jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Every now and then we have one of those "Why I use an RF" posts... well, this is another one...
...Normally I don't photograph dance-school recitals, but did one this past weekend as a favor to a friend. I knew the dress rehearsal would be a big, multi-hour affair with nearly 100 performers.
But I didn't know what to expect in the way of dances or shooting conditions, so I packed my most versatile, highest-tech gear: 10-megapixel DSLR, 70-200/2.8 vibration-reduction lens, single-focal-length lenses from 35/2 to 85/1.8, along with spare batteries, card reader/hard drive storage gizmo, etc., etc.
And... at the last minute, more or less on a whim, I decided to stow the R-D 1, 50/1.5 Nokton, and a couple of batteries in a spare corner of my giant camera bag. I thought it might come in handy for a few casual shots between numbers.
Good thing I did! At the end of the evening, after I had waded through more than 1,100 raw shots and weeded down the take to 714 "keepers," the tally was as follows:
-- DSLR shots:----------249
-- R-D 1 shots:---------465
I suppose it shouldn't surprise me any more when this happens -- but it kind of still does. (After all, don't all the magazines and experts say an autofocus DSLR is the ideal tool for action photography?)
So I got to thinking about why... and here are a few speculations on why the R-D 1 did better than the DSLR for me, in this specific situation (so "your mileage may vary" goes without saying, right?)
No SLR "tunnel vision" -- Not knowing anything about the pieces I was about to see or what types of shots I should look for, I was constantly hampered by the one-eyed, restricted, through-the-lens view of an SLR. Half the time, I felt that I just didn't have a clue of what was going on. Viewing through the R-D 1, with both eyes open and a full view of everything that was happening on stage, made it much easier to catch unexpected peak action:
No autofocus = no autofocus errors -- I threw away a lot of the DSLR shots because the camera's AF system had locked in on a nice, contrasty piece of scenery, or a brightly-costumed background performer, instead of my intended subject. Yeah, yeah, my DSLR has a wide-area focus mode, and an auto-select mode, and a spot-focus mode, and I tried them all. Nothing worked quite as well as the R-D 1's optical rangefinder in concert with my own wet little brain.
No whack, no wiggle -- I did use the R-D 1 a few times for the purpose for which I had brought it, that of grabbing casual off-the-stage shots:
Now, this picture looks nice and bright on your screen -- but in fact it was made in the back of the theater, lit only by light spilling off the stage. At EI 1600 and f/1.5, it needed an exposure of 1/5 sec. according to the EXIF data. Whether it's because of mirror slap or whatever, I've never had much luck hand-holding an SLR at these kinds of speeds; the R-D 1 is still dicey, but it seems to give me better odds of getting away with it.
Anyway, as I said, this outcome shouldn't surprise me any more -- but since it still does (so strong is the industry DSLR propaganda) I thought it might be worth sharing as well.
One last minor observation: Counting files after the session showed that the R-D 1 was averaging about 400 shots per fully-charged Epson battery -- not as many as I get with my DSLR's bigger battery, but more than I would have guessed. Of course, I didn't have time to do much "chimping," so I'm sure that helped a bit.
...Normally I don't photograph dance-school recitals, but did one this past weekend as a favor to a friend. I knew the dress rehearsal would be a big, multi-hour affair with nearly 100 performers.
But I didn't know what to expect in the way of dances or shooting conditions, so I packed my most versatile, highest-tech gear: 10-megapixel DSLR, 70-200/2.8 vibration-reduction lens, single-focal-length lenses from 35/2 to 85/1.8, along with spare batteries, card reader/hard drive storage gizmo, etc., etc.
And... at the last minute, more or less on a whim, I decided to stow the R-D 1, 50/1.5 Nokton, and a couple of batteries in a spare corner of my giant camera bag. I thought it might come in handy for a few casual shots between numbers.
Good thing I did! At the end of the evening, after I had waded through more than 1,100 raw shots and weeded down the take to 714 "keepers," the tally was as follows:
-- DSLR shots:----------249
-- R-D 1 shots:---------465
I suppose it shouldn't surprise me any more when this happens -- but it kind of still does. (After all, don't all the magazines and experts say an autofocus DSLR is the ideal tool for action photography?)
So I got to thinking about why... and here are a few speculations on why the R-D 1 did better than the DSLR for me, in this specific situation (so "your mileage may vary" goes without saying, right?)
No SLR "tunnel vision" -- Not knowing anything about the pieces I was about to see or what types of shots I should look for, I was constantly hampered by the one-eyed, restricted, through-the-lens view of an SLR. Half the time, I felt that I just didn't have a clue of what was going on. Viewing through the R-D 1, with both eyes open and a full view of everything that was happening on stage, made it much easier to catch unexpected peak action:
No autofocus = no autofocus errors -- I threw away a lot of the DSLR shots because the camera's AF system had locked in on a nice, contrasty piece of scenery, or a brightly-costumed background performer, instead of my intended subject. Yeah, yeah, my DSLR has a wide-area focus mode, and an auto-select mode, and a spot-focus mode, and I tried them all. Nothing worked quite as well as the R-D 1's optical rangefinder in concert with my own wet little brain.
No whack, no wiggle -- I did use the R-D 1 a few times for the purpose for which I had brought it, that of grabbing casual off-the-stage shots:
Now, this picture looks nice and bright on your screen -- but in fact it was made in the back of the theater, lit only by light spilling off the stage. At EI 1600 and f/1.5, it needed an exposure of 1/5 sec. according to the EXIF data. Whether it's because of mirror slap or whatever, I've never had much luck hand-holding an SLR at these kinds of speeds; the R-D 1 is still dicey, but it seems to give me better odds of getting away with it.
Anyway, as I said, this outcome shouldn't surprise me any more -- but since it still does (so strong is the industry DSLR propaganda) I thought it might be worth sharing as well.
One last minor observation: Counting files after the session showed that the R-D 1 was averaging about 400 shots per fully-charged Epson battery -- not as many as I get with my DSLR's bigger battery, but more than I would have guessed. Of course, I didn't have time to do much "chimping," so I'm sure that helped a bit.
Last edited:
jjcha
Established
jlw said:
I'm glad you like your R-D1, I love mine as well. I'm wondering why you don't just use the center point for auto-focus on your DSLR and once focused, reframe/compose as we do on our rangefinders?
Best regards,
-Jason
aad
Not so new now.
I think you'll have some very happy young ladies with shots like those.
dmr
Registered Abuser
jlw said:
This is one of the main reasons I went (back) to shooting RF. I think it gives me about one f-stop over the SLR, mainly due to "no whack no wiggle" as you say.
1/5 !!!!!
Got me beat! RF gives me a higher good-shot rate at 1/30 and 1/15, but I don't try 1/8 or below without bracing on something.
nksyoon
Well-known
jjcha said:
I was going to ask this as well, since I only use the center point on my DSLR.
Regarding the hand-holdability, I've made a usable shot at 2.3 secs ISO1600 with the R-D1. No comparable DSLR shots yet.
Axel
singleshooter
In my experience I can't be sure whether the center-AF of my DSLR detects something wrong in the background. After all in low-light and low-contrast situations.jjcha said:
Most DSLRs lack of having a split-image today so controlling is much difficulter than on my rangefinder.
And it saves (sometimes valuable) time not to frame center-correct first. Remember - once AF, always AF! The AF-camera basically wants to frame new for every shot. So you have to control continously.
Regards, Axel
gavinlg
Veteran
Those are some nice shots - great camera that one. If I didn't have to work in architechture pics and the such, I'd sell my canon crap and buy 2 rd1s plus some zeiss/cv/leica glass.
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
Nice job. You nailed the very essence of RF photography.
As HCB stated..."The Decisive Moment" Guess that sums it up......
As HCB stated..."The Decisive Moment" Guess that sums it up......
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
jjcha said:
That is the technique I generally use with the DSLR, and it does work reasonably well as long as you have a pretty good idea of what the subject is going to do.
As several other people posted, though, it's sub-optimal for chasing moving subjects because you have to lock focus... recompose... decide whether to shoot or not... then unlock and wait for the AF to refocus. You're repeating this process more or less continuously as you track the subject around the space.
There are AF cameras that work better for tracking moving objects against cluttered backgrounds. The old Minolta Maxxum 9000 was one, and the Contax G2 is another.
The Maxxum 9000 had what I feel is the slickest AF control interface ever. The shutter release button had a touch-sensitive switch on it; as soon as you'd lay your finger on it, the AF would start tracking. Half-press the shutter release, and the AF would lock; relax pressure, and it would start tracking again. AE lock was on a completely separate switch (on the camera back) so you could lock in a meter reading and hold it while you'd track, lock, and unlock focus as desired. It was easy to follow a subject all over the place, keeping it in focus and with correct exposure locked in. The 9000's AF system was slow and not very sensitive by later standards, but I stuck with it for years simply because the control system was so fluid.
The Contax G2 has similar benefits thanks to its separate AF button on the back. With the camera set to continuous AF, it focuses while this button is pressed. Hold down the button, and it tracks your subject; release it, and focus locks long enough for you to recompose. As with the 9000, shutter release and AE locking are separate functions, so you can handle focusing, exposure, and shutter release independently.
In principle, by using several custom functions on my Nikon D80, it's possible to set it up similarly, with AF and AE locking on different controls. But in practice I don't feel it's worth the bother -- the controls are poorly located for this kind of use, so it still doesn't work with the fluidity of the Maxxum 9000 or Contax.
It strikes me as a bit ironic that as AF systems become more sophisticated and "convenient," I have to put up with more and more inconveniences to get them to do what I want.
It seems that camera history is repeating the same cycle it's gone through with autoexposure. Today's intelligent multi-pattern meter systems are very convenient if you absolutely don't have the slightest idea of what exposure might be appropriate. But if you do have a pretty good idea of what exposure is needed, it's often harder to override them than it is with an old-style AE camera. (Yes, the higher-end DSLRs still have the overrides -- but since they're designed primarily for full auto use, their controls aren't arranged as conveniently for the less-assisted modes.)
And if you happen to know exactly what exposure is required (by previous experience, for example) by far the easiest way to get there is to use a fully manual camera and just set the shutter speed and aperture you need!
Again, yes, you can still do this with a multi-mode DSLR, but the extra functions and controls make it less convenient -- the manual controls are designed as an occasional-use feature, whereas a fully manual camera was designed on the assumption that you'll be using the manual controls all the time.
Where all this rambling seems to be getting me is toward another answer to the age-old question, "Why do you need so many different cameras?" Ideally, in challenging shooting situations, you want a camera that offers exactly the functions you need: no less, but no more, either.
In other words, when choosing cameras, I always find myself trying to strike a balance between the design philosophies of Mies van der Rohe ("Less is more") and Popeye the Sailor ("Enough is too much")!
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
JLW, love those shots, especially the second one of the three girls in the back row watching their friends onstage.
First time I took the R-D1 along on a lark was also a dance school shoot and yes I was surprised and delighted that it simply tucked into a corner of my heavily packed Crumpler 7 Million $ Home.
I shot my brother's wedding recently with my D200 17-55DDX SB800 GF Whale Tail combo (heavy heavy heavy), an M8 with (mostly) a 75 2.5 Heliar and R-D1 with 50/2 Summicron that never leaves it. I personally prefer available light images to flash images, but having all three cameras was actually kind of interesting (2 bags full). After the ceremony my brother asked if I had taken any pictures during the ceremony! Yeah! Lots!
I'm beginning to find fewer and fewer reasons to use my dSLR gear -- even though it makes me look like a "real photographer" haha!
First time I took the R-D1 along on a lark was also a dance school shoot and yes I was surprised and delighted that it simply tucked into a corner of my heavily packed Crumpler 7 Million $ Home.
I shot my brother's wedding recently with my D200 17-55DDX SB800 GF Whale Tail combo (heavy heavy heavy), an M8 with (mostly) a 75 2.5 Heliar and R-D1 with 50/2 Summicron that never leaves it. I personally prefer available light images to flash images, but having all three cameras was actually kind of interesting (2 bags full). After the ceremony my brother asked if I had taken any pictures during the ceremony! Yeah! Lots!
I'm beginning to find fewer and fewer reasons to use my dSLR gear -- even though it makes me look like a "real photographer" haha!
Last edited:
georgef
Well-known
jjcha said:
I know its been answered already, but I thought I'd put in my two cents worth LOL: I found that using manual focus on the RD1 on my canon 50 (76.5mm actual FOV) at f.1.8 more forgiving in terms of DOF that my Canon EOS 85 at f.1.8. So, framing-AF.ing-reframing-shooting on my DSLR is still slower than winding-shooting on my RD1.
Given that the CANON 1D is at the top of DSLRs with its AF, I believe its the process that is still slower, not the hardware. Even at AF servo, just like JLW I end up missing more shots being OOF than I do get.
...I know that this happens on certain shootning conditions and the CANON for the most part is faster with AF than any manual focus; having said that, if you asked me before what I would bet on in speed, I would have never considered it even a contest....but here it is LOL.
Gid
Well-known
Great shots - I do like the dance stuff that you do.
In the olden days (when I was a lad) manual focus was all there was. Didn't stop photogs taking great action shots. Maybe auto focus isn't such a great step forward or multi frames per second drives for that matter. I'm no luddite, but I still think that anticipation is a great skill.
In the olden days (when I was a lad) manual focus was all there was. Didn't stop photogs taking great action shots. Maybe auto focus isn't such a great step forward or multi frames per second drives for that matter. I'm no luddite, but I still think that anticipation is a great skill.
danielnorton
Daniel Norton
Wow
Wow
Wonderful work!
Did you use AE very much or just manually change Aperture/shutter speeds as you went? Where you shooting mostly 1600 and wide open?
Wow
Wonderful work!
Did you use AE very much or just manually change Aperture/shutter speeds as you went? Where you shooting mostly 1600 and wide open?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Glad you liked it. This group used a light-gray dance floor, which gave enough of a metering reference that I was able to use AE for most shots with a bit of exposure compensation (generally -2/3 for dark backgrounds and +1/3 for lighter backgrounds.)
That's unusual, though. If the backgrounds/floors are dark and/or the light is very complicated, I usually use manual exposure, referring to the LCD as necessary. Usually there will only be a certain number of lighting presets per show, so once you know what exposure you need for each preset, you can work pretty confidently. Tip: It can be hard to recognize lighting combinations by looking at the brightness of the stage, so often I'll look up and notice what pattern of lights is on as a way of recognizing each preset.
I was at EI 1600 the whole time and usually was shooting at full aperture, although sometimes for very bright scenes I could stop down to f/2. Usually, if the light in a stage situation gets a bit brighter, I'll choose a faster shutter speed (to get better action-stopping) over a smaller aperture (for more DOF.) Once the shutter speeds get up to 1/500 I might opt for a smaller aperture rather than going to 1/1000, but it's very rare to get that much light in the small theaters where I work.
That's unusual, though. If the backgrounds/floors are dark and/or the light is very complicated, I usually use manual exposure, referring to the LCD as necessary. Usually there will only be a certain number of lighting presets per show, so once you know what exposure you need for each preset, you can work pretty confidently. Tip: It can be hard to recognize lighting combinations by looking at the brightness of the stage, so often I'll look up and notice what pattern of lights is on as a way of recognizing each preset.
I was at EI 1600 the whole time and usually was shooting at full aperture, although sometimes for very bright scenes I could stop down to f/2. Usually, if the light in a stage situation gets a bit brighter, I'll choose a faster shutter speed (to get better action-stopping) over a smaller aperture (for more DOF.) Once the shutter speeds get up to 1/500 I might opt for a smaller aperture rather than going to 1/1000, but it's very rare to get that much light in the small theaters where I work.