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

[literiter]

In my case I can see an enormous advantage for rangefinder cameras particularly the Leica Ms.......... I own 2 of them.
Other than that I'm OK with both, my SLRs and my RFs.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I know that i never know anything exactly.

I know that i never know anything exactly.

I never know anything EXACTLY.

Except THIS. This is exactly true. I think.


Before i started reading rangefinder forums, i never gave it a moment's consideration that SLR users 'miss' the exact moment of exposure. I mean, c'mon - with an SLR, the 'blackout' period is milliseconds. I don't notice it. It seems like a non-issue to me. The only thing you could 'miss' is if someone blinks. It's not like you can shoot sports or action with a rangefinder, since follow-focus is just not going to happen. And, you have no real telephotos. So, it's kind of moot. And, as the original poster said: you have to correlate the timing of the little 'snik' sound with the actuation of the shutter, and who can really do that, accurate to milliseconds?

** I think the only reason this EVER became a 'feature' of rangefinders is when HC-B became so adored and all the Leica people decided that whatever HE did was what needed to be emulated.... And, to capture The Decisive Moment, you had to have a tool that 'best realizes when that moment occurs....' And, all of that nonsense is based on one picture of a dude jumping over a puddle. Quite a lame picture, if i'm ever asked. **

 

[Rprice]

Well for me... I just look at the back of the DSLR to see if I got the shot or not. 🙂 I don't use a film SLR any more. But when I use my G2 or my Leica I usually just assume I got the shot till I develope the film. So my answer not a yes or a no, it's hopefully. 🙂

 

[mh2000]

the difference in mirror black out and the uncertainty in exact time any shutter opens seem to to work out to a wash to me.

In general, I find RF cameras to be a handicap in most ways... I just like 'em and enjoy getting good photos from them anyway...

 

[mh2000]

it's a cute photo... I still like it, but I could do just as well with a traditional SLR... especially since it was entirely staged!

>>And, all of that nonsense is based on one picture of a dude jumping over a puddle. Quite a lame picture, if i'm ever asked. **

 

[climbing_vine]

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.

And in fact, we do it constantly, which is why I don't think the mirror blackout makes much of a difference in the terms that have been discussed here. Somebody made reference upthread to the rangefinder view not interrupting your constant sight; this is exactly wrong. The human brain processes signals from the eyes much like a film strip, at a sampling rate that varies based on many factors.

That said, I sometimes find the mirror blackout distracting not because it makes me miss what's happening at the moment of exposure (a particularly dubious assertion if the exposure is at 1/60th or above), but because the sense of motion of it and the sound break my concentration of watching for whether I will immediately want another shot (I do mostly candid portraits and city wildlife stuff when I'm using 35mm these days). This is something I could no doubt correct if I got back in the SLR habit; I don't recall it bothering me so much before I started using rangefinders, though I may have been doing a lot more still life back then.