Using a rangefinder

[Nghi Hoang]

Do you use a rangefinder (Bushnell Yardage Pro, etc.) with your view/field camera? I'm asking because I always find it annoying to have to guess or approximate the hyperfocal distance when the situation calls for it (or any other point of focus for that matter). A laser rangefinder would eliminate having to guess the distance at which the lens is focused.

[Jean-Louis Llech]

You pointed out a real problem.
I use a Linhof Master Technika with incorporated rangefinder and a focusing cam for five of my six lenses.(The SA XL 5.6/58 is GG focused)
This focusing device is one of the main reasons which decided me to buy this camera (among other ones was the amazing quality and solidity of the mechanical construction).

So, this problem is not a real one with the Linhof Master Technika. But, very few field cameras have such a device. (Other ones are the Wista 45RF, - with quite limited focal lengths and some remanufactured Polaroid 110b "Pathfinder", - expensive cameras with a fixed lens, and of course all old Graflex cameras).
It is very comfortable to use the Linhof camera as a point and shoot "beefed-up" Leica, Fuji 69 or Mamiya 7.

The rangefinder focusing device doesn't replace groundglass focusing, but makes it possible to shoot some photographies you would not have done with a groundglass focusing camera, (street photography, or situations where you don't have time enough to set the tripod and the camera in place : among an intense car traffic, or for "more or less" prohibited photos, like monuments or official buildings, caused by the ambient paranoïa...).

Of course, when you have to use swing, shift, tilt and rise movements, the rangefinder cannot be used, and groudglass focusing becomes again the traditional method.

Probably like many other people, even if I have been using cameras for 35 years, I am always unable to estimate distances with accuracy.

That is one of the reasons why I still hesitate to buy a 6x9 roll-film camera like an Alpa 12SWA, or a Horseman SW69 or SW612 professional. (The tremendous price is another one, as I would have to buy another set of lenses and roll-film backs).
I would like to use such cameras, because they are wonderful tools, (mostly the Alpa 12 SWA), and most of all lighter cameras than the Linhof (while using nevertheless a large film format).
The Alpa 12 SWA is an impressive and probably ideal camera for hand-held photography... if you can estimate distances !
As answered to me Ursula Capaul, executive from Alpa, There is NO rangefinder for the ALPA 12 and distance measure is made by "guesstimation" (like e.g. with the Hasselblad 903SWC or the Linhof Technorama) or - on a tripod - with a groundglass .

Of course I don't speak about image composition (which can be made by means of the viewfinder, like on the Linhof), but about lens focusing, and there, the rangefinder cruelly lacks.
IMHO, one of the main advantages of these cameras disappears, if you cannot estimate distances.

So, what ?

The only remaining solution is to use a rangefinder.
But I find three drawbacks :<ol><li>These instruments are quite expensive if you buy a very accurate one ($400 to $700)
<li>As you also use a light meter, you have two different instruments, with electronic and batteries. And I am very circumspect about batteries (and generally speaking all electronic devices), because they specifically give up when you most need them !
<li>The "point and shoot" spontaneousness of the RF camera disappears.
</ol>
With the incorporated rangefinder of the Linhof, when you have determined the exposure aperture and speed, you just have to change the position of your eye, from the rangefinder (on right) to the viewfinder (on top). It is a very rapid way to make point and shoot photos.

As a matter of conclusion, I would probably buy a Leica Rangemaster 900 or Rangemaster 1200 :<ul><li>RM 900 range : 49 ft to 874 yds (15-826 m),
<li>RM 1200 range : 49 ft to 1200 yds (15-1097 m),
<li>average accuracy : 1 to 2 yards (0.91 to 1.83 m),
<li>7x magnification,
<li>dimensions : 120x105x40 mm (4"3/4x4"1/8x1"9/16), weight : 320 gr.</ul>
You will find more informations on the Leica international website (http://www.leica-camera.com/sportoptik/einsatzbereiche/orientieren/rangemaster/index_e.html).
And a quite complete overall sight of rangefinders on the B&H photovideo website (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=1015).
I apologize for I was rather long, but I hope this will help you.
Regards.

[Moe_4073]

I use a vintage optical rangefinder on occasion. Kodak, Hugo Meyer, Medis, Watameter, and some Russian brands can be found on the online auction sites. Optical rangefinders can easily be accurate within inches up close, and a few feet far away. They save you from constant switching from ground glass to film holder and back in certain situations, just as long as you have accurate distance scales for each of your lenses. After a while you do develop an eye for distance, but the rangefinder is still handy for matching up hyperfocal distance to your composition. Regards -

[Ralph Barker]

I have a Leica Rangemaster 900, and it has come in quite handy a few times. Whether it is really worth the expense, however, is a different question. In truth, probably not, but it's a great toy.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have one of those old shoe mount rangefinders as well for my Voigtlander Perkeo II, and it's quite accurate even at 3.5 feet, which is the near focus limit of the Color Skopar on the Perkeo II. I can easily take portraits like this with it:



http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/temp/N,NewJacket,CP,Feb2004.jpg



Mine is a Widor, and in addition to the ones mentioned, they were also made by Leitz and Voigtlander. The Leitz rangefinder has some collector's value, so that will add to the price, but most of the others can be found for $50 or less, and they are usually not too difficult to calibrate and have the advantage of being mountable in an ordinary accessory shoe, and they have a range more suited to photography (usually about 3 feet to infinity) than the rangefinders designed for golfers. What if the hyperfocal distance is at 30 feet or 25 feet for the lens and aperture you've selected (e.g. for a 150mm lens at f:22 on 4x5, the hyperfocal distance is about 35 feet)? The $500 golfer's rangefinder doesn't do you any good.



Of course the Technika rangefinder is even better, since it is coupled, has a long base and you can have lenses individually calibrated, but if you don't have a Technika, then a shoe mount finder is a good alternative.

[Moe_4073]

Nghi, if the optical rangefinder appeals to you, I should also mention that you can use them to determine distances even in total darkness. Shine a light source through the eyepiece window and adjust the rangefinder until the two spots projected out the front rangefinder windows line up at or on your subject. A penlite works fine to about 12ft, a laser pointer will work at any distance day or night (although people and animals will not appreciate it if you accidently zap them in the eyes). Cheers -

[Leonard Evens]

One thing to keep in mind is that because of the nature of photographic optics, you don't often need great accuracy in estimating subject distances. Indeed you can use your view camera itself to measure those distances, simply by measuring displacements along the rail or bed and then using the lens equation to translate to subject distance. This may not be extremely accurate, but when you think about it, it is just as accurate as it needs to be. Thinking about it some more, you see that you don't need the subject distance at all for hyperfocal technique and other issues related to depth of field. Let me illustrate this for the hyperfocal distance. For that end, no matter how you go about it, you need to choose an acceptable circle of confusion. If you use a table, the choice will be built into the table. A common value chosen for 4 x 5 is 0.1mm, but some people who are more demanding may choose a smaller value. To find the displacement from infinity which will result in your being focused at the hyperfocal distance, simply multiply the f-number by the acceptable coc. This is independent of focal length. For example, suppose you plan to shoot at f/32 and you use a coc of size 0.1 mm. Then if you move the standard 32 x 0.1 = 3.2 mm from the infinity position, you will be focused on the hyperfocal distance. It may be tricky making movements to this degree of accuracy, but it doesn't matter because the same difficulty prevents you from focusing at the corresponding subject distance even if you have measured it with extreme accuracy, as you could with an expensive laser rangefinder. Unless your rangefinder mechanism is geared directly to the standard and capable of very fine movements, using one is both a waste of time and money.

See my essay at www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/dof_essay.html for further discussion, with accompanying mathematics.

[Leonard Evens]

Sorry, the link should have been www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/dof_essay.pdf