Bill Pierce
Well-known
This is a digital question and doesn't really effect the film folks. At one time, rangefinders had a clear advantage over SLR's and DSLR's when it came to using wide-open, high-speed normal and wide-angles in low light. But with the new top-of-the-line Nikon and Canon DSLR's giving good results at very high "film" speeds (something the M8 doesn't), f/2.8 is the new f/1.4. Does this mean that, in the digital world, the rangefinder has lost one of its advantages?
Bill
Bill
Fred Burton
Well-known
Except for size (body and lens), I see no technical advantage that rangefinders still hold.
fbf
Well-known
considering the weight of the DSLR camera plus a fast prime lens, I will never give up rangefinder unless the size and weight of DSLR can be managed.
R
rovnguy
Guest
The way I see things, if you have to wonder about the advantages of an RF camera, then you really need to be elsewhere. Although modern technology has been used to solve, or shall I say "deal" with a number of photographic issues, the photographer that knows how to get the best performance out of a manual camera is the same person who produces images I find most pleasing. Just my opinion.
Fred Burton
Well-known
"the photographer that knows how to get the best performance out of a manual camera is the same person who produces images I find most pleasing."
And how do you decide when looking at photos whether those you find most pleasing were taken by a photographer who knows how to get the best performance from a manual camera? Many of the most celebrated photographers shoot Canons and Nikons auto everything digital cameras these days.
Look, I love RF's, too. But the latest Nikons and Canons with fast primes have it all over Leica in low-light performance and ease of focusing. They beat them in focusing wide-angle lenses (and wide-angles is why I carried a Leica along with the SLR's back in the day). They beat RF's in low noise at high ISO. The RF (well, the only digital RF still in production) and its lenses are still certainly smaller than SLR's in general, but that gap is narrowing quickly as well.
Although digital was the OP's point here, if you are talking about new film cameras, Leica and VC clearly win. Although some are still listed in Catalogs, I'm not sure there is a film SLR still in production. Let the economic situation in the world not improve for a couple of years and both VC and Leica will likely be history.
And how do you decide when looking at photos whether those you find most pleasing were taken by a photographer who knows how to get the best performance from a manual camera? Many of the most celebrated photographers shoot Canons and Nikons auto everything digital cameras these days.
Look, I love RF's, too. But the latest Nikons and Canons with fast primes have it all over Leica in low-light performance and ease of focusing. They beat them in focusing wide-angle lenses (and wide-angles is why I carried a Leica along with the SLR's back in the day). They beat RF's in low noise at high ISO. The RF (well, the only digital RF still in production) and its lenses are still certainly smaller than SLR's in general, but that gap is narrowing quickly as well.
Although digital was the OP's point here, if you are talking about new film cameras, Leica and VC clearly win. Although some are still listed in Catalogs, I'm not sure there is a film SLR still in production. Let the economic situation in the world not improve for a couple of years and both VC and Leica will likely be history.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I have a Zuiko Digital 25/2.8, whose focal length in 35mm terms is 50mm. By raising ISO it can be used as a fastish normal (which is why I bought it). But there are other considerations. The other day, I wanted to photograph a child on a swing. I could not manage to pre-focus with my auto-focus digital SLR. With my M2, it was simple. My Olympus digital SRL, with its "crop factor" of 2, cannot easily give me the blurred background that I often want in portraits. In general, differential focussing is difficult or impossible.
mcgrattan
Well-known
The one thing that rangefinders still score on is the lack of mirror blackout.
For years I've never really thought of mirror blackout as a big problem with my film SLR, but twice in the past few weeks I've been taking photos in fairly dim light [family members in restaurants, nothing fancy] where I've been able to focus the SLR [barely] but where I suspected that the subjects had moved during the relatively long [1/25th or so] exposure. If I'd been using a rangefinder I'd have known this, with the SLR I wasn't sure. These were film shots so there was just no way to check there and then.
In general, though, I agree. I've seen astonishing low light photos from the latest high end dSLRs, photos that beat anything that can be produced with film, and with a good fast prime lens they have very few technical limitations.
For years I've never really thought of mirror blackout as a big problem with my film SLR, but twice in the past few weeks I've been taking photos in fairly dim light [family members in restaurants, nothing fancy] where I've been able to focus the SLR [barely] but where I suspected that the subjects had moved during the relatively long [1/25th or so] exposure. If I'd been using a rangefinder I'd have known this, with the SLR I wasn't sure. These were film shots so there was just no way to check there and then.
In general, though, I agree. I've seen astonishing low light photos from the latest high end dSLRs, photos that beat anything that can be produced with film, and with a good fast prime lens they have very few technical limitations.
kievman
Kievman
I tend to agree with Bill, but only in digitals ability to produce quality low noise images at high ISO'S with relatively slow F stops (F2.8), but that is really it A rangefinder camera wether it be a M8 or a Canon canonet GIII is a much less intrusive camera than any of the DSLR's I have used or seen, much quieter and smaller. I have also found that focusing in low light is much faster and accurate with a rangefinder than any DSLR I have used without some form of focus assist coming from a flash or camera, which mean a red or white beam of light from the camera, hardly any good for candid shots. - Michael
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
let's face it - the camera that is the easiest to focus in any kind of light you might encounter including lack fo any light is the konica hexar af. (Of course there are more that use active IR autofocus- i guess?).
Alll the contrast-hunting DSLRs, the always-and-never-in-focus point-and-shoots and the twist-the-ring manual focus rangefinders are having trouble when the sun goes down.
Alll the contrast-hunting DSLRs, the always-and-never-in-focus point-and-shoots and the twist-the-ring manual focus rangefinders are having trouble when the sun goes down.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
In addition, i was totally relaxed to hang around in downtown Rio (including the beaches) with my very beat-up Canonet ql17 gIII loaded with slide film. I was sure i get great quality and I was almost sure nobody will try to mug me - and if they do, my only concern was, how to say in portuguese "can i please take the film out before you get the camera". Wasn't necessary in the end. The Kodachromes are being scanned these days.
EDIT: sorry, this reply was obviously not speed-related, just wanted to express that new fancy shiny expensive is sometimes working against photography.
EDIT: sorry, this reply was obviously not speed-related, just wanted to express that new fancy shiny expensive is sometimes working against photography.
pvdhaar
Peter
When it comes to low light shooting, I don't think the major difference between an RF and SLR was in the max apertures that the lenses had. Given the similar difficulty of accurately focussing a wide on an SLR, and a very fast normal on an RF, the playing field is quite even..
One major advantage however that RF's did have over SLRs was the lack of camera shake due to mirror slap.
But with the newer dSLRs, it's amazing how smooth the mirror/shutter balances, and this isn't restricted to just the top of the line models. I can routinely get the same results at 1/15th to 1/8th of a second..
One major advantage however that RF's did have over SLRs was the lack of camera shake due to mirror slap.
But with the newer dSLRs, it's amazing how smooth the mirror/shutter balances, and this isn't restricted to just the top of the line models. I can routinely get the same results at 1/15th to 1/8th of a second..
fawate
Member
Pherdinand,
Never say that you were not prepared next time you visit Rio. The sentence is: "será que eu posso tirar o filme da máquina antes de você levá-la?"
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
If you are talking FF DSLRs, I would say yes RFs have lost some of their advantages especially when you factor in some sort of IS/VR. Then again if you need F1.4 for other reasons than just to be able get a shot the answer is yes again. You get the same separation of subject and background with a FF DSLR as with a film RF. The advantage is not completely with FF DSLRs and if someone could produce a FF DRF with in body IS all the old advantages the RFs had would be back. There could still be a clear advantage to having a FF DRF with a D700 like sensor that took M lenses especially if a smaller, quieter and less intrusive kit is what you want.
Bob
Bob
Al Kaplan
Veteran
One advantage some of us have with our rangefinders is that the dang things won't die! I keep saying that I'm going digital as soon as my 35 to 45 year old M bodies wear out. I keep wondering if I'd consider the switch if somebody would make a digital full frame flip-up back not more than about 6mm thick to replace the existing one on M bodies. Batteries could fit in the film compartment.
Last edited:
dmr
Registered Abuser
First a question? How fast do these new Latest And Greatest<tm> DSLRs go, ISO-wise, and do they really give acceptable results up there?
Now ...
(Said while grabbing whip and looking for a dead horse to beat ...)
Why is it that NOBODY has come up with a practical way of switching between film and digital in the same camera? I would think that it would be practical to adapt a modern DSLR (or DRF) design to include an optional film transport.
I was REALLY hoping for a digital film type product, but it looks like all of that vaporware has vanished. I would really like to see digital as an option and not as a lifelong commitment.
And yes, I know about the Leica SLR and the DMR, and other than the obvious coincidence, it does not appeal to me. It looks like it would be like carrying around a Speed Graphic in the digital mode!
Now ...
(Said while grabbing whip and looking for a dead horse to beat ...)
Why is it that NOBODY has come up with a practical way of switching between film and digital in the same camera? I would think that it would be practical to adapt a modern DSLR (or DRF) design to include an optional film transport.
I was REALLY hoping for a digital film type product, but it looks like all of that vaporware has vanished. I would really like to see digital as an option and not as a lifelong commitment.
And yes, I know about the Leica SLR and the DMR, and other than the obvious coincidence, it does not appeal to me. It looks like it would be like carrying around a Speed Graphic in the digital mode!
pvdhaar
Peter
That's a matter of perspective only.. You're looking at it from the camera point of view.
However, considering what many of us have invested in glass, and take that glass as reference, then, well.. basically that is what Canon/Nikon/Pentax have given solutions for..
In other words, we're able to keep using all the glass we have, and switch between film and digital bodies at will..
Al Kaplan
Veteran
How about a digital body that looks and feels like the cameras we're used to, where we know where the controls are located and which way to turn them? It was a successful strategy when Nikon introduced the F and wanted it to capture the serious amateur and pro markets. If you were already shooting an S3 or an SP your fingers knew where to go and what to do when they got there. Leica was five years too late, made the Leicaflex the wrong size and the wrong shape, and no interchangeable finders or focussing screens were possible, let alone available. Hell, it didn't have a "focussing" screen, just a split image rangefinder in the middle of clear glass.
Within a few years the Nikkorex hit the market, allowing Nikon glass to go on a relatively inexpensive body. A much larger number of people could afford to "go Nikon",
and many pros picked up a Nikkorex body also, because the Copal Square shutter allowed for a much higher flash synch speed. Meanwhile the flagship F allowed you to buy the new through the lens metering prism finder to upgrade your camera. You could add a motor drive or even a bulk film back.
When Leitz finally came out with a full focussing screen with the introduction of the 'flex SL you could finally use a 180/2.8 that focussed the right way, no more confusion with the backwards focussing direction of your only Nikon F and its 180/2.8 Nikkor.
Then there was the camming issue with the Leica SLR's. Each new model required lenses with a different cam to tell the meter what f-stop you'd chosen. Sure, they'd add cams to your old lenses for a price. Imagine sending all your M lenses back to get upgraded to function with the latest camera's "new improved" rangefinder. Wait a minute! Didn't the introduction of the M8 cause you to send all your M lenses in to be "coded"? Brilliant!
Within a few years the Nikkorex hit the market, allowing Nikon glass to go on a relatively inexpensive body. A much larger number of people could afford to "go Nikon",
and many pros picked up a Nikkorex body also, because the Copal Square shutter allowed for a much higher flash synch speed. Meanwhile the flagship F allowed you to buy the new through the lens metering prism finder to upgrade your camera. You could add a motor drive or even a bulk film back.
When Leitz finally came out with a full focussing screen with the introduction of the 'flex SL you could finally use a 180/2.8 that focussed the right way, no more confusion with the backwards focussing direction of your only Nikon F and its 180/2.8 Nikkor.
Then there was the camming issue with the Leica SLR's. Each new model required lenses with a different cam to tell the meter what f-stop you'd chosen. Sure, they'd add cams to your old lenses for a price. Imagine sending all your M lenses back to get upgraded to function with the latest camera's "new improved" rangefinder. Wait a minute! Didn't the introduction of the M8 cause you to send all your M lenses in to be "coded"? Brilliant!
Last edited:
furcafe
Veteran
furcafe
Veteran
Agreed, & this predates the advent of digital; I would guess SLRs equalled RFs for speed, for most people anyway, when fast & accurate autofocus was developed.
However, sometimes size does matter, though small size (@ least for camera bodies) is obviously not limited to the RF form factor.
However, sometimes size does matter, though small size (@ least for camera bodies) is obviously not limited to the RF form factor.
Last edited: