RF/slr photography

in the last month I have used my Nikon F2Sb, N8008s, Fujica ST801, Yashica TL Electro-X, Nikon S3, Nikon S2, Nikon SP, Nikon S3-2000, Leica M2, Leica M3, Canon 7, Canon VI-T, Canon V-t, Canon IIf, Polaroid SX-70 Sonar, Polaroid SLR680, and Polaroid Spectra. Also used the Nikon D1x and D1. And a Tektronix C4 O-Scope Camera.

But I've only taken apart RF lenses and Cameras. Did replace the seals on the ST801 and Yashica.

To add, I am just so open minded and politically correct on this issue that it could make you...
 
Sometimes, the reasons why we are drawn to, or like, particular things are better off left unexplained and unmapped. The logical process of understanding a mystery can often remove the mystique.....

I have a 20d and many RF's and I like my 20d a lot, but not as much as my Leica M3 or Voigtlander R3M ......

I don't know why either!
 
"FrankS
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.) "

M7 - aperture priority ! :cool: SLR - 'aperture priority' = brother & sister! :cool:


Cheers

Mark
 
guys,
slr's have also problems accurately focusing very fast lenses. You have to be VERY careful when you focus a f/1.2 normal lens on the ground glass of a SLR viewfinder. A sharp image in the finder won't necessarily mean a sharp one on the film. These systems also have to be well-aligned, just like rangefinders.
 
Now, Frank, You have made me think ...

Now, Frank, You have made me think ...

Since I have bought a Kiev 4a then a Bessa R2 as my keeper. I too, have neglected my Dslr and Slr Canons... WHY ??? this is your Question. Now it is mine too. :rolleyes:

Ummm :confused:

At first it was the weight thing. But that passed quickly.
Now it is HOW I think about what is front of me.
I was out the other day taking some RF pictures with my 55/2.8. And, for the first time I realized how great a RF is for Following a subject. I can see OUTSIDE the frame and SEE what is going on. Can't do that with a Dslr or Slr.

Today I was downtown (small community) and just walking up and down the one or two blocks, and got a few great pictures of some people smoking around a outside snow buried trash can or just talking just outside their business. I was no more than 10' away. I kept the camera at waist level with my CV25. Only a RF would of worked. A Dslr would have changed everything, the RF is more personal and less intrusive in close encounters.

One more picture, I saw a barber outside his shop, taking a smoke break, I talked with him for a few moments, and asked if I could take his picture. He agreed, and he posed, as I got the RF to my eye, a patron walked outside and he turned his head...SNAP... Perfect...:D

I guess a larger camera would work too, But the RF, IMO, made it easier. (I will post the pictures in a week or so, It takes a week or so to shoot a x36 roll)


For me, The RF has allowed me to be more involved with the picture and the people in them. With a Slr etc... a long zoom can do it too, but I like the "Close Encounter" approach better. And I am kinda shy, so it has helped me get unshy when needed too.
 
Pherdinand said:
guys,
slr's have also problems accurately focusing very fast lenses. You have to be VERY careful when you focus a f/1.2 normal lens on the ground glass of a SLR viewfinder. A sharp image in the finder won't necessarily mean a sharp one on the film. These systems also have to be well-aligned, just like rangefinders.
Click to expand...
That's correct, but I find that (a) they're a lot more difficult to knock out of alignment because alignment doesn't depend on moving parts, and (b) accuracy is nicely independent from the focal length of the lens which is an asset with longer lenses. You also get immediate visual feedback on focusing accuracy. With a 90/f2 on a rangefinder you think your focusing was OK, then you process the negatives and find out that half of them are off. On the SLR you get immediate feedback if there are focus problems.

On the other hand I find wideangles more difficult to focus accurately on the SLR, because there is too much DOF wide open. So for everything <= 50mm I tend to use the rangefinder.

Philipp
 
rxmd said:
(b) accuracy is nicely independent from the focal length of the lens which is an asset with longer lenses. You also get immediate visual feedback on focusing accuracy. With a 90/f2 on a rangefinder you think your focusing was OK, then you process the negatives and find out that half of them are off. On the SLR you get immediate feedback if there are focus problems.
Click to expand...
I agree on the focal length thing. But no, you don't get immediate feedback. It's exactly what I tried to say above.
When you focus (manually or AF) a SLR, you focus an image on a ground glass in the viewfinder (with AF sensors or with focus aids). This image has to be properly aligned to the same distance as the film plane when the mirror is up, otherwise you focus , you are happy with the result you see in the viewfinder, and the image will be out of focus.
And there's the mirror which moves quite vehemently so there is a moving part in the focusing system that can get out of alignment. Maybe harder than a rf... but the alignment can even be less than optimal when the camera is brand new. With a slow zoom lens this does not matter. With an expensive fast prime it does.
 
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...


Step out of the box for a minute and step back just a few years to the nikon F series up to the F3 and remember the F1 canon, FM series Nikons and Olympus OM mechanical cameras. Think about all the great mechanical slr's still in use.I still use my F, F2 and nikkormat FTN regularly. The only one that applies to these cameras is #1 and that's only a factor if you're trying to track a moving subject.

Cameras aren't sexy, they're simply cold pieces of metal and glass that respond to a command. There's nothing magic about any camera in my book. They don't think but just respond to the whim of the pjhotographer. What's sexy is the photographers creativity and a camera, RF or SLR, is just an instrument to recore creative thoughts. There's no beauty in worn camera but the beauty is how it became worn and the images it made for the photographer.

For me the reason I use RF's is because I've used them for 4 decades and they feel like a part of me but so does my Nikon F and F2. Rf's are great for low light when your slr would be hard to focus (manually focus not AF) and when quiet is important. Looking through the SLR VF creates an intimacy with the subject unlike the impersonal feel of RF VF. When you have flare you can see it in the slr VF and long lenses excell. Wide lenses aren't that bad either with the slr. The entire slr photo world isn't all auto everything.

This is just another perspective on cameras. I guess over the years of shooting I've lost that thing about owning equipment. It's not a fashion statement or something I own to be cool. It's simply a means of recording my vision and almost any camera, slr or RF, will do that.

Just my thoughts.
 
While processing film from todays shoot I was thinking more about the comments in this thread. I was out with one of the RFF members, vol72, a week or so ago and doing some shooting in a somewhat depressed area of the state and commented on automation in cameras. I've been a pilot for a number of years and at first had problems trusting the autopilot in the plane. I still love the process of flying and love the feel of the aircraft and how it responds to my touch. One day while flying I had a moment of reality strike. Even with the auto pilot engaged I'm still in command of the aircraft. I can't go to sleep and forget the process but can take advantage of what it does for me and relieve some of the work load of flying to concentrate on other aspects of the journey. While flying instrument I can engage the autopilot and deal with the radios and navigation. I can allow the automation to carry on certain functions under my close supervision and take a breather. Auto on the camera is exactly the same thing as the autopilot. I leave my ZI on auto and find it allows me to concentrate on the subject and capturing the image rather than constantly having to make adjustments and chase the camera. Auto works for me because I am always aware of what it's doing and I'm always in command of the camera and the plane. You can't go to sleep with either the auto exposure, focus or autopilot engaged. Neither will think for you!
 
Last edited:
I haven't touched my SLR (Nikon F3hp+MD4) since I bought my first RF camera either. Clearly (with my rig) there was a size difference, but I soon got over that. I think the main differences were moving from a zoom to primes and from the tunnel VF to one with framelines. For me the framelines are really important. Not only do they give you context but they also give you the sense of "being there" as zuikologist put it above.

If you are "there" and you are by nature an observant person you are probably fairly good at anticipating what is going to happen next. And I think that's one of the keys to RF photography, being there is so much more fun than being a disconnected observer looking through a tunnel at a scene. With an RF camera you're in the scene.
 
peter_n said:
If you are "there" and you are by nature an observant person you are probably fairly good at anticipating what is going to happen next. And I think that's one of the keys to RF photography, being there is so much more fun than being a disconnected observer looking through a tunnel at a scene. With an RF camera you're in the scene.
Click to expand...

Really interesting your perception of this. I feel totally the opposite. I feel more intimate with the subject with an slr.
 
Peter-N, care to unload your F3HP?
X-Ray, Well said! I only know photography through my F3HP.

Cheers

MArk
Quito, EC
 
when i started to buy all the om gear, the first thing i thought about and was excited about was the possibility of using zoom lenses again.
and when i put them on the camera i, at first, felt awkward and clumsy and then realized that i no longer even liked them.
they are pretty much what i have sold from that kit.

so except for macro and long telephoto what would i need an slr for? why would i use an slr for 25/35/50 for? i see no advantage of slr over rf for my most used lenses.

i did keep an om body and a few lenses but mostly because i wanted to play with the 180/2.8.
 
recently i was at samy's camera in la. i went to do a test. one quick frame with a D70, one quick frame with the VT. the sales guy was kind enough to set up the D70 for me (iso, normal lens, fine res.) to match the film and lens on my canon, and he let me take his picture for the test. i used the D70 first. his expression was blank and a little camera shy. as he gave me back my sd card from the D70, i grabbed the VT out of my bag and brought it up to my eye. his expression totally changed. it was partially "oooh, shiny" and partially "is this guy serious with this old camera". the 8x10's from the one hour lab shows clearly a more engaging look of interest from the canon. this happens to me all the time. once someone used the VT to take a picture of me in a group of people. that's when i saw what the salesman saw...damn what a cool looking camera!
 
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.

Chris
Click to expand...

This is close to where I am at. I find myself equally at ease using view cameras, TLR's, SLR's & RF's. I especially wouldn't care to be without my T-90 and 400mm lens when I need it. That said, my primary carry camera these days is my Bessa R for the "usual suspect" pragmatic reasons.

And, frankly, if I want the simple elemental thing I'll put my 4x5 Speed Graphic up on my tripod and get down with that ground glass :D

I like all my cameras or I don't keep them. The best tools are the ones you enjoy working with.

William
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom