italy74
Well-known
"SNARP-...." I see you call yourself "snarp-shooter" but what "snarp" means exactly ? probably it's a pun but I don't get it, sorry 
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Oh, I made it up; I'm quite sure there is not really such a word.
It's a mixture of 'sharp' and 'snap' (as in snapshot) -- snapshot to me has a connotation of mediocre (at best) technical quality, so with 'snarpshot' I mean a snapshot that meets very high standards of technical quality.
I fixed it, and in case the typo-fixing changes future poll response, the poll numbers now stand at:
5
17
6
16
10
ChrisN
Striving
Ah, thanks Doug. I came late to this party and could not understand why so many people appeared to mis-read the question! For me the two are interchangable. While the ground-glass focusing screen of the SLR (or TLR) does show only the subject at focus distance in sharp focus, the rest of the scene is rarely so blurred that I have any difficulty understanding the relationships between components of the composition. In fact sometimes a little blur helps that.
italy74
Well-known
Thanks Doug, I tried but I couldn't modify the poll headline
Arjay
Time Traveller
For me, the process of taking pictures both with rangefinders and SLRs essentially is the same, just the tools are different.
When I see something worth taking a picture of, I first imagine what it might look like in 2D, i.e. on screen/paper, and only then will I take the camera up to my eye.
The real challenge in this process is previsualizing, and that's the same no matter which tool I use for a given situation. If I am good at previsualizing, I can take pictures without looking through a viewfinder, and again, that's independent of which camera I use (well, maybe not - I probably wouldn't use an LF camera that way).
When I see something worth taking a picture of, I first imagine what it might look like in 2D, i.e. on screen/paper, and only then will I take the camera up to my eye.
The real challenge in this process is previsualizing, and that's the same no matter which tool I use for a given situation. If I am good at previsualizing, I can take pictures without looking through a viewfinder, and again, that's independent of which camera I use (well, maybe not - I probably wouldn't use an LF camera that way).
FrankS
Registered User
When I look through a RF camera viewfinder, I see reality with a frame around it. It is very direct. The RF camera comes up to my eye for a short time just to frame the scene I'm looking at.
When I look inot an SLR viewfinder, I see a projection of reality onto a groundglass. This image is a thing onto itself, made even more so by the limited DOF of the wide open lens that projects it. I can spend much time looking into an SLR viewfinder searching for a projected image that I want to capture.
I like and use both types of cameras. They are different.
When I look inot an SLR viewfinder, I see a projection of reality onto a groundglass. This image is a thing onto itself, made even more so by the limited DOF of the wide open lens that projects it. I can spend much time looking into an SLR viewfinder searching for a projected image that I want to capture.
I like and use both types of cameras. They are different.
I will agree with Arjay's comment. They are certainly different, but most of the time I could toss a coin to decide which to take out for a walk. There are the obvious specialties of course; macro, tele, low light...
For the SLR the view shows less DoF than you'll probably be getting, unless you stop down to check. With the RF you have to guess or go by experience. With the SLR the faster/longer lenses are easier to focus. With the RF lens speed is not a factor in focusing so wide slow lenses are as easy as any. With the SLR there is no lens/hood intrusion into the VF view, you cannot see outside the frame, the field shows whatever the lens sees, and you can focus anywhere in the field. Both can be enjoyable to use.
Pondering the possibilities and choices, for me I like to use the cameras I like to use... um, right! It's all about the user interface. I'm not so fond of the Kiev 4a and the Fuji 670III. I appreciate an efficient size, like the Minolta CLE and the Bronica RF645, as long as they're comfortable and easy to use.
I don't think there are any consistent pictorial differences between my RF and SLR photos.
They are certainly different, but most of the time I could toss a coin to decide which to take out for a walk. There are the obvious specialties of course; macro, tele, low light...For the SLR the view shows less DoF than you'll probably be getting, unless you stop down to check. With the RF you have to guess or go by experience. With the SLR the faster/longer lenses are easier to focus. With the RF lens speed is not a factor in focusing so wide slow lenses are as easy as any. With the SLR there is no lens/hood intrusion into the VF view, you cannot see outside the frame, the field shows whatever the lens sees, and you can focus anywhere in the field. Both can be enjoyable to use.
Pondering the possibilities and choices, for me I like to use the cameras I like to use... um, right! It's all about the user interface. I'm not so fond of the Kiev 4a and the Fuji 670III. I appreciate an efficient size, like the Minolta CLE and the Bronica RF645, as long as they're comfortable and easy to use.
I don't think there are any consistent pictorial differences between my RF and SLR photos.
Last edited:
Nando
Well-known
For me, yes. I'm in complete agreement with FrankS' post above. I use RF's, TLR's and SLR's but I prefer the RF because of the direct viewfinder. For me, creating a photograph is a subtractive exercise. I try to extract an image from my surroundings. I find that much easier to do with a bright, direct viewfinder with infinite DOF and bright-lines. A rangefinder mechanism to ensure accurate focus is a bonus.
dee
Well-known
I think my ASD and Interior Designer background helps in pre-visualising - but only within a nominal 50mm frame [ well 40-70 anyway ! ] I love the 67mm offered by the M8 with a 50mm .
For me , the uncluttered fixed view of my M8 , or Contax II , is a relief from the focus / zoom movement of an SLR - something discovered only recently .
I kinda ' see ' in snapshots , which helps restrict the amount of info / bombardment from which to me , is a confusing , out of phase world - with or without a camera .
... but it may also be the feel and shape of a Rangefinder , as I find my pseudo dee'rangedfinder Leica Digilux 2 / Pansonic L1 , much more intuitive and comfortable than a Pentax K10d - which helps my snapshooting .
However , I don't think I will ever master parallax with close shooting ... and using a rangefinder after decades of an SLR ... does take some adjustment - especially when there is little to align the finder to easily ...
For me , the uncluttered fixed view of my M8 , or Contax II , is a relief from the focus / zoom movement of an SLR - something discovered only recently .
I kinda ' see ' in snapshots , which helps restrict the amount of info / bombardment from which to me , is a confusing , out of phase world - with or without a camera .
... but it may also be the feel and shape of a Rangefinder , as I find my pseudo dee'rangedfinder Leica Digilux 2 / Pansonic L1 , much more intuitive and comfortable than a Pentax K10d - which helps my snapshooting .
However , I don't think I will ever master parallax with close shooting ... and using a rangefinder after decades of an SLR ... does take some adjustment - especially when there is little to align the finder to easily ...
Brian Levy
Established
Not to go off topic but since the discussion is viewfinder/rff vs slr I'd thought I'd throw in another. Is the issue with the slr the fact you are looking through an eyepiece and not visualizing through both eyes? I do not close an eye when using a viewfinder/rff. I tend to agree with those who find themselves more drawn towards the technical aspects when using the slr except when I use a wlf with my slr rather than the prism finder. When using the wlf, I seem to find myself visualizing more, similar to the viewfinder/rff experience but also, find I also spend time with the technical that I tend to ignore mostly with the viewfinder/rff.
It is not that I split the time but, I do spend more time setting up the shot than when I use either the viewfinder/rff or prism slr. I can shoot quite fast (almost as fast as with the viewfinder/rff) with it if I do the things I do with my viewfinder/rff such as zone focus, use wider latituse film and preset the shutter speed, things I tend to not do when I use the prism slr though there is no reason why I do not do it other than the tendency to think/obsess about the tenchical more.
It is not that I split the time but, I do spend more time setting up the shot than when I use either the viewfinder/rff or prism slr. I can shoot quite fast (almost as fast as with the viewfinder/rff) with it if I do the things I do with my viewfinder/rff such as zone focus, use wider latituse film and preset the shutter speed, things I tend to not do when I use the prism slr though there is no reason why I do not do it other than the tendency to think/obsess about the tenchical more.