Rangefinder Myths II - I see exactly what happens at the moment of exposure

Rangefinder Myths II - I see exactly what happens at the moment of exposure

  • Yes

    Votes: 152 62.6%

  • No

    Votes: 91 37.4%
  • Total voters
    243
Solinar said:
My preference for waist up portraiture and group photos is a TLR. I generally have the camera set up on a tripod and use a cable release. The subjects are usually seated or at the very least standing within one area the frame.

Without having the camera situated between the subject and myself - I'm able to talk with whoever is in the frame and once they let their guard down, snap the photo.
Click to expand...

I do pretty much the same thing, even when I'm not shooting large format.

When I used to shoot performers' headshots fairly regularly with 35mm (manual focus), I would set the camera up on a tripod with a motor drive and a long electric release cord, check the focus occasionally, use enough light for long DOF, so the subject could move around, but otherwise, we would just talk, and I wouldn't look through the camera for most of the time.

If I'm using available light, though, or if I want short DOF, then I have to look through the camera to stay in focus.
 
While you may not see a moving object at the moment of exposure you will see a non-moving subject.
 
Why are you using the term "myth" when you simply don't know if it is correct or not. You seem to be baiting the question. Is this a troll?

But, yes, I can see what is happening when the shutter fires. So it is not a "myth."
 
oscroft said:
I really do like to be able to see the subject at the instant that I hear the click - it leaves me with a more confident picture in my mind of what's actually on the film. Of course, that might actually be an illusion - the time taken for the mirror to rise with an SLR is really pretty short (at least with proper old SLRs - I hate the whirrs, clicks and delays you get with that auto-focus and digital stuff), but just feeling more confident of my shots is a great help.
Click to expand...

As far as shutter lag & mirror return times are concerned, modern DSLRs are faster. If the autofocus (and/or flash metering) bug you, go manual mode.

For something more than 1/30s, I don't really worry about black outs because I know my eyes don't see much faster than 1/15s. So whether seeing the moment for a 1/250 shot is not a big thing for me. However, I tend to use the RF for low light situations and I find that for shots less than 1/20 continuous viewing allows me to see what is happening during the shot so that I know: my hand is shaking, the subject moved, something went into the frame, etc. I find it especially easily to do "panning shots" with a RF, something I have never managed to do with much success using an SLR.
 
I'm relatively new to rangefinders, so I'm not yet proficient at telling if I got the shot right after hearing the click. But when I shoot a dSLR for sports, the blackout leaves me wondering what happened and whether I got it or not. That is the nature of many fast-moving subjects. If I continue to shoot sports much I'm going to buy an external brightline finder because of the benefits from "Myths I & II".
 
chikne said:
You're not saying that people miss the gorilla walking in are you?
Click to expand...

Yup, the vast majority of people miss the gorilla, because they are so focused on counting the number of times the ball bounces. I did the first time as well.
 
timing is crucial

timing is crucial

For me the shutter lag itself, not the blackout is the crucial issue here.
A prefocussed/metered RF is the fastest tool out there to capture the decisive moment. It's just that bit of a second faster than an SLR that you are able the catch the eyes open and not half closed. And closing the eyes takes just a blink ;) The blackout by the mirror swing is just a feature that comes for free in SLR, allthough you didn't ask for it. Just my 2cts.
 
Why are you using the term "myth" when you simply don't know if it is correct or not
Click to expand...
The word "myth" also has a meaning denoting a traditional belief or story that may or may not be true, so if the point of the thread is to investigate the facts behind it, then in that sense I think the word might be appropriate here.
 
For me it's more a matter of knowing I missed the shot I wanted than knowing I got the shot I wanted. The former reveals itself by a cuss and a sense of just missing out on something. The latter by a lingering uncertainty whether or not I got the composition right (until I chimp and actually know I got it wrong :p ).
 
oscroft said:
The word "myth" also has a meaning denoting a traditional belief or story that may or may not be true, so if the point of the thread is to investigate the facts behind it, then in that sense I think the word might be appropriate here.
Click to expand...

But this is not a belief or a story. This is finding out if it is factual - does it happen. There is no reason to think that this is made up. So to say that I can corrolate with the spatial moment when I hear the shutter as simply a belief would not be appropriate because I also have the results which shows it - the photographs. I don't believe it because I want to, I believe it because it actually produces concrete results.

So to start by baiting the question as simply this is belief, it is also implying it cannot be based in fact. Kind of like saying, "what idiot uses DSLRs." You have stated a conclusion about the user before collecting any evidence. If you want to find out, you don't force your predudices on the outcome first.
 
T, the OP indicated in another post that he was heading towards digital (and away from film.) So are you just having a bash at RF cameras on your way, with these myth posts?
 
Finder said:
Why are you using the term "myth" when you simply don't know if it is correct or not. You seem to be baiting the question. Is this a troll?

But, yes, I can see what is happening when the shutter fires. So it is not a "myth."
Click to expand...

No, it's journalistic license. Just because someone challenges the accepted wisdom doesn't make him a troll. ;)

/T
 
So to start by baiting the question as simply this is belief, it is also implying it cannot be based in fact. Kind of like saying, "what idiot uses DSLRs." You have stated a conclusion about the user before collecting any evidence. If you want to find out, you don't force your predudices on the outcome first.
Click to expand...
You may be right that the poster deliberately baited the question - I don't really know. I just prefer to assume the best of people rather than assume they're trolling.
 
You know, you guys are really paranoid. Since when did it become politically incorrect to question the veracities of the RF world here? Since one-third of the respondents replied that they can't tell what happened at the moment of exposure, I'd say we have "exposed" this claim as something of a RF marketing "myth" - true for most, but certainly not all people.

Lighten up and you might learn something.

/T
 
FrankS said:
T, the OP indicated in another post that he was heading towards digital (and away from film.) So are you just having a bash at RF cameras on your way, with these myth posts?
Click to expand...
You guys really are paranoid. My preferred digital camera is an R-D1s. Does that make my question any more legitimate in your eyes?

/T
 
Last edited:
Finder said:
But this is not a belief or a story. This is finding out if it is factual - does it happen. There is no reason to think that this is made up. So to say that I can corrolate with the spatial moment when I hear the shutter as simply a belief would not be appropriate because I also have the results which shows it - the photographs. I don't believe it because I want to, I believe it because it actually produces concrete results.

So to start by baiting the question as simply this is belief, it is also implying it cannot be based in fact. Kind of like saying, "what idiot uses DSLRs." You have stated a conclusion about the user before collecting any evidence. If you want to find out, you don't force your predudices on the outcome first.
Click to expand...

Jeez, can't a guy have a little bit of journalistic license without getting into metaphysical discussions? ;)

/T
 
Gumby said:
I blink alot, too... so using a RF camera is very similar to using a SLR.
Click to expand...

You know, it's interesting: one other poster said the noise of an slr slap causes people to blink. So, it's not so much that you can't see the blink with an slr - but you CAUSE it. Now that I think about it, I think when I press the shutter I blink. I wonder if pressing the shutter causes me to blink? Maybe that's why I can't tell the difference between using an SLR and RF? Wow, I'll have to check that out and work on it if it's true.

/T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom