So...why hate SLR's?

toyotadesigner said:
Oh, and when I see someone shooting digital I just think: poor guy wasted a lot of money on plastic that'll be outdated faster as he can get it out of the bag :D
Click to expand...


Nostalgia clouds the mind? Is this like saying music from the sixties is better because it has been popular far longer than music from the naughties?

Are there armies of people out there using Konica ZUp-80's and P30T's? Probably not. I suspect that not all digital cameras will be outdated as quickly as it takes a furniture store to have one more sale. There are S3Pro, 14n and E-1 lovers out there already and I am sure the 5D will be doing the rounds for a few more years to come.

Vive la diference!
 
Keith said:
Look through the viewfinder of an Olympus OM with a fresh bright screen, check the size and weight against any of your rangefinders and tell me it's not true! :p
Click to expand...
Keith, I looked into them, repeatedly, in vain attempts to understand all the ravings about OM system. To me they feel like any other 70s Asian camera and with build quality of tuna fish can. I don't hate them though :angel:
 
varjag said:
Keith, I looked into them, repeatedly, in vain attempts to understand all the ravings about OM system. To me they feel like any other 70s Asian camera and with build quality of tuna fish can. I don't hate them though :angel:
Click to expand...


'Tuna fish can' ... that's harsh! :p
 
FallisPhoto said:
SLRs and rangefinders compliment one another's abilities to a nearly ideal extent. Each system's weaknesses almost exactly match the other's strengths. I think you're mistaken about people hating them. I think a really serious photographer would have both systems -- even if it does mean 1,000 years in hell for every SLR he owns.
Click to expand...

uh-oh :eek::eek::eek:, I own six SLR's, 6000 years for me :D

my favorite: Nikon F4s

I don't mention any of them in my sig because this is a rangefinder forum, but I also appreciate being able to discuss slr with the good people on RFF who also use slr.

--Warren
 
Hmm, lets count ... 3 OMs, 3 Canon, 1 Mamiya. The Mamiya is a 645 so that probably counts 2.5 times (I'm glad I don't own a 6x7). Two of the Canons are digital which probably count double - but they're APS-C so let's call it a wash. I make that 8,500 years. But on a theological note I'll point out that if we get out at the end then its probably Purgatory, not Hell, where we work off our sins.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
I've always thought SLRs are better systems for interchangeable lens systems, especially on the tele side. However, the downside of SLRs for me is the shutter speed = 1/focal length rule that prohibits candid ambient light photography - even with a 50mm, in many situations with an SLR. Rangefinders are not restricted to this limitation and better tools for this purpose and generally just as good for general purpose photography. So, in the rare instances when I want to go with a wide or ultra wide - SLR (even though RFs purport to be better tools for WA, fast WA lenses are prohibitively expensive in RF-ville. The Sigma 24mm in Pentax K is outstanding (Photodo 4.4 rating) for $60, and the 19mm Vivitar PK mount I have ($20-ish) is "good enough for government work"). Portraits - it's the Jupiter 9 in M42 with PK adapter.

Everything else? Rangefinder. Except macro and when I need a super-zoom. Then it's Panasonic FZ1v2 with 12X optical zoom - f2.8 throughout zoom range + image stabilization.

Bases covered but 70% of it is covered with old fixed lens rangefinders.
 
Hi Mabelsound,

Nope. In my opinion "the evil SLR" therm was not accidental nor the hostility to SLRs by a few members is accidental either. Both flowed from a feeling that RFF was becoming a "general photography" website, and thus in its way to the grave.

But facts proved differently. By not closing its doors, RFF continues to grow as an open minded rangefinder forum. RFF continues to grow - this is a stubborn fact. In fact the owner even opened many more subforums for different type of cameras.

Now, if I am correct, hystorically the SLR camera was a revolutionary improvement over the RF that opened many doors for science, medicine and pleasure, previously closed. However, like most advances in the camera industry the new breed did not included many advantages of the previous one.

This doesn't mean that the new is "evil", nor that the previous is "arcaic". This means that you can either complement both, or choose the one that not necessarily being the most advanced still better performs for your needs. Hence the objective place of Range Finder cameras, and film.

In general, most of the edges rangefinders still have over slrs is in their unsurpassable silent operation (although here the smaller mirrors in digital cameras may surprise one day), faster focusing, and the ability of seeing the image at the time the shutter is firing. Furthermore there are a certaing subcathegory of very compact and full featured RFs, that manual SLRs never matched.

All in all the differences of tastes about RFF were skillfully managed by the owner, so don't feel personally provoked when a nasty commentary about SLRs is voiced. There is a reason for its being nasty and another reason why nobody feels worried about it.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warren T. said:
uh-oh :eek::eek::eek:, I own six SLR's, 6000 years for me :D

my favorite: Nikon F4s

I don't mention any of them in my sig because this is a rangefinder forum, but I also appreciate being able to discuss slr with the good people on RFF who also use slr.

--Warren
Click to expand...

Lightweight! I could do 6,000 standing on my head.

... and after this post, I probably will.
 
Solinar said:
Fallis - those are my sentiments exactly. The SLR, DSLR in my case, is just another tool with regards to photography. Plus, owning and using two DSLRs makes feel like part of the herd - Moooooo-oooooh!
Click to expand...

If you have ever really looked at the things an SLR isn't very good at, you will see that those are very nearly exactly matched by a rangefinder's strong points. The two systems really are nearly ideal compliments. I don't think there could be a better pair of systems to have.
 
I very much agree that an RF and an SLR complement each other very well.

Then again, the Speed Graphic offers both a RF and ground-glass in one camera. But it is a great, big box in comparison, except for pro DSLR's which are about as compact and heavy.
 
Macro and long tele are why I own two SLR's to augment my RF cameras.

Although I must admit that if I had the space and funds, a Crown Graphic 23 with a couple of lens/shutter combos would top off everything that I intend to do. Either a Crown 23 or Century Graphic would give me the option of TTL or RF focusing, but at a slower pace.
 
ruben said:
a feeling that RFF was becoming a "general photography" website, and thus in its way to the grave.
Click to expand...

I do hope that this is no longer a widely held feeling, and it's really hard for me to understand why anyone would hold it in the first place. You don't come to something called "Rangefinder Forum" unless you first and foremost use and like rangefinder cameras. Invariably, people who like rangefinders, in this day and age a fairly esoteric technology, are going to be into photography in general, and so will likely have other cameras too, and might want to discuss them, particularly in the context of their RF use.

Again, I'm a fairly new member, and realize a lot of discussion prior to my joining has gone into making the forum what it is today. But, speaking from a straightforward psychological perspective, I don't think there is anything that can happen here that will turn RFF into a run-of-the-mill photo forum. There's a particular artistic aesthetic here that comes from liking RF cameras, and it pervades our discussions of all other kinds of cameras, even point-and-shoots (whose forum I ALSO think should be listed on the sidebar!).

Personally, I've been using RF's for everything from 50mm on down, and SLR's and DSLR's for everything 50 and up. (I sometimes shoot wide with an SLR, but not often.) I agree that they're excellent companions.
 
I use evil SLRs for wide and tele - because I'm too cheap to buy into interchangeable lens RF behind Kiev. And then I'd have to adopt aux finder - while on SLR this transition is seamless to user. I agree that ILRF is cool and all, but SLR is thing itself, worth at least tryng. And loud operation add spice to process - imagine putting 28mm into face of someone and THAT sound of shutter (I'm not even mentioning winder, if one is using it) ! Da-dah! I remember times when at school we were trained to use guns and shoot at paper targets - so I can understand old army wolfs and can understand SLR users.

Probably it's time to invent prefix to be used for P&S cameras, also for digicams (as class).
 
I think part of my pro-SLR sentiment these days comes from the fact that I have gotten completely *&$^ing sick of accessory finders. Every time I attached one, I thought, "I paid 150 bucks in order to have to look through a second VF to take a picture?" I have gotten rid of all accessory finders and now am shooting 50mm and wider with the glorious R4A. Shooting 21mm on an RF without a extra finder is a joy, I can tell you! And longer stuff is all SLR.
 
I love my SLRs as much as my rangefinders (Various Canons film & DSLR - Prakticas and Hassleblads) as they are all tools that allow me to do what I love doing - taking photographs. I come to RF to chat and read about Rangefinders, but don't think SLR's are Evil, instead I see both SLRs and RFs as equally useful to me depnding upon the situation...


...quite boring really :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom