Krosya
Konicaze
As so many members here, I use different camera systems. What I cant seem to wrap my brain around is - why I really like some FL and just absolutely hate on another. I'll give an example - I really dont like 28mm lens on RF. I tried and tried to use it a lot and still prefer just about any other FL but 28mm. However, when I use SLR - it is one of my favorites.
Anyone else can relate to this or explain why this happens?
Anyone else can relate to this or explain why this happens?
umcelinho
Marcelo
I dislike 28mm on RF because it is too close to the edge of the viewfinder. One of the reasons I prefer RF over SLR is having the "off frame" view, which I don't with 28mm. Could that be a reason for you as well?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Never liked 28mm on an SLR, either. Only time I ever use that FL is on my little GR1, where the overall wonderfulness of the camera wins. 35 and 24 are the sweet spots.
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
Totally. I used to HATE 35mm on a SLR, but now I have one on my RF and it takes ALL my pictures!
I think it happens because when using an RF camera, I don't have to actually look through the lens.
I think it happens because when using an RF camera, I don't have to actually look through the lens.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I seem to "see" the same way regardless of camera. My preferred W-A on SLR and RFDR was and is 35mm. I found 28mm too wide to handle comfortably. I hardly ever use that length on my digital SLRs even when the mounted lens offers it.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I think this phenomenon is related to the magnification of the viewfinder, and also how well the VF fits the lens' angle of view. Most SLRs are at least 90% full coverage in the VF, but the relay lens can give either a "tunnel" effect or alternatively a wide apparent field of view. With rangefinders, you also have various apparent fields of view in the VF, with various magnifications depending on make and model, and the frame lines may also play a part in how a person ends up liking (or not) the view. In my case the Zorki IV has a tight viewfinder, a bit of a "tunnel", but my Olympus Pen D (although not a true RF, as it scale focuses) has a bright, wide VF. My Retina IIIC is a bit smaller of a VF than the Zorki, but the focus patch is about the same size, giving the impression that it's bigger.
The big difference I notice with a RF is that the frame lines obviously get smaller with a longer FL lens attached, so although the overall view in the VF doesn't change, the usable portion of the image gets progressively tighter.
One more observation: in SLRs, the lens' maximum aperture affects the brightness in the VF; I notice this especially when attaching a typical slow telephoto zoom, where even in daylight the TTL image appears noticeably dimmer than, say, with a fast prime. This seems to affect the way that I relate to the scene and my composition.
These discussions about SLR v. RF may seem pedantic to some, but they are important to the user; the viewfinder is the single most important interface that the user has between the subject and himself, and affects most acutely his response. It's a good thing that we still have choices.
~Joe
The big difference I notice with a RF is that the frame lines obviously get smaller with a longer FL lens attached, so although the overall view in the VF doesn't change, the usable portion of the image gets progressively tighter.
One more observation: in SLRs, the lens' maximum aperture affects the brightness in the VF; I notice this especially when attaching a typical slow telephoto zoom, where even in daylight the TTL image appears noticeably dimmer than, say, with a fast prime. This seems to affect the way that I relate to the scene and my composition.
These discussions about SLR v. RF may seem pedantic to some, but they are important to the user; the viewfinder is the single most important interface that the user has between the subject and himself, and affects most acutely his response. It's a good thing that we still have choices.
~Joe
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
Interesting responses. The only lens I don't use often with SLR is the 35mm. It just isn't wide enough to be useful to me normally. I do use it with my Kiev as it is the only "wide" I have. I also used to enjoy the 65mm on my Super Press 23 as it was again, the only wide I had. It's not working now and anyway I have the 50mm. Much preferred.
Back to SLR, I use whatever I think I need for the photo I want, from 18mm to 300mm, except as I mentioned, the 35mm. I don't even carry that. When using zooms, I may end up there sometimes, but not often I think. I guess I should watch out for that just to see.
Back to SLR, I use whatever I think I need for the photo I want, from 18mm to 300mm, except as I mentioned, the 35mm. I don't even carry that. When using zooms, I may end up there sometimes, but not often I think. I guess I should watch out for that just to see.
pvdhaar
Peter
Similar story here.. I prefer different focal lengths on different cameras.
On my DSLR, I really like the 20mm (30mm equiv.) best. It invites me to do near/far shots with lead-in lines. Looking through the finder just begs to 'see things that way'.
On the digi-P&S, I almost always have 35mm equiv. set; I can just point it in the general direction of the action and shoot. It's mostly the associated carelessness that makes it an attractive way of working; for me a P&S works like a sketch book.
On the RF, it's 50mm. Not only because is it a very flexible focal length, but I suppose that the magnificent CV 50mm finder is a decisive factor here.. It feels so natural with its 1:1 magnification, no other camera/focal length/finder combination comes even near; not even a 50mm equiv. on a DSLR..
On my DSLR, I really like the 20mm (30mm equiv.) best. It invites me to do near/far shots with lead-in lines. Looking through the finder just begs to 'see things that way'.
On the digi-P&S, I almost always have 35mm equiv. set; I can just point it in the general direction of the action and shoot. It's mostly the associated carelessness that makes it an attractive way of working; for me a P&S works like a sketch book.
On the RF, it's 50mm. Not only because is it a very flexible focal length, but I suppose that the magnificent CV 50mm finder is a decisive factor here.. It feels so natural with its 1:1 magnification, no other camera/focal length/finder combination comes even near; not even a 50mm equiv. on a DSLR..
bgb
Well-known
I stick to 50 mm on the rangefinder and i have no desire for any other lens at the moment.
On the SLR i like 24mm and then something around 100mm, can't handle 28mm at all and 35mm seems to be either too wide or not wide enough. I could live with just 50mm on the SLR if i had too
On the SLR i like 24mm and then something around 100mm, can't handle 28mm at all and 35mm seems to be either too wide or not wide enough. I could live with just 50mm on the SLR if i had too
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I have a similar issue with the 35 and 50 on RF and SLR bodies.
For some reason I very much prefer to shoot the 50 on an SLR, instead of an RF.
I switched about 4 years ago to shooting the 50 primarily on an SLR and noticed a big jump in the quality of my photos since.
With the 35 (and 28) it's the exact opposite. I really don't like using either on an SLR and use them exclusively on RF bodies.
I have a sneaking suspicion that in my case this is related to the size of the framelines, within the finder. I like that you can see beyond the framelines on the M, but with the 50, it's just too much for my taste.
For some reason I very much prefer to shoot the 50 on an SLR, instead of an RF.
I switched about 4 years ago to shooting the 50 primarily on an SLR and noticed a big jump in the quality of my photos since.
With the 35 (and 28) it's the exact opposite. I really don't like using either on an SLR and use them exclusively on RF bodies.
I have a sneaking suspicion that in my case this is related to the size of the framelines, within the finder. I like that you can see beyond the framelines on the M, but with the 50, it's just too much for my taste.