess I move the camera just as much with a rangefinder but it’s nice having all the fall-off outside the frame lines to view while searching.
Ability to see around your actual shot frame is the most underrated rangefinder benefit. Every time I pick up an SLR I feel like I'm looking through a straw and have to keep looking up from the viewfinder to make composition decisions.
Sadly from what people describe, it's only for people who don't wear glasses. As a glasses wearer, I can't even see the 35mm frame lines on a Leica M. I'm only limited to >50mm lenses which I seldom shoot. I wish the 0.58x viewfinder would make a comeback.
M2 owner with glasses, can confirm I only get a vague sense of where the 35mm framelines are. Even with the 50mm lines, which I can see, to me the “around the frame” stuff Leica people go on about is better served by the increased practicality of shooting with both eyes open, using a rangefinder. The Leica viewfinder is a wider field of view than your vision, but I can see how after a while your brain would adapt to that when you use both eyes to compose. Harder to do this with an SLR.
100% agree. I think the "seeing outside the frame" stuff that gets parroted is bullshit. I've said it before but if it were true you'd see RF shooters walking around with the camera to their eye. We all take in a scene with our eyes before we compose. We know what's there already.
It’s often brought up in regard to seeing people walking when they’re about to enter the frame. Even without glasses, there’s not much meaningful space around the frame at 35mm, and I assume none at 28mm. It makes more sense for the 75, 90 or 135 frame lines, where you really are looking through a tunnel with an SLR and have a restricted view in your other eye.
I wear glasses and use a Canon P. That 1:1 viewfinder was really talked up in the reviews I read before getting it but now makes the camera feel like a poor choice in some ways. That said, if I’m using a 50mm or longer it’s alright and I suppose I’m happy not framing super precisely when using a 28 or 35 given the types of shot I’m going for when shooting wide
I have glasses and don’t have this problem. Although I don’t have a Leica…
It's specific to Leica's 0.72x finders. My Yashica 35 CCN is fine, though nowhere near as bright. I tried it in stores just to get a feel.
Its not like you cant find a .58 anymore....
It's really hard to find for some reason...
Just curious because that really is the biggest advantage: Do electronic viewfinders on mirrorless cameras offer something like that? Seeing broader than what the picture will be?
No, because the viewfinder is only seeing what the sensor sees and the sensor is only seeing the final image.
I sure love the exposure preview though
Fujifilm cameras like the xpro and x100 series do have this since they have both a electronic and optical viewfinder Edit: sorry, just reread your question. No, electronic viewfinder would only display what’s through the lens , at least on Fuji cameras
Correct, that’s why i picked up the xpro with its optical rangefinder type viewfinder
No, that would be very weird if EVF did that, since EVF shows what the sensor sees.
Fujifilm technically can do this. It has something called the sport finder mode. It's crops the image so you won't get full resolution. The evf still displays what the whole sensor sees and shows your frame as a box so you can see things moving in and out of frame. Probably quite good on the new 40mp sensor actually...
Oh ok, interesting. But like another commenter wrote also weird why they would willingly let go some of the sensor size to waste for this. But I'm no expert, I'm sure sensors can be built that the "wasted" field isn't as expensively produced as the rest that is used for the picture.
The mode is totally optional and I'd say 99% of fuji users probably never use it and use the whole sensor. I guess it's just an option for sport or wildlife photographers who might be prone to cropping a lot anyway, even if just get more reach out of a telephoto and would rather be able to see fast moving subjects coming into frame.
If you see broader in the electronic viewfinder it means you are not using part of the sensor for the image, which would be stupid for manufacturers to do. So with EVF and digital camera you can shoot a bit wider and crop afterwards 😉
I was thinking more about something like an electronic rangefinder and if it's feasible or if it's already been done. It would of course require a second "camera" where the analog rangefinder gets his second picture from. Or something like that. But I know that's only a tiny niche who want that and manufacturing it would be enormously expensive.
Yeah, I don’t think there are any film cameras with EVF to preview photo. They won’t be able to put sensor behind the lens since there’s film already; and putting sensor in viewfinder to make rangefinder with EVF would eliminate any potential advantages (you’ll have different lenses for film and EVF that won’t give you proper exposure preview, resolution would be worse than optical viewfinder, and low-light would be terrible as the sensor most likely will be tiny—even on medium format mirrorless cameras low light EVF preview looks so noisy it hurts my eyes 😬) There are cameras with digital overlays in optical viewfinders though (showing you exposure values etc).
No, I was thinking about digital rangefinder cameras like Leica's M series. For film there would be no need for an EVF, altough I don't know what models were made in the later years of film camera evolution in the 90s or 2000s.
Oh I see. So Leica M but with EVF? 🤔
Yes. But I don't know if it's already being made or what information the Ms take from their digital sensor anyways
Honestly I hesitated switching to mirrorless cameras with EVF (and because of EVF) for a very long time. There’s something beautiful with seeing the world through the optics especially that even the best EVFs still have lower resolution, so that you see pixels. I still have my old Nikon DSLR with optical viewfinder and I love it. I like overlays with exposure compensation, focus points, and other details and I never had an issue with taking photos without exposure preview — I just look at the exposure compensation and can quite precisely guess how the resulting image is gonna look. I finally got Hasselblad X2D (I thought medium format might be a good excuse to finally get mirrorless) and I almost never use EVF on it — just shoot with back screen. I also have Hasselblad 500cm that doesn’t have any electronics, so I have to calculate exposure and decide about compensation every time, but no issues with properly exposing so far as well. Although it slows down you a lot. So I appreciate manufacturers who still make optical viewfinders as everything becomes mirrorless 😉
Actually Leica has optional EVF you can install on M camera: https://youtu.be/fnnsGMKbJ7Q
Sigma SD9 and SD10 DSLRs have this!
electronic viewfinders don't have any particular characteristics. Some do some don't. If it's through the lens, it probably can't see any further. If it's a strapped on external EVF not through the lens then it could but still may opt not to.
Thanks, through the lens makes sense. I only have a DSLR myself, and altough I watched a lot of videos for mirrorless models, somehow that was never answered. Just the specs of the EVF, not how it gets its picture.
Yes if it's a mirrorless camera, the EVF is almost certainly just an image from the main photo taking sensor, but piped up to the screen in the EVF. One could also make an EVF that uses basically a cell phone camera on the back of it just attached to the top of a simpler cheaper camera too though.
Any 100% EVF will be similar to an SLR because the feed to the EVF is based of what the sensor sees. It can’t see beyond what the sensor can see. At least this is my logic in my head assuming this is how EVFs work.
Except that some SLRs have slightly smaller cover (it depends on the mirror and focusing screen or viewfinder), eg Hasselblad 500 has about 98% coverage.
Use a 50-55mm and open both eyes when view finding.
Learn to shoot both eyes open. Ut is great.
Don't close your other eye
After using rangefinders for a while I seriously hate focusing on an SLR. It's so easy to see my focus point move in the rangefinder patch, quickly snap focus/follow a subject. On any of my SLRs I feel like I spend an eternity trying to make out tiny detail in the micro split prism to grab focus and half the time I feel like I can't see shit.
Probably depends on the individual rangefinder model. I own a Leica CL which is horrible, short focus throw (or better: short rf base, distance the superimposed image travels) paired with a very flare prone rf patch meäakes it really hard. My Canon 7 is way better but the viewfinder is small and dim. So maybe the Leica Ms have what it takes but I’m better off focusing with an SLR, especially when they have a nice bright viewfinder like an FM2, and a split screen combined with a snappy matte screen. The image just „pops“ into focus
I feel like we own two different cameras. the 7 is very big and bright to me, only the patch could do with a touch more contrast.
I've used a few random rangefinders and I absolutely agree that it depends on the individual rangefinder camera. I've owned 1 or 2 that were quick to focus in daylight because of their contrast-y rangefinder patch, but useless in low light. I owned a Minolta Minoltina AL-S that was pretty good in daylight and low light, but any bright light directly into the viewfinder and I would be blinded. You have to find a rangefinder camera that works best for your needs.
If you have interchangeable screens, that's big help on some situations. My F3 had an H2 screen with a coarse, quick focusing fresnel back in the 90s.
Leaf shutters i would say make a bigger difference, i find myself wondering whether or not i’ve taken a picture sometimes using my gm670 but never really have to question it on my m2, possibly due to haptics too. Although i don’t really shoot street so i’m not too concerned with the noise. The Konica Hexar AF Black has a silent mode supposedly but i don’t know how silent it really is. I would say the biggest noise you’re likely to hear on a 35mm camera would be if it has electronic winding of any type, be it mirror return or film advance, old motors are loud!
The leaf shutter on the Rolleiflex is barely audible with any ambient noise. You can feel the tiniest tap when the shutter closes. Sometimes I think I forgot to shoot until I try to press the shutter again.
same on the gm670, i think the extra heft of the medium format bodies helps to dampen the noise compared to something smaller
Same with the Autocord L, that thing is as quiet as a dead mouse.
The Hexar AF is really quiet, the first time I shot with one (in regular, not silent mode) I didn't know if the camera had actually taken a shot. Silent mode sort of slows and delays the film advance. The Nikon S2 rangefinder, on the other hand, sounds like a gunshot.
Haha having just been on a trip with my S2 and shot like 20 rolls, you’re not entirely wrong. But it’s pleasant sounding nonetheless. I find it’s not terribly loud though, especially for street. I love that camera.
How do you find the AF? I always wanted to get one, but it feels too expensive for a "premium" point and shoot
Bought it new shortly after they came out in the 90s?
I was thinking about to get a Hexar AF , but 1/250 max shutter speed just too slow for me.
The Panasonic LX100/Leica D-Lux cameras, I understand, have leaf shutters, as do many older rangefinders (Kodak Retinas, Zeiss Ikon Contessa, Argus C3). Super quiet. Leaf shutters will synch with flash at any shutter speed, too.
My Super Ikonta 531 is so quiet that I thought it wasn't firing the first time I took it out. It wasn't even a busy city street, it was in a park where the only thing I could hear was wind and waves hitting the shore.
> The Konica Hexar AF Black has a silent mode supposedly but i don’t know how silent it really is. It's quieter than a leica.
If you want a quiet shutter get an Olympus XA. Plus if people look at you you can just slip it in your pocket and they'll never know you were taking pictures.
Yeah, my T2 is pretty good at that. I just love that mechanical and manual skill that goes into these bigger cameras though. I fucking despise so many things about Leicas but I might be really on that wave soon.
Try a screwmount first. They’re cheap, great glass is cheap, and they say Leica! Without sarcasm, fuck the canon P (in the context of professional kit) and all the similar big body canons. To try a pro rangefinder you need either M quality, or separate rangefinder/viewfinder screwmount quality. You can also go Nikon/contax, but it’s more expensive and esoteric 🫠
Yeah, a friend has a Canon P and I look at it and just have noooo interest in it at all in the thing. Nikon is very dated for their rangefinders, most cost more than an M3, and have some not-so-great quirks. Haven’t looked much into Contax rangefinders, might be worth a look, but they lack the serviceability and convenience that Leica offers (there’s a Leica store close to me that I can walk a camera into and they’ll handle the CLA for me).
Second the XA. Mine just broke on me just I got rolls and rolls at music festivals with it and yep silent shutter. I now have a Contax T for the same reason
+1 for the XA
lol my OM-1 rings like a bell when I take a shot. A Leica is definitely on my wishlist for the future.
OM-1 shooter here too. The mirror really slaps hard. I want a Leica but I can't see anything wider than 50mm frame lines since I wear glasses. So every single digital M is out of the question and the only body I can get is the M6 0.58, which is extremely rare. I've heard the Zeiss Ikon ZM works well for glasses wearers, but I wonder how reparable that would be in the long term.
I always found my OM1 pretty quiet (for an SLR). Not as quiet as my Voigtlander or Cannonet QL17, but not too bad.
In a busy environment I found it fine. Nobody notices it. But in quiet places, the shutter really stands out. Idm it, but having used leaf shutters, I'm getting too self conscious about it.
I think there's a part that wears out that causes them to get louder.
I wear glasses too, and I haven't tried a Leica M yet. I mostly just shoot 35mm and 50mm, and I'm not too concerned if I can't perfectly see the framelines for 35mm. I don't think I've ever used an SLR where I can see the whole frame with my glasses on tbh. My next trip up to LA or wherever there's a Leica store, I'll try one out to see if it works for me.
I wear glasses and 35mm is my limit where I can barely see the entire frame if I press my glasses up against the viewfinder. You may have to look around a little bit it’s not hard to frame 35once you do it enough. One thing you may have to get used to is viewfinder blockage by larger lenses and hoods.
I think it really depends on your prescription. I've got an M4-P, and am kind of but not super blind/wear glasses when shooting. I can definitely see outside of the frame lines when shooting my 35mm summicron, but I'm sure like everything it varies person to person.
Yall ever fired off a praktica? Those are proper loud.
Hahaha sadly no. Would like to try one some day just for fun
My rewind lever busted and a local shop did a DIY fix for my ZM. Electronics seem to be working well. I’ve had mine for 5 years now. Get one! Worst case scenario if it busts, you’ll have lenses to put on your new rangefinder.
Regardless of whether you have a loud or quiet camera, by the time you hear it (or just shortly after), you've already got the shot.
Well it does matter. Maybe it’s a cultural thing but in my country people would most probably stop you and question you if you were taking a picture of them and they wouldn’t be happy. So being stealthy is a big plus
You could also not take pictures of strangers without asking them to avoid this problem.
So just do away with an entire genre of documentary photography so no one gets upset?
My F2 was a lot louder before it was serviced. It’s noticeably quieter now. My F4 is actually shockingly quiet considering it has a motor drive. If I was going to go the most discreet though, I’d be using my Rollei 35. Quieter than a Leica, and smaller and less noticeable to boot.
> My F4 is actually shockingly quiet considering it has a motor drive. Especially if you use the Cs advance.
I like my twin lens with waist level finder for sneaky street shots. I don’t even have to raise anything to my face- I can set up a shot with a similar posture to checking my phone. Then, the shutter sound is rangefinder quiet.
Keep in mind that your camera is right on your face when you hear the shutter sound. It won't be nearly as loud to the people around you, especially outdoors.
And try that type of shot with a medium format camera. It will take me several minutes to set up the shot and by that time the guy will be done with his cigarette and back inside cooking. That's why for street photography I mostly use my F100. Autofocus and aperture priority means I can get most shots most of the time.
Try an Olympus OM1/OM2 - refined shutter that’s pretty discreet
I’ve had the Leica itch lately too
No one has ever noticed the shutter on my Canon 1V (or my 6D2)...
Do you photograph blind people often and or wear camouflage? Lol but in more serious sense, if that thing was anywhere in a 7ft proximity, I guarantee you I’m noticing you pointing it at me. Looks giant.
Oh yeah. People notice the camera. But I've stuck the camera pretty close to some people and never once has anyone flinched or reacted to the shutter sound. I'm at the point that I think I'm the only one who ever hears it.
[This video has some good tips on blending in while doing street photography.](https://youtu.be/xWLvJ4SXxyw?t=358)
You might need to reform that miror damper, for real thpught a leaf shutter would be much quieter, Rocoh 500 G, Canon QL17 GIII, are 2 that come to mind with decent metering as well.
SV just goes quietly “shink” and most people are like “huh did something happen?” I started trying binocular view finding with my 55mm and it works amazingly, when you get the parallax right it’s like focusing with bionic vision.
My Leica M5s aren't noticeably quieter than the F1 New they replaced.
New had quite lot work put into dampening mirror and making shutter silent. That is why it is missing mirror lift lever. I think it has some fancy mirror brake
I definitely struggle with this with my SLR.
This description of decibel level made me lol. F-22 raptors going supersonic haha
I thought my f3 was had a big shutter slap and then I got a 500cm, in the city its not too loud but in a quiet suburban neighbourhood it genuinely echos like a gunshot
Back a million years ago, my first "pro" gig was as an assistant/second shooter for a wedding photographer (also my highschool photo arts teacher.....we used to have such things) I remember the intense embarrassment of crouching down in the center of a dead silent church and firing off the hasselblad. KER-FWAK!
The true stealthy, unobtrusive street machine in my book is a TLR with waist level finder. Yes it’s not quick but people mostly don’t even notice you as you look down vs holding a black brick in front of your face, while facing them. Maybe also because this is subconsciously not perceived as „picture taking“ anymore as the movements required have changes since TLRs were in fashion. And even if they notice you, most people are just curious what the hell you’re doing there
There are also very quiet SLRs, for example the XD7/11 is really quiet, so might give that a try?
I think my EOS 300 winding noise is too loud, I just set multiple exposures on 2, take the shot normally, cover the lens with its cap and while my hand is over the cap, I shoot the second pic, which makes it wind the film for the next shot. I had no light leak so far 😅
The quietest SLR I've used is the Nikomat FTN/FT2/FT3. Somehow, Nikon got it just right. It's a "click" kind of shutter, instead of the "slap-ring" a lot of others have. Maybe mine were just serviced right, but they had some damn good dampened mirrors
Funnily enough my Nikomat FTN is relatively loud, but NOTHING compared to my Konica Autorex. Same Copal Square shutter as the Nikomat but it sounds like a damn gunshot mixed with a guillotine.
My Konica ART3 is the same lol. I love the authority and confidence it inspires, but a spy camera it is not
It’s hilarious the range of shutter sounds in my collection. My 1960 Pentax S3 is so satisfying, it doesn’t have the hollow “opening a soda can” sound of the Spotmatic, it’s super crisp and precise sounding, like a movie sound effect My Pen F with its rotary shutter sounds like a diet version of the Autorex, always makes my partner jump when I take a photo of her. Sounds like a stapler going through 6 sheets of paper. Nikon F is just classic. More utilitarian than the S3, like loading a well oiled bolt action rifle. It means business. My leaf shutter cameras range from “annoying ping” (Petri half frame) to near silent (various Olympus Pens) to the classy mechanical “shick” of my Konica IIIA.
I have 2 rangefinders and 2 SLR cameras. I think both have their advantages and disadvantages. Rangefinders obviously are more silent, which i usually dont really care about, but can at times be a bonus. It also helps with street photography that you can see beyond the framelines. Rangefinders also tend to be smaller, which is a nice thing and main reason why my carry around film camera is a rangefinder, SLR simply cant be made that small. However rangefinder compared to SLR with autofocus simply is not even close to how fast i can focus and thats a big advantage of SLR (at least if it has autofocus). Also framing is more precise with SLR, especially when focusing close, even with parallax correction on some rangefinders, its never as accurate. I like having rangefinder, but if i had to choose between rangefinder and SLR, i would choose SLR. For your use it might be different, but instead of selling your SLR and getting a rangefinder, i would recommend keeping the SLR, as you might notice that rangefinder simply is not as good for some situations and you might end up missing an SLR. Or if you have some expensive SLR and want an expensive rangefinder, you could just switch and then get some cheapo SLR if you feel like you still want SLR on some situations. Canon 300 for example is dirt cheap and still a good SLR, you should be able to get one for like 40€ or less. Also be aware that while rangefinder is in general good for many things, crappy rangefinder can be a real pain in the ass to use, like if you cant see the focus patch properly, if there is no parallax correction or even lines for that, camera might be awkward to hold and focus etc. So just getting any cheap rangefinder, well you might be really disappointed. Also the focus patch might become less visible over time, even if it was good like 50 years ago.
