My Rangefinder Dilemma

A photo of me taken by a fellow photographer Radian Dhika

I shall begin by providing you with a brief background on my rangefinder usage. I bought a Canon IV SB as my first film camera without ever knowing about how rangefinders differ from SLRs and liked the relatively simpler focusing system straight away. Thereafter, it only took me three rolls of film, shot with an SLR camera to know for sure that I much prefer the rangefinder focusing system. Lining up two superimposed images in the small rangefinder patch and not having the image in the viewfinder move in and out of focus makes the shooting experience much more seamless.

By now, I've had the chance to try lots of rangefinder cameras that are available to me. From fixed-lens cameras such as the Canonet G series to interchangeable lens models from the Canon 7 to Leica Ms, both film and digital. They’re all wonderful machines, given that they have a bright and clean viewfinder with a clear and accurate rangefinder patch. Personally, I think the superiority of a Leica M body ultimately lies in their viewfinders, which so far are the best ones I’ve ever experienced from a rangefinder camera.

However, as per the title of the post, I’ve begun to question my own need for such rangefinders. As in, after about 5 years shooting with them, I found myself using the actual rangefinder to focus less and less over time. Given that I mostly shoot in bright lighting situations with a fast film or using high ISO when shooting digital, zone focusing comes in handy most of the time, and I have become more confident with guessing distances. Hence why I started to think that I don’t need my camera to have a rangefinder, which opens up the door to a lot of amazing film cameras with great builds at a much cheaper price. Take, for instance, the Leica I C…or the Voigtlander Bessa L.

The realisation came when I used my Leica CL paired with the MS Optics Apoqualia 28mm f/2 with an external 28mm viewfinder. Months had gone by when I realised I hadn’t been using the rangefinder at all and found that the bright Nikon external finder was really comfortable to use. It may not be as accurate as a framing tool, but then again, I would have shot with an SLR if accuracy was number 1 on the list of importance.

When I start to think about the prices of the rangefinders I own in relation to the actual underlying need to be filled with such cameras, it just doesn’t stack up. Hence my dilemma. In my constant pursuit of the ideal compact camera, perhaps I have been compromising the wrong aspect, i.e. price. The seemingly elusive, cheap, durable compact camera has come back on my radar, and I’m now back on the hunt.

What I'm looking for is...

(a) a fully mechanical and manual compact film camera with a lens (it doesn't matter if it's fixed or interchangeable, preferably a 35mm lens) that has hyperfocal distance markings. (b) a not too bulky digital camera that allows me to adjust the settings, especially the focus distance without having to look into the viewfinder or LCD screen (a top LCD panel like the one on the Canon 5d Mark II is fine). So far, I can only think of a Fuji X-Pro paired with a manual focus lens, but I'd still like to have the option to use auto focus as well, which brings me to the Leica Q. I don't really care about sensor size and the release date of the camera. As far as I'm concerned, it could be one of the early digital compacts like the Canon Powershot G-1 if it can deliver what I'm looking for.

Comment below if you know any camera that might fit the bill!