>>3899466>I need to investigate how they came into existencesurveying equipment probably or navigation or cartography.
the Camera obscura had been around for a while so early film cameras adopted that format and looked a lot like what we know as view cameras, focus through a ground glass and then put in a film holder.
Range finder would have been quicker than sheet film holders and allow for roll film. TLR would have come shortly after.
Leica I was a small camera that used movie film (35mm) and had a uncoupled rangefinder, focsing would be scale focusing.
the Leica II had a built in range finder
Zeiss Contax II had a coupled rangefinder and viewfinder in one. that brings us to 1936 when the first SLR came out but it didn't have a prism so everything would be backwards when you look at it. SLRs are also bulkier.
Early SLRs also didn't have return mirrors so shooting was also slower because the finder would blackout till you advance the film. A usable SLR really didn't come out till 49.
For a long time range finders were more accurate than SLRs because SLRs rely on a moving mirror, and if you are not shooting macro or telephoto they remain competitive (especially how shitty my D800 atofocus is in low light, or medium low light, or medium light, fuck it how shitty my D800s autofocus is).
rangefinders also allow the lens to sit in the body which is a huge advantage for wide angle. Nikon has a flange distance of 46.50 mm, pentax k 45.46 mm, because you are stuck with a mirrorbox your standard lens is 50mm. and to go wide you basically have to put the opposite of a teleconverter behind your glass.
With a rangefinder you can bury that lens in the body and as long as the shutter clears the rear element you are golden. because of that 35mm lenses look super natural on rangefinders hell the 21 super elmar sat crazy deep in the body (I think it was a Schneider but I could be wrong and I'm not looking it up)