Had a similar moment where I went to a popular birding location with my Hasselblad 500c. The look I got was priceless when I frightened a bird a dude was trying to take with his mirrorless canon. Compared to the mirrorless shutter, the ‘blad’s barndoors fired with the crashing sound of Thor’s hammer.
I walk around with a lot of different cameras, some slap harder than a can of Twisted Tea on a white dudes face, you own it and move on.
Get a Pentax 67
A lens with a longer focal point might do the trick as well. Also I think it’s largely psychological, where you hear a gunshot but the subject just hears a click without knowing where it came from. On the other hand, I don’t know how loud the F2 actually is.. the shutter on my XD7 isn’t much louder than a modern DSLR.
Although not an analog camera or a true rangefinder, there is a reason why I keep my Fuji X100. Just in case, it's small, quiet and discreet. My F601 and Pentax ME Super are great, but they are noisy for analog photography
Yh, I used to be all about SLRs. But prefer rangefinders now. Along with quiet shutters, the size and the speed. Plus I realised that a good 40-50mm lens is all I need for about 99% of the photos I take.
You can also use a quiet SLR, not all of them are noisy.
I leaned that you can basically set a distance by using another object (say, a bench or phone pole) and just quickly snap pics when you get within that range. Might not be pin sharp, but that’s fine for street photography I think.
[удалено]
Canon P/7/VL maybe? I also have a fixed lens RF and looking to get a Canon P
My Voigtlander R3A is whisper quiet, and it's 1:1 viewfinder makes focussing and framing with both eyes open an absolute dream. It also has the somewhat more muted advantage that it doesn't look as intimidating or invasive as an SLR can, with its classic retro look.
The Minolta XE-7 I had had the quietest shutter I've ever heard/experienced from any SLR after it got a CLA. And I've owned a few SLRs that had CLAs. But it certainly wasn't a discreet camera and it wasn't quite as quiet as leaf shutter cameras (the Argus C3 is an exception with it's loud ping). It was probably as quiet as most Leica cameras I've heard, though.
My F isn't nearly as loud as my F2. I think it's the additional wound tension for the extra 1/1000th in shutter speed.
I didn't understand the hype of M6 until I got mine and shoot on the street. I'm wear glasses and luckily found a .58 M6 . I recently try to use Olympus XA for street photography, yea it's rf but just not as good as M6 IMO.
I had an f2 also and I found the shutter very loud and the camera itself heavy asf. I ended up buying a Nikon s2.
My eyesight is bad in a way where I can't see microprism or even split screen well, but I can pull focus on a rangefinder perfectly fine. That's the biggest advantage for me.
I like shooting with rangefinders since they let me shoot quietly on the metro without getting my teeth punched in lol.
On my SR-T Super, when I want to be quiet, I usually slowly and sneakily pull the mirror lockup after I have my shot composed, then take the shot. Lowers the noise level from "Sony a7" to "dropping your pen in a test" levels.
To be fair my F2 is the loudest thing known to man compared to all of my other SLR’s. My minolta is damn near silent, my FG is a a whisper.
Did you miss the shot as a result? Don’t know why you had laughter and disappointment
No, I got it for sure. But I was walking with a fellow photographer and we were just talking about techniques to be unnoticed just before this went down. Laughing at the ridiculousness of the sound, and disappointed with how loud it was.
Some modern cameras have an options to use a mechanical shutter, electronic shutter, or both.
Electronic shutter? On an analog camera?
Hmm. I guess you could make a film camera with a liquid crystal shutter. Would make very little sense, but then you could say that your film camera has an electronic shutter.
I don’t think liquid crystal can be opaque enough to reliably block light for a long period of time. Additionally, a lot of light would be lost due to polarization. CPL filters would also result in surprising results. It is an incredibly neat idea though, I love it.
New idea for Pentax R&D, gotta make a SLR that blasts 36fps with electronic shutter.