Sonnar2
Well-known
With 50mm and shorter I prefer RFs for focussing. About 2/3's of my shots are with these focal lengths. I always used SLRs in the 80's, 90's for my shooting until my first RF (2000) which was a Canon P, followed by a Bessa R. I found shooting with this two cameras the way I use to work far more convenient than with classic SLRs.
With fast 85's, I'm indifferent. I haven't a problem focussing a 75/1.5 Biotar with my Exakta VX (bright prism finder, large split-image). It's my oldest SLR camera. With the bright screens of my early Pentax SLR I focus all of the M42 fast telephotos excellently. The Pentax MX finder is quite dark whereas my LX is bright and clear, excellent for the 85/1.8. The Olympus OM4 isn't as good as the LX with the 85/2 (moreover the speed display is a pure pain). The Zeiss 85/1.4 is a joy to use with my Contax 139 as well as the Yashica(Cosina) FX3 -2000 but needs constant refocussing in use with either bodies.
With the RF's I can focus my Nikkor 85/2 with my Bessa-R as good as with any Canon's with longer baselength. The split-image of the Bessa is simply clearer. The Canon 85/1.8 works on any of my LTM cameras but its even slower to focus as the Nikon because of it single helicoil. Even heavier, the 85/1.5. It shows slight front-focussing too. Cam calibration is an issue with any RF. If it's off your pictures aren't in focus at a certain distance. Pure pain with Russian lenses on German or Japanase cameras except you find a person to recalibrate the lense. This isn't a issue with any SLRs. When you see the screen is bright and sharp, the picture will be sharp as well. When the light gets dark with SLRs, you need both a highspeed lens (f/1.4) plus a bright screen for focussing. You wouldn't see nothing with a f/2.8 lens. With a RF, a slower lens is even more secure because of the baselength issue. But only if your film is fast enough. With very low light, it can happen that you didn't see the RF patch either. Happened to me a couple of times with the 50/0.95. Then, there is no advantage to a SLR with 50/1.2 in real terms. Taking pictures at a varieté, a Canon A-1 w. AL 50/1.2 is far easier to handle than a Canon 7 w. 50/0.95. This makes you see instantly where the progress was between 1962 and 1982!
I had some problems focussing the Nikkor 105/2.5 correctly. It was LTM. Slower lenses (like 100-105/3.5) aren't a problem, but here IMHO the advantage of SLR began. Even more with 135. Even the 135/3.5 is a pain on RFs (focussing accuracy, composition and handling). But I don't use this focal langth very often anyway, except with my 135/2.8 Zeiss lens on Rolleiflex SL35. These cameras have also bright finders (similar to the Spotmatics). With 180mm or faster, there is just one choice: SLR.
The second choice for SLR is close focus and macro work. My LTM cameras focus down to 1m, which isn't very close, even for portraits (i.e. kids) with 50mm. My Olympus PEN-FT focusses down to 0,35m with a 40mm halfframe (equivalent to 58mm full format).
cheers Frank
With fast 85's, I'm indifferent. I haven't a problem focussing a 75/1.5 Biotar with my Exakta VX (bright prism finder, large split-image). It's my oldest SLR camera. With the bright screens of my early Pentax SLR I focus all of the M42 fast telephotos excellently. The Pentax MX finder is quite dark whereas my LX is bright and clear, excellent for the 85/1.8. The Olympus OM4 isn't as good as the LX with the 85/2 (moreover the speed display is a pure pain). The Zeiss 85/1.4 is a joy to use with my Contax 139 as well as the Yashica(Cosina) FX3 -2000 but needs constant refocussing in use with either bodies.
With the RF's I can focus my Nikkor 85/2 with my Bessa-R as good as with any Canon's with longer baselength. The split-image of the Bessa is simply clearer. The Canon 85/1.8 works on any of my LTM cameras but its even slower to focus as the Nikon because of it single helicoil. Even heavier, the 85/1.5. It shows slight front-focussing too. Cam calibration is an issue with any RF. If it's off your pictures aren't in focus at a certain distance. Pure pain with Russian lenses on German or Japanase cameras except you find a person to recalibrate the lense. This isn't a issue with any SLRs. When you see the screen is bright and sharp, the picture will be sharp as well. When the light gets dark with SLRs, you need both a highspeed lens (f/1.4) plus a bright screen for focussing. You wouldn't see nothing with a f/2.8 lens. With a RF, a slower lens is even more secure because of the baselength issue. But only if your film is fast enough. With very low light, it can happen that you didn't see the RF patch either. Happened to me a couple of times with the 50/0.95. Then, there is no advantage to a SLR with 50/1.2 in real terms. Taking pictures at a varieté, a Canon A-1 w. AL 50/1.2 is far easier to handle than a Canon 7 w. 50/0.95. This makes you see instantly where the progress was between 1962 and 1982!
I had some problems focussing the Nikkor 105/2.5 correctly. It was LTM. Slower lenses (like 100-105/3.5) aren't a problem, but here IMHO the advantage of SLR began. Even more with 135. Even the 135/3.5 is a pain on RFs (focussing accuracy, composition and handling). But I don't use this focal langth very often anyway, except with my 135/2.8 Zeiss lens on Rolleiflex SL35. These cameras have also bright finders (similar to the Spotmatics). With 180mm or faster, there is just one choice: SLR.
The second choice for SLR is close focus and macro work. My LTM cameras focus down to 1m, which isn't very close, even for portraits (i.e. kids) with 50mm. My Olympus PEN-FT focusses down to 0,35m with a 40mm halfframe (equivalent to 58mm full format).
cheers Frank
wolves3012
Veteran
Interesting slant on it, probably more significant than most people realise. Here's an example: I am now of an age where I need and use glasses for reading, my near-point is now somewhere around 18-24 inches. I have two Zenit/Zenith SLRs that I cannot focus without glasses because their screens are too close, optically. On the other hand I have a Minolta X-700 and that is fine without glasses, presumably they set the screen further away optically. With an RF, however, I have no issues with any of the dozen-plus that I own; most have diopter-correction but even those without give me no problems.wgerrard said:
wolves3012
Veteran
Ruben,ruben said:
You're only partly right because, unlike an RF, the split-screen varies with lens focal length. Put a telephoto on and it becomes a very critical device (sometimes too critical, which is why they can black out). With a wide-angle it is less critical, but so is the need for accurate focus. On an RF, the accuracy does not depend on the lens, hence the advantage at shorter focal-lengths.
wolves3012
Veteran
By the way guys...the split-screen/microprism aid in an SLR screen IS a rangefinder, on very similar principles to that in an RF.
On use I do prefer the RF for is hyperfocal focussing. Do that on an SLR and it's a constant annoyance that most of the screen is out of focus when you come to compose, you're constantly being tempted to re-focus.
On use I do prefer the RF for is hyperfocal focussing. Do that on an SLR and it's a constant annoyance that most of the screen is out of focus when you come to compose, you're constantly being tempted to re-focus.
v3cron
Well-known
i used to shoot a hasselblad for my fashion work, until it got to the point that the focus throw was an obstruction. my style became faster and more fluid, and the equipment had to follow suit - hello leica!
amin_sabet
Established
Thanks again for the discussion everyone. I think I'm going to go ahead and try one of each. OM-2n system now, and a Bessa R3a when budget permits.
V
varjag
Guest
XA rangefinder is not the average though, with its tiny effective base. Most of the rangefinders (including pre-war Leicas and old FSU stuff) can focus more precisely than that.Leighgion said:
Olsen
Well-known
Funny that this question comes up now....
Through the Christmas/New Year holiday I have been trying to perform a comparative test of Leica M8/Noctilux v. Canon 1Ds II/50 mm 1,0L. To compare smaller apartures than ap. 1,0 is performable, but to make both cameras focus on the same detail, at ap 1,0 where DOF is only millimetres wide is close to impossible.
The M8 has the advantage of the rangefinder system which is easier to focus than AF or manual focusing with a D-SLR with a good viewfinder, - actually one of the best in the business. But my M8/Noctilux combo backfocuses with 'about' 10 cm
at 2 meters! So, in between parties and family gatherings, I have struggled with trying to get these two cameras focus on the same object. Without succeeding.
Through the Christmas/New Year holiday I have been trying to perform a comparative test of Leica M8/Noctilux v. Canon 1Ds II/50 mm 1,0L. To compare smaller apartures than ap. 1,0 is performable, but to make both cameras focus on the same detail, at ap 1,0 where DOF is only millimetres wide is close to impossible.
The M8 has the advantage of the rangefinder system which is easier to focus than AF or manual focusing with a D-SLR with a good viewfinder, - actually one of the best in the business. But my M8/Noctilux combo backfocuses with 'about' 10 cm
at 2 meters! So, in between parties and family gatherings, I have struggled with trying to get these two cameras focus on the same object. Without succeeding.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
IMHO, Olympus dropped the ball when they design the viewfinders for the E-series, it sounds like they don't learn from their own success with the OM-series.
Don't tell me that bigger viewfinders cannot be done with the 4/3rd system, the latest E-3 proved this argument wrong.
Now I want to see one to compare it with my OM-1.
Don't tell me that bigger viewfinders cannot be done with the 4/3rd system, the latest E-3 proved this argument wrong.
Now I want to see one to compare it with my OM-1.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
The OM series was successful largely because the cameras were compact and had very innovative metering systems. The E-1 is a small camera, too, if you compare it to the Canon 1D series, for example.shadowfox said:
Philipp