> When using a non-SLR camera, the image you
> see in the viewfinder has a slightly different
> perspective than the image on the film. This
> effect is only important when shooting very
> close subjects.
Other significant differences between SLRs and
rangefinders, if anybody's still interested:
1. Rangefinder lenses can extend further back into
the camera body than SLR lenses, because there's
no mirror to get in the way. That allows wide-
angle lenses for rangefinders to be designed whose
optical qualities exceed what is possible with
an SLR wide-angle.
2. Rangefinders can (with practice) be handheld at
slower shutter speeds than SLRs, because there's
no mirror induced vibration.
3. Rangefinders don't focus accurately with telephoto
lenses, because the two images used for focusing
are taken from too close together.
4. Cheap rangefinders generally have fixed lenses.
Some expensive rangefinders do have interchangeable
lenses -- but they're not cheap.
5. The image in *most* rangefinders doesn't get bigger
when you put on a longer lens. The outline in the
window that shows what's going to be in the frame
just gets smaller.
If you're going to stick with lenses shorter than
90mm or so (or don't mind having a different camera
system for telephotos) and can afford the cost of
the lenses, the better rangefinders are worth
looking into.
Cheap rangefinders are cheap and small.
SLR's are the best compromise for most people. They
give you quality than the cheap rangefinders, lower
cost than the expensive rangefinders, and more
versatility than any rangefinder.
-Don
