SLR composition v Rangefinder.

John Bragg

John Bragg

Well-known
Local time
8:42 PM
Joined
Nov 25, 2005
Messages
1,813
It may seem like a deceptively simple question, but do we compose an image differently using one camera versus the other ? I think I do, in that I work more deliberately using a rangefinder and my SLR technique is more grab and go.
 
Not really. There are differences of course but these are because of the limitations of rangefinders. With a RF I mostly leave more space around it because I do not trust the viewfinder to give me what will be on the photo. With a SLR I can compose more tightly with confidence. And there is the difference that you cannot really go close with a RF. Or do tele work. Working slower, yes but again because I need to hunt the focus back and forth to get it right with a RF.

But when working within those limits there isn't any difference between them. It is still me taking lousy pics.
 
John Bragg said:
I work more deliberately using a rangefinder and my SLR technique is more grab and go.
Click to expand...

I do the opposite. To me using an SLR is more contemplative and a rangefinder more spontaneous. The reason is that composing with an SLR is more precise -- I'm looking through the lens and see what I'm going to get -- whereas with a rangefinder it's more hit or miss. Also, the quietness of rangefinders lends them to street photography, which tends to be more spontaneous. With rangefinders I'm prepared to take what the camera gives me, more of a free-wheeling approach.
 
I compose differently. With an SLR, I use primarily the focus screen. I look around through the lens looking for a composition. With a RF I compose more with my eye and use the camera just to capture what was in my mind's eye. For me it is a more conceptually engaging/active experience.

That's just me, YMMV and that's okay.
 
With an SLR, it's quite immersive, as you're looking through a tunnel which isn't (usually) the whole frame. But with an RF, you can keep an eye not only on the frame, but what's coming in and out as the scene changes.
 
FrankS said:
I compose differently. With an SLR, I use primarily the focus screen. I look around through the lens looking for a composition. With a RF I compose more with my eye and use the camera just to capture what was in my mind's eye. For me it is a more conceptually engaging/active experience.

That's just me, YMMV and that's okay.
Click to expand...

This. 10 char.
 
lawrence said:
I do the opposite. To me using an SLR is more contemplative and a rangefinder more spontaneous. The reason is that composing with an SLR is more precise -- I'm looking through the lens and see what I'm going to get -- whereas with a rangefinder it's more hit or miss. Also, the quietness of rangefinders lends them to street photography, which tends to be more spontaneous. With rangefinders I'm prepared to take what the camera gives me, more of a free-wheeling approach.
Click to expand...

Like Lawrence I also am more deliberate with a reflex.
With a Rangefinder I tend to stop down more or use slower wider lenses usually for a more environmental type of scene (Portraits, candids, or street views).
Using the RF in this way gives me a bit more freedom when focussing which lends to (for me anyway) a bit looser framing.
I usually pick up a reflex to shoot shallower DOF and a tighter composition often with a longer than 50mm lens (in 35mm format speak).
As a result I'm more careful to assure I get an image I'm happy with.
 
Not really for me, I'm more like to try a quick shot with an RF, as I can focus them them a lot faster than a SLR or TLR. Maybe the RF encourages me to just take photos and not worry too much about sloppy framing, simply because I find it easy to to use.

Compared to the last camera I used frequently, a Rolleiflex, I've not 36 shots, not 12, and I find it much easier to use and frame. I also find it easier to hold steady at low speeds, so I probably take photos in a more relaxed manner.

Actual composition, not sure, maybe, now I think about it.
 
it is different, when you shoot with a rangefinder you can see the entire scene plus
beyond and at the moment of exposure which is always great and slr's you have the
blackout moment. I do work with both and maybe that's why I like 4/3rds .

Range
 
I guess the main difference in how I work with a rangefinder is that I am more likely to zone focus when shooting on the street. With an SLR, I use the shallow depth and most likely a faster shutter speed. Perhaps autofocus has changed my method of working ? Until recently, it was manual all the way for me.
 
It wasn't until I used RFs that I started composing differently: without the camera.
I used to compose (SLR) looking at a photograph (through the lens), and only a few years ago (RFs) I started composing looking at reality...
Only now I know I can compose the same way with an SLR even though it doesn´t have space "outside the image".
The huge difference is I am a lot more in contact with subjects and emotions, but I don't know exactly why...
Maybe using a 50 1.4 wide open on SLRs for my first 15 years of shooting produced a constant view that having OOF zones was all the time close to a photograph and far from the total focus we see with our eyes, and with RFs...
About composition, I don't think it has much to do with borders and limits, but with the relation between parts and the spaces and roads created for a visual, geometric reading, so I guess both systems can be equally well used, but RF's are better in a way I can't understand or explain clearly to myself.
Cheers,
Juan
 
I pay more attention to composition when using a SLR, but my RF images come out as good...I don't know why :bang::bang:
 
I think I notice more the arrangement of picture elements and of light/shade when composing with a RF. The SLR's focus screen makes dof more noticeable, so I tend to pay more attention to dof when shooting with an SLR.

Camera/lens size is the other issue. RFs are more discreet, so I feel more comfortable shooting street with one.
 
I basically do the same with either type. The only thing that changes is the limitations of any one camera, which I adjust to on the fly.

PF
 
RF is more grab and go.

A good pro slr with 100% screen is a joy to use, F2, D3, D800, D750. You always know exactly what is in the frame.
 
Darshan said:
I pay more attention to composition when using a SLR, but my RF images come out as good...I don't know why :bang::bang:
Click to expand...

+1

I am starting to use my Minolta SRT the same way I use my rangefinders and have been happier with my results. Maybe there is more to this subconscious response to good compositions then I would have thought. :)
 
I use both SLR and RF.
And occasionally a Rolleiflex TLR*.
The SLR is for the photographs i MAKE.
The RF for photographs i TAKE.
I love composing on the screen, seeing the actual focus area
and background.
I am always enchanted how much is almost in focus with a normal lens..
I am always worried that my focusing of 28mm lenses is wrong on my SLR..a few oops! at weddings,etc., under pressure.
The RF makes one think the focus is as narrow as the RFDR rectangle..
Even for one like me that uses hyperfocal depth of field.

I do a lot of multi-exposures, preferring film to digital.
Please note all my lenses are MF.
I don't use a DSLR.

*The Rollei causes a whole shift.
Wrong way round, not at eye level,and I take forever to compose, finally not taking the shot.
My success rate on the Rollei is way better than the SLR or RF.

The camera you grab, when I am in a hurry, is always the one to use!
That is my battered beloved M3.
icon10.gif
 
The biggest difference imo is that with an slr you see the focus zone that the lens sees, while with RF the DOF is infinite. For certain subjects, the RF helps a lot in the composition, while in others the slr is much more precise. I have learned to appreciate the more primitive but intuitive rf way.
 
I think this is where a camera like the 240 is fairly unique. You have either option!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom