Holmz
Established
The only real catching reason (IMO) is that the RF-lens are not required to leave room for the mirror as the SLRs need to.
I am assuming that enables the RF to have better optics than an SLR.
But full lens quality might not come into play, unless your using good film(?)
I am assuming that enables the RF to have better optics than an SLR.
But full lens quality might not come into play, unless your using good film(?)
kshapero
South Florida Man
For me the DSLR is mechanical but damn good at it. My Rf is just plain fun and more tactile to hold. I go back and forth, pros and cons, sometimes ad infinitum. Soon I'll be medicated and all will be good. Glenlivit does the trick.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I use SLRs and rangefinders with roughly equal frequency but usually for different tasks. For me (ymmv) the key differences at wide-to-short-telephoto focal lengths are:
a) with an SLR I tend to see only what's in frame and not much outside, whereas with an RF I see both what's both included and excluded by my framing; and...
b) with an SLR I see what's in focus only wide open and have to imagine what would be included by stopping down, whereas with an RF I see everything in focus and have to imagine what will be excluded by opening the aperture.
This means I tend to compose differently with an RF than with an SLR. Not better, not worse, just differently. I find those differences often suit me better one way for some subjects and the other way for others.
Also, I often find RF cameras give me more precise focus - but that may be more technique than camera differences (though there are theoretical advantages to RF focus at these focal lengths I'm far from sure my results are due to that: I think personal ineptitude trumps theory there).
...Mike
P.S. Yes I can shoot and SLR both-eyes-open and see both in-frame and out-of-frame. But it only works with a 50mm lens else I get queasy. And, yes, DOF preview on an SLR sort 've works but not really for fast hand-held work.
a) with an SLR I tend to see only what's in frame and not much outside, whereas with an RF I see both what's both included and excluded by my framing; and...
b) with an SLR I see what's in focus only wide open and have to imagine what would be included by stopping down, whereas with an RF I see everything in focus and have to imagine what will be excluded by opening the aperture.
This means I tend to compose differently with an RF than with an SLR. Not better, not worse, just differently. I find those differences often suit me better one way for some subjects and the other way for others.
Also, I often find RF cameras give me more precise focus - but that may be more technique than camera differences (though there are theoretical advantages to RF focus at these focal lengths I'm far from sure my results are due to that: I think personal ineptitude trumps theory there).
...Mike
P.S. Yes I can shoot and SLR both-eyes-open and see both in-frame and out-of-frame. But it only works with a 50mm lens else I get queasy. And, yes, DOF preview on an SLR sort 've works but not really for fast hand-held work.
Last edited:
TheHub
Well-known
Personally I find rangefinder cameras to be lighter and smaller. I also shoot a lot with available light, sometimes all the way down to 1/8 of a second. With an SLR the mirror slap would make that kind of photography impossible.
alcaraban
Established
Why rangefinder? It depends on the subject:
1/8 sec. handheld (for night shots).
Quieter shutter (for concert pictures).
No mirror black-out (so you can see the subject when you press the shutter).
Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with a SLR.
1/8 sec. handheld (for night shots).
Quieter shutter (for concert pictures).
No mirror black-out (so you can see the subject when you press the shutter).
Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with a SLR.
williams473
Well-known
Thought I’d add a voice to the minority opinion…
I prefer SLRs to rangefinders for similar reasons to one other person in this thread - accurate framing being the most important consideration for me. I know exactly what I'm getting in the frame when I take images with my SLR, whereas when I shoot with a rangefinder, I am often surprised when looking at my negatives on the light box to find that my images on the film do not match up with the way I remembered seeing them at the moment of exposure. Composition is one of the absolute most critical aspects in making a photograph, especially on the street with little or no time to prepare, and the SLR is just way more accurate at providing me consistent results. I also enjoy being able to actually see what depth of field I have, and I am much faster to focus with an SLR – I like how the image just snaps into focus, whereas with the rangefinder I have to check and recheck my focus if I think it is critical. That said, lower quality SLR lenses can be difficult to focus, but with higher quality lenses, they snap into focus very nicely.
Mirror slap doesn't bother me at all - people talk about it like it shakes the camera in your hand like it's a running engine or something - I've done lots of handheld shooting at 1/4 - 1/30 with both SLRs and rangefinders, and see no difference in the results - the movement of the subject (I rarely shoot a purely static scene) at these speeds is going to blur the image anyway. Or, unless you brace the camera against your body, a light pole, or whatever is available, hand shake is going to be more of an issue than mirror slap in blurring the image.
Faster lenses are a bonus for rangefinders to a point, but the one or two stops gained could be made up by pushing my film or lowering shutter speed, plus most super fast rangefinder lenses are prohibitively expensive for me to buy, if I want to buy what is considered the best in rangefinder lenses. My SLR Nikkor lenses are considered some of “the best” (please let’s not get into it) in the SLR world, and yet they are pretty cheap on Ebay.
Also "mirror blackout" is not a major drawback for me either - honestly, even 1/60 of a second is such a short time to be "blacked out" that I doubt it really matters as much as everyone thinks, - I mean, it's basically like blinking. For Art, product, wedding or travel shooting, I don't see how continuos viewing is a great advantage. If stopping fast action is what you need to do, as in sports photojournalism, you’re not going to be using a rangefinder anyway. You’re going to blaze away 25 frames in a couple seconds with a DSLR.
Of course I can’t deny that rangefinders are lighter and quieter, they are nifty looking, and I enjoy using one occasionally. But the only practical advantage outside of weight and shutter sound that I can think of is that I use yellow filters often, and it's nice to have a non-yellow image of the world through the viewfinder, as I do with my SLR. Then again, I'm usually shooting black and white so I'm not thinking in color anyway.
I prefer SLRs to rangefinders for similar reasons to one other person in this thread - accurate framing being the most important consideration for me. I know exactly what I'm getting in the frame when I take images with my SLR, whereas when I shoot with a rangefinder, I am often surprised when looking at my negatives on the light box to find that my images on the film do not match up with the way I remembered seeing them at the moment of exposure. Composition is one of the absolute most critical aspects in making a photograph, especially on the street with little or no time to prepare, and the SLR is just way more accurate at providing me consistent results. I also enjoy being able to actually see what depth of field I have, and I am much faster to focus with an SLR – I like how the image just snaps into focus, whereas with the rangefinder I have to check and recheck my focus if I think it is critical. That said, lower quality SLR lenses can be difficult to focus, but with higher quality lenses, they snap into focus very nicely.
Mirror slap doesn't bother me at all - people talk about it like it shakes the camera in your hand like it's a running engine or something - I've done lots of handheld shooting at 1/4 - 1/30 with both SLRs and rangefinders, and see no difference in the results - the movement of the subject (I rarely shoot a purely static scene) at these speeds is going to blur the image anyway. Or, unless you brace the camera against your body, a light pole, or whatever is available, hand shake is going to be more of an issue than mirror slap in blurring the image.
Faster lenses are a bonus for rangefinders to a point, but the one or two stops gained could be made up by pushing my film or lowering shutter speed, plus most super fast rangefinder lenses are prohibitively expensive for me to buy, if I want to buy what is considered the best in rangefinder lenses. My SLR Nikkor lenses are considered some of “the best” (please let’s not get into it) in the SLR world, and yet they are pretty cheap on Ebay.
Also "mirror blackout" is not a major drawback for me either - honestly, even 1/60 of a second is such a short time to be "blacked out" that I doubt it really matters as much as everyone thinks, - I mean, it's basically like blinking. For Art, product, wedding or travel shooting, I don't see how continuos viewing is a great advantage. If stopping fast action is what you need to do, as in sports photojournalism, you’re not going to be using a rangefinder anyway. You’re going to blaze away 25 frames in a couple seconds with a DSLR.
Of course I can’t deny that rangefinders are lighter and quieter, they are nifty looking, and I enjoy using one occasionally. But the only practical advantage outside of weight and shutter sound that I can think of is that I use yellow filters often, and it's nice to have a non-yellow image of the world through the viewfinder, as I do with my SLR. Then again, I'm usually shooting black and white so I'm not thinking in color anyway.
Gumby
Veteran
Me 2. Once all the hair is split and there is only dandruff remaining, this is one of the few times when I'm left with the impression that I actually understand and agree with BM. I use a variety of cameras including 35mm RF, and 35 and MF SLRs. My comfort-zone is mostly with the SLRs, perhaps because that is where most of my experience lays. But in the end I can produce a decent photo with any of them.... and few (if any) could tell the difference. The lightness/quietness of the 35mm RF is what generally drives me to choose that camera over any of the others; a need to be guaranteed professional results always drives me toward a SLR; the viewer/user of my photos generally don't care or can't tell... unless there is uncorrected convergence, in which case I would have used a view camera to start with.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Looking forward, I can hold my Leica M6 in one hand behind my back and simultaneously set shutterspeed, aperture and focus. It's a trick I learned years ago that I cannot do with any other camera I own.
Spider67
Well-known
.....user reads post puts back beret on wardrobe, starts searching for his HCB pipe.....read again if he can find other hints to look more like it!
dee
Well-known
Just a thought , but there is a far wider choice of SLR ? DSLR camera for an ex-beginner , I love my rangefinders , but maybe they are an aquired taste ? Outside mainstream ?
Being practical ...
Being practical ...
fawate
Member
One of the reasons that I enjoy a rangefinder is because it doesn`t look professional. In fact, when I walk around with an M6, people simply ignore me (just another stupid guy with a funny old obsolete camera). In some occasions, I believe that security guards would not have let me take pictures if I was carrying some "pro-looking camera", whatever that may be.
literiter
Well-known
When I was a little younger (in 1966) I got a temporary job with a studio photographer, helping him take pictures of refrigerators for a catalog. He did not do "art", but he was extremely meticulous. I did the very creative job of hoisting stuff out of trucks. As far as his cameras "look but don't touch".
He was a arrogant, belligerent old prick but in those few weeks he gave some advice:
"Don't worry about the equipment, concentrate on the image, the choice of equipment will present itself."
"If you have a camera, chances are you have the camera you need. If you don't think you have the right camera, you'll never have the right camera, consider camera sales."
He only had 4 cameras a 4x5 Linhoff, a odd camera that took 3 negatives with a filter for each color (that worked very well for his dye transfer stuff), a old Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad.
When I asked him if I should get a Pentax or a Nikon, he merely turned his back, shook his head and said, "Don't f**k with that, boy."
He was a arrogant, belligerent old prick but in those few weeks he gave some advice:
"Don't worry about the equipment, concentrate on the image, the choice of equipment will present itself."
"If you have a camera, chances are you have the camera you need. If you don't think you have the right camera, you'll never have the right camera, consider camera sales."
He only had 4 cameras a 4x5 Linhoff, a odd camera that took 3 negatives with a filter for each color (that worked very well for his dye transfer stuff), a old Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad.
When I asked him if I should get a Pentax or a Nikon, he merely turned his back, shook his head and said, "Don't f**k with that, boy."
btgc
Veteran
absolutely great !
As for original question - my first RF, Electro 35 with 1.7 lens cost me about equivalent of memory card for DSLR. That's the answer.
OK, it's fixed lens and thus completely different story and category when compared to DSLR, while Olympus haven't produced DSLR with fixed lens as they did in film era.
Robin P
Well-known
Proof that logic can be defied.
I find SLRs easier to focus, my SLRs look old fashioned, the shutters on the CV Bessas that I had were nearly as noisy as an SLR, my Pentax ME with 40mm pancake was smaller than many RFs, my SLR shots require less cropping because I can trust the viewfinder etc......etc......
BUT - looking around the house I can see that the majority of the photos I have printed and hung on the wall were taken with a Rangefinder!
Cheers, Robin
I find SLRs easier to focus, my SLRs look old fashioned, the shutters on the CV Bessas that I had were nearly as noisy as an SLR, my Pentax ME with 40mm pancake was smaller than many RFs, my SLR shots require less cropping because I can trust the viewfinder etc......etc......
BUT - looking around the house I can see that the majority of the photos I have printed and hung on the wall were taken with a Rangefinder!
Cheers, Robin
MickH
Well-known
How about settling this once an for all with a shoot-off. Post your best RF shot and your best SLR shot. It'll be soooo easy to decide which is the better camera.
Cheers.
Cheers.
myoptic3
Well-known
I don't get many photos of the back of my lens cap since I went back to an SLR. I do miss the smallness and thinness of the RF cameras, but I had difficulty focusing quickly w/ them. Having the image in the viewfinder actually agree w/ what the lens is seeing makes the picture taking experience better for me for some reason.
My subjective experience is that a SLR feels more alive to shoot with, and a RF camera feels more disconnected and dead. I expect the viewfinder to black out for a tiny amount of time, as the shutter is firing. With a RF camera it is unsettling to never see the image come in and out of focus, or never see any confirmation that the shutter has fired. Seeing all that extra stuff in the viewfinder that isn't going to be in the picture is confusing for me as well.
Old habits of attachment die hard though, as I still find myself looking at the RF cameras on the auctions. They look so neat, and are so much fun to play with. I just don't enjoy shooting w/ them very much.
My subjective experience is that a SLR feels more alive to shoot with, and a RF camera feels more disconnected and dead. I expect the viewfinder to black out for a tiny amount of time, as the shutter is firing. With a RF camera it is unsettling to never see the image come in and out of focus, or never see any confirmation that the shutter has fired. Seeing all that extra stuff in the viewfinder that isn't going to be in the picture is confusing for me as well.
Old habits of attachment die hard though, as I still find myself looking at the RF cameras on the auctions. They look so neat, and are so much fun to play with. I just don't enjoy shooting w/ them very much.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
I don't get many missed-focus photos since I started using rangefinders. I do miss being able to hide my complete head behind a slr when drunken, but I had difficulty shooting and communicating with my subjects at the same time. Having the viewfinder on the side of the camera makes the picture taking experience better for me for some reason.
My subjective experience is that a rangefinder feels more alive to shoot with, and a SLR camera feels more disconnected and dead. I hated when the viewfinder blacked out for that tiny amount of time, as the shutter is firing. With a SLR camera it is unsettling to never see exact focus in dark places, or never see any confirmation that the shot was okay. Seeing all that extra stuff in the viewfinder that isn't going to be in the picture makes framing so much easier.
Old habits of attachment die hard though, as I still find myself looking at the old SLR cameras on the auctions. They look so bulky, but I just don't enjoy shooting with them very much.
My subjective experience is that a rangefinder feels more alive to shoot with, and a SLR camera feels more disconnected and dead. I hated when the viewfinder blacked out for that tiny amount of time, as the shutter is firing. With a SLR camera it is unsettling to never see exact focus in dark places, or never see any confirmation that the shot was okay. Seeing all that extra stuff in the viewfinder that isn't going to be in the picture makes framing so much easier.
Old habits of attachment die hard though, as I still find myself looking at the old SLR cameras on the auctions. They look so bulky, but I just don't enjoy shooting with them very much.
literiter
Well-known
I prefer medium format these days, and I like to hike in the back country. That leaves me with one lightweight choice; a folding rangefinder camera. So I'll take my Super Ikonta "C" or "IV".
I used to take a Nikon F3hp with some lenses but that stuff is heavy, then a Leica M4-P and two lenses, still a little heavy.
Now just a Super Ikonta, some film, a very light monopod and a Weston Master IV. If I want to shoot slides I'll take my Leica instead.
I used to take a Nikon F3hp with some lenses but that stuff is heavy, then a Leica M4-P and two lenses, still a little heavy.
Now just a Super Ikonta, some film, a very light monopod and a Weston Master IV. If I want to shoot slides I'll take my Leica instead.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Interesting thread that has just caught my attention. I put all my rangefinders aside a few weeks ago and have been using my OM-2 for daily shooting where I work. With the 50mm F1.8 fitted and the 85mm and 28mm in the carry kit it's the do all solution for me at the moment.
I really like the framing accuracy of the Olympus SLR over a rangefinder and I'm finding it hard to go back to my Ikon or Hexar ... this kit really is superb and I'm very happy with the result's it's producing!
I really like the framing accuracy of the Olympus SLR over a rangefinder and I'm finding it hard to go back to my Ikon or Hexar ... this kit really is superb and I'm very happy with the result's it's producing!
snegron
Established
Well said! This sums up my reasons as well. I will also add that there is a certain joy in using different cameras that can not be explained. I have gotten to the point that I rarely change lenses anymore.
I have certain camera/lens outfits that I shoot with and look forward to shooting with them. Examples; when I'm in a wide angle film mood I will use my F2A with a Nikkor 24mm 2.8, or F3HP with Nikkor 35mm 2.0; when I'm in the mood to capture candids of my daughters I use my S2 with 5cm 1.4 or Nikon F with 50mm 1.4; when I want to capture an image I would like to enlarge and frame I will use my Mamiya RB67 with 90mm or Mamiya 645 with 80mm 2.8, etc. Each camera/lens outfit puts me in a different mood for different shooting.
Last edited: