Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
At the top of my list are lower sound and smaller size.
But RFs are really great when you use a 35 or a 28 at f/8 and prefocused at 6-8 feet... If you use a fast 50 wide open, then you must work at a slower speed... Yet for those cases RFs are fine for most scenes... But now and then, deciding exposure, and focusing, and composing, are just too much for a real vanishing moment... Sometimes I prefer just one of them at a time: say using a prefocused camera with a slow and small 28/35 at f/8 and just care about exposure (& framing), and a second body with AE and a fast lens, and with it I just care about focusing (& framing)... The meterless camera with a 50 for critical focus is not my game: I can do it but I feel caring too much about too many things... Other times I prefer not to worry about anything but composing, so I use an XA and Hexar RF for sun and shades/overcast...
But it's really easy to justify rangefinders: even easier than justifying other kinds of cameras: they're unobtrusive and give a lot of pleasure because you're in real contact with the creation of the image... Not seeing through the lens is a great advantage too... It teaches us about looking at the world and not at an image through a lens, and about composing considering what's surrounding our composition, and also helps for filters... Filters can be so important SLRs-only people can't imagine: if we use a RF with ISO400 film at 1600 with an f/1.4 lens, we're ready for very low interiors light... Then we go out and there's light several stops stronger, so we put an ND8 on, and we can keep using the camera... Now it's like using ISO200 film... Now put on an ND64 filter and you can even open your lens in good light for selective focus... Just like using ISO25 film... That's as easy as a digital camera, but all your images will have the grain you prefer... And you'll enjoy the pleasures of film, in case you like that... The same with B&W contrast filters...
Cheers,
Juan
But RFs are really great when you use a 35 or a 28 at f/8 and prefocused at 6-8 feet... If you use a fast 50 wide open, then you must work at a slower speed... Yet for those cases RFs are fine for most scenes... But now and then, deciding exposure, and focusing, and composing, are just too much for a real vanishing moment... Sometimes I prefer just one of them at a time: say using a prefocused camera with a slow and small 28/35 at f/8 and just care about exposure (& framing), and a second body with AE and a fast lens, and with it I just care about focusing (& framing)... The meterless camera with a 50 for critical focus is not my game: I can do it but I feel caring too much about too many things... Other times I prefer not to worry about anything but composing, so I use an XA and Hexar RF for sun and shades/overcast...
But it's really easy to justify rangefinders: even easier than justifying other kinds of cameras: they're unobtrusive and give a lot of pleasure because you're in real contact with the creation of the image... Not seeing through the lens is a great advantage too... It teaches us about looking at the world and not at an image through a lens, and about composing considering what's surrounding our composition, and also helps for filters... Filters can be so important SLRs-only people can't imagine: if we use a RF with ISO400 film at 1600 with an f/1.4 lens, we're ready for very low interiors light... Then we go out and there's light several stops stronger, so we put an ND8 on, and we can keep using the camera... Now it's like using ISO200 film... Now put on an ND64 filter and you can even open your lens in good light for selective focus... Just like using ISO25 film... That's as easy as a digital camera, but all your images will have the grain you prefer... And you'll enjoy the pleasures of film, in case you like that... The same with B&W contrast filters...
Cheers,
Juan
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I don't get the obsession that amateurs have with 'justifying' a camera. If you can afford it and like the images you get with it, that's all you need.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
It is actually very simple - some people are rangefinder shooters and some are SLR shooters. I usually keep a "loaner" kit around, a M2, 35 and 50 - and when someone starts thinking about going Rf - I lend it to them for a couple of weeks. About 50% return it and claim that it is useless and the other 50% are very difficult to get the camera/lenses back. "oh, just another week" or " I still have film in the camera"!
Starting off with a M6 and a 0.95 is pushing it. At the best of time a "super speed lens" usually takes a lot of practice to master - and woebetide trying to wet print anything from a 0.95/f1.0 or f1.1. You spend a lot of time "chasing" focus on the easel.
Any lens longer than a 75/90 is also tricky. SLR's excel at long lenses and closer focus, Rf's are better with wides (21/25/28) - but in all cases, it is based on experience and trial/error (lots of errors = experience).
I have used and still use both systems (Rf and SLR's) and if I stay away from one for too long (mostly SLR's) it takes a while to get up to speed with them (mirror slap, strange screens, weight etc) .
Starting off with a M6 and a 0.95 is pushing it. At the best of time a "super speed lens" usually takes a lot of practice to master - and woebetide trying to wet print anything from a 0.95/f1.0 or f1.1. You spend a lot of time "chasing" focus on the easel.
Any lens longer than a 75/90 is also tricky. SLR's excel at long lenses and closer focus, Rf's are better with wides (21/25/28) - but in all cases, it is based on experience and trial/error (lots of errors = experience).
I have used and still use both systems (Rf and SLR's) and if I stay away from one for too long (mostly SLR's) it takes a while to get up to speed with them (mirror slap, strange screens, weight etc) .
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
Uh, the turd on your M6 might be a little dim... 
I think the case for RFs as being faster or more accurate or smarter in focus than a camera like a D300/D700 just can't be made. The D300/D700 often seemed smarter than me and watching it follow a moving figure across the FOV was creepy and wonderful. No, that doesn't mean you should all ditch your Leicas and Epsons and Canons and Olympus rfs. Like I said, they afford other things. Not blacking out between shots, or a slower pace that encourages more careful framing or contemplation at least. Some of the most beautiful industrial designs in the world, an overall lightweight kit, an amazing stable of lenses...
I think the case for RFs as being faster or more accurate or smarter in focus than a camera like a D300/D700 just can't be made. The D300/D700 often seemed smarter than me and watching it follow a moving figure across the FOV was creepy and wonderful. No, that doesn't mean you should all ditch your Leicas and Epsons and Canons and Olympus rfs. Like I said, they afford other things. Not blacking out between shots, or a slower pace that encourages more careful framing or contemplation at least. Some of the most beautiful industrial designs in the world, an overall lightweight kit, an amazing stable of lenses...
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Juan has got it, right there.
I would add: seeing the world as a projection on the groundglass from a lens wide open at f/2 or f/1.4, when you're actually shooting at f/5.6 or f/8 can be a real problem in a lot of situations... The deep focus of a good VF window interferes much less with the photographer's situational awareness than the shallow focus of an SLR's matte screen.
Last edited:
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
First thing is that with a rangefinder you're lining up a split image. When it's lined up - that's it.
With ground glass invariably you get to the sharpest point, then go a bit past, then back again to ensure the best focus. If focus is not critical you may not care. If it is you will.
The second point is rather dubious since even with an SLR one rarely focusses using an edge of the focusing screen. And of course if you have a split image or microprism spot then you're going to be getting the focus in the center of the image anyway... (or if you use a WLF with a magnifier).
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
People say this all the time, but I shoot with both RF's and SLR's, and in my not-so-humble opinion it just ain't so. With BOTH systems* I often nail focus, and with BOTH systems I often overshoot and have to correct. Neither system has any advantage in this respect... with all due respect.
*(You are aware that most manual-focus SLR focus screens employ a split image, yes?)
Last edited:
This thread should have ended here.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well I hate to state the obvious but you have the power to delete every post back to that point and close the thread.
Not much point in owning the big axe if you can't wield it occasionally!
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
SciAggie
Well-known
This has been my experience as well, particularly with fast lenses. For example, I LOVE my Canon 85/1.2 lens - but you have to be very careful with focus wide open. If I use anything other than the center point on my 5d mkII, focus is even less precise. AF is definitely not idiot proof.
I miss shots with my Noctilux @ f1, but I don't think it's worse than the Canon. As an example, the Noct isn't a great choice for sports, but neither would be the Canon. If I was shooting basketball, I could probably get as good by pre-focusing on a spot with the Noct as trusting the AF on the Canon.
For candid photography in casual settings, I can't think of a better camera than an M. If I'm mingling through a crowd, I like it far better than any Af camera - but that's me. Frankly, there are times I feel I have to work at getting good pictures in spite of all the features on my wondercams. All the automation gets in the way - I am better off in full manual mode.
You just need to figure out what works for you. Don't feel frustrated if there is a learning curve to new equipment.
Well I hate to state the obvious but you have the power to delete every post back to that point and close the thread.
Not much point in owning the big axe if you can't wield it occasionally!
I would never delete any post by Tom A.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Field
Well-known
Most people have trouble focusing a f.95 even with experience.
You might want to try another M with a less cluttered view finder (and hopefully brighter). My friends M4-p is so bright it freaks me out a little.
You might want to try another M with a less cluttered view finder (and hopefully brighter). My friends M4-p is so bright it freaks me out a little.
R
rpsawin
Guest
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
OP is absolutely right: RFs are not the best tools for fast and accurate f/1.4 or f/2 focusing on the street...
I don't think there's a great manual focus tool for that, though... Same for dim light scenes... Best camera I've used for both is Hexar AF, not a RF.
Cheers,
Juan
I don't think there's a great manual focus tool for that, though... Same for dim light scenes... Best camera I've used for both is Hexar AF, not a RF.
Cheers,
Juan
Peter Klein
Well-known
Tom is right, there are RF people, and there are SLR people.
My first serious camera, back in 1969, was a Canon manual focus SLR. I did all right with it, but I felt something was missing. I never felt secure focusing it. I mentioned this to the owner of Ye Olde Camera Store in my home town. He put a used M2 in my hands. That was it. It was exactly right for me.
Today, we have many DSLRs with decent autofocus, and a few with truly superb autofocus. But shooting an automated DSLR is very different from of an RF. The view is different, you see outside the frame with an RF and only inside with an SLR. You have mirror shake and blackout at the instant of exposure with any SLR, none with an RF.
I don't think anyone has to justify why they choose to use or not use any particular technology. Cameras are tools. They have to do their job, and they also have to fit their user's hands, eyes, mind and preferred subjects. The latest automation technology is not a substitute for that fit, it simply gives us another choice.
--Peter
My first serious camera, back in 1969, was a Canon manual focus SLR. I did all right with it, but I felt something was missing. I never felt secure focusing it. I mentioned this to the owner of Ye Olde Camera Store in my home town. He put a used M2 in my hands. That was it. It was exactly right for me.
Today, we have many DSLRs with decent autofocus, and a few with truly superb autofocus. But shooting an automated DSLR is very different from of an RF. The view is different, you see outside the frame with an RF and only inside with an SLR. You have mirror shake and blackout at the instant of exposure with any SLR, none with an RF.
I don't think anyone has to justify why they choose to use or not use any particular technology. Cameras are tools. They have to do their job, and they also have to fit their user's hands, eyes, mind and preferred subjects. The latest automation technology is not a substitute for that fit, it simply gives us another choice.
--Peter
Last edited:
hendriphile
Well-known
Your learning experience is important
Your learning experience is important
Some of it, I guess, depends on where you come from. I "learned" on an RF camera. When after several years with the RF I experienced my first SLR, it was a bit of a shock. "Where's the focus? It's fuzzy, then it gets less fuzzy and then it gets fuzzy again! And what's up with losing the view completely at the moment you're taking the picture? And worst of all, what's with that awful shake and that explosive noise every time I take a picture?"
Your learning experience is important
Some of it, I guess, depends on where you come from. I "learned" on an RF camera. When after several years with the RF I experienced my first SLR, it was a bit of a shock. "Where's the focus? It's fuzzy, then it gets less fuzzy and then it gets fuzzy again! And what's up with losing the view completely at the moment you're taking the picture? And worst of all, what's with that awful shake and that explosive noise every time I take a picture?"
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Some SLR's are like this maybe ... in fact nothing shakes and explodes like P67 in my experience
but your description certainly doesn't fit an OM-1 or many other SLR's for that matter!I'm well aware of the mirror shuffle and shutter sound in my D700 but I can't feel it in the camera and low light hand held shots with the big Nikon have been as succesful down to 1/15 regarding sharpness as my M8 ever was.
Apparently the latest K-7 Pentax DSLR is quieter than most rangefinders!
Oh ... and as for staring into the huge black void created by the mirror movement while opportunity passes you by ... I don't really buy into that either sorry!
Ljós
Well-known
I agree with semilog, and I would add that in my experience using a rangefinder well needs more constant staying-in-practice than using a SLR. By that I mean that to be really good at focusing a rangefinder you not only have to be able to optically align the patch, you want to know/feel - at least ballpark - at what distance your lens is focused, and relate that with the distance you are eyeballing. Because there is a number of scenarios where you are liable to align the wrong pattern, and you have to know it can't be. Better still, never even start focus hunting in that zone. Just two days ago I happily took two pictures (granted, it was VERY dark) focused at .9 meters when my object was about 1.5 meters away. I realized/felt that could not be right, and corrected, but just from the viewfinder it was hard to tell. That kind of misfocusing would never happen with an SLR.
Then the focus/recompose issue: it is true that because of reasons stated above by other posters a rangefinder can be less conspicuous. However, if you shoot at wider apertures and have to get within plus minus 5-10 centimeters in order to make a picture (off-center composition) work, you will have to point your camera smack at the subject, however briefly. Whereas ideally you compose off center from the getgo, and never alert the subject that much. That you can easily do with a decent SLR.
I think it is important to be able to make peace with the somewhat paradox characteristics of rangefinders: they are at the same time super-precise AND "fudge-factor".
And regarding the SLR versus rangefinder debate, I also think it is obvious and clearly demonstrable that the "gap" between the systems has narrowed considerably over the last decades:
- Olympus OM and Pentax (MX etc.) have narrowed the size gap
- better management of shutter bounce etc. has narrowed the handholdability gap
- Vibration reduction in lenses / VR-capable digital sensors have levelled the playing field even more
- if you are into digital, it looks like the Leica no longer reigns supreme as queen of the night
- quietness: there are some very quiet analog SLRs, and some digital solutions are zip-nada-zilch-quiet
In short, unless you can embrace the quirks (while you're at it, embrace the grain ;-)), rangefinders may not be for you
Greetings, Ljós