Why a RF vs. a SLR?

[Huck Finn]

For me, it's all about the lenses. The lack of an SLR mirror provides the engineers with greater freedom in designing lenses. This means the potential for both higher quality lenses & more interesting design effects. It also means that lenses can be made smaller, which means that your camera is more compact.

From a technical point of view, you focus an SLR by viewing through the lens at its widest opening, which also means its shallowest depth of field. To estimate the actual depth of field for any aperture less than maximum, you have to add DOF in your mind's eye. With an RF camera, you are viewing through a separate finder, so you have mazimum DOF, which means that you have to estimate DOF by subtracting from what you are seeing. One is an additive process, the other is subtractive. Take your pick.

The view through the viewfinder is the brightest view you can get when compared with the view through any lens. This makes an RF a better instrument for composing in low light.

 

[mfunnell]

With an SLR you see what's going to be out-of-focus at maximum aperture and have to imagine what will be brought into focus as you stop down (DOF preview being mostly useless working hand-held due to dimming of the viewfinder). With an RF everything is seen in-focus and you have to imagine what will be out-of-focus as the aperture is opened up. With an SLR its an additive process, while with an RF its subtractive.

The nice thing about composing with an RF viewfinder is that everything that's going to be in the photo (and things that won't, outside the frameline) are all clearly visible. The photographer decides what to exclude based on framing, focus and depth-of-field due to aperture. With an SLR you see (through the viewfinder) only what's in the field of view of the mounted lens, where its currently focused, within its DOF wide open.

To me, these differences encourage different ways of composing a photo. Not better, not worse, just different. The same photos can be taken by either type of camera - but they encourage you to "see" different photos before releasing the shutter.

...Mike

 

[varjag]

It's katana vs. Browning machine gun thing 🙂

 

[FrankS]

Ah yes, the samurai long sword!

 

[peter_n]

If you shoot street a rangerfinder is quicker, quieter and more discreet. The RF's VF is much more useful because you can see outside the frame as well as what's inside. They are light and small and you can take one everywhere in your pocket.

 

[FrankS]

I've tried to come up with rational reasons to explain why I use RF over slr cameras, but they are pretty shakey. The one I like best so far is from Sherm: because I want to.

 

[sinetsin]

I think that..if you try a Rf camera...when you take another camera it will not be the same..

 

[dnk512]

Some time ago there was an article competition here at RFF about the experience of using RF. There were several good submisions and, of course, a winner. Anyone has the link(s) to those?

 

[hjfischer]

Until two years ago I had only used Nikon SLR's. After getting a Bessa R2 rangefinder and about 50 rolls later, I swear my photos are sharper, even compared to my latest auto focusing Nikon N 70. Subjective, perhaps, but I'm not having to use the sharpening filter in Photoshop nearly as much as before.

 

[BillBingham2]

For me it's size. I was carrying two bodies, motors, LOTs of lenses and worrying more about the camera than having a good time. I can forget that I have a Bessa L and a CV 25/4 lens in a belt bag, it's that light. I cut back to one body and three lenses in the RF world and am quite happy I did.

I do carry an SLR with me on vacation, but it's just for the 180/2.8 and 2X converter. That is not to say I could not be happy with an SLR kit, I could and have.

RFs and VF (scale focus viewfinder cameras) have hidden pluses. They rock as flash cameras. You see people expression in the picture, how the light paints the shot, so much better than mirror block out. My fast lenses are not overly large (e.g. 40/1.4 is small) and my slow lenses are tiny (e.g. 25/4). My newer lenses are sharper than most any SLR lens from Nikon or Canon. They are quiet, which helps when shooting church services or bars or in places you should not be. RF cameras seem to last for years (I have a Nikon S2 that is older than I am and a Leica IIIa that is MUCH older). Cleaner viewfinders, I hate dust in my SLR finders, it's distracting.

I forgot the most important reason, they are just plain FUN!!!

B2 (;->

 

[VinceC]

My RFs are Nikons, which have 1:1 lifesize viewfinders. One of things I like most about them is that I bring them to my eye, and it's kind of like just holding your fingers up to your eye to frame a photo. There's no image reduction.

So I see a photo, can frame it already in my mind, then I lift the camera to my eye and shoot. It's like there's no camera between me and the world.

But that's pretty existential, isn't it? Really I just like the way they fit in my hands.

 

[00ziggi]

Thanks for all the great thought / opinions / zen!
i think they just have a mechanical charm that the SLR's lack... machines can have personality, and all the RF's that i've handled seem to have better ones than most.

 

[MelanieC]

So I see a photo, can frame it already in my mind, then I lift the camera to my eye and shoot. It's like there's no camera between me and the world.

I think that's it for me -- I feel like the viewfinder gives me what I'd see with my naked eye, and puts a little frame around it. With an SLR it's more like looking down a periscope, even if the viewfinder is large.

Also, for a very long time I didn't realize that rangefinders weren't what "normal" cameras worked like, because my dad's Leica was our family camera and that's what I thought of as a normal camera.

The first time I looked through an SLR viewfinder and focused it was a shock because my whole life I'd either focused with a rangefinder patch, or using autofocus. The whole seeing-what-the-lens sees thing was a novelty, and fun. And my favorite SLRs, the OMs, have the advantage over the Leica for size and weight by a long shot, and are also well made and a pleasure to use. But, for some reason I don't take the same photos with an OM, and my photos aren't as good. I think it's because the viewfinder doesn't frame the world the same way a rangefinder viewfinder does.

