The most beautiful girl in China. The most beautiful Chinese women in the world
Prologue. You can take pictures with anything, even matchbox- everyone knows this. And it's true: there are a lot good photos, taken with a matchbox. And yet different types of cameras are not easy technical features and solutions, it's a slightly different way of looking at the world. Slow format cameras with interchangeable plates, slightly arrogant professional DSLRs with fast interchangeable optics, seemingly modest, inconspicuous rangefinders - each of these cameras influences the photographer, sets the pace of his actions, and determines his style.
Several years ago, it was clear to almost every amateur photographer that “the camera must be digital and SLR”; today this statement ceases to seem like an absolute truth. Non-DSLR digital cameras with large matrices, such as the Olympus Pen, Sony NEX, and the new “almost completely rangefinder” Fuji X100, are beginning to vigorously push aside digital SLRs in all directions, and film is again increasing the number of its supporters: experienced photographers are returning to it, disillusioned in digital, and newcomers are coming, attracted some by the surge in fashion for film lomography, and some simply by the charm of film photography.
The most ardent supporters of digital progress already have to admit that film has a new digital world a place in the sun has been determined that she is not going to give to anyone; Therefore, I sincerely hope that now, in 2011, no one will be surprised by a review dedicated to film cameras. Or rather, the most radical alternative to digital SLRs - film rangefinder cameras.
This text has grown from a small one to the article "". It, like all the previous ones, is addressed primarily to “street” photographers - lovers of street and genre photography. I, however, would not like to reduce my task to a review of rangefinder cameras and lenses; Enough reviews like this have been written without me. Basically, I would like to talk about those features of rangefinder technology that have made it the number one tool in street photography for eighty years, and how a street photographer can use these features.
The drawings and photographs in the article are mine, unless otherwise stated in the caption. I have never seen some of the cameras mentioned below except through the glass of a display case - for example, Leica MP; but still I tried most of them at different times in action, and even disassembled them. I later managed to collect some of them.
Dictionary:
. DSLR (SLR camera)- a camera that allows the photographer to see in the viewfinder the image formed on the focusing screen by the lens and directed into the viewfinder by a mirror and prism. At the moment of shooting, the mirror rises, opening the path for light rays to the shutter, behind which the film or matrix is located.
. Rangefinder (rangefinder camera)- a camera equipped with a viewfinder and rangefinder optical systems separate from the lens, using the parallax effect. Typically, the viewfinder and rangefinder systems are combined, allowing simultaneous framing and focusing. The rangefinder system is usually mechanically coupled to a focusing ring located on the lens.
. Parallax- the phenomenon of changing the angle at which an object is seen when the position of the observer changes. Used in optical rangefinders, in which the distance to an object is measured by superimposing images obtained from observation from two various points, and subsequent measurement of the difference in angular directions. Parallax also causes optical viewfinder errors.
. TTL (Through The Lens)- a method of measuring the properties of an object, for example, its illumination, through a camera lens.
Advantages of rangefinders. So, what is the appeal of rangefinder cameras?
Firstly, these are cameras with an “aura”: they were the ones that shot almost all the street and reportage masterpieces of the “golden age” of photography, and wrote the brightest pages in its history; It’s hard to imagine the great photographers of the 20th century otherwise than with a Leica in their hands. In 1932, when I bought my first Leica in Marseille, the age of rangefinder cameras in reportage photography began - and the words “rangefinder” and “watering can” were then synonymous. “With a watering can and a notepad, and even a machine gun, we went through fire and cold...” This is Konstantin Simonov, “Song of War Correspondents.” But then they just hadn’t invented DSLRs with a jumping mirror yet? And when they came up with the idea, all the correspondents immediately acquired Nikons and Pentaxes, didn’t they?
Correspondents - yes, we have them. But the most rangefinders... the far-sighted of them did not part with the Lakes; and there’s nothing to say about street photographers; they practically ignored the advent of DSLRs. Look, for example, at the BBC film “Genius of Photography” - there, between retro scenes, the wonderful street photographer Joel Meyerowitz periodically appears in the frame, and in his hands is a film Leica MP. Oh, what a camera! It's a pity, five or six thousand USD. Not many people can afford it for the carcass and the same amount for the lens... but the light still didn’t converge on it like a wedge, there are options that are not so deadly, even from the same Leica.
|
Secondly, rangefinders (and other cameras with a separate viewfinder window - we will keep them in mind further) are much more compact and lighter than DSLRs. They have neither a volumetric compartment with a jumping mirror, nor a heavy pentaprism. And not only they themselves are lighter, but also the lenses for them - they have no restrictions on the working distance of the lens, that is, on the distance between the rear lens and the surface of the film, which in DSLRs is determined by the size of the mirror compartment. This allows designers to make do with significantly smaller dimensions; By the way, for the same reason, lenses for rangefinders, all other things being equal, turn out to be cheaper than lenses for SLR cameras - unless, of course, we are talking about Leica optics.
Here someone can say - is compactness really necessary, is it a big problem to carry around two kilograms instead of five hundred grams? But in fact, this is the case when size matters. And if a wedding photographer or studio photographer simply needs a hefty DSLR with an L-series lens in order to impress the customer (otherwise who will believe that this is a cool photographer in front of him?), then a street photographer, as a rule, needs to attract as much attention as possible less attention, and most importantly - in no case look like a professional.
The principle here is simple: the larger the lens, the more people are afraid of it - and when they are afraid, they close themselves off from it. Of course, shooting with a compact camera also does not guarantee that you will not get punched in the nose for your impudence; and moreover, this is not the only method of disguise. On various photo resources you can find tips on shooting with a camera hidden in a special bag, a camera hanging on your stomach and controlled by a special cable, and even a camera shooting from around the corner - with a mirror built into a fake lens hood. But it’s clear that all these methods are not suitable for a real Jedi. Shooting from the hip is all right, but it’s definitely not a hidden camera. Moreover, having been caught with hidden camera, you risk getting into very serious trouble.
There are more elegant ways to go unnoticed. Thus, photographer and teacher M. Geller said on one of the forums that his favorite way is to take photographs with a large SLR so that everyone takes you for a harmless tourist. The advice is really good, and is not suitable only in those areas and situations where there is nothing for a tourist to do - and these are the areas that usually interest a street photographer.
In general, recipes that work great in some countries, localities, situations, etc. may not work in others. One of the greats, it seems - G. Winogrand, told his students - smile! If you took a photo of a person on the street, smile at him, and everything is okay. In our country, this number would not work, since our citizens are sure that there is nothing more suspicious than a smiling stranger. Therefore, a brick face and an expression on that brick that says “I have every right to do what I do” will work much more effectively than a smile. But we digress, let's get back to our rangefinders.
And if we’re talking about stealth, let’s remember the click of the camera when shooting. With rangefinders it can be an order of magnitude quieter simply because they do not have a jumping and flapping mirror, and the volume of the sound depends on the design of the shutter - central shutters operate almost silently, shutters with fabric curtains are a little louder.
Shutters with metal shutters (such as those found in modern Bessa-R rangefinders) can be quite loud; But Bessa cameras are not particularly compact cameras, and the loudness of their shutters is compensated by their speed and accuracy.
But you most likely will not hear the sound of a Rollei 35S, Olympus XA or Olympus 35RC camera on the street - these cameras have non-replaceable lenses and are equipped with central shutters. The sound of Leica cameras with fabric shutters is very characteristic - quiet but solid.
The next parameter in which rangefinders, all other things being equal, are at least slightly superior to SLR cameras is the reaction speed when shooting. They don’t need time either to raise (and after shooting, lower) the mirror, or to cover the “jumping” aperture. And focusing on the rangefinder spot takes less time and is carried out more accurately than on the frosted glass of a DSLR, and generates many times fewer errors than focusing using autofocus systems.
And very important point, especially when shooting at dusk - rangefinders completely lack “recoil” due to mirror jump, which in DSLRs leads to blurred images at medium and long shutter speeds.
And when shooting handheld at long shutter speeds, another significant difference is revealed: the image in the viewfinders of rangefinders is not blocked by the mirror at the time of shooting. This allows you to confidently shoot even at night, including with “wiring”, which with a DSLR is only possible blindly, using pure intuition.
And finally, one more, already fundamental difference between rangefinders - fundamental because it is literally words determine the photographer’s view of the world: in the viewfinder of a rangefinder, the photographer sees more than what he catches in the frame.
The fact is that in a good rangefinder, the field of view of the viewfinder is somewhat wider than the frame of the frame, which allows you to see not only what is in the frame, but also what may appear in it in the next second. But with DSLRs it’s the other way around: the viewfinder’s field of view is always somewhat narrower than the real frame, so the photographer does not see the very edges of the frame, which subsequently often prompts him to crop the photo when printing.
Let's add to this that due to the absence of a focusing glass, rangefinder viewfinders are always brighter than viewfinders SLR cameras– and in the list of advantages of rangefinder cameras it will be possible to put a dot (.) and move on to discussing their shortcomings.
Disadvantages of rangefinders. In essence, compared to DSLRs, rangefinder cameras have exactly one drawback: the photographer sees in the viewfinder not the image that is formed by the lens, but the one created by the viewfinder lens. This sad fact, very significant for still life, portraiture, and close-up photography in general, and not so critical in other genres, manifests itself as follows:
Firstly, in the rangefinder viewfinder everything looks sharp, starting from a few centimeters, and in the DSLR viewfinder it is what the lens is focused on when the aperture is fully open. But you can come to terms with this - anyway, the picture, as a rule, does not correspond to the final result.
Secondly, the effect of using filters is not visible in the viewfinder; Moreover, the image in the viewfinder will not change, even if you forget to extend the retractable lens or remove its cap. Therefore, cameras with TTL exposure metering or at least with a photosensor on the front end of the lens are preferable - they allow you to automatically take into account the effect of the filter on exposure, and will warn you about the cap not being removed. The rangefinder is difficult to use with monocles and other lenses designed to beautifully transform reality; The purpose of a rangefinder is not to shine a gloss on reality, but to accurately display it.
Thirdly, replacing a rangefinder lens with a longer focal length or wide-angle one requires, at a minimum, changing the viewfinder frame. In Leica cameras, the frames change automatically when you change the lens; in Bessa cameras there is a frame switch. In addition, most models of these cameras are available in different modifications, differing primarily in the magnification of the viewfinder: smaller for use with wide-angle lenses, larger for long-angle lenses. And if you use a lens that is too long or too wide, you have to install an external viewfinder.
And fourthly, and this is probably most important, the viewfinder and rangefinder lens see the objects being photographed from different, albeit close, points; Because of this, the visible positions of objects shift and the frames of the frame shift. Both are commonly referred to as the parallax problem (Fig. 4a). The closer the object, the stronger the parallax (Fig. 5a).
In the descriptions of many rangefinder models you can find the words “viewfinder with automatic parallax compensation”; if you believe them, then you can decide that the parallax problem has been solved, hurray, hurray, rangefinders have the same advantages and not a single serious drawback...
What this actually means is that the viewfinder frame in these cameras is mechanically connected to the rangefinder, which sets it to a position that corresponds to the distance to the subject. In this way, only one part of the problem can be solved, namely, when focusing on a close object, the shift of the frame that the photographer sees in the viewfinder relative to the real frame of the frame is compensated for (Fig. 4b). And then it is compensated on the assumption that all objects in the frame are at the same distance as the object on which the rangefinder focused!
In other words, if you photograph a drawing on a flat wall, then the automatically moving frame will correctly show the boundaries of the frame; but if you shoot a portrait against the backdrop of a landscape, then you need to be prepared for the fact that the frame will correctly show the position of the person in the frame, but not the part of the background that will be in the picture (Fig. 5b); Figure 5 assumes that in both cases (a, b) we compose the frame so that we get a symmetrical portrait of a person against the background of two trees. Attention - the scales and angles are distorted in order to somehow fit infinity into them.
And, of course, no moving frames can compensate for parallax in frames that contain both close and distant objects; the picture that you carefully build in the viewfinder will in any case be distorted when shooting - which is clearly visible in the examples below in Fig. 5.
Of course, with some experience this distortion can be taken into account “mentally”; or you can, for example, having lined up the frame, before releasing the shutter, move the camera “parallel transfer” so that the lens is in the place where the viewfinder window was. The main thing here is not to confuse what should be moved where. And note: with this “cunning” method of shooting, the frame without parallax compensation at the framing stage will show the frame boundaries correctly; hence the frame With parallax compensation - it will lie. To prevent this from happening, you must first set the rangefinder to infinity, frame the frame, and only then focus and move the camera.
Difficult, right? And this method is only suitable for static scenes... In fact, it’s okay: there aren’t that many scenes that require such precise framing when shooting on the street. Well, except that “The Bride on the Palm” and “Vasya propping up the Leaning Tower of Pisa with his hands” are inconvenient to shoot with a rangefinder, but this, I’m sure, is only for the better.
Choices. So - rangefinders have advantages and disadvantages; Perhaps in your eyes the advantages may outweigh, and you decide to get a rangefinder camera. What choices do you have?
Classic rangefinders - Leica. Firstly, you can immediately focus on expensive but obviously good equipment. If you choose a real rangefinder with a minimum of baubles and trinkets, then this is, of course, first of all Leica, the product of the engineering genius Oskar Barnack (by the way, the word Leica itself stands for Leitz Camera - after the name of the owner and founder of the company), the camera with which the The rise of narrow film photography. Not only Soviet (see Fig. 11), but also many European, American, and Japanese companies began their history by copying Leica cameras - even Kwanon, the first Canon camera, although formally considered the development of Japanese engineers, was actually indistinguishable from Leica II.
Now the prices for Leica cameras vary within a very wide range, “simpler” models can be found at auctions for four hundred to six hundred USD, the price for “more expensive” models is not limited by anything (hereinafter, speaking about the price, I mean This means the price of “working” cameras. The price of copies in collectible condition can be an order of magnitude higher than the average price for the same model). “Classic” are considered to be the variants of the M series with the M mount (on the Leica I-III cameras produced before them, lenses were mounted on a 39 mm thread) and with frames that automatically change when the lens is changed; TTL exposure metering appears starting with the M5 model. For the M2-M4 models, the Leicameter was developed - an exposure meter inserted into the flash shoe, and linked to the shutter speed wheel (but not to the aperture ring!).
The most common mechanical model, produced for almost two decades, the M6 and the M7 that replaced it (one of the main differences of the latter is the electronic shutter) each exist in several modifications, distinguished by larger viewfinders and sets of frames. The modification with a 0.72x viewfinder allows you to use the entire standard set of lenses 28-35-50-75-90-135 mm; in each of the 0.58x and 0.85x modifications, one extreme focal length falls out of the series. Price M6 - about 2000 USD, M7 - about 3000 USD.
The Leica MP camera has already been mentioned above (see Fig. 1); by the way, the abbreviation MP doesn't mean at all Member of Parliament and not Military Police, as one might think, but Mechanical Perfection- Mechanical Perfection. That's it - no more and no less. It is clear that the MP's shutter is purely mechanical; the battery is needed only to operate the exposure meter. The frames and viewfinders are the same as on the M6; price - about 5000 USD
I am sure that the latter circumstance will force many to look for alternative options. Earlier models of Leeks may be like this - but, as mentioned above, they do not have an exposure meter, and therefore are not suitable for everyone.
“The classic of the classics”, a camera considered a model of excellence, historically the first of the still ongoing “M” line is the M3 model (1954): a fully mechanical camera with a shutter speed range of 1/1000 - 1 s, a 0.91x viewfinder, and frames 50-90-135 mm. In order to expand the limited selection of frames for this camera, Leica began producing some lenses, for example the Summilux-m 35/2, with special “glasses” - goggles, adjacent to the viewfinder and rangefinder windows, and correcting their magnification; Thus, it became possible to use the M3 with wide-angle optics. Leica M3 price - from a thousand USD Quite a lot too, especially for a camera without a built-in exposure meter.
Here it makes sense to talk about a model that stands completely apart among Leica cameras - Leica CL, the only attempt by Leica to make a “people's” camera. This is not a purebred Leika - in the 70s, according to German drawings, it was made in Japan at Minolta factories. It is more compact than “classic” lenses (the most compact and lightest among cameras with an M mount - only 365 grams), and it has a built-in exposure meter, the sensor of which is located in front of the shutter curtains and is retracted when shooting. The shutter speed dial is very conveniently located under the index finger right hand(Fig.7); By looking at the exposure meter needle in the viewfinder (Fig. 3) and turning the wheel, the photographer implements something like a semi-automatic aperture priority mode, in which he himself acts as the drive mechanism. Viewfinder magnification - 0.6, frames 40-50-90 - Leica released a Summicron lens with a focal length of 40 mm especially for the CL. The entire viewfinder field roughly corresponds to a 35 mm lens. The effective (that is, multiplied by the viewfinder magnification factor) rangefinder base in the CL is significantly smaller than that of the “older” watering cans, and is only 19 mm.
Leica CL is a fully mechanical camera, with shutter speeds from 1/2 to 1/1000 s, it only needs a battery to power the exposure meter. The price of Leica CL at auctions is 350-600 USD; there are practically none of them on the domestic market. Not all lenses with an M mount are suitable for it - those whose structural elements are recessed too deeply can damage the photocell; Of course, folding (or, more correctly, tube) lenses, as well as lenses with “glasses,” cannot be used with it. The history of the Leica CL is sad: the popularity of this relatively cheap camera in the early 70s turned out to be so high that Leitz attributed the falling sales of the unsuccessful, bulky, and significantly more expensive M5 model to competition from the CL - and made a non-trivial marketing move: it closed the production CL just three years after it started.
A small digression: since I still need exposure metering, but I don’t have money for the M6 and especially for the M7, and I wouldn’t want to get an overly expensive camera, which I would then have to protect in every possible way from dangers, and therefore not take with me on street - I chose the Leica CL model for myself and was not disappointed in it for a minute. “Real” photographers recommend the CL as a “second” camera, but I’m quite happy with it as a “first” camera. Of course, the Leica CL, due to its miniature size, cheapness, and “mixed” origin, turned out to be somewhat more capricious than its purely German sisters, and more prone to breakdowns - in general, caution is needed when handling it. In general, when buying a camera with thirty to forty years of mileage, you need to be aware of the fact that it may require wellness treatments- namely, what is called CLA (clean, lubricate, and adjust - cleaning, lubrication, adjustment). CLA cameras Leica CL are made by several companies in the USA and England (not sure about Germany), the price of the procedure is about two hundred USD. And if you bought a camera at an auction, it’s better to immediately mentally add this money, plus the cost of shipping to repairmen and back, to its price. However, minor repairs that do not require thorough disassembly can be done at home: here I told you how to disassemble (and put back together!) a Leica CL.
Leica compatible rangefinders. The popular “Volks” line of Leica CL was continued by Minolta, which released a slightly enlarged version (it weighs 380g) under the name Minolta CLE with more correct exposure metering, an effective rangefinder base extended to 29 mm, and an automatic aperture priority mode. If this camera at auctions is not much more expensive than the Leica CL, then this, obviously, should be attributed solely to the absence of the Leitz logo on it. Although, perhaps, the replacement of the mechanical shutter with an electronic one also played a role here.
Leica's main competitors throughout its existence were Zeiss Ikon cameras, currently produced jointly with Cosina. In terms of their characteristics and price, they are comparable to Leica devices; The debate about which is better has not stopped for many years. They are compatible with Leica M lenses; and besides them, cameras with M mount are produced by the same Cosina, but under the Voigtlander brand (Bessa devices), and Konica (Konica Hexar RF).
Bessa cameras are a very interesting option for a photographer who has decided to focus on the M mount, and who does not have the opportunity to start with purchasing a Leica. Bessa-R models, marked with the letter “A”, are equipped with an electronic shutter with shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 8s, and they have an aperture priority mode; models with the letter “M” - mechanical shutter with shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 1s. Models 2A/2M have a 0.7x viewfinder and a set of frames 35-50-75-90 mm, models 3A/3M have a 1.0x viewfinder and a set of frames 40-50-75-90 mm. Models 4A/4M are designed for wide-angle optics: 0.52x viewfinder, frames 21-25-28-35-50 mm. Otherwise these cameras are identical; they implement TTL exposure metering (their photo sensors measure the light scattered by the front surface of the shutter curtains - for this purpose the curtains are painted 18% gray), and a full indication of the shooting mode in the viewfinder.
The price of a new Bessa-R camera with a factory warranty is approximately eight hundred USD; and in general, Bessa is unique opportunity purchase a modern Leica-compatible camera equipped with all modern service functions, paying less than a thousand. The disadvantages of the Bessa include its dimensions - it is a little large for a rangefinder - and the loud shutter sound; In addition, it is widely believed that Bessa cameras are much more susceptible to breakdowns and are less resistant to extreme operating conditions than Zeiss and Lakes. And I once had to part with the Bessa 3A because of the design of its 1.0x viewfinder: I could see the entire field of the frame only if I literally stuck my eye into the eyepiece - a trick that I was never able to do with glasses.
Konica Hexar RF is a slightly more expensive option: from eight hundred USD. and higher at auctions (its production was discontinued in 2003, so it is unlikely that you will be able to buy a new Konik). A very beautiful camera with a minimalist design, the LCD display on the top end of the body may be somewhat out of sync with its style. The shutter is electronic, the shutter speed range is from 1/4000 to 16 seconds, shooting modes are manual and automatic (aperture priority), viewfinder magnification is 0.6x, the set of frames is the same as in the M6 and M7. Without batteries, the camera is absolutely incapable - unlike, for example, the M7 electronic camera, whose shutter speeds of 1/60 and 1/125 work even if the battery fails. The viewfinder and frames are bright, although they are inferior in brightness to the M6 and Bessa-R. The film advance is automatic, much louder than in manual cameras; This to some extent pays off with the convenience of charging and rewinding the film. Overall, a very attractive M-compatible rangefinder, especially considering that it is still half the price of the Leika M6.
Leica optics and compatibles. As for optics, there is hardly anything that can compare with Leica lenses in terms of image beauty... and, unfortunately, in price too. By the way, Leika also has zoom lenses that allow you to discretely switch the focal length, but their price is such that this information is of purely theoretical interest. The cost of fixed lenses of the “inexpensive” Summicron series, depending on the model and condition, can vary from five hundred to one and a half to two thousand USD; Summilux lenses are even more expensive.
Third-party lenses with an M mount could be a compromise; Thus, according to Steve Huff, Nokton lenses, produced by Cosina under the Voigtlander trademark, are practically not inferior in quality to the legendary Summiluxes, despite the fact that their price can be an order of magnitude less (five hundred instead of four to five thousand).
By the way, our Soviet lenses “Industar” and “Jupiter” with M39 thread are compatible with the first Leica models, and can be installed on later bayonet models via an adapter. And for a start, they are very good - for example, the compact tube Industar-22 (developed on the basis of the Leitz Elmar 50/3.5) or the high-aperture Jupiter-3 (aka Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5). The price of the first is less than 10 USD, the second - about 30 USD. When buying Soviet post-war lenses, pay attention to the year of their production: until 1954 inclusive, they were made from captured glass exported from Germany as reparations. Since 1954, the domestic industry had to switch to our glass, which required recalculating the circuits of most lenses. Which option turned out better - guess for yourself.
Compact rangefinders. And if you need compactness, and also don’t want to pay more than one and a half hundred dollars for the camera, then good choice There will be rangefinders with non-replaceable optics, such as the Canonet QL17, Olympus 35RC and 35RD. The Olympus XA camera stands apart from the Olympus series - this little one, which looks like a real plastic soap dish (the one in which soap is kept), is in fact a completely full-fledged rangefinder with an aperture priority mode and a shutter speed range of 1/500 - 10s , and a very sharp Zuiko 35/2.8 lens; By the way, this lens is also unique in that the distance from the front surface of its front lens to the film is less than the focal length - what DSLR can boast of this?
|
In general, cheap cameras should be treated with caution - very often the desire to reduce the price forced camera manufacturers to use design solutions that sharply worsened their parameters - for example, the design of the aperture was simplified, and it changed from round to rhombic; the rangefinder base was reduced to one to one and a half centimeters, shutter speeds shorter than 1/500s and longer than 1/30s were thrown out, the ability to independently change the aperture and shutter speed, and generally somehow control the process of setting exposure parameters, etc. was eliminated.
Figure 10 shows an interesting Rollei XF35 camera, which combines quite good quality Sonnar 40/2.3 lens and noble simplicity of form with all the disadvantages listed above; very similar models were produced by Voigtlander, Canon, and others. From these cameras there was only one step left to the infamous “point-and-shoot cameras” that filled store shelves in the 90s.
|
They say that in the same price class the Yashica Electro 35 is not a bad device, in any case, Ken Rockwell writes that it has everything you need (in particular, aperture priority mode), and there is nothing superfluous. An important advantage of this camera is its availability (Yashica has sold more than eight million different modifications of the Yashica Electro 35! However, the Guinness Book record holder is still not it, but the LOMO plant with its Smena-8 - twenty million copies). The disadvantages of this camera are the lack of manual shutter speed setting, and the weight is hefty for a rangefinder - 750 grams. If you are planning to buy this camera, pay attention to the modification: cameras produced before 1970 cannot work with film with ISO above 500.
Soviet rangefinders. Soviet cameras “Zorkiy” and “FED”, which were initially copies of Leica II, and then underwent significant modifications, are suitable for those photographers for whom the lack of a built-in exposure meter, movable frames (or any frames at all), long and short shutter speeds is not an issue. a significant drawback. If you are not a true fan of old cameras, then I do not advise you to take the very first models (Fig. 11), in which film is loaded from below - charging them can become a serious problem; In addition, in these devices the viewfinder and rangefinder eyepieces are separated, and the viewfinder window is very small and dim. To some extent, the shortcomings of these cameras are compensated by their compactness, reliability, and unpretentiousness, and most importantly, by their Leykovsky charm, which they completely lack following models(by the way, be careful: most of“rare” Leica II cameras on the market are nothing more than fakes made from these very devices). Of the subsequent models, the Zorkiy-4K is probably the closest to the optimum - a rather rare modification with a hammer cocking.
Another line of Soviet rangefinders - "Kiev" - were copies of Zeiss Contax with a Zeiss Contax RF mount. They differed from Zorkikhs and FEDs in their significantly larger size and weight, the presence of short and long shutter speeds, and a uniquely large rangefinder base - 90 mm with a rangefinder magnification of 0.7x. The 3rd and subsequent models had a built-in selenium exposure meter - unfortunately, selenium degrades over time, and at best, these exposure meters now require renormalization. Kyiv-5 is equipped with a hammer cocking and a 50 mm frame with parallax compensation. Standard lens - Jupiter-8 (50/2).
Autofocus technology. For lovers of expensive autofocus systems, we can recommend the result of cooperation between Zeiss and Kyocera - the Contax G1 and G2 devices with a line of high-quality Zeiss optics (28, 35, 45, 90 mm), including even a 35-70 mm zoom lens! A simpler automatic option, without interchangeable lenses, is the Konica Hexar AF. These are not quite rangefinders - they do not have a manual rangefinder with a spot in the viewfinder field; focusing is achieved either automatically or on a scale. These cameras also do the film advance themselves - I don’t know what it’s like for anyone, but I prefer the classic silent trigger cocking. Clicked - cocked, and there was no roar of engines, and no batteries needed.
The Contax T2 and T3 autofocus cameras with non-replaceable optics are very nice; the latter rivals the Rollei 35S in terms of compactness (Fig. 12). Its body is made of titanium, it is equipped with a Sonnar 35/2.8 lens, has aperture priority mode, automatic film advance and rewind, built-in flash, etc. In terms of the degree of automation and contours, it is very similar to a “soap box”, differing sharply from it in both quality and price - about 750 USD.
Scale devices. There are very good scale cameras, similar to rangefinders in everything except the absence of a rangefinder itself; the need to estimate distances “by eye” is compensated by their unsurpassed compactness. Their use in street photography is justified by the fact that it extremely rarely involves shooting at open apertures with background blur, and therefore, as it turns out, doing without a distance meter is not so difficult. For example, the camera can be focused in advance at the so-called hyperfocal distance, at which the field of focus starts from a few meters and ends at infinity. This technique, which ensures maximum efficiency, is often used when shooting with rangefinder cameras.
Of the foreign scale 35 mm cameras, the most interesting is probably the Rollei 35S (choice Queen of England!) with a mechanical shutter with a shutter speed range of 1/500 - 1/2s, a magnificent retractable Sonnar 40/2.8 lens developed by Zeiss, a built-in coupled exposure meter and an ingenious pressure table. The controls on this smallest 35mm camera are placed quite unusually - the shutter speed and aperture wheels are on the sides of the lens, the cocking lever is on the left, and the flash shoe is generally on the bottom! And the film in it is fed from right to left, so you need to insert it into the scanner/enlarger, turning it 180. But you get used to all these features very quickly. I was somewhat nervous that the exposure meter on the Rollei 35S is always on, and consumes a scarce battery (less in the dark than in the light, but still). A solution to this problem is described in my blog, a solution to the problem of replacing old mercury batteries, which were used in almost all rangefinders and scale meters in the last century -.
|
And the one we can recommend from our scale cameras - you will probably be surprised - is the well-known Smena-8. Of course, this device is far from perfect, but it is extremely cheap (three or four USD), and at the same time, with some skill, it allows you to take very good pictures. True, its design requires the use of a receiving cassette, which must be replaced periodically, otherwise its curtains begin to scratch the film; and with collapsible cassettes these days it’s difficult. Again, with some skill, collapsible cassettes can be made from non-separable ones by knocking out their bottoms using improvised means.
Lomographic cameras. Recently, many so-called Lomographic 35 mm cameras have appeared on the camera market - cheap plastic boxes with plastic lenses, one shutter speed, and at best two aperture values (usually F/8 and F/11). Cocking the shutter in them is not associated with rewinding the film, which provides a lot of opportunities for creativity (especially accidental) in the genre of multiple exposure, that is, shooting several scenes on one frame of film. Some of these devices, for example, the already well-known “Diana Mini”, are characterized in their own way (in the spirit of modern pictorialism) by a very nice picture - just don’t try to shoot a reportage or glamor with them!
So, the possibilities before us are countless. I don't think it's worth trying to make up full review rangefinder and scale cameras - this is not the purpose of the article, but to give those interested some guidelines. I don’t provide links to descriptions of specific cameras simply because it’s no more difficult to find them on Google or Yandex than on this page - the main thing is to know what to look for. And for further reading I highly recommend the article “Accident or Trend? » V. Samarin and A. Sheklein - it not only talks about the advantages of rangefinder cameras, but also discusses in detail the features of the most interesting of them. And, of course, the website rangefinder.ru - where you can find any information about rangefinder cameras.
A few words about choosing optics for street photography. In general, of course, lenses with any focal lengths can be used for street photography, but I would not recommend getting too carried away with wide-angle and long-angle lenses. Wide-angle lenses allow you to capture frames with emphasized structure and effectively distorted space, but this effect - like any effects - quickly becomes boring; Additionally, wide-angle lenses may require external viewfinders. The reasons why telephoto lenses are poorly suited for street photography were perfectly formulated by Petteri Sulonen in the article “Telephoto is for cowards.” In general, a lens whose focal length is equal to the diagonal of the frame - that is, 42 mm for a narrow film - is considered “standard,” that is, the one that best meets normal human perception. Accordingly, if you have not yet developed your own preferences, then first it makes sense for you to take a closer look at 35-40-50 mm lenses (it is important that your camera has the appropriate frames!) It is difficult to work with lenses of 135 mm or more without special devices on rangefinders , so it makes sense to limit ourselves to a focal length of 90 mm.
You should also not attach special importance to the lens aperture: on the street you will not have many opportunities to realize this aperture. Shooting with an open aperture requires careful focusing, and street scenes are usually dynamic, and besides, they stubbornly refuse to fit into one plane. Therefore, it is quite rare to open the lens aperture more than F/5.6; therefore, for evening and night photography you will have to use long shutter speeds (and we have already said that rangefinder cameras are better suited for shooting at long shutter speeds than anything else) and high-speed films. If you develop at home, then you don’t have to spend money on expensive films with high ISOs: the sensitivity of almost any black-and-white film that initially has a sensitivity of 400 units can be increased to 1600-3200 when developing (the so-called push process). Color films can also be “fluffed”, but not every laboratory does this.
Shooting with a rangefinder. So we get to the main topic of the article. So: we load our rangefinder with film - this process is infinitely varied, and in each camera it follows its own laws. The hardest to charge are the first Lakes/Zorkiye/FEDs, designed for film with a long “tail”, the length of the camera; this tail must be carefully cut out with scissors, after which the film usually begins to break and split along the cut right in the camera. And the easiest one is the Canonet QL17: you just need to put the cassette in it, pull out the tail of the film a little and close the lid - then it will do everything itself. This service is familiar to everyone from point-and-shoot cameras and DSLRs with motors, but in a mechanical device it pleasantly surprises, as does the presence of a window indicating proper charging. Having loaded the film, you need to take a couple of test frames, and at the same time check whether the film rewind lever rotates (it is engaged with the feed cassette) when moving the film to the next frame.
It makes sense to immediately cover shiny parts of the camera, as well as any provocative inscriptions like “Leica”, “Zeiss”, “Rollei” and the like with black electrical tape. There is a legend that Henri Cartier-Bresson did this, so you and I have no shame. You no longer need any cases or photo bags, you’re not some kind of mirror maker! But it still makes sense to rummage through the rubbish at photo commission stores to find the most unpresentable case possible for your too-pretty-looking camera; for example, as it turned out, the case from Smena-8 fits the Leica CL almost perfectly. Just remember to disinfect this case before use, and replace any flimsy fasteners on it with new ones. If you find a suitable case - good, if not - get ready to hide the camera from rain, snow, dust, and policemen under your jacket.
Place a 35-50 mm “street” lens on the camera (cameras with non-replaceable optics have a focal length that most often lies within these limits); set the aperture to “8” and the distance to the object to hyperfocal, that is, about 5 meters; Do not carry interchangeable lenses with you, it is better to immediately tune in to the one installed on the device. If your camera does not have an aperture priority mode, figure out what shutter speed you will need - if you do not have an exposure meter, you can use any digital camera instead: very soon you will learn to do without it, determining the shutter speed “by eye”.
After that, all that remains is to hang the camera on your shoulder or around your neck - and, as it was said in one overly poetic book about photography - “with the gait of a primitive hunter in the tundra”, go for a walk on the street, and then she herself will tell you what to do.. .
That seems to be all. Thank you for your attention.
Yes, while listing the advantages of rangefinder cameras, I forgot one more thing: they are very beautiful. They are an example of how technology brought to perfection inevitably finds a perfect, and therefore beautiful, form.
About how to choose film cameras, what types of cameras exist and where to look for them.
It just so happened during technical progress that first there was a stone and a stick, then a wheel and a horse, then cast iron and steam, and now microprocessors, touch screens and hoverboards. Exactly between steam and the Tesla car, between the Wright brothers and the crush in a low-cost airline, between silent cinema and virtual reality, humanity experienced its golden age, when technologies were already sufficiently developed for a comfortable life, but not yet so intrusive as to escape from them into digital. detox villages. This era is also remembered for the flowering of photography.
At first, cameras were bulky and heavy, and exposure times when shooting on a glass plate took several minutes. Everything changed in the late 1920s, when the German company Ernst Leitz released the revolutionary Leica camera, which easily fit into the pocket of a woman's mac (it sounds crazy, but by that time women were already allowed not only to vote and drive a car, but also to take photos). It was from this moment that the rapid development of the era of reportage and travel photography began. Leitz cameras were reliable, convenient, consumed relatively affordable 35mm film and made it possible to capture any moment from the surrounding bustle on a silver emulsion. Unfortunately or fortunately, over the past 90 years, a more convenient camera than the narrow-film camera (for 35 mm wide film) has not been invented.
So, the format is clear, this is a narrow film. Based on the focusing principle, cameras are divided into rangefinder, reflex (SLR), point-and-shoot and autofocus. Below is a selection of the most enjoyable cameras across three price ranges: “I don’t mind losing”(less than $50), “It’s a pity to lose”($50–200) and “It would be better if I bought boots for my wife”($200-2000). For cameras with interchangeable lenses, the recommended lens is also indicated (however, no one bothers you to install any other suitable one).
Rangefinder camera
The rangefinder camera has, paradoxically, a rangefinder - two windows separated by several centimeters. Looking into the viewfinder, you can find a rangefinder spot, the image of which doubles if the subject is out of focus. The main advantages of rangefinder cameras are compactness, reliability and often an additional (included in the price) aura of legend thanks to names such as Bresson, Rodchenko, Capa and Winogrand.
I don't mind losing
All these simple boxes differ from each other only in the lens aperture, the type of automatic mode (shutter speed or aperture priority) and design. They were produced great amount, so they are not in short supply - many models can be caught without any problems for up to $50.Photo taken with a Minolta Hi-Matic 7s camera.
Shot with a Yashica 35CC camera.
It would be better if I bought boots for my wife
Photo taken with a Minolta XD-7+Rokkor-PG 58 mm f/1.2 camera.
It would be better if I bought boots for my wife
There have been quite a few SLR cameras (as well as scale cameras) over $200 produced, but they do not have any radical advantages over their cheaper counterparts. Therefore, they will not be covered separately.
Scale cameras
Scale cameras are the simplest and, as often happens, reliable cameras. Due to the absence of any connection between the viewfinder and the lens, you do not have to waste precious seconds on precise focusing, but set the distance by eye.
I don't mind losing
"Smena-8M". The most popular camera in the world (more than 21 million copies!). Lightweight, relatively convenient and as simple as five (if not less) kopecks. Why write shutter speed values when you can draw the sun, a cloud and a gloomy cloud? Why are these useless meters and feet on the distance scale when there are more understandable pictograms with a portrait and landscape? Perfect.
"Smena-8M"
Photo taken with Smena 8-M camera.
"LOMO Compact-Automatic" (LK-A). Another legendary camera that needs no introduction, this time with automatic exposure.
LOMO Compact-Automatic" (LK-A)
Photo taken with a LOMO Compact-Avtomat camera.
It's a pity to lose
Olympus XA-2/XA-3. Same as the much-praised XA above, but without a rangefinder. Whether this is better or worse is a matter of taste.
Autofocus cameras
Autofocus travel cameras worth considering reside in the $50-$200 (Olympus Mju II, Leica Mini, Yashica T4) and $200–$2000 (Konica Hexar AF, Fuji Klasse S, Ricoh GR1s) categories. . Separately, I would like to highlight the Olympus Mju II, which is very popular among travelers and the Fuji Klasse, which is still in production (!).
Photo taken with an Olympus Mju II camera.
Half-frame
In addition to the most common narrow film format with a frame size of 24 x 36 mm, there is also a so-called half frame - 18 x 24 mm. This format is convenient because it allows you to get at least 72 shots on a standard 36-frame reel.
The most suitable film for travel is color negative. Its biggest advantage is cheap, accessible development using the C-41 process, which can be found in almost any provincial city. It is not demanding for particularly high-quality scanning, so you can get nice pictures even from MiniLab Noritsu combines. Black-and-white film is developed mainly manually, and if you don’t want to do it yourself (there’s nothing complicated, if only you had the time and desire), then most likely you’ll have to look for private sellers - not every darkroom provides such a service.
Where can I buy
Cameras in the “Don’t mind losing” category are most profitable to find on the Russian secondary market: Avito, the “Range Finder Club” flea market and the Foto.ru forum. More expensive cameras are easier to find at global auctions: eBay.com and Japanese Yahoo through an intermediary, for example Darom.jp. When purchasing, you should first of all pay attention to the condition of the optics and study the stated list of problems - often people sell cameras found in the attic as non-working only because they could not find the “On” button.
Selenium light meter
Catching photographic film at auctions is quite long and tedious, so it’s better to look at the German online stores Macodirect.de, Photoimpex.de and the North American Freestylephoto.biz. If the shooting intensity exceeds a couple of rolls per month, you can still save money and take film in 100- or 400-foot film reels (bulk film) and load it yourself into collapsible reels manually or using bulk film loaders.
We need the support of our readers.Thank you for reading this text to the end, we tried our best. The entire PRTBRT project was created by a small team of two people, now the site is read by 200 thousand people a month - this is incredibly cool!
But for the project to continue to live, we need the help of our readers. You can help PRTBRT by subscribing to a monthly donation (from $1) at Patreon website. By the way, we offer bonuses for donations! Plus, we explain why we decided to take such a step.
So as not to miss interesting publications from the world of travel, subscribe to our groups in
INTRODUCTION
The choice of cameras today is wider than ever, and depending on the design they are divided into several categories - from single-lens reflex cameras (SLR cameras) to the latest, so-called “mirrorless” cameras. One such category, rangefinder cameras, forms the basis of the Leica-M line ("M" here is the initial letter of the German word Messsucher - rangefinder). Let's look at the pros and cons of these cameras.
DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS
Rangefinder cameras are usually much smaller than SLR cameras (in modern terms, DSLRs are digital single lens reflex cameras). There are two reasons. Firstly, rangefinder cameras do not have a pentaprism in the upper part of the body and there is no rather bulky mirror mounting unit, as well as the mirror itself, inside the camera. Secondly, the absence of a mirror allows the use of much smaller lenses with the same performance characteristics. The difference in weight is less significant (according to at least, if we talk about Leica cameras, especially with chrome lenses). Being small in size, the camera and lens may seem unexpectedly heavy - this is due to the extensive use of brass in their manufacture. Leica lenses in black are slightly lighter because their frames are made of anodized aluminum. The chrome and black versions of the camera itself weigh the same, as both are made of brass. Rangefinder cameras from other manufacturers, such as Bessa from Voigtländer or Ikon from Zeiss, weigh noticeably less than “DSLRs”, since these companies produce camera bodies from magnesium alloy, which is much lighter than brass. So, when comparing the size and weight of DSLR and rangefinder cameras, the latter usually wins, but not always.
DISCOVERY AND QUIET
Rangefinder cameras are considered to be less noticeable than SLR cameras due to small sizes they are less conspicuous and easier to hide. It really all depends on the shooting conditions. Yes, there are situations where a smaller camera actually allows the photographer to go undetected. But in other circumstances, you will be immediately noticed as soon as you raise any camera. Not only are rangefinder cameras smaller than DSLRs, they are also quieter. Both of these “pluses” are due to one reason - the absence of moving parts of the mirror raising and lowering mechanism, as well as moving parts between the camera and the lens (for example, an aperture repeater or a jumping aperture mechanism). Of course, the shutter of a rangefinder camera is not as quiet as a petal shutter, the sound of which you will hardly hear even if you listen specifically, but it is certainly quieter than the shutters of SLR cameras. When shooting on the street, in a church, in situations where it is desirable to remain unnoticed, this advantage can be decisive.
SHOOTING IN LOW LIGHT AND CAMERA VIBRATION
The absence of moving parts in the design of a rangefinder camera provides it with another advantage in addition to being compact and silent. Moving parts cause vibrations in the camera (due to inertia and other reasons), for example, the rapid acceleration of the mirror at the beginning of movement (in SLR cameras) or its rapid deceleration when stopping, which is even more fraught with vibrations. In most cases, such vibrations do not affect the quality of pictures, since high speed triggering the shutter (short shutter speed) neutralizes this effect. However, when shooting in low light conditions, where you have to choose slower shutter speeds (or when you have a long lens on your camera), camera vibration can become an issue. If you compare rangefinder cameras with other (non-SLR) camera designs, the difference will not be as noticeable. Both leaf shutter and mirrorless cameras are virtually vibration-free.
The focusing process in rangefinder cameras, on the one hand, is similar to a similar process in SLR cameras, on the other hand, it is fundamentally different from it. In the first SLR cameras, focusing was carried out using special wedges on the viewfinder focusing screen. Focusing the image in rangefinder cameras occurs according to a similar principle - by combining two parts of the image. However, this is where the similarities end.
Looking through the viewfinder of a rangefinder camera, you see a bright, sometimes rectangular, spot with a double image in the center of the screen. Focusing of the lens is carried out by combining the contours of the images either within the area (image blending method) or along its border (split image method). With this approach, you can clearly see whether your subject is in focus or not. Any uncertainty is excluded. This is a very accurate and fast (with proper practice) way of focusing.
In most modern SLR cameras, the old focusing screens with wedges and microprisms have long been replaced by matte ones. But even with fast lenses that make focusing much easier, accurate focusing often requires the use of special focusing screens. The trouble is that such screens, when using low-aperture lenses, become too dark to perform accurate focusing (however, in this case, a regular matte screen also loses brightness). Now, with autofocus, this is not as critical as before. But try focusing the lenses of your rangefinder and DSLR cameras in the twilight, when autofocus is ineffective or too slow, and you will immediately feel the difference. Unlike DSLRs, rangefinder cameras provide a bright image in the viewfinder with a wide angle of view. Regardless of the lens aperture, it maintains brightness and covers the scene as much as possible. The latter is ensured by the presence of framing frames in the viewfinder's field of view, showing the boundaries of the frame for lenses with different focal lengths. The longer the focal length of the lens, the more space outside the frame you can see. This is the main advantage of a rangefinder camera: it makes it possible to follow an object outside the frame and, accurately predicting the moment when it appears in the frame, press the shutter. The optical axes of the viewfinder and lens are spaced apart, so when framing (especially “close”), small discrepancies occur. Some rangefinder cameras have parallax corrected, but SLR cameras still have better framing accuracy. The solution here is simple: when shooting, you should leave a margin around the edges of the frame, and not frame “back to back.” Another disadvantage of rangefinder cameras: macro and telephoto lenses are “contraindicated” for them. Wide-angle lenses of rangefinder cameras are much superior in their optical characteristics to similar lenses of SLR cameras, but the use of macro and telephoto lenses (unless special adapters are used, such as the Macro Adapter M or Visoflex) is limited to a focal length of 135 mm.
FOCUSING AND FRAGING
The fundamental difference between rangefinder and SLR cameras becomes especially obvious in the approach to perhaps the most crucial moments of shooting - frame composition and focusing. If when shooting with a SLR camera you look at the object through the lens, then in a rangefinder camera a separate viewfinder is used for this, aimed parallel to the optical axis of the lens. This has both its pros and cons. In the case of an SLR camera, you can estimate the depth of field using the aperture repeater, see what your camera “sees”. But what happens outside the frame is hidden from you, which means that when shooting a dynamic story, you can miss the so-called “decisive moment.” In addition, if you are using a lens that is not fast, you will be forced to put up with a dark image in the viewfinder. Some people experience a sensation akin to “tunnel” vision when framing with DSLR cameras, especially in the viewfinders of digital SLR cameras with a “cropped” matrix (as opposed to full-frame digital or film SLR cameras). Finally, we note that the viewfinder of a rangefinder camera remains fully open when the shutter is released, which sets it apart from the viewfinders of SLR cameras, image
in which it is blocked at this moment by a raised mirror.
LENS QUALITY
Speaking about lenses (in particular, wide-angle ones), it should be noted once again that there is no need to calculate and build retrofocus lenses for rangefinder cameras, due to the lack of a mirror. Therefore, the dimensions of rangefinder lenses are much smaller than those of their SLR counterparts. The image quality of these lenses, including long-focus ones, is usually better, often even much better. As is known, lenses with fewer lenses always provide the best image quality. One of the most common dilemmas is “zooms” (variable focal length lenses) versus “fixes” (fixed focal length lenses). However, in this case, this dilemma is irrelevant: rangefinder cameras do not have zoom lenses in the usual sense of the word. The closest two Leica lenses come to the definition of a “zoom lens” are the Medium Angle Tri-Elmar (MATE) and the Wide Angle Tri-Elmar (WATE). They do not implement a mechanism for smoothly changing the focal length, but simply have three fixed values. So these are not classic “zooms”, but rather “three “fixes” in one.”
All of the above does not mean that other manufacturers cannot produce high quality lenses. Surely they can, but the line of modern lenses from Leica and Zeiss is truly something extraordinary! First of all, we are talking about Leica lenses, in the design and production of which all the most advanced technologies were used - from aspherical and floating elements of the optical block to special, maximum performance refraction, glass for lenses. Both Leica and Zeiss lenses have corrected almost all aberrations, but this has been achieved different ways. Leica engineers use aspherical surface lenses in the optical unit to simplify the optical design and reduce the number of lenses in the unit. Zeiss engineers are taking a different route. When it comes to the build quality of lenses and cameras, perhaps no manufacturer has yet surpassed Leica: the mechanics of their lenses and cameras are at the highest level. While most manufacturers use plastics and other high-tech materials, Leica still builds its cameras and lenses the old fashioned way—from metal.
SIMPLICITY OF THE CAMERA AND PROFESSIONALISM OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER
The ease of use of rangefinder cameras is undeniable. Most of these cameras are purely mechanical - focusing the lens, setting the shutter speed and aperture on them are done manually. If you don't understand the basics of photography, then these cameras are not for you. However, many people prefer direct, simple and operational control over their camera to semi- and full automatic devices. Rangefinder cameras do not offer any “technological crutches” - the burden of creating photographic masterpieces falls solely on the photographer. This creates a special mentality in people who shoot with a rangefinder (or simply completely mechanical) camera. Some say that the camera's "hands-off" nature allows them to concentrate entirely on creating images. Is a rangefinder camera right for you? Only you can decide this yourself.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, choosing the right camera for you depends primarily on what and how you prefer to shoot. There's no one here correct recommendation. Of course, if most of your photos are taken with a macro or telephoto lens, if you work in a studio, or if you constantly use a large selection of filters, you will be more comfortable using an SLR camera. But for genre, landscape, and even general everyday photography, a rangefinder camera is hard to beat, and it's worth considering.
A retrofocal lens is a class of lenses characterized by the fact that the distance from the front optical surface to the rear focal plane is greater than the focal length, which makes it possible to design a short focal length lens with a large flange length. The need for such lenses arose in connection with the advent of SLR cameras.
We thank our colleagues for the interesting and useful material about rangefinder cameras.
(Visited 828 times, 1 visits today)