Semi-OT: DSLRs similar to RFs?

[cbass]

This past weekend I stopped at a local Ritz Camera store. The store didn't stock the kind of film I wanted, but since I also had some time to pass I got to chatting with a very nice sales clerk. During our conversation the clerk was kind enough to let me play with three consumer DSLRs -- a Nikon D50, a Canon Rebel XT and a Pentax *ist DL - -and their kit lenses.

I had never handled a DSLR before and I have to admit to being somewhat impressed. Aside from their rather dim viewfinders (the Pentax excepted) and bulky kit lenses each camera was compact, lightweight, fairly quiet and pretty quick on the draw. And theoretically -- this is the key -- any of the DSLRs could be good available-light tools given that their larger image sensors allow shooting at higher ISOs (assuming the camera's AF was up to the task, of course).

Then it struck me: these are the same qualities that drew me to RF photography in the first place. My Bessa R is small, quiet, fast and easy to focus in low light.

For those of you that own DSLRs, do you find yourself using them in situations where you might also use a rangefinder (e.g. low light, street, etc.)? Is it as fast as your RF? Are DSLR's easy to use manually? Please share your experiences.

This isn't intended to be an FID or film-vs-digital post. Because the prices of DSLRs are falling so quickly (curently less than the RD-1), thus putting them within reach of more and more photographers, I thought this might be an interesting topic of discussion among RF users.

 

[GeneW]

DSLR's are very quiet, considering they're reflex cameras. And the AF is very fast on the ones I've tried.

I'm not heavily brand-biased and think any of these -- Nikon, Pentax, or Canon would be a good camera. Also the Olympus models are quite interesting.

By reputation, the Nikon has the best 'kit' lens of the lot, and the Canon the worst. I have a Canon 300D (Digital Rebel) with kit lens, and the lens is somewhat adequate, but not one I'd recommend. The Canon EOS mount, however, is one of the most highly adaptable mounts and can easily accept older M42, Zuiko, and Nikkor lenses. I previously used mainly Zuikos on my Canon, but now use Nikkors.

Gene

 

[JoeFriday]

nope.. my DSLR (D70) is a totally different animal that gets used in totally different situations.. it's virtually impossible to use it discretely due to its formidable size, and the shutter is so loud that there's no way I could use it without alerting everyone in the room

the sensors will allow shooting at ISO up around 800 with minimal noise.. but I only go above 200 when absolutely necessary.. the noise is not like grain, and is very ugly in digital images

depending on the lens, a DSLR is very good to use in fast action situations where I wouldn't use a rangefinder.. sports, trying to capture active kids, etc.. and the big advantage to DSLRs is the ability to put on a long lens and shoot things that you can't get close to.. I also enjoy putting on an extension tube and shooting macro shots.. something you simply can't do with an RF

but as for low-light or street photography.. my D70 never gets used for that, and I'm fairly certain never will

 

[Socke]

Lowlight yes (even when my old d60 is not very good at ISO800 and goes to 1000max)
Street sometimes, mostly stage and events
The d60s shutterlag is very low, AF is related to lenses and improves with the AF assist on the flash.

I use the d60 in program mode without and in manual with flash, E-TTL is more of an anoyance than any help with my usual subjects.

I may buy a 5d next for the bigger sensor and viewfinder and E-TTL2, but am still undecided. A ZI with 35/2 would be nice, too 🙂

BUT!

I have a bag which my brother once gave me for my birthday, must be some 20 years ago, which was big enough for my Yashica FX-D, winder, 35-70 mounted and 70-150. This bag now holds two Contax Gs and four lenses but it won't fit the d60 with a lens.

So if it comes to travel, the d60 stays at home.

 

[jaapv]

Hey man! Dem is fighting-words on this forum!! 😀
Seriously: A considerable number of us do own DSLR's and like to use them as well.Personally I use my Canon 10D for macro and tele, and I own a fish-eye for it. I don't like using it for everyday photography;lacks finesse, too bulky.

 

[yossarian]

Chris, sounds like you and I are on the same hunt. The Minolta 5D shot to the top
of my list by virtue of image stabilization, but it looks like they won't be around long
enough to count on the sort of price crash I'll need. Sales are so strong there is no
reason to do it, but I guarantee most entry level DSLRs COULD be sold with kit lens
for $499 or less and still make a tidy profit.
Sony MAY have something like the 5D later in the year, but I'll be goddamned if I'm
gonna switch to their f***ing memory sticks. I have several SD cards (now in use in
my Panasonic FZ15), and that's what I intend to stay with; though I do have the option of an adapter to place the SDs in a Compact Flash compatible camera.
The current deal with the Olympus E300 and two kit lenses for $699 seems quite
reasonable. Not only do I not mind the smaller sensors, I prefer them. But I am so
far out of the mainstream I'd never think of setting myself up as an example.
My FZ15, once all the little beeps and blurps have been killed, is the quietest camera
I've ever owned--FAR quieter than any Leica (sorry, it's true). I'm even getting
accustomed to the much-maligned EVF.
I've yet to see any pricing estimates for the Pentax-derived Samsungs, but even though I've proclaimed loudly and frequently in this forum that I have no brand bias,
I just don't know if I could own a product whose name is so closely identified with
QVC.

Fred

 

[cbass]

My FZ15, once all the little beeps and blurps have been killed, is the quietest camera
I've ever owned--FAR quieter than any Leica (sorry, it's true). I'm even getting
accustomed to the much-maligned EVF.

I'm right there with you on that one. I have a Panasonic FZ-1 that has become my favorite digital camera ever. So versatile. And the new FZ-7 may, IMO, be as useful as a DSLR in many instances.

From the responses so far it seems that DSLR owners tend to adhere to the old "horses for courses" philosophy and use their cameras as tools appropriate for the situation. That's cool; I suspect that I would do the same thing if I were to buy a DSLR -- no way would I stop using my Bessa kit.

Of the three cameras I sampled, the Pentax *ist DL seemed the most "RF-like". Despite being the smallest camera it had by far the best viewfinder and ergonomics compared to the Canon & Nikon. The body was not much larger than my Bessa R and it felt about the same weight. The Pentax with a fast 50mm lens might make a reasonable "RF alternative" at family gatherings where small children are present.

 

[JoeFriday]

I've got a Pana/Lumix FZ20.. excellent lens and a handy size.. but I hate hate hate the EVF.. and manual focusing with it is a joke in most situations.. plus, the sensor is horrible for using anything about ISO 200.. still, it's a nice system for many situations.. and definitely the quietest camera that I own.. but it's also not a real DSLR

 

[bmattock]

Of the three cameras I sampled, the Pentax *ist DL seemed the most "RF-like". Despite being the smallest camera it had by far the best viewfinder and ergonomics compared to the Canon & Nikon. The body was not much larger than my Bessa R and it felt about the same weight. The Pentax with a fast 50mm lens might make a reasonable "RF alternative" at family gatherings where small children are present.

I use both Bessa R and *ist DS (DS has a pentaprism, DL has a pentamirror, so DS has the brighter viewfinder). I use the *ist DS with M42 lenses, P/K mount SMC manual-focus lenses, and now lately, with an infrared filter to make some cool infrared images (Pentax DSLR one of the few still made that are sensitive to IR). I would buy a second DS, but I'm holding out to see what comes next from Pentax (and I'm an old-school Canon FD fan, never did Pentax back in the day).

With a 50mm prime lens, the *ist DS is nearly pocketable

It can do (grainy) ISO 3200 and very acceptable ISO 1600. By using a tripod and RAW, I was able to use my DS in a recent gig where I was shooting theater performances. I also used a Canon SLR with long lenses and Tri-X pushed to ISO 1600 and processed in Diafine. Aside from the serious tonal problems I had from the color gels they used on the lights (pure RED, it was Valentine's Day), I'm satisfied. Not that I could not have done a better job, but it was OK. The camera was definitely up to snuff. My partner for the shoot was using a new Nikon D200.

Here's our shots:

Jackie's D200 shots: http://www.cameramentor.com/jackie/

My *ist DS shots: http://www.cameramentor.com/russo/
http://www.cameramentor.com/russo/dress_rehearsal/
http://www.cameramentor.com/russo/performance/

I often take either the Bessa R or the *ist DS when I go out - either fit into my M-Systems bag just fine. I seldom bring both, they kind fill the same role for me.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[MelanieC]

(Disclaimer: I have only been interested in "photography," as opposed to "taking pictures," since January. So basically, I know nothing, but have by random fortune ended up with all these cameras.)

I have an M3, and a Nikon D70s, and started using both of these cameras at about the same time. Before these cameras, I had a Nikon Coolpix 950 (which was quite the shizz back in the day and takes awesome macro photographs) and an Olympus Stylus Epic -- in other words -- all I did was point and shoot (and I did that rarely, and even more rarely for fun).

I find that the kind of photography that interests me is the kind that suits the M3's strengths and so I use the M3 often and the D70s almost never, which is sad, considering that it's just sitting there going obsolete even as I type. I also enjoy the M3 both in an aesthetic and tactile fashion, and I can't say the same for the DSLR. There's something about it that seems too easy, and disposable, and just not as much fun. I find myself taking a million crappy pictures and deleting most of them when I look at them on the computer. Of course, this is my fault and not the camera's -- I know that this DSLR is capable of taking excellent photos in the right hands.

I carry my M3 with me everywhere -- it lives in my purse -- something that's impossible with the D70s considering its size with attached lens. If it were more portable, I would use it more often. The noise that tripping the shutter makes doesn't bother me because I'm not very interested in street photography (I know -- Leica heresy) and I don't care if people see me taking photos (as unobtrusive as the Leica is, it's still obviously a camera and when I use it I'm still obviously a person with a camera framing a shot) so I guess it really is mostly about size.

In my case I also have a sentimental attachment to the Leica (it was my father's) that I don't have to the D70s and that probably has something to do with it too. Then again, I recently bought a cheap Canonet and have no sentimental attachment to it whatsoever, and I still enjoy using it more than the D70s.

I have had a really hard time figuring out how to use my D70s manually, but that's because I hate reading instructions. I tend to use it on auto and mostly for things that I think the Leica is not that great at (action, shots that require a zoom, etc.). I do like that it performs well in low light, and that's one of the things I like best about my Coolpix 950 as well. But for me it's really just a tool. I don't feel that way about my M3.

I think the D70s is totally worth having, but for me it has little in common with a rangefinder.

 

[John Camp]

I have done some reportorial and scholarly-use photography for quite a few years, and have owned a Nikon models F3, F4, F5, N90s, D1x and now a D2x. I still have an F4, two F5s and the D2x is my current hammer, in the sense that I use it to drive photographic nails. I'm experimenting with rangefinders because I've become more interested in an aesthetic photography. What I've discovered is that a good digital SLR CAN do almost everything that a rangefinder can do, and more things that a rangefinder can't. But: when you have an SLR, you tend (or I do) to haul around a huge load of crap just because they CAN do so much. My routine Nikon-travel system goes in a wheeled Tamrac bag and weighs about as much as three car batteries; I mean, I don't leave home without a ring flash, or say nothing of two SB800s and a Minolta flash meter, to go with a whole series of big weighty lenses. With it, I can shoot anything from a landscape to a publicity shot to a bug.

Getting my hands on a R-D1 with a Tri-Elmar was an absolutely liberating experience; and the 50 Summilux is even more liberating. I don't think you'd have the same kind of exerience with a small SLR. I looked at the Nikon D50 because I already had all the lenses, the flash system, etc., but there I am, back again hauling around a huge load of crap.

Somehow, an SLR, digital or no, pulls you into system-think. If I just get one more accessory, I'll widen my horizon. A rangefinder pulls you into a different kind of thinking, one that wants to eliminate crap.

If you really want ultimate flexibility, you go with an SLR. Though I will say I am not impressed with either the build quality or the image quality of the smaller DSLRs (though I hear the D200 is both small and good.) Might be better to get one of the top-end P&S models.

There is one thing that rangefinders do a lot better than DSLRs, but I'll get into that in a dsifferent post sometime (it's not a big amazing revelation.)

JC

 

[ch1]

I use a RF, SLR or DSLR as I think necessary for what and where I am shooting. There are times when I desire the immediate feedback of the LCD image (e.g. recently did some shooting at a live butterfly exhibit at Tucson Botanical Garden and wanted to be sure I "nailed" the little suckers!).

But I also enjoy both RF and SLR film. I mainly shoot B&W with RF and a manual SLR but usually put color or chrome in my AF SLRs. Go figure.

I enjoy it all. I look upon photography as a buffet - I can try any and all the dishes I want.

Heck, last night I used my digi P&S to take a couple of quick pictures of my "new" Contax IIIa (see other thread ). It was like several generations apart of cameras talking to each other! 😉

 

[yossarian]

Brett is dead-on about the noise in the Panasonics, although I've found I can tolerate
it when I shoot B&W. See, I use digital totally wrong. I know you're supposed to
shoot RAW and post-process, but I hate computers, so I shoot digital EXACTLY like
film--even have lab-made prints done.

And I am SOLD on IS. It's great being able to shoot with a 400+ effective focal length at 1/30 sec. (except for too much DOF). I've said it before--if the DSLRs
continue along the dreary little path they're on now, I'll just keep buying Pana FZs
as long as they're available.

Now, I'm finally gonna work in one big-ass rant. Where do these electronics manufacturers get off combining fractional and decimal values? This breaks every
rule I learned in my math classes. The sensor in my FZ15 is expressed as "1/2.5
inch". Goddamn it, it's 0.40"; or four-tenths of a freakin' inch--what's so hard about
that?

Bunch of ***holes....

Fred

 

[RML]

For those of you that own DSLRs, do you find yourself using them in situations where you might also use a rangefinder (e.g. low light, street, etc.)? Is it as fast as your RF? Are DSLR's easy to use manually? Please share your experiences.

I find that I don't use my Eos 300D in the same situations as my R-D1, especially not in low-light situations. As it is, I prefer shooting with the R-D1 because its user interface is so much easier to handle and manipulate than that of the Eos. In a flash I can decide and change aperture, shutter time, focus point, etc. I feel I can't do so with the Eos, which forces me to hold a button here, push a lever there, skip through a menu or two and spin some dial just to set anything when in manual mode. I hate that and it's the main reason why I hardly ever shoot with the dSLR. Another thing is that I feel that the auto-focus isn't nearly as good and quick as my own eye, brain and fingers on the fully manual lens on my R-D1. But mostly it is a feeling of being in control, a feeling a have very much when I shoot the R-D1 and feel lacking severely when shooting the Eos. But that's all just me. 🙂

 

[bmattock]

I find that I don't use my Eos 300D in the same situations as my R-D1, especially not in low-light situations. As it is, I prefer shooting with the R-D1 because its user interface is so much easier to handle and manipulate than that of the Eos. In a flash I can decide and change aperture, shutter time, focus point, etc. I feel I can't do so with the Eos, which forces me to hold a button here, push a lever there, skip through a menu or two and spin some dial just to set anything when in manual mode. I hate that and it's the main reason why I hardly ever shoot with the dSLR. Another thing is that I feel that the auto-focus isn't nearly as good and quick as my own eye, brain and fingers on the fully manual lens on my R-D1. But mostly it is a feeling of being in control, a feeling a have very much when I shoot the R-D1 and feel lacking severely when shooting the Eos. But that's all just me. 🙂

Fortunately, my Pentax doesn't give me much trouble when I want to shoot in manual mode. I most often use aperture-priority AE, and that works with AF, P/K, and M42 lenses. With M42, I have to manually stop down to meter, of course, but it then sets the shutter speed appropriately. It also has an easy thumb dial to set the aperture on 'auto' lenses that allow that, or I can go all manual and use the thumb wheel and one push button to set aperture and shutter speed without removing the camera from my eye. It is pretty easy. Also, having a focus indicator light is nice - it even works on M42 lenses. And flash TTL. Well, I'm pretty happy, you can imagine.

I still don't consider my DSLR a replacement for a proper RF, but it fills a lot of niches pretty well, and I'm well-pleased with it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[nksyoon]

I prefer shooting with the R-D1 because its user interface is so much easier to handle and manipulate than that of the Eos.

One of the faults of the 300D is that it's missing sufficient manual controls, ie. a control dial. The 20D has a large wheel on the back and in manual mode the dial next to the shutter controls shutter speed while the back dial controls aperture. In AE mode, the top dial controls aperture while the back dial controls exposure compensation.

I haven't found that I'm using my DSLR differently (in terms of following a scene and composing a shot) from my RFs if I have primes on both. The main difference is the AF which helps in some situations but is a pain in others.

A more practical difference is the size and weight of the camera body and lenses, a big advantage for RFs.

 

[cbass]

Nice thread going so far, thanks for a lively discussion!

John -- a very well-reasoned post. Certainly the SLR system does not begin and end with the camera body. Many of us probably turned to RFs for simplicity but Leica certainly makes a dazzling array of accessories available (CV does, too) for the equipment lovers.

Fred -- whoa, big fella....don't blow a gasket on us 😉 . Actually, www.dpreview.com has a pretty good explanation of the common sensor size measurements. They date back to the days of television tubes, IIRC. Worth a look.

Bill -- If I ever invest in another SLR system to replace my Minolta SRT I'll probably go with the Pentax, for many of the reasons you mention. I appreciate that the Pentax system is backward compatible with the older lenses. Easy manual control is important, too. That's a big reason why I like shooting with my Bessa so much. Sure, it's no RF but the *ist series comes pretty close, IMO.

Copake -- I like the "buffet" analogy, good one. Some of us sample all the dishes, others stick with their favorites. Either way, it's all good.

 

[Gid]

Agree about the thread - great discussion and no film vs digital rants.

I have an Epson RD-1, Olympus E1, Canon F1 and Bronica RF 645, so half film and half digital - just to set the scene.

I think you have to define what RF means to you - is it size (or lack of it) is it silence and hence stealth, is it manual vs automatic (Contax excepted), is good fast primes vs zooms ...........

I like using the RD-1 because I have to make the choices - it makes me consider the shot more. I like using primes because it makes me work to get the framing right. The Canon and the Bronica are the same and that's what I enjoy. The Olympus is the closest I've come to the spirit of RF except its size - you can set everything to manual - and it is very very quiet.

If I wanted a small, quiet camera I'd consider the new Ricoh digital - small, quiet, fast lens, but a little wide.

By their very nature, they are different beasts and ultimately you should pick that which suits your shooting style best and that may very well be a "buffet". The only downside of not using and RF is not being able post my non RF shots here 🙁

What is the most fantastic thing is that there are so many choices out there. It means that GAS will always find a solution, however short term 😀

Gid

 

[traveller]

I like my D70 and have a lot of fun with the camera, but I wouldn't carry the D70 with me everywhere. Just too big, even when using primes, and I get noticed everywhere.
That's where my RF kicks in. Small, lightweight and I have the feeling she works in a sort of stealth mode.

No, I wouldn't see RF's and DSLR's in the same class off cameras, but I like to have the option using both of them.

John

 

[childers-jk]

I
Somehow, an SLR, digital or no, pulls you into system-think. If I just get one more accessory, I'll widen my horizon. A rangefinder pulls you into a different kind of thinking, one that wants to eliminate crap.

JC

John,

This is a great quote, and very thoughtfull. I too feel that SLR's tend to draw a person to the next lens, flash, or gadet. Not to say that buying gear for RF's is any less addiciting, I feel a difference. For an SLR, like you said "...I'll widem my horizon." The extra gear for the RFer is more likely to open up a scene!! I notice a lot of talk about 28mm, 35mm, and 21mm lens. This is an expansion of the scene, where I feel SLR's draw ME, into zoom mode!! Anyway, great thought, I thought I would throw in my feelings.

Jeff C.