Thanks for sharing. Aria is a great SLR. Small and fast, Zeiss glass. I shot with one for awhile, the only problem I found was getting the wider angle lenses at a decent price. The G1 and G2 I thought had better optics, but focus issues sometimes and the viewfinder pales incomparison to the Aria.
Post some pics from your new rig. I'd love to see some from the 25mm. I never got to shoot with that lens.
Post some pics from your new rig. I'd love to see some from the 25mm. I never got to shoot with that lens.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Seeing what the film/sensor will see before the fact is always better. All "old" view cameras can...and so can the latest EVF, before and during...
I know, I know; what I am saying will upset self-anointed defenders of the RF faith...
Today, an EVF offered in a Panasonic GH-1 (800 x 600 x RGB), also said to be available in a EP-2 (using an Epson display chip of the same specifications) is almost good enough.
[Recently I had the opportunity in a Tokyo camera super store to play with an GH-1 (high-resolution EVF), GF1 (low-resolution EVF), EP-1 (optical VF) one after another, on display side by side. The EP-2 was not yet released. Given my maturing but 20/20 eyesight, I can easily focus lenses on the high-resolution GH-1 EVF, but not quite on the GF-1...and not possible at all on the EP-1 optical. Even after putting on sunglasses, I can still see the full frame...easily. Yes, I can barely perceive pixels, but less so than ground glass grains.]
The Epson display chip is merely 12mm (diagonal) in size and at a pixel size of 12 microns. Before too long, one-upmanship will see 1600 x 1200 x RGB at 6 microns...soon.
An EVF can find the range, see exactly what the sensor will see...through the taking lens, prime or zoom, solid-state and sized about a 25mm cube...with diopter correction built-in... What more could one want?
If a plug-in EVF is available for a ZMd
, the M10 [due 10 October 2010 ] or some new offering using a FF sensor chip , what will us call this camera type?Defenders of the faith might even switch side.
jjovin
Established
I used to have Contax SLR. At one point I had 4 cameras, Aria, RX, S2, S2b and 9 lenses. I sold most of them. I still have an S2b+50mm f1.4 which I do not use. Instead, I got Zeiss Ikon and
3 lenses which I use all the time. For me, Contax is a fine system but I prefer my Ikon. My philosophy is, use whatever gives you the most pleasure.
Cheers,
3 lenses which I use all the time. For me, Contax is a fine system but I prefer my Ikon. My philosophy is, use whatever gives you the most pleasure.
Cheers,
ampguy
Veteran
I'm also using both, but if I had to choose between film RF and dslr, I'd probably go dslr.
Ironically, the better RF gear you have, the more you sometimes see the limitations of the RF system.
Just this morning, with M-Hexanon 28 and M8 at ~.5 to .6m was shooting the cat on a ledge, trying to get a clock on the wall in the background. The VF clearly showed it, but the lens did not. It took about 10 shots to get the framing right, which would have been a big waste on film.
Ironically, the better RF gear you have, the more you sometimes see the limitations of the RF system.
Just this morning, with M-Hexanon 28 and M8 at ~.5 to .6m was shooting the cat on a ledge, trying to get a clock on the wall in the background. The VF clearly showed it, but the lens did not. It took about 10 shots to get the framing right, which would have been a big waste on film.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
I started photography with SLR, now I use both SLR and RF. I have used DSLR for some years, but not anymore.
They are different animals, and really complement each other. I agree with others saying RF for up to 50mm, and SLR for 85mm and up. I have 90mm for Leica and 50, 35, 24mm for OM but I shoot 35/50 with Leica and 85 with OM most of times.
Also I choose the camera based on the needs for the shot. Sometimes I just need Leica's quiet shutter and zone focusing friendly VF or flat profile of the kit. Other times, super shallow DOF (within the limit of lenses I have for both systems), much closer minimum focal distance and I don't mind thicker profile or louder shutter sound (still quiet for an SLR) of OM.
If I have to choose only one system, I must go with OM. I'm not saying SLR, but specifically OM. That said, I have thinned down my camera gears to those that give me results while I truly enjoy using. I don't make living with photography. Photography is my main hobby. I need both excitement of using the camera itself as well as the tool that gives me the result I want.
OM and Leica M are the two bests for my 35mm needs, and I'm not planning to part with neither of them.
They are different animals, and really complement each other. I agree with others saying RF for up to 50mm, and SLR for 85mm and up. I have 90mm for Leica and 50, 35, 24mm for OM but I shoot 35/50 with Leica and 85 with OM most of times.
Also I choose the camera based on the needs for the shot. Sometimes I just need Leica's quiet shutter and zone focusing friendly VF or flat profile of the kit. Other times, super shallow DOF (within the limit of lenses I have for both systems), much closer minimum focal distance and I don't mind thicker profile or louder shutter sound (still quiet for an SLR) of OM.
If I have to choose only one system, I must go with OM. I'm not saying SLR, but specifically OM. That said, I have thinned down my camera gears to those that give me results while I truly enjoy using. I don't make living with photography. Photography is my main hobby. I need both excitement of using the camera itself as well as the tool that gives me the result I want.
OM and Leica M are the two bests for my 35mm needs, and I'm not planning to part with neither of them.
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
perspective is perspective is perspective! the perspective you see in a rangefinder's viewfinder or an accessory viewfinder is the perspective a lens projects onto film, whether it's mounted on an rf or an slr.
that said, i would definitely use an slr if i used lenses longer than 50mm or did a lot of close-up work where you need to slide the focus point back and forth in off-center areas of the frame.
matt352
Established
I did.
I tried using my Nikon FM2n with a 28/2.8 recently and went back to using my M within a day.
ferider
Veteran
Same here
Regarding the OPs initial post, I have to admit that I would never carry a single RF with 4 or more lenses though. That does defeat the RF purpose, IMO.
And while the ZI is great, medium tele is best shot with an M3
sircarl
Well-known
Aizan,
"Perspective is perspective is perspective"? When using the same focal length lens, the area covered by the framelines of an RF's viewfinder is the same (roughly) as that of an SLR's viewfinder, true. But you sure don't see the same thing when using wider focal lengths. If you own both an RF and an SLR and can mount a similar wide-angle lens on each one, try pointing them at the same object and look through the viewfinder of each. You'll see something different, and I would argue the SLR's viewfinder records much more accurately what you'll eventually record on the film, especially if you end up tilting the camera away from the focal plane of the subject.
For that reason I am puzzled that some posters here say they grant the superiority of SLRs for longer focal lengths, but prefer RFs for wider ones. For me, the opposite is true!
"Perspective is perspective is perspective"? When using the same focal length lens, the area covered by the framelines of an RF's viewfinder is the same (roughly) as that of an SLR's viewfinder, true. But you sure don't see the same thing when using wider focal lengths. If you own both an RF and an SLR and can mount a similar wide-angle lens on each one, try pointing them at the same object and look through the viewfinder of each. You'll see something different, and I would argue the SLR's viewfinder records much more accurately what you'll eventually record on the film, especially if you end up tilting the camera away from the focal plane of the subject.
For that reason I am puzzled that some posters here say they grant the superiority of SLRs for longer focal lengths, but prefer RFs for wider ones. For me, the opposite is true!
cary
Well-known
I am only 53 years old, the arthritis in my fingers make it very had for me to use my Leica rangefinders without pain. It's very painful to focus and even hold the camera. I just had my black Nikon F tuned up, it is much less painful to operate. The larger diameter of the Nikkor lenses makes focusing easier for me. Boy, I feel old!
aizan
Veteran
the topic has come up before, so i've done just that. what you see in the viewfinder is exactly the same no matter what you're looking through. you can't bend the laws of physics, no pun intended.
sircarl
Well-known
Aizan,
I've just done the experiment again. You're right, in one sense -- if you're pointing the camera exactly parallel to the focal plane of the subject, you do see the same thing. But if you deviate from the focal plane of the subject, as you often WANT to do with a wide-angle lens, the image becomes much different in an SLR finder. For example, if you point upwards, any vertical lines converge towards the top when using an SLR finder. They don't with an RF finder. The image that results when you take the shot will show the converging vertical lines.
I've just done the experiment again. You're right, in one sense -- if you're pointing the camera exactly parallel to the focal plane of the subject, you do see the same thing. But if you deviate from the focal plane of the subject, as you often WANT to do with a wide-angle lens, the image becomes much different in an SLR finder. For example, if you point upwards, any vertical lines converge towards the top when using an SLR finder. They don't with an RF finder. The image that results when you take the shot will show the converging vertical lines.
aizan
Veteran
i dunno, these lines are converging for me on a rangefinder, too. maybe you're responding more to the hard edges of the slr viewfinder?
ampguy
Veteran
here's how to replicate RF error
here's how to replicate RF error
Put 28mm or wider lens on RF.
Have 2 subjects, one at min focusing distance, 2nd subject ~2-3 meters away and higher than subject 1.
Now look through RF and focus on close subject, while trying to get subject 2, just above subject 1.
It will look perfect in the RF VF, but your lens sees it different, and will likely have subject 1 obscuring subject 2.
here's how to replicate RF error
Put 28mm or wider lens on RF.
Have 2 subjects, one at min focusing distance, 2nd subject ~2-3 meters away and higher than subject 1.
Now look through RF and focus on close subject, while trying to get subject 2, just above subject 1.
It will look perfect in the RF VF, but your lens sees it different, and will likely have subject 1 obscuring subject 2.
aizan
Veteran
parallax is related to perspective, as far as the viewfinder and lens being in different places go. that's not what carl's talking about, though.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
This thread has gone really astray!
The OP said he did not like using the finder in an RF and liked what he saw through the SLR, so he has changed systems completely. Now we're trying to prove his opinion and decision wrong! Too funny.
The OP said he did not like using the finder in an RF and liked what he saw through the SLR, so he has changed systems completely. Now we're trying to prove his opinion and decision wrong! Too funny.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I agree with Pickett (gasp! ) ... the OP just sees/works better with SLR. That's what counts.
) ... the OP just sees/works better with SLR. That's what counts.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
but this is RFF and heretics should be flogged!This thread has gone really astray!
The OP said he did not like using the finder in an RF and liked what he saw through the SLR, so he has changed systems completely. Now we're trying to prove his opinion and decision wrong! Too funny.
Dave.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
but this is RFF and heretics should be flogged!
Dave.
Flogging's too good for 'em! Burn 'em at the stake! It's the only language they understand!
I must say I'm a bit puzzed at some of this thread. I like RFs, so I use them for the vast majority of my photography. Have done for years. I'm even quite happy with my 135/2.8, despite those who draw the line at 105mm, or 100mm, or 90mm, or 85mm, or 75mm, or 50mm, or 40mm or 35mm. I also use SLRs, MF and LF, all of them sometimes with ultrawides.
Others, including Carl, feel differently.
Gosh!
There seems to be a remarkable amount of absolutism about.
Cheers,
R.
sircarl
Well-known
Roger,
Thanks for defending me, but I expected to be flogged and burned. Criticizing the rangefinder VF on this forum is like defiling the Holy Grail. But you're right, whatever the technical merits may be, it ultimately boils down to what you feel most comfortable using for the type of photography you like to do. For me, that now is an SLR VF. But I can fully understand why others have decided otherwise, having used rangefinders for quite some time myself, very happily. Different strokes etc etc.
Thanks for defending me, but I expected to be flogged and burned. Criticizing the rangefinder VF on this forum is like defiling the Holy Grail. But you're right, whatever the technical merits may be, it ultimately boils down to what you feel most comfortable using for the type of photography you like to do. For me, that now is an SLR VF. But I can fully understand why others have decided otherwise, having used rangefinders for quite some time myself, very happily. Different strokes etc etc.