Rangefinder Myths II - I see exactly what happens at the moment of exposure

Rangefinder Myths II - I see exactly what happens at the moment of exposure

  • Yes

    Votes: 152 62.6%

  • No

    Votes: 91 37.4%
  • Total voters
    243
Gabriel M.A. said:
Actually, easy as 1-2-3 ;) 2x2 is what my friend's Nissan Pathfinder has as a torque setting.

But yes, you explained it simply. Easy as 3.14527... :D
Click to expand...

Actually,...It's 3.141527... So it's not that easy after all:)
but it is also not that important, the third decimal, so your comparison is perfect:D
 
Pherdinand said:
Actually,...It's 3.141527... So it's not that easy after all:)
but it is also not that important, the third decimal, so your comparison is perfect:D
Click to expand...
Damn it, a typo. Well, there are some people out there that would claim we're about a thousand or so decimals away to begin to claim it's Pi. I don't know why in English it's pronounced "pie". I know pizza is not "piezza" and Italian is not "eyetaleyen" ;)

Easy as 3.1415279... it ain't
 
ferider said:
3.14159265...
Click to expand...
Oy. Somewhere around there. It's not like bridges will collapse, right? The new school of Who Cares Architecture. The proof is in Pawlenty's pudding :eek: He's a Math and fiscal genius.

For those with a Sarcasm Scanner, sorry it's running hot :eek:
 
I think a more accurate way to put it would be:
"Using a rangefinder I know better (than with an SLR)
where in the frame my moving subject will appear."

Chris
 
Kudos to ChrisPlatt. Your avatar is humble. Your synopsis is succinct. And your tag-line is dead-on: Thread Killer
 
Ironically...

Ironically...

I started out with RFs and P&S cameras.
Yes I could see the scene at all times, but I was never sure when was the exact moment of capture - which point of shutter depression? Start or end of the click sound? Then there is the confusion from the sounds of film transport.
Once I picked up an SLR, I knew exactly when the point of capture was made thanks to the mirror black out, but then I couldn't see the moment of capture:eek: !

For shots whereby timing is critical what works best for me is:
a) RFs for focal lengths between 50 to 90mm - allows me to comfortably see outside of the framelines and know what subjects are captured in the frame. Great for street, children and dynamic event/scene photography
b) SLRs for telephoto shots above 90mm - greater lens magnification makes it easier to track facial expressions for more accurate guesstimations for the correct moment of exposure. Sure you may not be able to see if you got the shot, but for this type of photography prediction and anticipation plays a more important than reflex actions.
 
Last edited:
chikne said:
Holy gosh

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1n/canonf1highspeed/index.htm
Click to expand...

This Canon was an amazing piece of gear, but...

-- Notice the regular film back? At 14 fps, you're out of film in 2-1/2 seconds. Yeah, I'm sure there was a long-roll accessory, but it would have made the thing even more unwieldy.

-- One drawback of any pellicle-mirror camera is that it reduces the amount of light striking the film (almost 1 f-stop on the Canon.) In effect, this cuts your ISO rating in half. Not a problem for shooting Olympic sports out in the bright Los Angeles sun, but under other conditions...?

-- Another pellicle disadvantage is noted in the instructions about the eyepiece blind: If bright light hits the camera eyepiece, it can fog the film!

So, a magnificent gizmo, well designed for its very specific purpose: photographing outdoor sports at the Los Angeles Olympics. But beyond that specific purpose... well... that's why it was a very limited production model!
 
I know whether I need to take the picture over. If I'm shooting on the street, and someone walks into the frame at the wrong time, I will know it. With an SLR I will probably not see it in time. As to whether someone blinked, I don't think I would necessarily know that. That is a small detail I could miss. However, If I am using my 50mm Leitz finder, it is lifesize, so I can keep both eyes open. Then I will know if my subject blinked. Possibly could do this with my M3 with its .91 finder. Actually, one could look directly at the subject at the moment of exposure, and not through the camera; without of course moving the camera. Then they would know.
 
Krosya said:
Or you could just get a Canon EOS RT or 1n RS ;) I did.
Click to expand...
Actually, I managed to play with just about every high-speed, motor-driven camera Canon ever released. Absolute firepower wasn't the problem, and the RT/RS' refinement of the original Canon Pellix fixed-mirror system never addressed my concerns. It's the SLR's inherent tunnel-vision design, which in some instances can be of benefit, but next to never in terms of how I work with a camera. The advent of digital cameras, save for the top-end machines, has set SLR photography back about fifteen years in terms of the VF experience (at least as far as I'm concerned; your experience may vary).

When I still had my Minolta 9xi-based AF SLR system, Minolta had a novel, if somewhat bizarre, system that tied in with their xi-series motorized zoom lenses; there was a custom function where, with the push of a button, at any given focal length (except the shortest, natch), the lens would zoom out slightly, and there would be an LCD frameline representing your chosen focal length, in an attempt to mimic the rangefinder camera experience. (When you pressed the shutter release, the lens would instantly return to the chosen focal length just before the shutter opened.) Somewhat lame, but I gave Minolta points for at least thinking about the issue, which is more than I could say for brands C or N!


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Well, as for myself, I have no real idea if I have nailed a shot until I get the film developed, which is why digi is wonderful. Too bad I don't usually like the digi imagary. I would add another myth to the rangefinder canon, at the risk of being hounded. The idea that it is somehow better to see what is not in the frame (being able to see around the image) vs a SLR "cropped" image. Except in very few instances, I have no use for this feature and find it distracting. I do not want to see what isn't in the image, I want to see exactly what IS in the image, and nothing but a SLR w/ something approaching 100% coverage does that. Have you ever seen a motion picture photographer use a framing device to get an idea of what the scene should look like before setting up the camera? It is to crop out all the distracting stuff, and believe me they do not use a cropping device that shows a margin around the wanted image. There are some modern SLR's that have quiet shutters too, which is another RF thing. To me, the only real shooting advantage of a RF camera is size. It is difficult to find a quiet, small SLR camera. I shoot the RF's because I love the way they work and appreciate their compact size, but would much prefer a RF sized auto focus SLR that was as small and well made. Unfortunately, it is hard to get around the physics.
 
myoptic3 said:
I would add another myth to the rangefinder canon, at the risk of being hounded. The idea that it is somehow better to see what is not in the frame (being able to see around the image) vs a SLR "cropped" image. Except in very few instances, I have no use for this feature and find it distracting. I do not want to see what isn't in the image, I want to see exactly what IS in the image, and nothing but a SLR w/ something approaching 100% coverage does that. Have you ever seen a motion picture photographer use a framing device to get an idea of what the scene should look like before setting up the camera? It is to crop out all the distracting stuff, and believe me they do not use a cropping device that shows a margin around the wanted image.
Click to expand...
That argument might hold water, save for one thing: in almost all instances, the cinematographer (and director, since we're talking Major Motion here) is in control of all the action before the camera, within and beyond the viewfinder. Outside of a studio, neither you nor I have that luxury. If SLRs do it for you regardless, that's cool. They don't do it for me anymore.

There are some modern SLR's that have quiet shutters too, which is another RF thing.
Click to expand...
And, regrettably, most of those are sub-pro dSLRs with other issues, IMO (mediocre VFs and crop factors are two that come to mind). Like I said, if an SLR suits your shooting better, that's the way to go. Myths cut both ways, after all. :)

To me, the only real shooting advantage of a RF camera is size. It is difficult to find a quiet, small SLR camera. I shoot the RF's because I love the way they work and appreciate their compact size, but would much prefer a RF sized auto focus SLR that was as small and well made. Unfortunately, it is hard to get around the physics.
Click to expand...
Well, save for the Dogawful noise the motorized advance/rewind motor made, the Contax G-series came closest to your preferred spec. I couldn't deal with the noise; my Hexars are like church mice next to a G or G2. Of course, a non-motorized M is quieter still.
 
Last edited:
I also happen to like the slr viewing experience. Even witha a RF I almost never pay attention to what is outside the frame lines. It certainly doesn't help me compose a shot to be able to see what is outside them. Of coure, many people feel the complete opposite. That's Ok, too. If you want an SLR experience that comes the closest to a rangefinder in shooting style try the Nikon FE/FE2/FM/FM3a. Wonderful manual cameras all. The FM lin e is all mechanical, except ofr the battery powered meter.

/T
 
Great topic. Personally, I couldn't care less about the blackout on an SLR, and have not been able to understand how this is a disadvantage. There are plenty of reasons to choose one type of camera over another depending on what you hope to be shooting, but this one has always seemed to me to be of such minimal impact that it's not even worth mentioning. The human brain is sophisticated enough to be able to fill in that 1/125-second's worth of missing information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom