Show me your RF-like SLR photos

[shadowfox]

Since this is RFF after all. In this thread I'd like to enjoy your SLR shots that "RF-like".

What does that actually mean? well, there are multiple interpretation to it and it's one of the fun to discover what y'all think about it.

To me, it means, subjects/scenes where usually RF cameras excel at (people, street, journalistic, etc.) taken with an SLR.

I'll open with this OM-2n shot using the Tamron 28/2.5 lens:

... and also, please specify camera/lens and why do you think your picture is RF-like.

 

[Desert Shooter]

Shallow depth of field makes it for me

Shallow depth of field makes it for me

I love near Tombstone, Arizona and often go there during celebrations to street shoot. Usually I'll take my M6 with black and white film and D2x for color. I've shot lots of film at these folks, and can rarely get that crystal clear face in a crowd of soft bodies. They just move too fast for me to get a good focus, so I'll often pick a shop on the sidewalk, and shoot when someone steps into the proper zone. But, with my DSLR, 85mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.4 I get a bunch of keepers. Ideal seemsd to be about 10-12 feet from subject and f2 or so. Man, the pix are pretty.

 

[peterm1]

Nikon D70s. My wife, looking pensively out to sea. I am not sure why its rangefinder like to my way of thinking. Perhaps because this shot focuses on the individual, which is how I like to use these cameras- for candid shots, informal portraits etc. Being black and white helps as I shoot a lot of black and white when using my rangefinders.

 

[Chris101]

A cat picture.

A cat picture.

RF-like because I zone focussed.

OM1n, 21mm lens, HIE.

 

[Pherdinand]

"your RF-like SLR shots"
-you mean the misframed ones?🙂

 

[BillP]

I was going to be flippant about this, but I've walked away and come back.

I went out at the weekend with a DSLR and fast tele zoom. I went to a motor event. I found myself "standing off" from my subjects, circling them from a distance. I felt isolated, not part of things - an interloper.

The shots I took were neither better nor worse than those I would have taken with my rangefinders, with the exception of the fast-moving time-trial shots - the reason I was using the long-lens AF rig in the first place. But my attitude was different, and that is why I use rangefinders.

Regards,

Bill

 

[minoltist7]

>In this thread I'd like to enjoy your SLR shots that "RF-like".
I think "RF-like" isn't a correct term, becouse there is nothing you can do with RF and cannot with SLR. Opposite is wrong
btw thanks for nice shots in this thread

 

[nobbylon]

I think this looks like some of my rf stuff, NIKON D70

 

[monochromejrnl]

imho, if you look at a shot and the first thing that comes to mind is ' i wonder what type of camera this was taken with', then the quality of shot may be suspect...

 

[crawdiddy]

I believe this is Dallas. Are you a local? I live in Valley Ranch.

 

[infrequent]

rf is all abt pretty girls...

rf is all abt pretty girls...

...but this was taken with a Nikon D70s.

 

[sakebalboa]

quick someone take a shot in the mirror holding the slr vertically so as not to block your free eye.

 

[Chris101]

Now I realize that (according to the definition above) all my photos look like RF shots.

Like these.

 

[Ororaro]

Chris, looks like a Noctilux shot to me...flat and out of focus. 🙂 Very RF!

You certainly missed the Noctilux thread with 100+ images where not a single image is flat and out of focus from what I can remember.
You never used a noctilux, heh? It shows.

 

[rxmd]

I went out at the weekend with a DSLR and fast tele zoom. I went to a motor event. I found myself "standing off" from my subjects, circling them from a distance.

You take a tele lens and wonder why you are standing off from your subjects?

Hardly the SLR's fault as far as I can see.

Philipp

 

[Ororaro]

Chris, Saw your image last year and I still think it has great impact. Superb Cat shot.

 

[rxmd]

Hey NB23,

You certainly missed the Noctilux thread with 100+ images where not a single image is flat and out of focus from what I can remember.
You never used a noctilux, heh? It shows.

Don't get worked up every time someone makes a flippant remark about a lens you happen to like... Especially if that posting contains a smiley!

Philipp

 

[Ororaro]

Hey NB23,


Don't get worked up every time someone makes a flippant remark about a lens you happen to like... Especially if that posting contains a smiley!

Philipp

Yes and no. I am not worked up but at the same time I can't easily accept ignorange floating around a forum. Take off the Noctilux's f1.0 stop and there you are with a lens every bit as good as the summilux 50 with all its "threedeeness" or plasticity.

stemistic is usually figthing hard and long to prove his points so I thought this was rather unacceptable coming from him. Not if he knows his stuff as he says he knows it. And I'm not sure his smiley was saving anything.

At last, it's not a lens I "happen to like". It's a lens I happen to KNOW very well. You want to continue the debate? You are welcome right here. But please, save the ignorant BS.

 

[rxmd]

Yes and no. I am not worked up but at the same time I can't easily accept ignorange floating around a forum. [...] You want to continue the debate? You are welcome right here. But please, save the ignorant BS.

You know, if I did the same every time someone posts a flippant remark about the M5, or even if I did it only when it's obvious that the poster has never used one and is just reproducing stuff read up on the Internet, I would have to spend a lot more time defending M5s on Internet forums than I already do.

Take a good picture with it to convince people otherwise and don't get worked up. ("Save the ignorant BS" and you're trying to tell me you're not worked up?) Life is too short.

Philipp

 

[pvdhaar]

I'm convinced that, with perhaps the exception of tele and macro photography, you can make indistinguishable photos with RF's and (D)SLRs..

F75, Bessa-T, D50 respectively..