Why a RF vs. a SLR?

[Jeremy Z]

Oh, and contrary to what is said above, you may not like it. Some don't. They come here, try it, and go back to SLRs, wondering how we deal with these archaic things. Many of us here shoot RFs, but not exclusively. I still love my digital SLR and film SLR. (Olympus OM1n, which seems to be the honey here)

 

[NickTrop]

Speed/Low light/No Mirror

If you're shooting a 50mm, say 1.8 lens on an SLR and shooting people, candids, indoors ambient light, no flash, you're constrained by the 1/focal length = shutter speed rule, so the slowest you should shoot this combination without a tripod due to camera vibration is 1/60th.

You can shoot at the same focal length (50mm) with a rangefinder down to 1/15th, if you're braced/steady, sans tripod. 1/30th - the slowest shutter for most people shots, is no problem. This not only buys you a full stop over an SLR, but because there is not mirror slap, the cameras are quiter in operation for candids.

Seeing a little bit outside the frameline - with practice, allows you to anticipate "the decisive moment"/action.

That said, I use both. Since I usually prefer a 50mm standard focal length, I use fixed lens Japanese rangefinders, with a slightly wider 45mm standard lens. These cameras - like the GSN, have high-quality optics, do everything interchangeable rangefinder systems do, for a lot less money. They even synch shutter at all speeds for fill-flash.

I consider SLRs (excluding FSU rangefinders) are a way to use interchangeable lenses generally at a much lower expense than rangefinder systems. I use mine mainly for portraits and wide angle stuff simply because it's what I have and getting a range of quality optics are more plentiful and much less expensive than getting into most LTM or M mount or Contax systems. I can't justify the expense, personally, of buying a range of focal lengths for either Leica mount, when I already have some pretty excellent glass in these for an M42 system just for the privledge of shooting these focal lengths on a rangefinder.

But if it's a standard lens, I reach always for the Japanese fixed lens - GSN or the Lynx 14e.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I use an RF camera for black and white photography because I don't want to
look through the green, red or yellow filter I am using.

I use my SLR for color slides because I want to see the effect of my polarizer.
I also do all my telephoto photography with an SLR.

Chris

 

[PetarDima]

I know some good DSLR photographers, here in Serbia ... they said to me that
rangefinder camera whisper quiet story is finished - that new era DSLRs are very descret too( Canon Rebels, Nikon D 50,40,40x ) ... BUT
rangefinder camera is a piece of mechanical, optical perfection in mans hand ...

when you know/feel it, you don't have excuses for missed shots 😉

 

[raid]

The preference of one type of camera over the other is in many cases a personal one, and it may not be necessary to defend one's preferences. I prefer these days to use RF cameras because of:

1. Craftmanship and solid feel of Leica and Canon cameras.
2. Craftmanship and sharpness of RF lenses.
3. Smaller size minimal set-up for travel purposes.
4. Quiet performance compared to film based SLR.
5. External viewfinder looks cool.
6. RF photography make me feel that I am being creative.


The reasons why I used to prefer SLR cameras :

1. I can actually "see" in the viewfinder the effects of the filters used.
2. It allowed me more precise framing and composition in nature photography.
3. I have lenses that cover from 7.5mm-500mm, and they are wonderful to use.
4. After "taking a photo", I pretty much know that "I got it" on film.


Again, these happen to be my choice factors depending on my active photography trends. I am now with little children, and portraits have become my main topic in photography. Here, available light comes in as an important factor for me. With SLR's, I used flash often.

Both types of cameras are fine. I am just not [yet] realizing that there are AF cameras out there and that there is something called digital photography.

😀
Raid

 

[Andrew C]

The RF is ideal in its sphere

The RF is ideal in its sphere

I am more of a static subject, large-format photographer, and would seem an unlikely candidate for 35 mm rangefinders. But the modern SLR, for all its versatility feels like a compromise. Where parallax is an issue, or for very long lenses, the SLR is clearly superior. If you use it as a miniature view camera, which you can almost do, between the perspective adjustments available on some high-priced lenses, and the adjustments to the image possible in Photoshop, you can get some of the benefits of the methodical, craftsmanlike approach, but without the full quality, and at the expense of feeling you are trying to force the device to do something it doesn't really want to do. In short, the camera is always getting in the way.

With experience, the best-designed rangefinders become extensions of your eyes. Especially Leicas, which manage to feel 'right' in your hands, and weigh just enough to be stable, without being either heavy to handle or unbalanced. Their more recent lenses are also of absolutely outstanding quality. Shooting with such a camera I feel as if I am making a direct connection with a subject or event, without the camera getting between me and the picture I saw. The rf is quicker, less obtrusive, and clearly ideal for street photography--including glimpses up the foreign street at the buildings or other objects which you could in theory photograph with any camera including an 8x10.

The rf is also better for developing instinctive responses; with the modern SLR set up to anticipate anything, I always find myself worrying about the depth of focus, exposure for the subject or the background, getting the framing just right . . . By then, people have moved, the picture has been lost. With the rf you mentally remind yourself that at f/8 with a 35mm lens exact focus is not an issue, that you've metered the sun and shade eight times already that day, and you shoot at the moment you recognize there is a good picture there. For ephemeral subjects (which are what most people shoot most of the time) it is almost ideal. If you want to get an ideal picture of a subject which stays in place or repeats itself, with a perfect tonal range, you can go back another time (if you're not vacationing) with a bigger machine and try to get everything exactly right.

There is also a mystique to well-made precise machinery. Like mechanical watches and hand-crafted automobiles, a Leica or a Contax rf (the originals, not the current machines) feels special, because it was in its day, and this quality doesn't leave it just because technology has now branded it obsolescent. Using such a camera well gives one a feeling of pride which one just doesn't get from brandishing the latest engineering marvel from Canon or Nikon. It's pride in one's own craftsmanship, and it's feeling a connection with some of the great photographers of the past who used some of those same cameras to produce so many wonderful pictures. The latest digital marvel doesn't give you the same feeling, it doesn't develop a relationship with you, and how could it? You'll probably trade it in on something more up-to-date within three years.

 

[VinceC]

Welcome, Andrew.

 

[mike goldberg]

There's some great comments above, and minimalist ones that
very much appeal to me, like Frank's. I love RF, yet I'll do slr or
digital when appropriate.

There is no need, really, for anything vs. anything ;-)
mike

 

[Kin Lau]

To enjoy the best of both worlds, I often have B&W film in my RF with a wide'ish 35mm to 50mm lens mounted and I'll have a much longer lens on my SLR or DSLR. Completely different approaches with two different systems.

 

[louisb]

I think therefore I RF

 

[Morca007]

NickTrop - About the mirror slap vibration problems in low light...
Using my old Nikon FG, which has a pretty damn loud mirror, that I can feel in my arms as I snap, I still do low light. Shooting 100 speed film with a 50 1.8 wide open at 1/15s I still can get decent shots, maybe not crisp, but that's not the point. If all you need is sharpness, well...

EDIT: That's not to be argumentative, but blanket statements are a little harsh. 😉

 

[Huck Finn]

Leicas, which manage to feel 'right' in your hands, and weigh just enough to be stable, without being either heavy to handle or unbalanced.

Very interesting comment, Andrew. Thank you for such a thoughtfuyl post. 🙂

I have to nitpick with you on the one comment which I've quoted here because it is repeated so often. Sorry. 😉

I can't really accept that the weight of a Leica is just right. Leica did no research to determine what such a "just right" weight might be when they introduced the M3 about 55 years ago. Did they just happen to hit accidentally on a weight that felt right to a user?

The M3 weighs about 595 grams. Leica kept the weight of the M2 (580 g) & M4 (600g) pretty close to that, but then they introduced the M5 at 700 g! Should we eliminate the M5 from the list because it is too heavy? And how about the M4-2 which followed that with a weight reduction all the way down to 525 g, or about 12 % lighter than the M3. Should we eliminate that from the list because it is too light? The M4-P was slightly heavier (545 g) & the M6 slightly heavier again (560 g) yet neither was within 5% of the M3. There is a significant weight range even among the 3 M-mount cameras in production today: M7 (610 g), MP (585 g), & M8 (545 g).

How can we say that the weight of a Leica "feels right in your hands" when the various models range in weight by 175 grams (525 - 700 g)? Many Leica fans love to use Leica's other M-mount camera, the CL. Only 372 g, but I don't hear them complaining that it is too light.

Add to the factor of camera weight the added factor of lens weight. The range of Leica lenses alone come in all different sizes & weights, which changes the weight of the camera you're holding from one lens to another. Even when using the exact same lens, there are differences. My 50/2 chrome Summicron is 40% heavier than the exact same lens in black (aluminum) because of the difference in materials used in construction.

Then there is also the issue of whose hands we're talking about. How big or small are they? How strong? How are they shaped? Is this a matter of one size fits all? I would think that how the camera feels depends on who's doing the holding. What feels right to one may not to another.

IMO, it's nice that we have a range of choices so we can find the one that's just right to each of us. 🙂

Again sorry to nipick, but I thought it warrented a comment.

 

[narsuitus]

As others have said, SLR cameras and rangefinder cameras have their own strengths and weaknesses.

In the 35mm format, I shoot both. I use the rangefinder when I want to carry a light photographic load and/or shoot clandestinely. I use the SLR when I need to shoot wide-angle, telephoto, close-up, macro, through a telescope, or through a microscope.

When I shoot medium format, I primarily use a rangefinder because the shutter and mirror noise generated by a medium format SLR is too loud for my taste.

 

[Valerius]

Hi,

For me it is simple: compact lenses and bodies which for me means that I bring them when going somewhere. That's not the case with my modern SLR's, they are, in many cases, too clumsy and I really don't want to carry them around.

Regards,
Per

 

[.JL.]

A combination of characteristics makes me prefer RF to SLR in the 35mm format. I would imagine that most of these apply to the digital RF vs digital SLR discussion too.

- High image quality in a small and light package
- big and bright viewfinder
- responsive, 6ms shutter lag
- quiet

 

[Jeremy Z]

I know some good DSLR photographers, here in Serbia ... they said to me that
rangefinder camera whisper quiet story is finished - that new era DSLRs are very descret too( Canon Rebels, Nikon D 50,40,40x ) ... BUT
rangefinder camera is a piece of mechanical, optical perfection in mans hand ...

when you know/feel it, you don't have excuses for missed shots 😉

Petar, your DSLR photographer buddies are full of beans, to put it nicely. I have modern DSLR (Pentax K100D), and I can assure you that it makes a LOT more noise than any FLRF. It might be on part with a focal plane shutter RF such as the Leicas, Contaxes, and Canons, but it doesn't hold a candle to the leaf shutter "cheapo" rangefinders.

Don't get me wrong, I love my K100D. But saying that it is as quiet as a leaf shutter rangefinder is just a load of crap.

 

[Jeremy Z]

I don't think the original poster was trying to make it a battle between good & evil, right & wrong.

I think he just wanted a thread that outlines the strengths & weaknesses of each type of camera.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Yes Andrew C,

That is the best first post I've seen in a long while.

Welcome to RFF!

 

[ChrisPlatt]

My new black Pentax MX offers most of the advantages of both! 🙂

Chris

 

[Bosk]

For me, no mirror slap/viewfinder blackout is the biggest benefit of using a rangefinder, but there are also many others too.