"SLR is more versatile" or is it?

bmattock

bmattock

Veteran
Local time
7:46 AM
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
10,655

Kris wrote:
PS: Pardon me guys. I know this is a forum for RF cameras but don't you agree SLR is more versatile?
Click to expand...


OK, first of all - Kris, please don't take this as an attack! Guys, don't pile on to Kris! He asked a perfectly good question, and it deserves to be answered without jumping on anybody! Not that we do that here, but just in case...

Is an SLR more versatile than a Rangefinder? Well, in many ways, yes. Is a Land Rover more versatile than a Battle Tank? Sure! Under certain circumstances!

Let's examine things that the SLR can do that the Rangefinder either can't do, or is not particularly good at:

* Macro. SLR's can generally do macro with very little other than a focus method (such as an extension tube) and a stable platform, such as a tripod. You see what you're taking a picture of, so you know if you're in focus or not, and there is no such thing as parallax error.

* Very long and very short lenses. The SLR again has the edge - there are commonly-made inexpensive lenses that are longer than 150mm and shorter than 28mm. Although it is always possible to get long (and more commonly these days, short) lenses for rangefinders, again it is easier to focus through the lens, so SLRs again have the advantage here.

* Zoom. Although there are zoom lenses available for some rangefinders, in general they are the exclusive province of the SLR. For fast-action photography or photography from a mandatory distance, they can be invaluable. Don't want to get too close to a cranky rhino on safari, for example!

* Auto-focus. Again, you can find rangefinders with this feature, but they're pretty thin on the ground - yet most SLR cameras are auto-focus now. Great for fast-action and sports and reportage in many cases. In some cases, you really can't do without anymore if you're going to compete with other photogs for a living.

Now, let's take a look at the Rangefinder. What makes it special, what can it do (or do well) that SLRs can't?

* Stealth. One of the primary advantages of the rangefinder camera is the fact that it has fewer moving parts than the typical SLR. No mirror, no pivot to move the mirror, etc. Lenses tend to go 'click' instead of 'CLANK!' If you're taking record photos in a church during a ceremony, for example, a rangefinder is a much better choice.

* Higher quality lenses. Some will debate - but in general, a lens of any given sort can be made better for less if it does not also have to have electronic contacts and gizmos inside or a mechanism to automatically stop the lens down when the photo is taken. None of this is necessary for the rangefinder lens.

* Lighter kit. Many of us have reached an age where toting around a 300mm fast lens is just not an option for extended periods. A rangefinder and three prime lenses fits in a tiny package and weighs next to nothing.

* Brighter, easier focusing. Although the SLR definitely gives you 'what you see is what you get' to some extent, you may find that it does not work too well indoors if you're trying to focus manually or if your autofocus becomes confused. It is hard to see through that lovely 5.6 lens that is standard these days AND the mirror, AND the prism, etc. Add a dark room and forget about focussing. A rangefinder viewfinder always looks the same. If you can't focus through a relatively bright modern rangefinder, it is probably too dark to take photographs. Those of us with aging eyes also appreciate that fact!

I have and use both Rangefinder and SLR cameras - I love 'em all! I try to use appropriate technology when possible - but sometimes I use the 'wrong' tool just because I appreciate the challenge, or I find that I am willing to give up one advantage to gain another - like putting an Olympus XA in my pocket, where I know my Canon FtbN would do a better job - but I want to travel light and not stick out like a sore thumb.

I'm sure that others can add to my meager list - go for it!

But to answer your original question, Kris - no, I don't think that the SLR is "more versatile" than the Rangefinder. Just different!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Cameras are tools, each type and format has it's own strengths and weaknesses. I have owned and/or currently own multiple SLR cameras, DSLR's, medium format 120, large format (4x5), as well as many point and shoot 35mm, all which serve or did serve a purpose. I have often thought about selling my Nikon F4s but cannot bring myself to do so, even though I can equal or better the quality with one of my DSLR's. I also am a proud owner of a 'blad, which if I could ever stop buying RF cameras I could afford that 40mm Zeiss lens for it. I believe in using the right tool for the job, although my F4s probably could be used to hammer nails. :D

Todd
 
I'd take issue with the SLR "wide lens" availability. Just because more choices are available doesn't mean that they are better, optically, or useability wise- the Rangefinder has an inherent advantage because of the different focusing methodology, the image on a ground glass screen is TINY with wides and it's harder to focus 'em.

I have several types of cameras, including SLR's.
 
Re: "SLR is more versatile" or is it?

bmattock said:
....But to answer your original question, Kris - no, I don't think that the SLR is "more versatile" than the Rangefinder. Just different!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
Click to expand...

(laika slips into his fire proof suit :p)
I'd have to agree with Kris on this one, I do think the SLR is a more “versatile” tool than a rangefinder. But I think being versatile is over rated.

Given that I don’t like zooms, don’t use long lenses and do little macro work I really wouldn't be too put out if I traded my Nikon SLRs and had only RF's (But I can't and wont do it :D hehehe). I do agree with you Bill that they are just different, no rights or wrongs.
 
Good synopsis Bill! I think you hit all the main points.

I agree with Todd that cameras are just tools and we can select the best tools for a particular job.

RF's are great, so are SLR's, so are MF's, so are LF's, and (gasp) so are Digitals. Just depends on your preferences, style and subject matter.

Me, I'm tempted to go Holga :D

Gene
 
If I could have only one camera I would choose an SLR. SLRs are more versatile and when they became widely available in the 1960s and 1970s they took over the professional 35mm and advanced amateur markets. Photographers voted with their wallets, and for very good reasons. Having said that, I love rangefinders, and especially the older all-mechanical ones. They are an important part of photographic history, are a blast to use, and are capable of first rate results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL, Scott! This was a burning issue in the 1960's and the popular camera magazines seemed to have an SLR vs RF fight-out article once a year. Same for color film: slides vs prints.

Weighing in, I'm with Laika. I'm not a fan of autofocus, zooms, motor-winders and such. I mostly use Medium Format, so not averse to some extra bulk, but I like things relatively simple. But I still would never give up at least a couple of my SLRs!

Oldprof offers wisdom suitable to his advanced age. (Hey, quit kicking me, I might be as ancient as you!). The SLR is the indispensable camera type, with deserved popularity. But I enjoy using RFs, and for most of what I do these days, they have an advantage.
 
i'm almost afraid to weigh in on this one.

i surprised myself with my reaction to a couple of comments made these past few days.
like using a slr for the 'serious' shooting and about needing a slr if you could only have one camera.

i'm afraid i started to take things personally.

i do only have one preference and that's rangefinders.
i've done the slr thing - been there, done that, bought the extension tube.
for what i like to do i simply don't need anything else/more than what i have.

i really started to feel 'less than' for a minute.

but that was just my insecurity popping out, wondering what others might think of me, like maybe i'm not a real photographer - just some wannabe.

but that's silly and thankfully gone now.
i like what i shoot, wish i could do it better but enjoy my process none the less.

i actually agree with much of what's been said here. the slr is very versatile, good for macro, sports and the papparazzi.
these are just tools.
anyone know what brush the master used to paint the cistine (sp?) chappel?

joe
 
I bought my first RF at age 11 and first SLR at age 13. I now have a lot of each, including those two bought 35yrs ago.

I find the that I prefer the RF's for taking "people-pictures", portraits, "environmental portraits", existing light shots, etc. I can focus more quickly and the camera has less latency than the SLR's.

I find my SLR's are better for telephoto work(>90), macro work, and documentation work. For sports and wildlife photography, a long lens like a 300mm or 500mm is necessary. Fast Telephotos like my 180mm F2.8 is great for indoor sports. For documentation work a macro and databack (analog or digital) is required.

This is not to say that I do not use my 55mm F1.2 on the F2AS for indoor portraits. I find it easier to focus the RF. As far as AF cameras, I got tired of losing the moment while my N70 searched for focus with a 50mm F1.4 in "low-light" that was well within its spec(1/30 @F1.4 ASA400). SLR's, AF and manual, are better at many things, but the RF works better for me when taking pictures of people.
 
Last edited:
OMG I just opened a can of worms. I think I'd better keep my mouth shut, or in this case better keep my fingers away from the keyboard. My apology guys.
 
Kris said:
OMG I just opened a can of worms. I think I'd better keep my mouth shut, or in this case better keep my fingers away from the keyboard. My apology guys.
Click to expand...
Naw, nothing to apologize for. All pots need stirring once in awhile :cool:

Gene
 
Times up!
Nobody picked either camera, so I am keeping both of them!

Next: Kodak Instamatic 48 vs Pentax 110 SLR.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Times up!
Nobody picked either camera, so I am keeping both of them!

Next: Kodak Instamatic 48 vs Pentax 110 SLR.
Click to expand...

To answer your question, I would have chosen the rangefinder from that particular pair of Nikons. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom