Remember your SLR?

[tetrisattack]

I was leaving the registrar's office at school on Friday and I walked past the media loan department, where they had big posters up depicting their photo equipment. They had K1000's and ZX-M's for checkout, so I said, "well, heck, I have a lot of old pentax gear laying around, I wonder if this last year with rangefinders has changed how I work with an SLR. I'll check out a ZX-M and see." So I did (passing on the K1k because my other project for the easter weekend was testing film speeds, something best left to a camera with Av).

It was weird to use a zoom lens again. I felt a little lazy, not moving around to experiment with composition, so I mostly played with an older 50mm f/1.4. What a novelty, looking through the lens, being able to see what's in and out of focus! But at the same time, I felt frustrated by how difficult it was to get things properly focussed, and in fact, the scans that I'm making right now look pretty sketchy, especially the frames I shot at 1.4.

Now that the weekend's over, I've realized some strengths about rangefinders about which I was previously unaware. 50mm seems very constrictive on a SLR, and not so much on most rangefinders, because you get all that breathing room in the finder. I was trying to take a picture of my mom making an easter quiche but every time I tried to compose the shot I started wondering -- am I including everything in the frame that I ought to be? I had to keep lowering the camera to check. Also, since everything is in focus in my rangefinder's viewfinder, I'm more conscious of near-far relationships between objects in my composition. And I find it easier to judge true focus with my rangefinder than with any of my pentaxes, even in spite of their luxurious horizontal split + microprism-collar viewfinders.

And to think that my chief anxiety when moving from a DSLR to a rangefinder was: how will I ever be certain about how the image will look, and how will I ever know what will be in focus without DOF preview? Oh, the folly of inexperience.

Lastly, I've found it a valuable reminder about luxury to go back and shoot with my pentax glass. Not that the 50's were that wretched (they're quite nice in terms of pleasing contrast and wide-open bokeh) but the resolution isn't up to par with the leica/zeiss glass I'm now used to.

Have any of you out in RFF-land had a similar experience recently?

 

[RayPA]

I agree 100% about the viewfinder advantage of RF's, both the focus and the framing issues.

I've been shooting with my SLR's (half & full-frame), lately. I still enjoy shooting with SLR's, but prefer RF's. SLR's are great for macro & tele stuff. I've been hankering for some really up-close shooting lately.

I just love photography...period.

I can't wait for my kids soccer season to start. I'll be out there with both an SLR and a RF!



🙂

 

[kvanderlaag]

I've compared the view through an SLR vs the view through a rangefinder to the view you get from a car vs the view you get walking around, respectively.

I have difficulties with driving because I can't see things AROUND what I'm looking at. Similarly, with an SLR, I feel very cramped, and claustophobic. Generally, I'm worried about what's around the frame, not just what's in it. I don't have that problem with rangefinders. Lots of room in the finder with framlines.

As a sidenote, regarding driving -- does anyone else feel it would be nice to have a reflected display of the speedometer superimposed over the image in the bottom left of the windshield? After using rangefinders with all sorts of things shown in the viewfinder, it feels awkward having to glance down to see things like that!

😛

Sorry.

 

[tetrisattack]

Despite all that, I offer this in defense of the pentax glass I trod upon in my last paragraph. Not terribly sharp, no, but the contrast! Good god, this seems just about right for an easter brunch after some mimosas. FP4+ @ EI 80, Sprint 1:9 (supposedly the equiv. of d-76 1+1)

 

[jan normandale]

@tetrisattack...
"every time I tried to compose the shot I started wondering -- am I including everything in the frame that I ought to be? I had to keep lowering the camera to check."

I've a lot of reasons to like my RF over my SLR (sometimes it's the other way around, especially on shutter speeds) but this is one that is a subtle but very important distinction. I probably knew subconsciously but never consciously made the connection.

 

[Jocko]

As a sidenote, regarding driving -- does anyone else feel it would be nice to have a reflected display of the speedometer superimposed over the image in the bottom left of the windshield? After using rangefinders with all sorts of things shown in the viewfinder, it feels awkward having to glance down to see things like that!

I'm sorry - this is hopelessly OT I know - but there were a few cars with exactly such a feature at the turn of the 80s-90s. I believe it was criticised (as usual, without evidence) as encouraging lazy and unobservant driving, hence "dangerous". The "distraction is safety" theory presumably explains the current fashion for off-set, hidden and unreadable speedos...

Sorry. Back to cameras!

Ian

 

[zuikologist]

I've compared the view through an SLR vs the view through a

As a sidenote, regarding driving -- does anyone else feel it would be nice to have a reflected display of the speedometer superimposed over the image in the bottom left of the windshield? After using rangefinders with all sorts of things shown in the viewfinder, it feels awkward having to glance down to see things like that!

😛

Sorry.

I think Mercedes still provides a heads up display as an option on some cars.

 

[wyk_penguin]

RFs are nice to use.

OT: The Nissan Bluebird had one.

SLRs are good for macro and technical things, but hey, why ain't I hauling out the view camera??

 

[Stu W]

I think there's a different mindset when I use a rangefinder vs an slr. For some reason I'm not as fussy about the crop on a rangefinder shot. It's like you just recorded a slice of life. When I use the slr, I am very fussy about my framing. So much so it takes some of the fun out of it. Stu

 

[Bertram2]

Have any of you out in RFF-land had a similar experience recently?

Similar so far as the RF is undoubtedly the better choice for some purposes, low light for example.
For all the rest the SLR beats it handsdown and that is why it lost the race in the 60s.

Focusing spot on ? Use AF. At daylight AF is always faster than manual focus, you just have to buy a good one and to know how to use it. I somebody supposes the AF having a brain it is his fault, not the AFs fault.

And the framing issue does not exist for me. I know how my photo shall look, the finder of the SLR is just a kinda stencil I lay over the environment to isolate that pic.
The zoom,btw helps for the fine tuning of the frame. As long as it is not understood as as wheelchair lens a zoom offers important advantages.
If a photog abuses a zoom for wheelchair photography it is HIS fault, not the zooms fault.

We discussed this issue several times already, my opinion has not changed since I started to use RF cameras. The reason why they could survive in a niche, as a superior special tool for certain purposes, this reason also points on their severe restrictions too.
To consider them as an one-fits-all miracle cure is plain religion if the photog and his intention isn't restricted in the same way as the camera is. Then maybe both can live in a kinda happy congruence of limited activities. 😀

Regards,
Bertram
P.S.
The truth about some fairy tales in the world of Gurus and fetishes:
When things happen fast, with distances and lightnig varying quickly, and I have to focus spot on and can't work with a preset DOF from here to Africa, like with a cheap VF camera, then with a SLR, motor, AF, AE and a zoom I get three nice sharp and "decisive" slides to choose the most "decisive" from before my poor all manual RF neighbour messes up his first one 😉

 

[ch1]

I use my SLRs about as frequently as my RFs and often carry one of each when I'm out shooting.

I just (finally) finished off a roll of Kodak chromogenic B&@ that was in one of my F3's.
I used a 43-86 Nikkor mf zoom and like what I got.

I completed that roll together with a final "shoot off" of a roll of Fujichrome that was in my Bessa R2S. We three "did it" together at a graveyard last Saturday! 😉

Also, I've been lately using my D-70 for "quickies". 😱

Guess you could say that I play around all over the place! 😀

 

[ywenz]

I still perfer my 20D + USM lens' lighting fast AF for occasions when I need fast focus.

Looking thru an SLR viewfinder is looking at the final image. I believe for some images, one can not appreciate it's quality just by a quick glance thru the viewfinder. As a result, I find myself passing up many opportunities with the SLR because I didn't like what I saw.

When you're looking thru the RF, you're seeing the world almost as how you would see it with your eye. Which means everything looks good to you. I find many shots to be dissapointing when I get the prints back a few days later.

Oh and the RF sux for sports and tele..

 

[BJ Bignell]

There are two things I miss about using an SLR:
- Macro photography
- Seeing telephoto compression

The first is not such a big deal, as my girlfriend has a digital p&s I can use, but the second still bugs me sometimes.

I used to have a 35-70 zoom (who didn't at some point?!), and loved the look through the VF from the long end of the zoom. Because of this, I bought the CV75, and I love this lens, but I sometimes have trouble imagining/seeing what the picture will look like. This prevents me from using the lens sometimes, which is unfortunate.

 

[anselwannab]

To me it is a size and convience thing, I go back and forth between my 20D and CL day-to-day. The CL travels with me on business trips b/c of its size.

To me, in the long run I'm planning on using my SLR for under 28mm photography, the rangefinder for mid-length, and an SLR again for tele work. My dream kit I'm working towards would be:

FF DSLR (Canon 5D) with 17-40/4L
Digital FF RF with 35 and 90mm lenses
1.6crop DSLR (Canon 20D) with 70-200/2.8IS and 1.4 tele

Plus film bodies for fun in those same areas. (I use a EOS 630 with the 17-40 for real wide now, and a CL for the dRF and just scan the negs.)

A Fuji BL690 or GX680 is calling my name though.

 

[squeaky_clean]

I've found that I was almost always disapointed with the pictures I got from my RF's, at least in terms of composition and the like. I guess being able to know just what the image will look like is what does it for me. That's why I've gone back to SLRs. They just work for me. That and my ME Super is almost as small as some of my rangefinders were! 🙂

 

[SDK]

I have a wonderful Nikon F4 sitting at home. I used to carry the beast everywhere. Its ergonomics are great, but it's 1 kg in mass before you ever even stick a lens on it (more with the large MB-21 battery pack with the lovely vertical grip). Now that I have some Leica & Zeiss RF gear, I only carry the F4 if I plan on doing long telephoto or close up work. I take my M7 and a couple lenses everywhere, every day now. With better lenses and less weight I feel more comfortable, and I feel better about my photography than ever.

 

[rover]

If I am going out for my self with just a lens or two then I take a RF. I have moments though when I grab an SLR. I don't use my Canon EOS 10s much, it is too much like driving an automatic transmission car, not that fun. My choice of SLR is a Minolta SRT 101. I have an MD 24/2.8, MC 58/1.2 and MC 100/2.5 plus I just won an MD 35/1.8. Just a simple kit that cost less than my tabbed Summicron 50. I may pick up a MC 85/1.7 and that will give me a pretty complete kit with some of Minolta's best lenses ever made (I have a 200/3.5 and 300/4.5 to boot, and didn't pay more than $125 for any of these lenses).

 

[GeneW]

I like SLR's and have been on a Nikon jag ever since acquiring an F3 and FM2n. I particularly like them for nature photography (tele and macro) and studied B&W compositions. With a lens kit, though, they get pretty heavy so I still prefer RF's as carry-around cameras.

Gene

 

[Goodyear]

I need to use my SLRs more.

Was shooting some promos for a band last week , and worked mainly with my M2 but shot a few dozen on the 300D. Now, I haven't scanned the negs yet (just working up the will to jump into that this evening, actually), but I'm pretty confident in them. However, the shots from the SLR just don't do it for me.

But I thnk the problem is that I've got out of the way of using it, and need to put some effort into getting comfortable again. Also a decent fast prime in the 28-35 range would help - I don't like the way my 50 is an 80!

Yesterday I went out with the Pen F and was happier with it. Either I was getting back into the SLR groove, or it's a plastic-allergy. I'll find out in a year when I've finished off that roll of Astia 😉

I know for a fact that when I tried RFs (not as long ago as it feels) I discovered the way of shooting that I naturally fit, if that makes sense.

But it's a point of pride and principle that I want to be as comfortable with my SLRs.

 

[anselwannab]

When did SLRs and especially DSLRs get so big! Is it all the rush to get the PRO look? I think the large size of the bodies, lens mounts and lenses of modern dSLRs and the small chip high/iso noise of P&S cameras leaves niche between the two. Maybe the Sony R1 can fill that, maybe the 4/3 Evolts and Lumlix will.

I just worry that a mass market digital RF would be autofocus, a digital G2 (not bad in concept, but probably not what people at RFF are looking for).

I think the original concept of the RF and 35mm film was a highly transpotable, high quality camera. Maybe a 4/3 type sensor based camera is really the heir to the Leica mantle, following the arc of technology. I wish we could look back at the "photo forums" of when the first 35mm cameras came out and see if they were are roundly chastized as less than FF sensors are today.