Who needs a SLR?

B

bessasebastian

Established
Local time
12:31 PM
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
55
Was just wondering, how many of you Leica M owners feel the need for an SLR system or are you completely satisfied with the Leitz equipment and never go further than ~90mm... ?
 
I don't have M gear but rather LTM... and to answer your question, I also have SLRs which are handy mostly for closeup/macro stuff. My one 'long' lens would be the 250mm I have on the RB67; I guess that would translate into what, 110-120mm in 35mm format? Hardly ever use it though, I like the 35-90mm range.
 
I have owned boxloads of Viso equipment and lenses...IMO you...well, let me say that differently: I need an SLR for:

1. close-up/macro

2. sports/action where lens needs to be +90mm (which is most of the time, for my needs)

I also find that for static nature subjects, the SLR groundglass viewing works better for me. Looking at a 2D image on a groundglass works better for me than looking at a 3D image through the viewfinder. Not critical, but preferable.
 
I use SLRs for situations that demand high frame rates (a motor drive), lenses wider than 24, macro, and lenses longer than 90.
You can do all the same things with M-mount cameras but the solutions are more expensive and more work.
 
I as well need SLR for macro work, or work in general because I find DSLR is faster to get result out, more headroom for error and I cant afford digital M.
 
slr for long and macro

slr for long and macro

At times a SLR is very useful with :
- 80-200/2.8 for sport, spectacle and nature ; I hate zooms except this range.
- 90 macro (nature, objects)

I have also a 17mm, I use it at least every other year
 
When I'm back at home I shoot a lot of sports with one of my Dad's D200's, stuff I could never do with a Leica M.
For my Day to day shooting though an M with a 35mm lens can do everything.
 
Interesting timing

Interesting timing

bessasebastian said:
Was just wondering, how many of you Leica M owners feel the need for an SLR system or are you completely satisfied with the Leitz equipment and never go further than ~90mm... ?
Click to expand...

Just yesterday I gave our visiting niece my complete Nikon SLR kit, a 6006, the 50mm f/1.4, a 70-210mm f/4, polarizer, filters - the works, including a tripod and Tenba bag.

She was ecstatic about being able to get serious about film shooting.

As for me, at this (late) stage in my life, I'm a committed RFer (M7 & HRF) who won't be going beyond 90mm. After all, there's so much to see and shoot close by. :)

Harry
 
Coming from the SLR world, I still have some lenses and bodies, which I quite like for certain applications. Using my F2 is still fun, but presently the M6 sees more use.
 
I definitely still need an SLR system for longer lenses. I can handle 75-85mm with my M6, but the tiny viewfinder frame just doesn't compare with something like my Zuiko 100/2.8 or 135/3.5 on an OM. And then there are times when zooms really are very handy - I won't be giving up my Zuiko 35-70, 75-150 and 100-200 zooms any time soon.
 
RFs are hard to focus on anything longer than 90mm.
SLR also beneficial for work with special effect lenses and filters, which require to see through the lens to achieve desired "artistic" effect.
for example Nikkor 105/2 DC, Minolta 135 STF, and other portrait lenses with defocusing effects
 
Call me a heretic, but I appreciate the "zoom factor" available in an SLR. Just today I drove to an unexplored cypress bog for some shots, and my thought was "I'm happy that I brought the Nikon". I shot a variety of frames mostly on the mid to long end, not as many wides as I normally do. (I was using an 18-200.) This adds a lot of flexibility not available with primes.

john
 
Well
I'm very much so considering treading my M8 for a 1ds Mark II and
Selling my 75 lux and getting some L glass.
So maybe I need a DSLR more then I think I do.
 
jl-lb.ms said:
Call me a heretic, but I appreciate the "zoom factor" available in an SLR. john
Click to expand...

I rencently found some not-so-obvious applications of zooms.
1. more accurate spot metering. on SLR with spot metering, you can zoom to max and meter only particularly small spot on the scene... then zoom back and make a shot
2. more accurate focusing (on those zoom lenses, which keep focus point while zooming). do the same thing: zoom in and focus to some remote object- then zoom out and make a shot
 
Besides all the above, I find the SLR indispensable in two very frequent cases:

-when you make a close portrait and have to focus with precision on an off cener subject
- when I want to make a shot where the compositions needs to be very precise ( e.g. alignement of objects, light source at the border of a surface, etc)

This is why I haven't given up on the SLR's.
 
Both systems have their advatages. RF's are very good in their particular area but that that area can also be covered by an SLR with good results. SLR's are generally more flexible and can do things that are very very dificult for an RF even with visoflex etc.

5.jpg


Handheld Pentax LX on Velvia with a 400/5.6

Kim
 
cmogi10 said:
:angel:

Seriously...
Click to expand...
You probably will be tired of the heavy size of DSLR high end pro af id ef lol but if you like to shoot sports, that's fine. Myself I'd like to get for bike downhill races shoots so a cheap used low mpx body is ideal for those rare ocassions. Only one lens is enough. So 50-135mm would be cool for cropped 1.5x area of D2h :angel: One can always sell the dslr equipment after no need.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom