Why a RF vs. a SLR?

[ncd_photo]

I got into RF's about 6 months ago as I got hooked on street photagraphy and was sucked in by the Leica mystique.
Now I find that I prefer and take better compositions with my Nikon SLRs. I guess the honemoon is over.
I really enjoyed the Leica and the optics of RF lenses are superb and compact and rewarded me with some great photos. But I found that you don't need a Leica or something small to take street shots. These days there are so many cameras on the streets with the advent of digital that people basically ignore you unless you poke the lens in their face.
Which left me with a dilema - as much as I like the Leica (and its damn nice to look at and feels great to use) I miss less shots with the Nikon gear and prefer the huge viewfinders of the F4 & F90x. So the M2 is up for grabs.

I'd definitely recommend trying an RF, but as said before - they're not for everyone.

One good thing came out of my Leica experience - I now develop my own B&W and that's even more fun then taking pictures 🙂

 

[pmu]

why a RF, instead of the (generally) cheaper and (possibly?) easier SLR?
what's the charm?

To me rangefinder focusing is THE reason why I use rf-cameras. I tried for several years to shoot with manual slr's but I just found the focusing too difficult. Way too often I just could not see if the camera was properly focused or not...

 

[itf]

I tried an RF out for the smaller camera and quieter shutter, I'l be staying with RF for:

Viewfinder- brighter, everything in focus, some peripheral vision, no blackout.

Small lenses- I think the smaller diameter of the lenses makes it a little less noticable and intimidating. Get someone to point an SLR and RF at you with equivalent lenses, no matter how small the body is (OM is small) the lens makes a big difference. Also, lighter lenses = easier carrying.

Wind on- If need be I can wind on with the camera to my eye.

Lighter camera- I carry a camera on my hand most places I go, the weight makes a difference.

I'm using a bessa r, I'd still like the quieter shutter one day but I think the lens size makes at least an equal difference.

 

[Richard Black]

It is neither one or the other for me. I use the r/f cameras when I travel light and the slrs when I need extra reach, 200mm or more. I like them all, using medium format rfs, slrs, and tlrs. I love pasta, but I won't want to eat it every day. Variety helps me think through all shots, except that of my very active grandsons - auto focus all the way.

 

[potomo]

I own both SLR, DSLR and some RF cameras: there are too different to say which is the best. In some field as macro photo or animal photos SLR is absolutely necessary but for city-shooting and when you have to walk during all the day...a Rf cameras, with a 50 a 35 and a 90 it's a wonderful thing!!

 

[FrankS]

With the WYSIWYG slr viewfinder/ground glass, I tend to use the camera to find and compose an image, whereas with a RF viewfinder, because it's more like my natural vision, I simply use my eye to find and compose images, and just use the camera to capture that image. It makes photography more intimate for me.

Of course SLRs are by far the best tool for macro and telephoto. That's a given.

 

[itf]

I tried an RF out for the smaller camera and quieter shutter, I'l be staying with RF for:

Viewfinder- brighter, everything in focus, some peripheral vision, no blackout.

Small lenses- I think the smaller diameter of the lenses makes it a little less noticable and intimidating. Get someone to point an SLR and RF at you with equivalent lenses, no matter how small the body is (OM is small) the lens makes a big difference. Also, lighter lenses = easier carrying.

Wind on- If need be I can wind on with the camera to my eye.

Lighter camera- I carry a camera on my hand most places I go, the weight makes a difference.

I'm using a bessa r, I'd still like the quieter shutter one day but I think the lens size makes at least an equal difference.

I thought of another thing:

Having used SLRs for the last eight years, I was always struck by how much better the world looked through an SLR with matte screen. With the rangefinder, I find it doesn't make the world look better, but a lot of the time the photos come out better than I remember them looking through the finder. It's fun.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I was always struck by how much better the world looked through an SLR with matte screen.
With the rangefinder, I find it doesn't make the world look better, but a lot of the time the photos come out better than I remember them looking through the finder.

Interesting comment. I think you may be on to something.

The impact and immediacy of the image in the SLR viewfinder sometimes fails
to translate to film. "Hey, what happened to all those great pics I took?" Yawn...

Chris

 

[nzeeman]

i dont know what is special about RF. i just know that when i first took zorki in my hands i felt perfect.

 

[morgan]

I got back into photography from a friend who had a canonet. He sent me a link to Matt's Cameras, and I instantly fell in love with the look of rangefinders - they're classic styling, their innate manualness (at least with my old FSU's). But once I got my paws on a Fed, I fell in love with it and rangefinders as a whole. Their size, the history, the incredible glass, the price point. I love my 30D, but it doesn't have soul. That sounds stupid and contrived, but just handling a rangefinder is an experience. Although I rarely load it with it film, I often just sit around "shoot" with my Kiev. I love the way it looks, the whizzy shutter sound. It just makes me happy.

 

[sepiareverb]

It's the viewfinder and the lenses for me. I see my pictures as a piece out of my whole field of view, and this is exactly how the VF works in a RF. The lenses are equally part of the appeal- so much better than nearly any SLR lens, and I had a lot of the very good Nikon lenses to compare. The lenses I'm using now are better in every way.

 

[Trawlerman]

I've been an SLR user now for almost 20 years and have only just recently begun to appreciate the wealth of RF's out there.

For me it's a change from the norm. Digital SLRs are all the rage now and seemingly you are nobody if you don't hawk a massive dSLR around the streets. It seems almost cool to do this.

I got back into photography at the beginning of 2006 and it was my intention right from the off to go back to shooting 135 film as I had done previously. The looks of incredulity that people give me when I tell them that I shoot film are classic. I should take photo's of them!

Part of why I got into RF's was the desire to regress past camera's that need a 3" thick manual to explain all those nice flashing lights and buttons. I want to experience photography the way it used to be done. And for me the best way of doing that is either with an RF camera or a MF camera. I must admit that i'm learning a lot about photography this way and am learning to appreciate the amount of knowledge that goes into it. I've always been pretty ok with Shutter Speeds / F-Stops but i'm finding that it's surprisingly easy to set these with a camera that is sans light meter.

I'm beginning to think that we rely on in-built light meters too much and use them as a crutch on most cameras. The same as focusing, using hyperfocal focussing and the depth-of-field scale it's so simple and doesn't always require one to be critical on it.

I guess the more I learn about photography the less I know overall in the scale of things. To quote McDonalds - "I'm Loving It"

 

[lament]

I've been an SLR user now for almost 20 years and have only just recently begun to appreciate the wealth of RF's out there.

For me it's a change from the norm. Digital SLRs are all the rage now and seemingly you are nobody if you don't hawk a massive dSLR around the streets. It seems almost cool to do this.

I got back into photography at the beginning of 2006 and it was my intention right from the off to go back to shooting 135 film as I had done previously. The looks of incredulity that people give me when I tell them that I shoot film are classic. I should take photo's of them!

Part of why I got into RF's was the desire to regress past camera's that need a 3" thick manual to explain all those nice flashing lights and buttons. I want to experience photography the way it used to be done. And for me the best way of doing that is either with an RF camera or a MF camera. I must admit that i'm learning a lot about photography this way and am learning to appreciate the amount of knowledge that goes into it. I've always been pretty ok with Shutter Speeds / F-Stops but i'm finding that it's surprisingly easy to set these with a camera that is sans light meter.

I'm beginning to think that we rely on in-built light meters too much and use them as a crutch on most cameras. The same as focusing, using hyperfocal focussing and the depth-of-field scale it's so simple and doesn't always require one to be critical on it.

I guess the more I learn about photography the less I know overall in the scale of things. To quote McDonalds - "I'm Loving It"

There are many SLRs without light meters or other automation.
I see you even own the K1000 🙂

 

[landsknechte]

I cut my teeth on SLRs, and I spent a few years in art school with SLRs. For me, I don't have to think about the camera when I use one - it's purely reflex at this point. Perhaps this will change as I run more rolls through them, but when I shoot a rangefinder, it's about the camera. It's a conscious decision to commune with a historical object (new rangefinders don't really "move" me), and to connect a bit with some little bit of photographic history. It's the same reason that I'll go out on occasion and photograph with a Brownie box camera or a folder.

It's rather like the guy that has a nice new modern car for commuting, and keeps an antique roadster in the garage for weekends...

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request