mbisc
Silver Halide User
I hope this issue hasn't been beaten to death, but here is something that I have been wondering a lot lately.
I love this forum for its deep knowledge on a lot of photographic issues, but I am actually not a big user of rangefinders (yet?). I have a couple of -- essentially -- special-purpose cameras with rangefinders which I like a lot (heck, that's why I have them). For the bulk of my stuff, though, I am still using an SLR. Given the sad demise of my line of SLRs (Contax C/Y), I am contemplating switching to the Zeiss Ikon ZM camera. For obvious reasons (at least on this portion of the RF Forum
) I love Zeiss optics, so the Zeiss Ikon ZM would seem like a natural choice.
Here is my question -- what are the biggest differences/drawbacks that SLR users are seeing with switching to a rangefinder camera for general use? I am not trying to stir up the pot or anything, but before I make that switch, I want to be better informed. From using my current rangefinders, I already know that close-up work and using a polarizer is difficult at best, but is that the only difference?
TIA,
Mike
I love this forum for its deep knowledge on a lot of photographic issues, but I am actually not a big user of rangefinders (yet?). I have a couple of -- essentially -- special-purpose cameras with rangefinders which I like a lot (heck, that's why I have them). For the bulk of my stuff, though, I am still using an SLR. Given the sad demise of my line of SLRs (Contax C/Y), I am contemplating switching to the Zeiss Ikon ZM camera. For obvious reasons (at least on this portion of the RF Forum
) I love Zeiss optics, so the Zeiss Ikon ZM would seem like a natural choice. Here is my question -- what are the biggest differences/drawbacks that SLR users are seeing with switching to a rangefinder camera for general use? I am not trying to stir up the pot or anything, but before I make that switch, I want to be better informed. From using my current rangefinders, I already know that close-up work and using a polarizer is difficult at best, but is that the only difference?
TIA,
Mike
telenous
Well-known
Hi Mike,
You 're correct - there are limitations with rangefinders compared to SLRs, and even although there are usually ways to get round these limitations (I am thinking mostly of the Visoflex, a device that turns a Leica into an SLR capable camera), they are usually very unpractical.
Macro, polarisers, longer than 135mm lenses, matrix meters, automation other than a basic AE (if that), fastest flash sync speed, autofocus, they all seem to be areas where the SLRs do vastly better than rangefinders.
Despite the inconveniencies I think you are in for a pleasant surprise if you are to use for the first time a 35mm based rangefinder. Zeiss has first rate optics for M cameras (in my opinion better than what I have seen from Zeiss for the ZF range of optics for Nikons), so I don't think you will lose out by phasing out your Contax SLR.
You 're correct - there are limitations with rangefinders compared to SLRs, and even although there are usually ways to get round these limitations (I am thinking mostly of the Visoflex, a device that turns a Leica into an SLR capable camera), they are usually very unpractical.
Macro, polarisers, longer than 135mm lenses, matrix meters, automation other than a basic AE (if that), fastest flash sync speed, autofocus, they all seem to be areas where the SLRs do vastly better than rangefinders.
Despite the inconveniencies I think you are in for a pleasant surprise if you are to use for the first time a 35mm based rangefinder. Zeiss has first rate optics for M cameras (in my opinion better than what I have seen from Zeiss for the ZF range of optics for Nikons), so I don't think you will lose out by phasing out your Contax SLR.
mbisc
Silver Halide User
telenous said:
I use very few tele lenses (my 80-200 Vario Sonnar is the least used lens in my bag) since I am more of a landscape shooter, so that's not a big one.
Automation isn't huge for me -- landscapes are at infinity, so no need for autofocus. The matrix metering in my Contax Aria is nice, but centerweighted metering would do, too.
For the little flash stuff and macro stuff, maybe I can just keep the Aria and a couple of lenses around...hmm...
Are there any tricks for using polarizers on rangefinders anyways?
Mike
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
mbisc,
I thank you for the nice posting. And I heartly suggest you: buy ZM and keep all C/Y. To me, reasoning on what is best is an error. There are many bests. That's the concept of Pareto optimality. It means that two excellent system beat each other according to different criteria. Thus they are both best and should be used according to the circumstances. I myself have a lot of C/Y that I would not give away for any price. I hope (see Zeiss site) that evenctually Kyocera license expire or they allow sooner Zeiss to produce again for C/Y
BTW there are very expensive solutions for RF polarizers. But compared to srl it will always be a pain
Best wishes
Pistach
I thank you for the nice posting. And I heartly suggest you: buy ZM and keep all C/Y. To me, reasoning on what is best is an error. There are many bests. That's the concept of Pareto optimality. It means that two excellent system beat each other according to different criteria. Thus they are both best and should be used according to the circumstances. I myself have a lot of C/Y that I would not give away for any price. I hope (see Zeiss site) that evenctually Kyocera license expire or they allow sooner Zeiss to produce again for C/Y
BTW there are very expensive solutions for RF polarizers. But compared to srl it will always be a pain
Best wishes
Pistach
Huck Finn
Well-known
If you use focal lenghts shorter than 28 for wide field of view when you shoot landscapes, you will have to use an exteranl viewfinder., i.e. focus through the camera's viewfinder or scale focus & then compose in the external finder.
colinh
Well-known
Well, there's flash which I don't use on the M because it then gets so top-heavy. And I can't even catch my kids with the M7, so if you don't even have auto exposure - no way!
But for me the basic disadvantage of RF wrt SLR (and I have an M7 and RTS II) is that as you go up in focal length from 28mm, the viewfinder frame lines show smaller and smaller images. And it's not big to start with anyway.
So, say with a short tele, 75 or 90, you can see the shape people make - but not really their facial expressions.
Looking through the RTS II viewfinder, with the Planar 85/1.4, my brother said "wow!". You wouldn't say that with the M. On the other hand the M has a nice heft, and makes a nice click and winding on is a pleasure
Also - you can simply get closer to people without startling them.
Keep the Contax stuff in any case - as said before, they're two different systems, for different things.
Good luck,
colin
But for me the basic disadvantage of RF wrt SLR (and I have an M7 and RTS II) is that as you go up in focal length from 28mm, the viewfinder frame lines show smaller and smaller images. And it's not big to start with anyway.
So, say with a short tele, 75 or 90, you can see the shape people make - but not really their facial expressions.
Looking through the RTS II viewfinder, with the Planar 85/1.4, my brother said "wow!". You wouldn't say that with the M. On the other hand the M has a nice heft, and makes a nice click and winding on is a pleasure
Also - you can simply get closer to people without startling them.
Keep the Contax stuff in any case - as said before, they're two different systems, for different things.
Good luck,
colin
x-ray
Veteran
Precise framing is not nearly as good on the RF / VF systems. Framelines are inaccurate at best. I've used slr's for 42 years and RF's for 39 and would'nt give up either. Macro, tele and framing are the big strengths of slr's. Low light focusing under adverse conditions is the biggie for the RF. Lenses are equal in my book. For landscape work i would say stick to your slr's but if you're shooting people and places under dim light and primarily work in mid focal lengths then the RF is the ticket.
What happens if you suddenly want to do wildlife images, the visoflex stinks at best and you're stuck with a 135 mm max with an external VF.
I'm taking the opposite view here and say this from a practical unemotional point of view. The Zeiss Ikon is fantastic for what it's intended but the applications are very narrow in scope compared to a quality slr. There have never been better deals on slr's than at the moment. I suggest expanding your contax system or sell and buy another slr system like the Nikon F100 and some good used lenses. There are no better lenses than Nikon and Canon L glass and the F100 is a bargain. I've seen new ones go for just over $400 for the body and lenses are a bargain too.
What happens if you suddenly want to do wildlife images, the visoflex stinks at best and you're stuck with a 135 mm max with an external VF.
I'm taking the opposite view here and say this from a practical unemotional point of view. The Zeiss Ikon is fantastic for what it's intended but the applications are very narrow in scope compared to a quality slr. There have never been better deals on slr's than at the moment. I suggest expanding your contax system or sell and buy another slr system like the Nikon F100 and some good used lenses. There are no better lenses than Nikon and Canon L glass and the F100 is a bargain. I've seen new ones go for just over $400 for the body and lenses are a bargain too.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
The big difference for me was shooting children in sports. An SLR with a zoom lens, auto focus, and motor drive made it easy for me to capture my son and his friends.
ronnie_retro
Established
In my case, I'd used an SLR for many years before re-entering the RF world. I say re-entering, because the first "real" camera I used was my dad's Agfa Karat 36. So having used a RF many years previously, starting to use one again didn't seem like a bid deal.
What I liked most about my SLR was the "what you see *has* to be what you get on film" aspect and its ability to do extreme closeups. I seemed to be able to focus very quickly (manually) with it . An endless variety of lenses were available for my Nikon.
What I liked least was that at the instant of exposure, the mirror flapped closed and I was blind at the exact moment of the shot.
A couple of years ago I was looking for "something different somehow" with the photographic experience. I shoot slides and really care about color brilliance and resolution. From what I was reading this seemed to be where RF optics excelled. I bought a Voigtlander R2A and a Zeiss 35/2. It had auto-exposure, but aperature only priority (not complaining here). This meant I had to deliberately choose an f stop and couldn't rely on on the SLR's "programmed" exposure mode where it selected both shutter speed and f-stop. I became a better photographer because instead of just using the idiot programmed exposure I had to start paying attention to depth of field issues - this was a good thing. I was getting more involved in the shot. My slides were coming back better than ever - there was a real snap to them that I didn't get before.
My only issue is that as an eyeglass wearer it can take a bit of work to see everything in the VF with a 28mm lens. I should probably be a bit less retro and migrate to contact lenses, but somehow I doubt I'll do that.
What I liked most about my SLR was the "what you see *has* to be what you get on film" aspect and its ability to do extreme closeups. I seemed to be able to focus very quickly (manually) with it . An endless variety of lenses were available for my Nikon.
What I liked least was that at the instant of exposure, the mirror flapped closed and I was blind at the exact moment of the shot.
A couple of years ago I was looking for "something different somehow" with the photographic experience. I shoot slides and really care about color brilliance and resolution. From what I was reading this seemed to be where RF optics excelled. I bought a Voigtlander R2A and a Zeiss 35/2. It had auto-exposure, but aperature only priority (not complaining here). This meant I had to deliberately choose an f stop and couldn't rely on on the SLR's "programmed" exposure mode where it selected both shutter speed and f-stop. I became a better photographer because instead of just using the idiot programmed exposure I had to start paying attention to depth of field issues - this was a good thing. I was getting more involved in the shot. My slides were coming back better than ever - there was a real snap to them that I didn't get before.
My only issue is that as an eyeglass wearer it can take a bit of work to see everything in the VF with a 28mm lens. I should probably be a bit less retro and migrate to contact lenses, but somehow I doubt I'll do that.
fuwen
Well-known
Shooting RF is fun, although quite a different experience from SLR. As long as u are still keen in shooting films, there is no reason for u to give up your C/Y SLR system. Aria is probably one of the best and reliable Contax bodies ever built. The C/Y Zeiss optics are outstanding and worth keeping.
edlake
The "Glory" Days
mbisc said:
Hi Mike.
I'm a user of SLR's (Nikon) as well as RF's (Leica M6TTL and Nikon SP). To me they are totally different beasts. You can do most any general shooting with either, but both have their strengths. Basically the SLR for longer focal lenghts and more precise framing. There is also the issue of motor drives and matrix exposure modes, which many people find useful. In my way of shooting, the question of motor drives is irrevelent. With the RF system I find I myself to be a little looser, and with the SLR, a little tighter. Don't know exactly how to explain that, but perhaps it's because the RF is smaller and lighter.
Anyway, the Contax equipment should still be functional, and perhaps you can purchase a used body or two as a backup system. Best of luck!
Ed
JohnL
Very confused
There's a gadget you can get from Robert White (and maybe other places) that is a cheap polarizer on a stalk, like a maginifying glass, with degrees of rotation marked on it. You first check the alignment with your real polarizing filter, then you can easily transfer whatever looks good through the gadget to the filter that's on your camera.mbisc said:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I switched to RF from SLR just over a year ago- well completely over- and I haven't missed anything about the SLR. Yes, polarizers and close-up are about impossible, and long lenses are trouble, but for what I do RF is vastly superior. Can't overstate the importance of seeing MORE than 100% of your negative. This really allows you to stay connected to the subject in a very different way than with an SLR where I was always dropping the camera from my eye to see what else was going on nearby. I've not looked back. I had been shooting with the G2 and some with the XPAN before giving up the Nikon F4's, but the viewfinder of the G2 is more of a point & shoot viewfinder, and the XPAN being such a different shape prevented me from clueing into the possibilities of the RF viewfinder. I think that had much to do with using the XPAN on a tripod doing nature scenics for stock. The first look I took through the Leica was a revalation- and as you see from list below I've fallen head over heels. As to drawbacks, I don't find any practical ones in my daily work, but I'm shooting mostly in the street, where the SLR always seemed a little out of place. The size, weight and quality of the glass are anything but drawbacks for me.
mbisc
Silver Halide User
Well, thanks everyone for all the insight -- sounds like I should probably keep both systems. Maybe I should just reduce the number of C/Y lenses that I have in order to pare down my system. I am thinking wide-angle lenses for a rangefinder system as well, which is why I like the ZI camera -- from what I have read, the outer edge of the viewfinder corresponds to about a 25mm lens. I have the D18, D25 and D35 for my Aria (plus a P50 and the VS80-200), which is a bit much to just have sitting around most of the time, if I switch to RF...
Thanks everyone!
Mike
Thanks everyone!
Mike
jjovin
Established
Mike,
I did what you intend to do. At one point I had 4 Contax cameras and 9 lenses,
from 21mm to 500mm. I sold them all but an S2b and a 50mm f1.4. I bought
an Ikon, a 35mm Biogon and 90mm Elmarit and could not be happier.
Recently I wanted to finish a slide film that I had in my S2b to photograph my kids.
After one slap of the mirror I took the film out of S2b and put it in my Ikon.
I intent to use the Ikon for all my photography other than macro and telephoto.
I will get a 100 ZF macro when it comes out and a 500mm Nikon manual lens.
Anyway, for 100mm and down (other than macro) I prefer Ikon much more than an SLR. I doubt that you will be disappointed if you get an Ikon. The range finder might be misaligned (it seems to be common with new Ikons) but once you fix it will give you a lot of photographic pleasure.
Good luck,
Zoran
I did what you intend to do. At one point I had 4 Contax cameras and 9 lenses,
from 21mm to 500mm. I sold them all but an S2b and a 50mm f1.4. I bought
an Ikon, a 35mm Biogon and 90mm Elmarit and could not be happier.
Recently I wanted to finish a slide film that I had in my S2b to photograph my kids.
After one slap of the mirror I took the film out of S2b and put it in my Ikon.
I intent to use the Ikon for all my photography other than macro and telephoto.
I will get a 100 ZF macro when it comes out and a 500mm Nikon manual lens.
Anyway, for 100mm and down (other than macro) I prefer Ikon much more than an SLR. I doubt that you will be disappointed if you get an Ikon. The range finder might be misaligned (it seems to be common with new Ikons) but once you fix it will give you a lot of photographic pleasure.
Good luck,
Zoran
Mazurka
Well-known
mbisc said:
I too have the Aria and my advice is ... don't bother with RF, especially if you use anything longer than 50mm!
First, I have a Leica with a 0.85x finder, and it's still NOT fun using a 90mm lens.
Second, the ZM lenses have the same character as your C/Y Zeiss collection. So save your money and time for getting used to the RF's fixed, low mag finder sans DOF indication.
Third, I believe your Contax SLR gear is still working and will probably remain so as long as film is available. Otherwise just get another good working C/Y camera. Yearning for more Zeiss lenses? Just buy the C/Y versions 2nd hand and save a bunch.
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'll second jjovin- I teach photo 1 and we loaded cameras two weeks ago in class- me an F4s- and I had every intention of running the roll with it to use as the film developing demo, but I put it in the M6 instead after two frames. I'd suggest going with the ZI and a lens or two for a while, then see where you're at. If you're like me I suspect you'll save any long glass and close up stuff yow can with the SLR, then slowly sell them off as you crave more RF glass. Hey, it's just a tool right?
Rico
Well-known
I find RF and SLR to be complementary, and often pair the Aria with Leica M. My Contax RTS system includes five bodies and a dozen lenses, but the Aria plus D28/2.8 , S100/3.5 and a flash get most of the action. The M is very happy at 35 and 50 with available light.
amateriat
We're all light!
The upshot is that SLRs and RFs have their respective strengths, but in my case I had a major change in creative approach and emphasis about five years back, which led to my jettisoning my main AF SLR system for a pair of Hexar RF bodies and a trio of lenses. I keep on-hand a lone Olympus OM-2n and a few lenses for those few occasions when and where using an SLR makes more sense (this week: photographing someone's paintings for their portfolio, with hot lights n' all), but for roughly 90% of what I do now with a camera, out come the RFs. Not much of an either/or thing, really, but oh, what a difference.
- Barrett
- Barrett
kshapero
South Florida Man
I was a SLR guy for the most part. Picked up a Bessa a couple of years ago. Now I am 90% Rf currently loving my chrome ZI.