Ease of focusing for you ... SLR or Rangefinder?

Ease of focusing for you ... SLR or Rangefinder?

  • An SLR with a good screen and finder and a fast lens.

    Votes: 39 24.8%

  • A rangefinder.

    Votes: 81 51.6%

  • Sigh ... autofocus.

    Votes: 37 23.6%
  • Total voters
    157
Interesting question.

I find RF easy to focus but only when I remember to do it 🙂
Problem is that sometimes I forget to do it at all due to the clear VF screen which always looks in focus. Sometimes I find the RF patch is so far out that I don't notice it is not in focus.

I hate autofocus most of the time as it always seems to grab focus on some minor thing in the foreground and not what I want to shoot. I normally end up switching it off except for easy shoot the family snaps in an open space stuff.

Manual focus on an auto focus SLR is never a great experience but it has been quite a while now since I owned a truly manual focus SLR. I recall it as being easy and fun except for fast moving things.

Is there such a thing as a digital SLR with truly manual focus design and lenses? I guess not. I think there would be quite a niche market for that if it existed. Maybe that is what someone like Olympus or Pentax should have made.

Gadge
 
Gadge said:
Is there such a thing as a digital SLR with truly manual focus design and lenses? I guess not. I think there would be quite a niche market for that if it existed. Maybe that is what someone like Olympus or Pentax should have made.
Click to expand...

Pentax has its 'quick-shift' focus thingy -- autofocus with the possibility to focus manually without having to turn the autofocus off first. Works well.
 
I always thought rangefinders were 'easy' to focus, but only: 1) if there's no patch whiteout in the given situation; 2) the subject is in the center of the frame; and 3) if i'm not trying to focus on a PART of the subject, like one eye in a partial profile. In the perfect scenario, RF focusing is quite 'solid.' But, my shooting situations tend not to be 'perfect' often enough, and i was too often frustrated. Either not seeing the patch, or not having the focus ring preset in the right range so that i'm wandering around trying to find focus.... I wanted to scream so much that i gave up on RFs.

A MF SLR works well for just about any situation, although the wider the lens, the more difficult it is, but then you can then rely on inherent DOF. But, i'm too paranoid, and need to actually see/feel the 'snap.' I don't trust things i can't see, i suppose.

AF is fantastic, as long as you're not allowing the sensor points to affect your composition. Too often i felt i was framing with the focus point in the center, and then recomposing, and the recomposing felt contrived and unnatural. It's better with a camera like the EOS3, where you can just compose and the focus point will follow you. Too bad there isn't a Canon digital with that ECF feature. Not yet, anyway. I'm certain Canon is just waiting for the end of the megapixel escalation to re-introduce ECF as the Next way to sell a new camera.
 
Give me fast auto focus in a RF body and I'm happy...

Thats one of the reasons why we're going nuts over X100... the potential of a OVF with fast autofocus in a compact body is limitless. Not to mention decent metering and digital convenience. You could just keep shooting nonstop until you drop!
 
Started on a manual Pentax SLR, graduated to Leica m6. MAJOR learning curve. Thought i'd never "get" it. Found myself picking up the Pentax over the Leica. Went on a trip to NYC and forced myself to bring Leica only. Somewhere between Tulsa and the Brooklyn bridge everything clicked. Now focusing TTL seems anachronistic and dang near impossible to get perfect. Perhaps my eye caught a case of red dot fever. Who knows.
 
I've come to accept the fact that I am, generally, slow with MF. And I no longer care. I'll squint away and adjust until I have it.

Overall, however, I do think a good rangefinder is easier to focus. Unless something is busy or moving quickly, I find RF focusing quick and certain (certain being the key point).
 
Cannot vote.

For me, rangefinder for wide angles and superwide angles. SLR for selective focusing with telephotos.

To date still have not used autofocus.
 
I much prefer a rangefinder (even though I am without one these days, sigh). I've been shooting at night with my Pentax 6x7 and TTL prism and waist-level finder, and it's damn impossible to see! I'd be much better off with a rangefinder for 80% of what I shoot, if only I could afford it.
 
A couple of weeks ago I would have said an SLR but since I have the M9 it has to be that for me. Not sure why, might be mental or that I am so happy when I am using it.
 
With a good screen, SLR is very good, but without, next to useless for me. I prefer range finder focusing, but SLR has the benefit of *seeing* the focus. I'm used to range finder, and I like it, but there will always be advantages to seeing through the picture taking lens.
 
A DLSR with state-of-the art AF will out perform everything if the photographer understands the complex options and uses the best AF configuration for the task at hand. Because a high-performance AF system has so many options, it lot more trouble to learn and master compared to a high-quality RF focus patch. When the AF system is mastered, the DSLR's flexibility and performance is a serious advantage. Of course the DSLR's size, weight and noise level can be a problem. Reliance on the center AF focus point to light focus and recompose delivers a high rate of success even in the most challenging circumstances. Less sophisticated DSLR's may not be able to compete with an excellent RF finder when speed is important in low-light, low-contrast situations.
 
I don't feel comfortable using a rangefinder in low light. Manual focus SLR is somewhat better. I guess I'm slowly moving towards AF in general.
 
The only one in which you actually "focus" an image is the SLR. RF's use two images already in focus, and AF's just require that you know which area of the VF image is actually the target of the AF function.

One function of the reference lines in the SLR VF is to always provide an in-focus reference in the visual field because if you take too long to focus an image by eye (by wobbling back and forth in and out of focus) the eye/brain tends to correct the field and give the false impression of being in focus. That's one reason it's so important to ensure that the reference lines are in focus before taking the shot.

This phenomenon is particularly critical when doing photomicrography. Anyway, it isn't a consideration when using an RF.

For AF's, you still must tell the camera where to focus - e.g. closest, center, whatever - and remember to note the confirmation in the VF before taking the shot.

Given my aging eyesight, I vote for the rangefinder.
 
Toss up between RF and SLR at this point.

I'd probably be firmly on the SLR side if I didn't see 3 images normally. It didn't hit me until using a Canon P and trying to shoot with both eyes open. It took me a while to figure out which of the 4 images was moving as I focused. 🙁

Stupid eyes. I have a slightly lazy eye with a messed up surface due. The surface issues are probably a combination of corrective surgery for ptosis as a child and taking Accutane, both of which probably contributed. As a result, my left eye - which use to be my primary eye - seems skewed slightly and sees 2-3 images. For example, looking at 0, I see it tilted about a half degree to the side, slightly smaller than in my other eye. I also see a secondary image of it a bit fainter and offset slightly upwards. I sometimes get a third image out of that eye as well though I think my brain filters some of it out most of the time.

I expect to end up shooting autofocus at some point, particularly if anything happens to my right eye. I've given up shooting with both eyes open. I love the idea and enjoy it but it messes with my head a bit too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom