Who shoots with both an RF & SLR?

Very seldom at the same time -- I'm not big on lugging lots of gear around. I pick which I'll take based on what I think I'll be shooting, and how much weight and bulk I want to take with me. SLR lets me shoot macro and telephoto, RF is smaller and lighter, compact digicam is smaller and lighter yet (but manual focus is a PITA).
 
Leica M9 + Nikon D3s. I take the M9 when traveling light; otherwise, I stick with the Nikon because of its broader genre application (macro, sports, tilt/shift).
 
to the OP: I would, if I could find a rangefinder I liked for sale :).

I've used an M6 for a short time (in college) with a 90mm lens. I was not impressed, either with the lens or the view through the finder. I ran back to my F2 and 105/2.5. For wide angle, there's no reason a rangefinder wouldn't be a good shooting companion to an SLR. I was thinking of selling my F3 for an F to mount the 105 on and getting a Canon LTM rangefinder for a 35mm. 50mm lenses are too mainstream :)

I really haven't found an RF I like since then, but I'm on the war path, so to speak.
 
pachuco said:
I suppose it would be really difficult to shoot a RF and a SLR at exactly the same time... :p
Click to expand...

Haha, nice! I guess it would be difficult...:D

Thanks for all your comments guys - very helpful. Therefore I'm probably going to give working with two bodies (RF & SLR) a go in a few weeks time when I am on holiday in Italy. 35 & 50 on the M2, 75-200 zoom on the SLR. It should work out quite well as there is a particular street festival going on the time I will be over there, so I'll use the SLR for the long shots and the M2 at all other times, just got to remember that the focusing and f-stop rings turn in the 'wrong' direction on the SLR.... ;)
 
Whatever gets the job done - film RF (Konica S2, C35 + FSUs) and SLR (Konica Ts and As), DSLR (Canon). Never had any problem switching.
 
from time to time, you might find yourself holding the camera to your eye where there's no viewfinder. apart from that, why not?

as for me, the only thing I have been using an SLR for within the last 2 years is taking photos of cameras every once in a while.
 
I found that the combination of RF with UWA and high speed b&w film plus a DSLR with a normal or short tele work well together in some situations (e.g. museums). I guess digital with a good zoom could do most of the situations, but the resulting presentation a of film / digital "slide show" works for me.

Casey
 
I shoot both...

I shoot both...

Frankly, they are both just slightly different focusing mechanisms and I can switch back and forth without any practical effect. I prefer split image with a focus spot in the middle as with SLR. A well calibrated rangefinder with a contrasty patch acts very similar.

An analogy for me is when I learned to hunt in my teen years. I used iron sights for the most part. If you understand the principle of putting the front sight in the notch and put that sight/notch right under the target spot, then using a scope with a crosshair really offers no advantage over slight magnification accompanied by a need to hold the rifle steadier.

The real equalizer in the iron sights vs scope comparison is the stabilization of the rifle with a bench rest, or bipod on the front of the barrel.

In the same way, the great equalizer for a rangefinder vs SLR focus is a monopod or tripod. If you are not using one of these tools, the argument as to which is the better focus system is moot. Either system enhanced by a tripod is the best arrangement, bar none.

Handholding without a physical stabilizer is all ego, whether photography, or shooting a firearm. As a match shooter with revolver, or semi-automatic pistol, I use iron sights and good technique.
 
Last edited:
I use both Nikon F mount manual focus film SLRs (F, F2, FA, FM) and Nikon S mount rangefinders (S3s, SP and CV R2S). Except for very specialized applications such as macro or long telephoto shooting, which system I use which is essentially dependant on what I feel like schlepping at any given time.
 
Virtually all the time.
When doing documentary stuff, I'll have the M8 with 35 or 15. Then I'll have a D700 with a telephoto.
Even in studio or portrait shoots, I'll use both. The leica will have a vintage lens, while the Nikon provides the modern glass.
The two cameras have a great working relationship.
 
mostly SLR

mostly SLR

Well since I just came into possession of my fathers Canon L1 and 2 lens from the 60t's Most of my cameras have been SLR .Started with Nikon photomic and FTN bodies until they were stolen in 1987.Moved to Canon with a good deal from a friend who was moving out of state. So now I'm buying bits and pieces to augment my rangefinder kit. I never had a proper darkroom,but I still have enough stuff to process my own negs .All my kits are Canon from FD to Eos film and digital
 
I do.. Not only for tele or macro but take the prism off of a Nikon F and use it for ground level pictures especially with superwides or like a Rolleiflex on a street, inconspicuous most of the time; once you set the view you look only at the "victim" and press shutter by not needing to look at the groundglass . Nikon F's are practical and very reliable machines... I still keep three with standard prisms.

Bob
 
Film and digital SLR and thanks to a friend, I'm now into rangefinders. The first 35mm I shot was my mom's Electro 35 in the late 70's, but it's been SLRs until about two years ago.

I shoot whatever I'm in to mood to shoot, though sometimes I it's an SLR for the versatility that a rangefinder can't quite match. However, a rangefinder looks more hip. :D
 
I would recommend that you go with the ssecond M. As for the Chinon & its lenses it is a system that does not compares favorably to an M with Leica lenses. If you go with an SLR system pick one that has outstanding lenses that compare favorably to the Leica lenses or you will be disappointed when you switch. On a personal note the only SLR system that I prefer is the Nikon F3HP with certain select lenses. A 24mm f2.8 is reasonably priced, and 4mm wider than the 28mm for Leica, the last lens that does not require the attachment of an exterior viewfinder, and the 28mm is also superb. The 105mm f2.5 Ai-S is legendary. In addition, Zeiss makes outstanding lenses for Nikon.
 
Yes, at the same time (not the same moment).
I use SLR for tight portraits, usually 135mm lens.
I use the RF for 35mm only, and for me, that covers the rest of the situations involving people and their surroundings.

Chinons are good cameras, your dad have a good taste.
 
c.poulton said:
The question is this - does anyone else shoot with the two formats at the same time - would I find it difficult switching on the fly between the two or is it a case of "never the twain shall meet", either shoot exclusively with an RF or an SLR but not both?
Click to expand...

You mean, simultaneously, during the same photo shoot, or in general?

Although, for any of those, I have to say "yes". I don't have any difficulty moving from an SLR to a rangefinder or vice-versa. I don't even have a problem (although it is very annoying) on using lenses that go the Nikon/Contax way vs. the Canon/Leica way; very very annoying when you have a mix of SLR lenses (Tamron does it the odd Nikon way). But that's certainly OT.

Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom