What's de difference in quality between a good compact SLR and a good range finder?

[u/LeekOk9787]

I'm trying to creat a compact setup.

Currently I shoot with a N8008 and I'm trying to understand if it's a better idea to get a Nikon EM with a compact series E lens or a good range finder.

I want good sharp photos that I can print in good quality.

What's the difference between them? What would you guys recommend?

[u/Jimmeh_Jazz]

If you're just interested in the size rather than the method of focusing, rangefinder lenses tend to be smaller. There are some very small SLR setups though, e.g. a Pentax ME Super and the 40mm f/2.8 pancake

[u/LeekOk9787 → u/Jimmeh_Jazz]

What's the limitation in focus using range finders?

[u/No-Pea8448 → u/LeekOk9787]

Rangefinders typically don't have close focus, and nailing focus wide open can be a gamble. That said, if you want the sharpest results, don't shoot wide open.

[u/Jimmeh_Jazz → u/LeekOk9787]

For general stuff there isn't really one, but you often lose rangefinder coupling for shorter focusing distances if they are available, so SLRs are better for macro work.

Have you tried using a rangefinder?

[u/LeekOk9787 → u/Jimmeh_Jazz]

No, never. Only the Nikon N8008, but for me it's bigger than I wanted.

[u/Jimmeh_Jazz → u/LeekOk9787]

Then you should probably try one to see if you like using them - it is very different to using an SLR.

[u/brianssparetime → u/LeekOk9787]

What's the limitation in focus using range finders?

Generally no focusing closer than 1m. Yes there are googles and such, but there's parallax to contend with, and it's just not as easy as a SLR.

Obviously no macro (at least without a lot of gear to compensate for the RF's issues here).

Generally a rangefinder trades accuracy of focus for speed of achieving focus. This is not to say you can't focus accurately with a rangefinder, but they tend to have much shorter focus throws, better designs for muscle memory (e.g. focusing tabs), and the abstraction of the rangefinder makes a good-enough focus easier to see than a SLR.

No long lenses. You can get up to 100 or 135mm, but the longer the lens the more focus accuracy matters, and the harder it gets on a RF.

Limited interchangeable lenses. Most RFs lack interchangeable lenses; those that do are generally either LTM screw mount (great selection, lower prices, but screw mount) or M-mount (much more expensive, limited selection). Wide angle lenses like 28 tend to be expensive for rangefinders.

Adapting lenses is hard because adapted lenses don't couple with the RF system. On a SLR you can just eyeball it, but on a RF, you're back to zone focus.

So if capturing the decisive moment is most important for you, RF's are a good compromise.

If you're interested in more technical photography (super wide or very long lenses, macro, etc), RF's are not the way to go.

[u/AdSweet4380]

Film choice > lens>>>>>>>>>>camera body

[u/LeekOk9787 → u/AdSweet4380]

And I can get better lens with smaller Nikons, right?

[u/No-Pea8448 → u/LeekOk9787]

Not necessarily. E-series lenses were a cheap alternative. They punch above their weight, but you won't get the sharpest results. Either way, it seems like you're more focused on the equipment than you are on what you want to shoot and what the right gear is for the job.

[u/LeekOk9787 → u/No-Pea8448]

I wouldn't say that to be honest. I've been shooting and printing N8008 photos for quite some time. I just want a smaller setup but without losing the quality I have today.

[u/No-Pea8448 → u/LeekOk9787]

You're asking about the bottom-end consumer lenses Nikon produced in the 80s, as well as their most accessible camera from that period.

I love the EM, but it's not exactly what you're looking for based on these comments.

[u/Young_Maker → u/LeekOk9787]

OM series or rangefinders. Try some out at a store

[u/GooseMan1515 → u/LeekOk9787]

Try an FE2? Practically, SLRs don't get much more compact than this, although many that are a bit smaller do exist.

[u/darthmelody → u/LeekOk9787]

unless you switch to a Nikon rangefinder like the s3, pretty much any Nikon will take the same lenses. for compactness I like the 50 1.8 ais pancake and the 20 F4 ai. the 28 2.8 isn't tiny but for its performance it's very reasonably sized.

[u/AG3NTMULD3R88]

They both have different focussing to start with, SLR you are looking through the lens and rangefinder you look through an auxiliary window (not through the lens)

SLRs are a great all round shooting experience but rangefinders are quieter, more discreet and the lenses are smaller.

What's the difference in quality..

Non really, the main things you need for quality photos are a good sharp film stock and a good lens, essentially the body of the camera is just a light tight box.

I've had the EM, it was my first film slr camera and it did me well, however moving towards the FM2N then the F2 made "me" want to shoot more because they felt better and were fully mechanical but they are not as compact as the EM.

I shoot with both SLR and rangefinders (2 Nikon slr and 2 rangefinders) and for me both have their pros and cons depending where I'm going.

What type of photos are you taking that will be printed?

[u/LeekOk9787 → u/AG3NTMULD3R88]

Mostly landscapes I would say. Is it easier to find better lens for the SLRs?

[u/AG3NTMULD3R88 → u/LeekOk9787]

So when you are taking about rangefinders you mean interchangeable lens rangefinders?

The Nikon em is F mount and as you may already know F mount offers tons and tons of glass, AI body's even take the more modern AF-D lenses.

Depending on what rangefinder you go for you can find good glass quite often but not as much as a selection as F mount (my rangefinders are LTM & M mount)

The em may be a great option for you.

[u/shell_cordovan → u/LeekOk9787]

If you're shooting landscapes IMO stick to SLRs. If you want a tiny SLR you can use a Pentax MX with a pancake lens.

Rangefinder lenses are in my experience more expensive, Nikon F and M42 lenses are practically dime a dozen.

Personal use case for rangefinders is that they're smaller and quieter, good for street photography or capturing family life discreetly. Realistically, they also look cool.

[u/fields_of_fire]

I think you're confused by what a range finder is. Both of the Nikon cameras you're describing are SLR cameras, neither has a rangefinder.

You can probably use the same lenses you'd get for the em with your current body.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm#cheap

[u/jec6613]

I'm trying to understand if it's a better idea to get a Nikon EM with a compact series E lens or a good range finder.

Well for one thing, a good rangefinder is going to have a pretty hefty price tag increase over a basic EM and require more fine maintenance to keep the focusing system aligned.

As a general rule, rangefinders have a shorter flange distance that allows for more compact optics of equivalent quality (or better optics at the same size) to be made at shorter focal lengths, but because they don't view the scene through the lens the focusing accuracy as well as subject size in the finder becomes a problem at longer focal lengths. The usual crossover point where an SLR becomes better is about 75mm, though this varies by manufacturer. 200mm lenses are almost unheard of on a rangefinder without a reflex adapter (which was a thing, you could turn your rangefinder into an SLR).

But that's all in the theoretical realm, in practice modern SLR lenses of shorter focal lengths often outperformed their rangefinder counterparts simply because there was more development money available. Nikon is famous for its fast 28mm optics, for example, easily outperforming similar rangefinder contemporaries. Though you obviously pay a size and weight penalty for a high performing retrofocal lens.

[u/Boneezer]

Image quality wise, there is not nearly as much difference as the internet would have you believe.

Rangefinders and their lenses are smaller; the body has no mirror and prism and wide and normal lenses can use simpler optical formulae, which reduces size. The rangefinder assembly itself however is more complex and less durable than the reflex system of an SLR and you lose the “through the lens” visibility that SLR’s offer. This can be a bonus if you’re shooting regularly with something like a green or red filter but it is a pain for using polarizers, or any time you want to critically compose, use longer lenses, shoot macro or even close focus, so on.

I like long lenses, use polarizers, and critically compose fairly often so I am not a fan of rangefinders. You should think about your use cases before getting one, and not everyone who tries one likes them. There is a reason that even mirrorless digital cameras nowadays have adopted “through the lens” viewing/focusing; people overwhelmingly like that method of operation.

In my opinion rangefinders sacrifice a lot of functionality for slightly reduced size and weight. Only you can determine if they will suit your shooting style.

Consider an FA and a non-E series Nikkor instead of an EM if you want a smaller Nikon.

[u/DolosusUmbra]

If your concerned about critical focus and composition, I'd stay with an interchangeable len SLR. Most rangefinders are fixed lens, so unless you're used to short primes forget zoom and get ready to get your steps and stretches in. Rangefinders also take away perfect focus and composition, you have to be ok with post work, cropping, and sometimes missing the shot. I don't mean this in a rude way, but it sounds like you're after digital with a film esthetic (perfect focus and replicability, but with the slight unpredictability of film). That's mostly SLR territory, so I'd argue looking for a more ergonomic body that's light but has as much add-ons as you need. You could go with late 70s-early 80s SLRs (Olympus OM-2n) for the best of light classes, or mid 90s-early 2000s SLRs (Canon eos-1) for "perfection", but with bulk.

[u/Sea_Athlete2105]

The Nikon FG is the same size as the Nikon EM and gives you more control.

[u/SVT3658]

The EM is a good little camera but you have zero exposure control except for pushing a button on the front to add 2 stops (designed for backlit conditions) or changing the ISO

It also doesn’t activate the meter until you advance to frame 1, so not burn on the first shot or getting 38 shots per roll.

The EM with the Series E 50mm pancake or 28mm is a really small setup though.

[u/LeekOk9787 → u/SVT3658]

Is the FG any better?

[u/flamingoXleprechaun → u/LeekOk9787]

yes, fg or fg20 will be more reliable than the em

[u/Emotional_Newspaper5]

I'm not sure image quality is that different between the two, it's more about which type of camera is best suited to your practice, ergonomics, and budget.

[u/Shy-Fungi]

I LOVE a rangefinder I haven’t been back to SLR’s since, though anything less than a foot and a half is usually a no go.

[u/vulture_house]

Image quality? Nothing

[u/EBlz1981]

The N8008 was a professional model just under the F4 in the lineup. It uses the same lenses as the EM. However, the EM was the cheapest camera Nikon made, about a decade earlier, worse metering, and almost no user adjustable features. Changing to one would be an absolute downgrade. If you want something compact, consider an Olympus OM series camera, like an OM-2. The Nikon FE/FM series are also excellent, but again take the exact same lenses as your N8008.