 

[Mafufo Acilu]

I too come from a"Leica" family, my first ever photograph was taken with a Leica IIIf at the age of 4. Later I used my fathers other M's of which he accumulated quit a couple.

I received my own Leica on my 10 birthday and am still using it.

I have however diverted to SLR's (Olympus) for no apparant reason actually, just at that point in time everybody was using them, and the lenses were cheaper than Leica lenses.

I still own them, but never ever use them.

I see the point of using a digital SLR, I use a 5D full frame, it's fast and very versatile. I use this mostly for my job (I'm not aphotographer) and find it to heave to lug around all day, which I do with my leica. So my reason for using rangefinder is thats it's small with good quality pictures, and i love the touch and feel of leica cameras.

The Zen part of photography I achieve with my Hasselblad, setting it up, tripod, framing dof check etc.

But my leica ... sunny 16, 35mm point and shoot.

Btw. I would never purchase an M8 .... for the amount of money I think the 5D is far superior in many ways, I get my Leica feeling with my M4 and III

 

[VinceC]

>> for a very long time I didn't realize that rangefinders weren't what "normal" cameras worked like, because my dad's Leica was our family camera and that's what I thought of as a normal camera.<<

We were living in Germany several years ago when I taught my now-grown stepdaughter to drive. Our car had a manual transmission, as did nearly every other car in Germany. She was unaware that automatic transmissions existed. When we visited family in the States, shortly after she had gotten her license, we had one of those "Why don't you take a turn driving?" moments using my brother's car. It had an automatic transmission. She was so disoriented by it that, after a few hundred meters, she pulled over and begged me to drive instead.

 

[kalokeri]

As said before it´s a different feeling to handle a rangefinder and to look through the viewfinder. To me it´s just a great joy, something special. It makes me happy and smiling. The world looks different.

SLR and especially digital SLR have advantages, but can´t beat the feeling ...

Thomas

 

[cbass]

The RF vs. SLR argument reminds me of the film vs. digital argument. 🙂 A compelling case can be made for either side. Try them both and use whatever you like.

I never "see" my subjects differently with an RF or SLR and I never felt that my compact SLRs had any inherent size penalty compared to my RFs. My Minolta XG-A & Rokkor 45/2.0 kit is roughly the same size as my old Bessa R & CV 35/2.5 kit. I think the wide angle RF lenses tend to be a bit sharper than their SLR counterparts in the same focal length but that's about it. For me, the choice of equipment comes down to subjects. For travel & landscapes I use my RF. For family, portraits, sports and sometimes street, I use my SLR.

There may be some truth to the shutter quietness issue, however. My baby daughter will sometimes flinch when she hears the shutter fire on my Minolta but she has never reacted to the shutter sound of my Bessa L.

 

[Michael I.]

rf's are less intrusive - they attract less attention(look less impressive?), two-three lenses fit esily in your pocket.

 

[winoto]

just do it, take the RF plunge! you'll never go back to SLR....simple, light, unobstrusive, and great fun

 

[Jeremy Z]

For some reason, I never tire of these threads. Different people expressing things in different ways.

I was drawn here from www.thephotoforum.com by the photography here. (thanks tuna!) I never even really considered that street photography could be more than a snapshot until I perused the galleries here.

Rangefinders, to me, are the "right tool for the job" for street photography. They're more compact, quieter, less intrusive. The focal lengths available for rangefinders match street photography very well, IMO. Look in the galleries here. There are a lot of fabulous black & white photos here shot on film with old tech RFs.

Quietness can be a huge advantage when doing stealthy hip shots. Many times, I can take a picture without the subject even knowing I took it, even if I'm 7 ft. away. Example: yesterday night at chess night at Borders. There's one guy who has this irrational fear or dislike of having his picture taken. With my trusty Canonet, I was able to prefocus, leave the exposure on 'A', and shoot the shot from the camera at belly level. The sound of the shutter did not betray me. So the quiet shutter can be huge.

Having at least one more stop of handheld slow shutter speed can be nice, but with my Pentax K100D, that advantage is no longer valid.

What I think you should do is mosey over to the fixed-lens rangefinder forum and read a bit about the inexpensive fixed lens rangefinders from the 1960s and 70s. You can get one with a sharp, fast, 35-45mm lens for under a hundred bucks. Try it out and see if you like it. If not, you can sell it for what you paid for it.

Be aware that it is very different. After shooting with an SLR exclusively for 10 years, I felt like I hadn't "done" anything when I tripped the shutter. The leaf shutters in the lenses of the fixed lens rangefinders make half as much noise as the focal plane shutters in the Leicas & Voigtlanders, which make less than half as much noise as an SLR shutter/mirror. If you have an SLR with a mirror lock-up, lock up the mirror and fire the shutter; that's about what an interchangeable lens rangefinder sounds like. The shutter sound from a fixed lens rangefinder sounds more like when you press the DOF preview on your SLR, but faster.

When you see the pictures (especially if you develop & print them yourself) you will be amazed at how sharp they are, from such a cheap camera. These days, we are conditioned to think that point & shoot cameras are cheap and are good for images up to 4x6.