italy74
Well-known
Hi guys
I post this thought here, although it would be common to every rf brand/model shooter.
Of course, it means to be a semiserious one, not a provocative one...
Would you ever believe that the better RF could be a SLR ? (at least for some things)
Let me explain. One of the great battlehorses of the RF is the fact that the viewfinder, although less accurate than viewing through the lens, lets you ALSO realize what's going on around you, this means you have the perception something is happening one moment before it effectively does.
Yesterday I was checking the D700 use and noticed how, if you willingly set DX mode while having a FX lens, you get exactly the same and you can still have dof, filters, exact idea on what will be recorded etc.
Practically, the whole lens whose you see EVERYTHING, this is the great idea, works as the RF viewfinder and inside it there are the framelines of DX area. It's different when you use a DX lens on FX body since all the rest around the lens will darken. But a DX setting on a FX lens will give you exactly a RF-looking SLR camera.
Of course you have to live with a littler resolution image, but I think it's an underrated feature and maybe soon it could be improved greatly. At the same way you will have your viewfinder closed by the mirror once you shot but nothing at this world looks to be 100% perfect, isn't it?
Any of you has ever thought of / realized this?
I post this thought here, although it would be common to every rf brand/model shooter.
Of course, it means to be a semiserious one, not a provocative one...
Would you ever believe that the better RF could be a SLR ? (at least for some things)
Let me explain. One of the great battlehorses of the RF is the fact that the viewfinder, although less accurate than viewing through the lens, lets you ALSO realize what's going on around you, this means you have the perception something is happening one moment before it effectively does.
Yesterday I was checking the D700 use and noticed how, if you willingly set DX mode while having a FX lens, you get exactly the same and you can still have dof, filters, exact idea on what will be recorded etc.
Practically, the whole lens whose you see EVERYTHING, this is the great idea, works as the RF viewfinder and inside it there are the framelines of DX area. It's different when you use a DX lens on FX body since all the rest around the lens will darken. But a DX setting on a FX lens will give you exactly a RF-looking SLR camera.
Of course you have to live with a littler resolution image, but I think it's an underrated feature and maybe soon it could be improved greatly. At the same way you will have your viewfinder closed by the mirror once you shot but nothing at this world looks to be 100% perfect, isn't it?
Any of you has ever thought of / realized this?
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Yes, heresy ought to be used wisely.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Wearing glasses, I have never been able to see outside the frame lines very well. And I'm not sure how much this is a piece of marketing urban legend anyway, so it's no heresy to me.
/T
/T
photogdave
Shops local
You will still get mirror blackout at time of exposure.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I've never really understood the whole "mirror blackout" thing. O.K. I don't know exactly what happens the moment the shutter fires and the mirror flips up and down. But unless I'm shooting people sitting still, the photo I'm trying to take has moved on anyway. I guess if you are shooting portraits and want to see if someone blinks there might be a case here. But in any other situation I can think of, you can't repeat that exact shot anyway. So all you can benefit by the RF system is being able to say, "Well, damn, missed that shot" now, rather than later.
user237428934
User deletion pending
So you must be the one they designed that DX-Mode for. In my eyes this is the most useless feature in that camera.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Same here. I am able to see the 35mm framelines on my m8. Not much more. That's perfectly OK because I use a 35mm lens 95% of the time.
Richard Marks
Rexel
The other feature of a rangefinder is the accuracy of focusing and for some of us, auto focus is still contentious. You are not in control of the point of focus. Usually you get lucky, but its not quite the same thing. If you use a 85mm wide open say f 1.4 on a DSLR you might appreciate the limitations of its focusing. If I ever did get a DSLR I would want a split image micro prism in it.
Richard
Richard
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Just because you don't see germs, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Then again, they may be a figment of Lysol's marketing department :angel:
Gid
Well-known
I get more in focus shots with an SLR with decent AF, but I only use the centre point and I am in control of where it focuses. There's no luck involved. Modern AF systems are, in the main, very good and much better than my eyesight.
I've never really understood/bought into all this seeing what's outside of the frame malarky. I'm quite capable of having a look at what is going on before I put eye to VF and given that AF can focus a lot quicker than I can manual focus, I probably miss fewer shots.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Besides, when a rangefinder is out of adjustment, you don't know it until you get the photos back. Whatever theoretical advantage the focusing system might have, the precision of its alignment is essential. At least on an SLR, you can see if you something is wrong.
ssmc
Well-known
yes, and no...
yes, and no...
I don't know too much about heresy
but there are definitely some cases in which an SLR can provice a similar "seeing outside the frame" effect as a RF, even without the whole DX/FX frameline thing. For example, the Minolta X-700/570 has a (huge) 0.95/90% VF which when used with a 50mm lens gives an effective magnification of almost exactly 1x. This has the pleasant result that you can keep your left eye open while framing with your right, without any stress on the brain. It's a very nice combo for that reason alone! Of course you still get VF blackout and more noise/vibration than a RF. I expect that similar FL primes on other brands would get you close to that situation, but probably not with cropped DSLRs unless you're shooting medium teles.
Regards,
Scott
yes, and no...
I don't know too much about heresy
but there are definitely some cases in which an SLR can provice a similar "seeing outside the frame" effect as a RF, even without the whole DX/FX frameline thing. For example, the Minolta X-700/570 has a (huge) 0.95/90% VF which when used with a 50mm lens gives an effective magnification of almost exactly 1x. This has the pleasant result that you can keep your left eye open while framing with your right, without any stress on the brain. It's a very nice combo for that reason alone! Of course you still get VF blackout and more noise/vibration than a RF. I expect that similar FL primes on other brands would get you close to that situation, but probably not with cropped DSLRs unless you're shooting medium teles. Regards,
Scott
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
you would if you worked in the motion picture industry.
I dont understand black holes. That doesnt necessarily make them malarky nor give me much ground to stand on taking shots at them...
If an SLR works for you, you should be psyched because there are plenty of people, like myself who just cant deal with them primarily because of not seeing outside the frame...
proenca
Proenca
lol... really ? so if , lets say, if you are using a Nikon F5 and the lens is backfocusing, you can tell straight way ? dont have to wait for the photos to come back ? ...
oh gosh.. do you know we have DIGITAL rangefinders ? not many to be honest, by they exist...
theoretical advantage ? lol... :bang:
well lets see :
rangefinder doesnt blackout the viewfinder
rangefinder are much smaller
rangefinder lens are tiny compared to the same aperture lens on a SLR
rangefinder are lighter
rangefinder are REALLY backwards compatible... I use in my Leica M8 a lens , a Leica lens, that was made on 1951... and with a very few exceptions, all backwards lens can be used. Canon or Nikon boys can't say the same..
Just get one thing : there isnt a uber system. I used SLR all my life. 5 Years ago I started using rangefinders and today I dont have a SLR anymore ( well last 2 years Im SLR free actually ).
The so called "theoretical" advantages you say are what today I value in a camera.
Is what EVERYONE should ? no. works for me. in *****s.
but if doesnt for you, be happy using your SLR. it works better for you.
rangefinder isnt the mother of all cameras - has severe limitations, just like SLR has. just pick the one you can live with and better suited for you.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"lol... really ? so if , lets say, if you are using a Nikon F5 and the lens is backfocusing, you can tell straight way ? dont have to wait for the photos to come back"
Well, I've had RFs get knocked out of alignment and the focus was 10 feet or more off, but didn't know it until the film came back. Think I would have noticed that on an SLR.
Well, I've had RFs get knocked out of alignment and the focus was 10 feet or more off, but didn't know it until the film came back. Think I would have noticed that on an SLR.
Gid
Well-known
As it happens I, probably like the vast majority of people, don't work in the motion picture industry, so your point is moot at best and spurious at worst. I wasn't aware they used RFs in the motion picture industry.
You only see outside of the frame (anything meaningful that is) if you are using longer lenses (50 +) and don't wear glasses (for example using an M6). However, if it works for you,then, that is fine. I have used and continue to use RFs, but its for their relatively small size and ability to hand hold at slow speeds. not for the VF.
YMMV and probably does
Last edited:
Richard Marks
Rexel
I do not disagree with your experience. I am simply giving my opnion. If your eyes are a limiting factor in focusing then the SLR is going to be better. But you are not in control of the precise focal point with an SLR. You see a cursor, and the area is somewhere between the margins of the cursor. You can not say where. If you are doing close up portrait work the distance between margins of the cursor can be a significant component of the subjects face. With enough depth of field you will be fine but wide open you do not always get what you intended. (Just my opnion)
Richard
Gid
Well-known
If focus is critical - for example, portraits or product shots and relatively close distance - I would always manual focus (diopter correction is a godsend for aged eyesight), so I don't disagree with you.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Heisenberg
Heisenberg
I've always assumed the mirror blackout of the image at the exact time of the exposure was to prevent one from violating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, whereby the act of observing something changes the nature of the thing being observed.
This being the case, we can therefore assert that RF cameras do change the world, while SLRs don't.
~Joe
Heisenberg
I've always assumed the mirror blackout of the image at the exact time of the exposure was to prevent one from violating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, whereby the act of observing something changes the nature of the thing being observed.
This being the case, we can therefore assert that RF cameras do change the world, while SLRs don't.
~Joe
italy74
Well-known
The funniest thing is that I clearly said it was meant to be a semiserious post... - I still long for a RF camera as you can see in my signature...
However I found this kind of feature really interesting
- I still long for a RF camera as you can see in my signature...However I found this kind of feature really interesting