Using RF cameras has made me sloppy..

H

Huss

Veteran
Local time
3:23 PM
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
9,859
On a recent travel shoot I took an M3DS w. a Summaron 35 3.5 goggled (and this lens has severe cleaning marks), a Fuji TX-2 w/ 45mm lens, and my Nikon F6 w/ Zeiss ZF.2 35mm f2.

I got pin sharp results from the Leica and Fuji, but about 1/2 of my Nikon shots were just a wee bit unsharp when looked at closely. It wasn't a focus issue, as in these cases there was nothing in the scene that was pin sharp. No, it was camera shake even though the shutter speeds were quite a bit over the 35mm = 1/30 sec threshhold.

I blame myself for getting sloppy with my technique using an SLR (even one as advanced as an F6), as I just find it so effortless getting sharp results w/ an RF camera. Still, I was disappointed w/ myself.

Lesson learned. Unfortunately not cheaply as I was using Provia!
:eek:
 
Huss can you explain further for ignorant fellow here.

SLR require a bit more steadiness than RF at same shutter speed?

Thanks,

Chris
 
I agree with huss. If you are a rangefinder user you will get into habits that would lead to critically unsharp images with a film slr. Things like shooting 1/30th, shooting wide open. Shooting wide open still yields good results with a rangefinder because the lens is so much closer to the film plane. The amount of optical compensation to get the lens out past the mirror box on an SLR degrades the image more so than with an RF.

Been there, experienced that. SLR's aren't the way to go for me for 35mm but my P67...
 
css9450 said:
But in the first post, you blamed yourself for a sloppy technique. Which is it?
Click to expand...


Sloppy technique that had me not brace myself correctly allowed the extra vibrations inherent in an SLR to result in less than satisfactory results.
 
I think if I was using sloppy technique, I'd be noticing camera shake (SLR or RF) long before any kind of mirror slap would enter the equation.
 
Well, I'm guilty.

A recent weekend shoot with both RF and SLR cameras resulted in a bunch of blurry photos from both systems. The RF blurry photos were expected -- late day in the concrete jungle with heavy overcast skies. I bumped the Leica up to ISO 1600, but still only managed 1/15 or so at f/5.6. So, no surprises.

But a good 40% of the images from the D700 all shot during the bright overcast midday were blurry. Some with shutter speeds over 1/125 with a 20mm lens. I had a lot of coffee that day and was noticeably "shaky", but I think it was sloppy technique that gave me the blurs. I use DSLR about 10% of the time nowadays (used to be a lot more) and I just figured short FL and SS above 125 should have freed me from having to worry about camera movement. Ummm. No.

Had little to do with mirror slap. Only the "default" technique I tend to use with RF versus the brain blank I suffered while using the D700. I was in constant motion and just oblivious.....
 
BLKRCAT said:
... The amount of optical compensation to get the lens out past the mirror box on an SLR degrades the image more so ...
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem right. I don't know if the distance the light travels has anything to do with it. Individual lens formula may lead to more or less aberration, but it's independent of distance.
 
I’m using a Canon eos RT with a pelical mirror.
Makes a slr nearly as smooth as a rangefinder.
But yes, XA and TLR even more so..made me more “sloppy with Handholding.
It’s seems so much Easier with lead shutter cameras. The xa and rolleiflex
 
BLKRCAT said:
The amount of optical compensation to get the lens out past the mirror box on an SLR degrades the image more so than with an SLR.
Click to expand...
Quite unclear and sounding like fake news of some sort, although I understand that the last words of this sentence should have been "...than with a RF." without any typo.

You may have been a bit too far away from your keyboard while typing this. :p
 
Must admit Huss, this smells a bit! I can hand hold my F6 easily at the same speeds as my M4 and get better exposures with the same accuracy of focus.
M3 vs F6? no contest. M3 has no meter, can’t use it in water or major dust scenarios and there’s always the risk of curtain or viewfinder problems with such an old camera.
F6, sure it may get low on batteries but spares are easy to carry..
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve always liked my rf’s but they also have limitations.
I agree with you completely, you were sloppy ;)
I’ve said it in the past and I’ll repeat it now, if I was doing a once in a lifetime shoot or trip, I wouldn’t be using a 50 year old camera, cla’d or not. I’d be taking my F6 with a bag load of batteries.
 
BLKRCAT said:
I agree with huss. If you are a rangefinder user you will get into habits that would lead to critically unsharp images with a film slr. Things like shooting 1/30th, shooting wide open. Shooting wide open still yields good results with a rangefinder because the lens is so much closer to the film plane. The amount of optical compensation to get the lens out past the mirror box on an SLR degrades the image more so than with an SLR.

Been there, experienced that. SLR's aren't the way to go for me for 35mm but my P67...
Click to expand...

Depends what lenses you are using. My Nikon lenses are equally as sharp if not sharper wide open than my leica lenses.
I shot my 28 Ais, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 today and after 3 years shooting my M9 marvelled at how sharp and nice the images looked.
 
1/15, 40mm taken by my daughter with M-E.

38349872146_f29e348e76_o.jpg


1/8 35mm on M-E taken by me.

36523201111_1981deebc4_o.jpg


With film Leica it is 1/8 I would not hesitate with 50mm lens.

I was recently trying FG-20 with 50E and didn't find it as good as with RF. Due to mirror slap.
 
Considering how well damped the shutter in my F6 appears to be that surprises me. Nikon went to a lot of trouble with that camera by isolastically mounting the whole shutter assembly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom