Nh3
Well-known
So these 10 people only shoot Leica or they carry a Leica along with their SLR gear?
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Pherdinand, my 400mm f/6.3 has a preset diaphragm and over the years I've owned several custom adapted (100mm f/2 Angenieux) and unusual lenses for which adapters were available (150 f/2.3 Astro Pan Tachar, 125mm f/2.3 Astro Pan Tachar). They had manual diaphragms and sometimes I'd want to shoot stopped down. The 400 gives partial microprism black-out as did the 280mm f/4.8 Leitz Telyt that I used to own. The Tachars gave black-out when stopped down.
You're right as far as commonly found modern lenses in SLR mounts ~ they're automatic, but even with these if you stick a 2X or 3X extender behind them you might be dropping below the magic f-stop and experience black-out. Stick an f/5.6 Schneider Componon on a bellows unit for macro work and you'll understand why a plain ground glass is a big advantage also.
When I was shooting news or P.R. I often carried a Leicaflex SL with an automatic diaphragm 180mm f/2.8, but the other long lenses I use I boughtt because I like what they do to the image. I don't need the speed of operation for those shots but I like to see the image with no central black-out. For fast and QUIET shooting nothing beats a rangefinder.
I sometimes carry an SLR along with my Leicas.
You're right as far as commonly found modern lenses in SLR mounts ~ they're automatic, but even with these if you stick a 2X or 3X extender behind them you might be dropping below the magic f-stop and experience black-out. Stick an f/5.6 Schneider Componon on a bellows unit for macro work and you'll understand why a plain ground glass is a big advantage also.
When I was shooting news or P.R. I often carried a Leicaflex SL with an automatic diaphragm 180mm f/2.8, but the other long lenses I use I boughtt because I like what they do to the image. I don't need the speed of operation for those shots but I like to see the image with no central black-out. For fast and QUIET shooting nothing beats a rangefinder.
I sometimes carry an SLR along with my Leicas.
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
Evidence in RFF (this thread aside ?), indicates you need to get out more.
SLR eclipsed RF just like 35mm RF eclipesed MF and LF. You could see what you were going to get. The cost of getting an old RF (CLA'd) or a new modern RF isn't going to change that quickly.
But I still think one should choose the tool for what it gives (the camera), then learn how to use it.
tmfabian
I met a man once...
Gumby
Veteran
Do you think he is wrong... or just speaking the truth in the wrong church?
I haven't seen any convincing evidence that he speaks inaccurately on this topic.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I'm very involved in local politics also. It's led to a lot behind the scenes shoots with various congressmen, senators, governors, presidential candidates like John Anderson and Walter Mondale, and president Bill Clinton. Yes, I have the security clearance. Suit & tie, a pair of quiet Leica M's ~ not looking like a typical PJ ~ was a large part the reason for getting these clients. There's even a photo of Bill Clinton getting to shake my hand on my blog thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Last edited:
Gumby
Veteran
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Throwing the monkey along with the wrench into the works ... perhaps this discussion could include the merits of live-view with digital zoom during manual focus, like the Panasonic G1 offers. I know, it's only one new camera model, not an entire trend (yet?), but it does change the equation, at least for some. Lots of M-mount and LTM lenses being grabbed up now for use with adaptor rings to the G1. And other mount adapters to be released soon, like Minolta MD.
The G1 doesn't offer the advantages of RF's being able to see beyond the frame's edges, but it does electronically gain up in dim lighting to enable more accurate composition and manual focus. For really fast action perhaps an optical SLR viewfinder is superior, but for general photography it's at least as good as an optical SLR, in my limited experience.
Anyway, back to the normally scheduled program....
~Joe
The G1 doesn't offer the advantages of RF's being able to see beyond the frame's edges, but it does electronically gain up in dim lighting to enable more accurate composition and manual focus. For really fast action perhaps an optical SLR viewfinder is superior, but for general photography it's at least as good as an optical SLR, in my limited experience.
Anyway, back to the normally scheduled program....
~Joe
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Gumby, for lenses up to about 90mm they focus better than an SLR. I try to carry my cameras with the focus set somewhat further away than my expected subject. That was I always know which way to turn the focus. When the images coincide I push the button. The M rangefinder has a sharply defined rangefinder patch. You can use it as either a coincident rangefinder or as a split image, but there's a third way too. When the images coincide there's a noticeable "pop" in contrast in the rangefinder patch. I find that in dim light it works great, those situations where you're straining to focus because it's so dim that the meter tells you to shoot your Tri-X at 1/4 second at f/1.4 after a one stop push.
Svitantti
Well-known
If you have a good RF it will focuse accurately. If we are talking about any RF generally this probably is not the point, because some rangefinders have a dim RF-image and lousy finder and very often short base lenght.
SLR's are not idiot-proof when focusing a fast lense in dim light. Actually they are quite hard to focus in such situations. I have missed several shots in a bar with a 50/1.4 even with SLR's with great finders (Pentax MX). With not-so-great finders (Spotmatic) it was VERY hard to focus accurately in this kind of situations.
With a Leica and a 35/1.7 or a 50/1.5 I simply havent missed a single shot. RF is good in dim light and wide open and also with wide angles.
People use what fits their use better. Personally I like a quiet camera with no mirror-shake more than a loud SLR. RF cameras also have great wide angle lenses, because they dont have to be retrofocus like with SLR's.
I still have my MX but I'm shooting almost all of my photos with M4. It just fits my photography better in many ways. This is not the case with everyone, but there are many photojournalists and artists that still use a Leica M for their job. Just look at Magnum and their photographers for example... Some say it is a great photography agency.
SLR's are not idiot-proof when focusing a fast lense in dim light. Actually they are quite hard to focus in such situations. I have missed several shots in a bar with a 50/1.4 even with SLR's with great finders (Pentax MX). With not-so-great finders (Spotmatic) it was VERY hard to focus accurately in this kind of situations.
With a Leica and a 35/1.7 or a 50/1.5 I simply havent missed a single shot. RF is good in dim light and wide open and also with wide angles.
People use what fits their use better. Personally I like a quiet camera with no mirror-shake more than a loud SLR. RF cameras also have great wide angle lenses, because they dont have to be retrofocus like with SLR's.
I still have my MX but I'm shooting almost all of my photos with M4. It just fits my photography better in many ways. This is not the case with everyone, but there are many photojournalists and artists that still use a Leica M for their job. Just look at Magnum and their photographers for example... Some say it is a great photography agency.
Last edited:
nzhang
Member
For close range, which means around 1 meter, with a 50mm lens wide open (f1.4 or 2.0), I had problem with my SLR (pentax spotmatic) but not my rangefinders (Konica IIIm, and Leica M6). I was told that the mircoprism is good for only F2.8, the wedge rangefinder even worse: good for F5.6 and smaller. So focus a SLR at wide aperture requires really good eyes with plane screens.
furcafe
Veteran
For manual focus, I prefer RFs for their "binary" focusing, i.e., the focus area is either in focus or out. When I use manual SLRs or TLRs, @ least when using plain screens, I tend to waste time adjusting the focus because there's a continuum between out of focus & in focus. When it comes to focus "aids" like microprisms & split-image spots, I've found them to be much less accurate than a decent RF patch, good only for getting in the right neighborhood; I always end up making fine adjustments w/the plain part of the screen. I do prefer SLRs or TLRs for off-center focusing, however, for the obvious reasons mentioned earlier, & when extra-careful composition is required, also for the obvious reasons.
40oz
...
Well, if anyone has looked through a DSLR finder lately, they'll know the answer to the question. The reason behind live-view is the finders suck rocks on DLSR's most people are able to afford. Autofocus is a bandaid, live-view is a patch as well. If the finders were brighter and larger, there would be little use for live-view.
Many people use the display on their P&S digicams to frame the shot because the finders are so abysmal. This then results in a demand for anti-shake tech. I find it funny and sad this silly spiral towards anti-shake, live-view, face recognition, etc. driven by ever-degrading finders on cameras.
How much energy is devoted each year to developing a better solution to camera use that could be avoided with good finder design? Cosina can do it, why the hell can't Nikon, Canon or Fuji?
Many people use the display on their P&S digicams to frame the shot because the finders are so abysmal. This then results in a demand for anti-shake tech. I find it funny and sad this silly spiral towards anti-shake, live-view, face recognition, etc. driven by ever-degrading finders on cameras.
How much energy is devoted each year to developing a better solution to camera use that could be avoided with good finder design? Cosina can do it, why the hell can't Nikon, Canon or Fuji?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Cosina is charging $500 for the camera with that awesome viewfinder, which more than most point n shoot digital cameras cost, and it is even more than a few D-SLRs. That Cosina camera isn't digital; the digital version, the Epson RD-1, cost $3000 new.
40oz
...
I know, it was merely an example that a nice finder at a reasonable price is hardly impossible. And the fact that there are DSLR bodies cheaper than a C-V rf body is beside the point. You've always had to spend more to get a better finder. But you'd think that spending a grand or more for a high-tech body would net you some tech regarding the finder, but it is the other way - all development seems to be revolving around electronic systems rather than the actual picture-taking process. Personally, I'm waiting to see if the recent economic downturn forces these companies to put more effort into the basics than in bells and whistles to keep selling product. I'm tired of hearing "So what, they're all like that. Now make your choice."
The fact that most (DSLR and P&S) finders are truly abysmal compared to a dirty rf finder pretty much answers the OP's question in my opinion - long lenses and macro being the obvious exception by default rather than any superiority in finders.
It amused me when my co-worker praised live-view in his Olympus because "accurate focusing with human eyes is impossible." I showed him my Kiev and he realized the problem was his finder, not "human eyesight."
IOW, a crappy finder makes easy and accurate manual focusing impossible.
Last edited:
guy-montag
Gonzo Photographer
Oh my, a pro-body SLR with AF has the most accurate focus hands-down. It may not always be the *particular* focus point you're looking for, but 99% of the time it nails the one you want with far more precision and speed than anything human based.
On f1.8 and larger aperture lenses, wide open, the DoF is an incredibly narrow slice, and this is where fast AF in low light makes an expensive SLR worth it.
Of course, not everyone is out there shooting with a Canon 1Ds Mk II / Mk III or a Nikon D3, but having used those, and a Nikon D200 on a regular basis, along with various RF's and fully manual SLR's and a few MF cameras and TLR's, the pro-level SLR with AF beats everything else hands down in terms of accuracy.
bmattock
Veteran
Both SLR and RF focus are generally acceptable to me. AF is generally acceptable too, although as guy-montag said, it might not be focused where I intended.
For critical focus, there is not much that beats a large-format ground glass screen with a magnifying loupe, but this brings its own set of requirements, such as time, patience, and subjects which don't wave around in the breeze much.
All are 'acceptable' to me most of the time. None are as perfect as I would like sometimes.
For critical focus, there is not much that beats a large-format ground glass screen with a magnifying loupe, but this brings its own set of requirements, such as time, patience, and subjects which don't wave around in the breeze much.
All are 'acceptable' to me most of the time. None are as perfect as I would like sometimes.