SLR composition v Rangefinder.

[Ko.Fe.]

What is ""composition" for you?

RF sucks is you have pole like something in FRGND and nest like something at BKGRND and you want to "place" this "nest" and the "pole".

SLR sucks for street photography, which is fast and now.
By the time slr flips its mirror, composition has changed one million times.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I think this is where a camera like the 240 is fairly unique. You have either option!

Definitely, but to be honest I use mine as a RF exclusively. This is the way I feel most comfortable shooting.

 

[tunalegs]

I like to use SLRs with a large viewfinder - Exakta, Miranda, Olympus OM. Which give practically 1:1 viewing when focused on mid-range subjects. This way I can compose in my mind and just lift the camera to my eye to take the picture.

I've found I also prefer simple screens, either plain ground glass - or ground glass with a split prism. I'm not very fond of microprisms and fresnel screens.

This keeps the view simple so what I see in the VF is basically what I will see on the film.

With RFs I also prefer a VF which is about 1:1 for the same reason. The main difference as pointed out above is that one may see in clear view foreground and background at the same time. The VF is also consistently bright as it isn't illuminated by whatever lens you are using, so in that sense it is more like what you'll see in the final print. On the other hand, I primarily shoot color and the tints of some RF viewfinders can be annoying.

 

[oftheherd]

I have SLR and RF. To me they are just different ways to focus; nothing more, nothing less. My first RF was my Super Press 23. I wished it had been an SLR, but it wasn't, so I learned how to use the RF. I got used to it pretty fast, and never looked back.

I don't know if I should be sorry for all of you above, or perhaps sorry for me? 😛