you who live in both worlds...

J

jjanek

Member
Local time
7:08 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
37
Quite a lot of people here seems to have both RF and SLR. How do you feel the difference? In which situations, for which photo genres you use one and for which another? I understand typical answers - macro, long lenses - but what about street photo, document? Do you use both RF and SLR and what reason drives you to decision which one to choose? How about portrait or landscape? Thanks everybody for answers and excuse my english.
Janek
 
Last edited:
For general work, for many years I used SLRs and RFDRs interchangeably. I would just pick up the camera that was loaded with the film I wanted.
 
It is simple. I use a RF whenever I do not need to resort to makro, tele or cases where the detailed composition and a precise selective focus off axis is necessary. In portraits, it is the last reason that often commands an SLR, as you have to focus precisely on the eyes.
 
SLR's are just too slow for shooting street...at least for me! RF's just have a feel which is natural. Plus no mirror to black out the moment you shoot. I also like the RF for landscapes as well as my SLR. Mostly I'm like Mukal, I grab the one that has film in it & adapt to shooting what I feel comfortable with.
 
I tend to use an RF when I want to create images that look like snapshots. Without the precise framing, control over focus and ability to actually see DOF that I get from an SLR, I just forget about all that stuff, set the lens to a mid aperture, and fire away. Changes the psychology of photographing for me. Produces a looser look to photos that I sometimes prefer.
 
There are a variety of reasons why I choose one over the other, some elucidated above. One which often controls my choice is when I know I am going to be using filters. If I believe I'll be using a polarizer, I'll tend to go with an SLR or dSLR. If I am going to be shooting B&W and using red/orange/yellow filters, I'll tend to use a rangefinder. I have always disliked trying to compose through a dark red screen, so for me, a rangefinder is superior for that.
 
I pick up whichever one takes my fancy at the time - but since much of my buying has been guided by 'Ooh, shiny!', I'm probably not the best person to ask.
 
Walking with one or two dogs on leads mean a 'point & shoot' camera is the easiest camera to use - one handed too. The Olympus OM is used when I specifically want or need to take photographs. My Rangefinders tend to stay in the cupboard these days - a bit of a waste really.

jesse
 
Love the RangeFinder, however use SLR for product photography where I need to massage each part of the product, it is easier to see on screen what the result is looking like. though Im laughable behind the times in terms of resolution as my two E3's are "only" 10 megapix.. oh well, the shots print beautifully and nobody complained so far.

.
 
I just pick the best tool for the job. If the job is undetermined/unspecified, then I pick up whatever strikes my fancy as well. Ooh, black paint! :)
 
You could probably even expand it to more than just two worlds: Medium format vs 35mm, film vs digital, cell phone camera vs 'conventional' camera etc etc etc.

There is definitely a different feeling using different cameras - I find that I can work faster or more deliberately, depending upon which camera I use. I've just discovered the joys of using a Hasselblad 500 ELM and a Super Wide C, and they have opened up a whole new world for me, though each in a different way. However, my Contaflex TLR alllows me to look at the world differently as well.

The only thing that I can say about rangefinders vs SLRs - and I'll specifically refer to my Leica M2 - is that I'll probably take more chances in low light situations, primarily because I have more confidence in the Leitz lenses wide open.

I think all cameras have their merits, and if they help push your creative ideas further along, then so much the better.
 
Last edited:
I use whatever I feel like using. For example, yesterday I used a Canon 5D. This morning I used a Canon A1 with delta 400 and this afternoon I used an Olympus E1. Last weekend I used the Canon F1 and the weekend before the Bronica RF. Why? Just because I can :).
 
jjanek said:
Quite a lot of people here seems to have both RF and SLR. How do you feel the difference? In which situations, for which photo genres you use one and for which another? I understand typical answers - macro, long lenses - but what about street photo, document? Do you use both RF and SLR and what reason drives you to decision which one to choose? How about portrait or landscape? Thanks everybody for answers and excuse my english.
Janek
Click to expand...

I love street shooting, for which I almost always use a rangefinder, for its faster operating speed and less obtrusive looks and sound. The other genre in which I get most absorbed is macro photography, which calls for an SLR (or view camera, but I don't do that any more).
 
Nikon D300 and RFs from Bessa and Zeiss.
RF when I want to get b/w on film.
But both for people/streetphotography.

At the moment the D300 is replaced by a Ricoh GRD3 - less weight more fun.....;)
When touring with friends with our Morgans or Healeys, the D300 with 17-55 is the tool for fast snaps while driving open, because these dudes don't like to stop for pics.....:cool:
 
Personally I prefer SLR focusing (yeah, shoot me). I grab the Leica or the Canonet because they are smaller and still offer extremely good lenses. Sure, digital P&S cameras are smaller and quieter still, but generally have slow zoom lenses and limited hi-ISO performance.

I have noticed though, that people don't really register these old RF cameras as cameras anymore. With an SLR (of any type) you get the mirror sound, film P&S camera get the motor whirr, and digitals betray themselves with, flash, AF lights and bright screens. RF's are inconspicuous. People notice it, but when they see that nothing seems to be happening, they quickly dismiss it. Several people even have said to me: 'There was no flash, so the picture will be ruined'. Well, no. 800ISO at f2 will take you a long way.
 
How do you feel difference between blondes, brunettes and reds? Look, feel, handling? Responsiveness? They all are beautiful?

For first half of deal I choose camera, for second - enjoy using it to take pictures. Be it even P&S.
 
In order of frequency-of-use:

The Main Kit: Hexar (two bodies, three lenses, flash). M2 & 35 f/2 Summicron as occasional sidekick.

Traveling ultra-light: Contax Tvs. It goes in one pocket, a few rolls of film in another.

Landscape & Other Tripod-bound Stuff: Olympus OM-2n/Vari-Magni Finder/Sigma 21-35. This combo spends about 90% of its time atop a tripod or monopod. Once in a great while, I use it handheld with a 50. When I need to get close, I break out the extension tubes to use with the 50. It's nice to have an SLR when I need it, even if it's not all that often.

Misc:

- Olympus C-8080. It's digital, and not too shabby at it;

- Holga 135. only put one roll through it so far. Will do more with it as time and imagination allow.

- Olympus Pen EE. Ditto.

- Konica Auto S3. Hasn't seen much action since the M2 arrived. It stayys in the picture for now, however.

- Ricoh GR-1. Still waiting to be sent off for repair/refit. Purchase of Contax Tvs has reduced urgency of repair "significantly."

So, I guess I live in several worlds. But the funnest planet is ruled by film and cameras with those funny separate windows for looking through.


- Barrett
 
Horses for courses.

When I need accurate framing and I know I'll be shooting at 1/30 second or faster it's almost invariably an SLR. A rangefinder when it gets dark and framing is less important!

Interesting to include a high quality point and shoot Barrett. After running a couple of rolls through my newly aquired GR1v and looking at the results I'm beginning to seriously wonder at the sanity of carrying anything bigger a lot of the time! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom