RF/slr photography

FrankS

FrankS

Registered User
Local time
5:57 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
19,348
I just can't understnd why I'm so taken with using RF cameras for my photography! My SLRs are languishing on the shelf. I don't buy the weight and size advantage of RFs. The difference is in the viewfinder and in the shutter sound (with/without flipping mirror), neither of which seem very significant, yet for some reason I'm thrilled again with photography - because of the RF gear. I just don't understand why. Has anyone been able to?
 
SLR photography was getting stale and boring for me.

There was thrill attached to starting RF photography. A link to simpler times too. Rebellion too ;)

Oh that's a funny thing, the most common camera type, with one of the most popular brands. They called their camera the : Digital Rebel :

Go figure.

RF's look and sound cooler anyway. It's the 'in' thing.
 
I'm pretty sure it's not the fashoinableness factor of RF photography that has me hooked. :p That's not it.

This sounds goofy, but RF photography seems/feels more elemental, purer, closer to the bone.
 
In my case, I like RFs because all of my RFs are manual, without any autoexposure or autofocus options. The lack of these features makes me think more about my photography. My Canon 20D is a great camera, but it is too easy to lapse into shooting everything in autoexposure and autofocus mode- all my pics start to look the same after a while
 
I like the idea of being able to put a small fixed lens RF camera in a pocket and just go somewhere. No bags to carry, no extra lenses to worry about - just a camera and a spare roll of film.
 
Thanks for the link, Keith. That's getting a bit closer than the idea of being a fashion-whore, but it doesn't yet explain it all to me. Maybe some things are inexplicable.

Pherdinand, I do love you guys, but I'd still be doing RF photography without RFF, perhaps even more of it! :)

Zukiologist, you above others, should know that this is also possible with small slr's like the Olympus OMx and Pentax MX.
 
Last edited:
I love my M6 because it it so manual and inconvenient.
Even on my manual SLR I still have the luxury of a zoom lens.

Why I love an invonvenient camera? because it makes me think about all the settings,
and that does lead to better pictures!

Mad_boy
 
It must have something to do with the process, because the end result - the pictures, are just as acheivable with an slr. (Yes, RFs are better in low light, but slrs are better at other things like macro and tele.)
 
FrankS said:
Thanks for the link, Keith. That's getting a bit closer than the idea of being a fashion-whore, but it doesn't yet explain it all to me. Maybe some things are inexplicable.

Pherdinand, I do love you guys, but I'd still be doing RF photography without RFF, perhaps even more of it! :)

Zukiologist, you above others, should know that this is also possible with small slr's like the Olympus OMx and Pentax MX.
Click to expand...

Frank - I love my MX, but it's not an XA or even an Oly RC.
 
I was hoping Frank that I could have found the older article by Bill Pierce, Didn't mean so much that this should be about the M8, but the "difference" between photographing with SLRs and rangefinders. If I come across it, I'll post it here.
 
you love rf's because,

1. no black out in the viewer, you never lose contact
2. you have to participate more in making the image, even if it's just focusing.
3. your camera probably shows some sexy metal material
4. it reminds you that you think for yourself and are not succumb to commercial materialism with the rest of the herd.
5. your camera probably has a story and history to it other than, "was discontinued a year later and replaced by the D###"
 
There is a certain RF aesthetic - not sure how to describe it, but we have discussed it many times in the forums. Is it a state of mind above all else - more connected, less processed, more "being there". That's what I meant about putting a camera in your pocket and just going somewhere. You might be primarily there for the event, not necessarly for the photos, which therefore become more of a subconscious interpretation of the moment (even if it just record keeing) rather than a manufactured moment.
 
The Pentax SLR bodies I use are all manual and all mechanical,
with uncluttered viewfinders. All but one of my SLR lenses are
of fixed focal length. I find no qualitative difference between
using such simple straightforward SLRs and my RF cameras.

Chris
 
los said:
you love rf's because,

1. no black out in the viewer, you never lose contact
2. you have to participate more in making the image, even if it's just focusing.
3. your camera probably shows some sexy metal material
4. it reminds you that you think for yourself and are not succumb to commercial materialism with the rest of the herd.
5. your camera probably has a story and history to it other than, "was discontinued a year later and replaced by the D###"
Click to expand...

Los - I think you stated it better than I did :)
 
FrankS said:
I just can't understnd why I'm so taken with using RF cameras for my photography! My SLRs are languishing on the shelf. I don't buy the weight and size advantage of RFs. The difference is in the viewfinder and in the shutter sound (with/without flipping mirror), neither of which seem very significant, yet for some reason I'm thrilled again with photography - because of the RF gear. I just don't understand why. Has anyone been able to?
Click to expand...

I did a poll on this some time ago, and was surprised at many of the answers I got.

Although a lot of people cited such pragmatic factors as the lightness and compactness of an RF outfit, or positive focusing under poor conditions, many put more emphasis on emotional or subjective factors.

Some see an RF camera as a way to rebel against the plastics-and-electronics trend in camera design. Others speak of their enjoyment of the cameras' solid mechanical feel and sense of craftsmanship. Others see an RF camera as a tie to a bygone era of photography that they admire, or a link to individual photographers whose styles they revere.

For me, it's very much the "vision thing." RF cameras and SLR cameras have a literal, concretely technical difference in the way you see: you look into an SLR and see an image, while you look through an RF camera and see what's in front of you.

Having lost interest in navel-contemplation shortly after my sophomore year in college, the SLR vision paradigm doesn't do much for me. But seeing and making sense out of what's right in front of me is still a challenge. I like using an RF camera because it forces me to confront that challenge head-on.

Unlike an SLR, an RF camera makes it quite difficult to synthesize "creative" pictures by sticking a novelty lens or filter on the camera, peeping through a keyhole or a knothole, or generating exaggerated depth-of-field effects that are quite unlike anything the eye perceives.

In fact, an RF camera is just about useless for any kind of photography except the kind that depends on pointing the camera at something interesting, then pressing the button at the right time.

I happen to feel that that kind of photography is the kind that has staying power for me – so I gravitate toward the kind of camera that facilitates that kind of photography, while frustrating any temptation I might have to cheat by relying on gratuitous optical effects.
 
ChrisPlatt said:
The Pentax SLR bodies I use are all manual and all mechanical,
with uncluttered viewfinders. All but one of my SLR lenses are
of fixed focal length. I find no qualitative difference between
using such simple straightforward SLRs and my RF cameras.
Click to expand...
I second that. Rangefinders are nice tools, but I think on a forum like this they are quite understandably overrated in comparison. At present, I use a Canon FD-series SLR with prime lenses (24, 50, 90, 135) in addition to the M39 rangefinders. For everything longer than 50mm, the SLR is just the better tool. I'm glad that I don't have to worry about rangefinder accuracy and effective base lengths and parallax and that I can preview DOF. If I compare my output from the 135/f4 on a rangefinder with that of the 135/f2.5 on the SLR, the SLR wins hands down on quality.

Equating SLRs with zoom lenses, plastic bodies or the rapid model succession of today's digital cameras is not really doing them justice. If one actually wants to talk about the merits of either system instead of just pointing out how different from the crowd one considers oneself to be, one needs to be less simplistic and acknowledge that SLRs actually have a lot of merits in their favour.

Philipp
 
Philipp and Chris are not so infected. I have perfectly good (very good) slr's that I no longer use due to RF's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom