flip
良かったね！
This is funny. I almost interjected a similar line of reasoning into a m4/2 thread, but checked myself. I mean, what IS the deciding advantage in favor of RF? AF *can* focus more accurately and quickly for most needs. (Hexar AF, etc...) SLRs show what you get more accurately while allowing use of longer and shorter lenses with accuracy. Compacts are certainly smaller than RFs. The only things I see being irreplaceable are the 1:1 floating frameline of some RFs and the RF camera aesthetic.
That said, there's a reason I love my Pen FV and Nicca 5L. This thread hits it.
That said, there's a reason I love my Pen FV and Nicca 5L. This thread hits it.
bigeye
Well-known
The only RF I own is the IIIf and it is small and silent and renders a terrific picture. If a D700 was that small, quiet and simple to operate, that would be all I'd own in small format. The M9 is as close to that as possible, at that level, no?
I agree that RF and reflex will soon be replaced by ovf/evf in the mainstream.
I agree that RF and reflex will soon be replaced by ovf/evf in the mainstream.
Creagerj
Incidental Artist
I fully intend to buy an F3 again, and my M2 will have some serious competition when I do. I have used plenty of cameras that are smaller and lighter, but I really do like my M2 in a lot of situations. Really it just depends on what I'm doing. If I'm at a party I drag along my D200 with a 20mm lens and a metz CT-4 flash. There is nothing small or light about it, but the setup allows me to take great pics with little thought. If I'm out shooting, my M2 is very easy to lug around. I have smaller cameras, such as a Pentax ME with a 40mm pancake lens, but I never use it because there is no real manual exposure override. For me, I just like to pic all of my settings, and I prefer it if the camera isn't completely ugly.
user237428934
User deletion pending
At the moment I don't have a camera I can take with me on a business day trip. My 5D is too heavy and even my Zeiss Ikon is too heavy to carry additionally. So I think size and weight is relative to your needs and circumstances.
The only thing that made my rangefinder cameras obsolete was a rangefinder in my DSLR, not a size shift
The only thing that made my rangefinder cameras obsolete was a rangefinder in my DSLR, not a size shift
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
For what it's worth, I think the question is flawed. Perception or not. Here are some size comparisons to start off my case.
Secondly, the Leica M7/MP with 50 1.0 Noctilux plus motor drive is anything but small and light. With batteries and film loaded, it's not what I consider small, or light.
In fact, my whole Leica bag weighs a ton, with three bodies and four or five lenses.
I cringe when I hear how small and light they are.
And since I have gotten rid of the M6 and added the Widelux F7 and the twin lens Rollei 2.8, not all of my M system fits in this little bag anymore.
And while the SLR zoom lenses were mentioned, if you stick with Nikkor AIS primes like the little Nikkor 24 2.8 AIS, it's small and light.
Now, if you go for faster glass with AF like the Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D and you add a motor drive that goes six frames a second and compare that to a Leica M7 with 28 1.9, it's true the SLR is a little bigger.
However, the Nikon F3T with MD-2 drive is 6 FPS and not 2 FPS like the Leica M Motor. And the M lens is only F1.9, not a F1.4 like the Nikkor 28 1.4.
Now, if I had a comparison shot of the Nikon FM2 with its much smaller MD-12 and a Nikkor 24 2.0 AIS and the Leica with the Nikkor 24 1.4, methinks they will be much closer to the same size/weight/volume.
As far as people's reaction to the various cameras on the street, I'm calling total bull**** that they react any differently to a Nikon and SLR and Leica M.
While the Leica guys might want you to think that shooting with their M3/MP and tiny little 35 1.4 makes you far more discreet and "invisible" than someone carrying a Nikon FM2 and a Nikkor 35 1.4 AIS, trust me when I say you are not. Well, at least I'm not.
Now the shutter might be a little quieter on the Leica M (okay, it's quieter) but how you move and how you dress and the "vibe" you send out is far more significant than what camera you're using.
Now that may be people's (mostly photographers who shoot with rangefinders) perception. And far be it for me to throw that under the bus. But after using Nikons and Rolleis and 4X5s on the street for over 20 years and Leicas for the last two, as far as people's reactions to me, they're exactly the same.
The only difference is "I" have been more open and friendly while shooting. That is a "me" thing, not an "it" thing.
I use rangefinders because I like to. No other reason or validation is necessary. At least not for me.
Photo by Kat.
Secondly, the Leica M7/MP with 50 1.0 Noctilux plus motor drive is anything but small and light. With batteries and film loaded, it's not what I consider small, or light.
In fact, my whole Leica bag weighs a ton, with three bodies and four or five lenses.
I cringe when I hear how small and light they are
. And since I have gotten rid of the M6 and added the Widelux F7 and the twin lens Rollei 2.8, not all of my M system fits in this little bag anymore
.And while the SLR zoom lenses were mentioned, if you stick with Nikkor AIS primes like the little Nikkor 24 2.8 AIS, it's small and light.
Now, if you go for faster glass with AF like the Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D and you add a motor drive that goes six frames a second and compare that to a Leica M7 with 28 1.9, it's true the SLR is a little bigger.
However, the Nikon F3T with MD-2 drive is 6 FPS and not 2 FPS like the Leica M Motor. And the M lens is only F1.9, not a F1.4 like the Nikkor 28 1.4.
Now, if I had a comparison shot of the Nikon FM2 with its much smaller MD-12 and a Nikkor 24 2.0 AIS and the Leica with the Nikkor 24 1.4, methinks they will be much closer to the same size/weight/volume.
As far as people's reaction to the various cameras on the street, I'm calling total bull**** that they react any differently to a Nikon and SLR and Leica M.
While the Leica guys might want you to think that shooting with their M3/MP and tiny little 35 1.4 makes you far more discreet and "invisible"
than someone carrying a Nikon FM2 and a Nikkor 35 1.4 AIS, trust me when I say you are not. Well, at least I'm not. Now the shutter might be a little quieter on the Leica M (okay, it's quieter) but how you move and how you dress and the "vibe" you send out is far more significant than what camera you're using.
Now that may be people's (mostly photographers who shoot with rangefinders) perception. And far be it for me to throw that under the bus. But after using Nikons and Rolleis and 4X5s on the street for over 20 years and Leicas for the last two, as far as people's reactions to me, they're exactly the same.
The only difference is "I" have been more open and friendly while shooting. That is a "me" thing, not an "it" thing.
I use rangefinders because I like to. No other reason or validation is necessary. At least not for me.
Photo by Kat.
Last edited:
gb hill
Veteran
I don't see SLR's of the 70's being much different from RF's as far as heft. The lenses on SLR's, especially the breech lock Canon FD's are hefty like the 50/1.4. It's bulk that I dislike & is why I don't care for most designs of the mid 80's on upward to today. I have no problem carrying my AE1P around all day or a Spotmatic.