Al Smith's two pictures are excellent illustration of advantage
of SLR over RF
The first one was taken with RF, due to inherent perspective error
of RF, precision framing is not possible
Rangefinders are not for everyone?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread |
The statement "Leica M (or rangefinders) are not for everyone" pops up very frequently here and elsewhere where rangefinders are discussed.
Every time I read it, I wonder what it means.
I am well aware that different systems and formats has their own virtues and vices, but I never see the statement "SLR's are not for everyone" which I would think would be an equally valid statement.
First I thought it was some sort of 'community speak' to strengthen the feel of belonging to a special interests group, but the other day I saw Mike Johnston (whom I don't usually associate with making this type of exclusive statements) using exactly these words when talking about the Bronica RF645 rangefinder on photo.net.
How much of an acquired taste can it be to use a rangefinder?
It makes me wonder if I am missing out on some fundamental truth. Can someone please enlighten me?
-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), May 30, 2002
Maybe a bit difficult to answer but I will give it a try.A rangefinder limits the use of lenses. For a Leica it will stop at 135, contax stops at 90mm and so does voigtlander. The rangefinder base of the latter is too small for a longer lens. The Bronica has only 3 lenses, so does the mamiya 6 but the 7 has (I think) six different lenses. Zoomlenses are also a problem, as far as I know, only contax has one, but not with a ig aperture possible on a slr.
With a rangefinder, you will only by using one certain lens see the object in the perspective you are photographing it. A 28mm when using the m6 classic for instance, leaving only a very small rectangle when using the 90 or 135 mm and a completely wrong perspective. It takes time to get used to this and to imagine what the result will be with a lens from, say, 50mm onwards. This applies not to the contax g however.
Limited to Leica is the ridiculous way of inserting the film in the camera. It this way is such a blessing, why then is the r system not using it? This should absolutely have been changed with the m7.
These are some of the points, maybe the most important ones.
All the best, Frank
-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.
Niels:I think another reason some may say that, is that it is easier to determine the depth of field with most SLRs. The viewfinder shows very closely what the DOF will be, whereas this can only be guessed at thru an RF viewfinder.
Also, any flare can be detected and possibly overcome. There are plusses to this as there are plusses to teh lightness agility and stability of a good RF camera.
There are more, but that is enough for now.
ssnnck(quietly - ssshhhh)
-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.
It's late, so I hope this will come out coherently.If you want to 'see' what your picture will look like as a 2- dimensional re-presentation of reality, nothing beats ground-glass viewing, whether it be a view camera, a twin-lens, or an SLR.
Seeing an image projected onto a flat surface, without parallax problems, and with the ability to see the depth of field, framing, and perspective exactly (or nearly so) as they will appear on film - is crucial for some photograhic artists' approach to their medium. It's why SLRs have taken over such a large part of the market.
Rangefinder/viewfinder cameras do not show you what the PICTURE will look like - they show you what the SUBJECT looks like. You have to do a lot of mental interpolation to 'imagine' how that 3D subject, completely sharp in the viewfinder, will actually look at f/2; seen from a point-of-view 2 inches down and to the right, and with much of what the viewfinder window shows you cropped away (for longer lenses) or stretched differently (with wider ones).
RF/VF cameras have (to some extent or another) some physical advantages: low shake (no moving mirror), fast response (no mirror, no AF, no film holders to insert), low(er) noise, compactness (sometimes) brighter finders (sometimes), and 'binary' focusing (the images are either aligned or they aren't) instead of 'continuum' focusing (the image is fuzzy, it's sharper, it's sharpest.)
RFs are great for 'narrative' pictures, where timing, expression, gesture, the 'moment' are paramount. They can be a real PITA, IF your goal is a precise graphic image - and a joy, if graphics/design/ composition are secondary to emotional content in your photographic work.
If you ARE a graphics/design/visual image photographer, rangefinders may very well be "not for you", unless you have a high frustration threshold and are willing to bang your head against a 'visual' wall. An SLR will show you what you're creating far more effectively than a 'window' viewfinder.
This is not an absolute distinction - there are lots of 'moment' photographers who get SLRs to work for them, and many 'visual' photographers who, with a little imagination and experience, learn to pre-visualize what the lens will give them without actually having to see it on a focusing screen.
But at the margins, each camera design has strengths and weaknesses, and if the weaknesses of the RF run counter to what your muse wants you to achieve - 'it's not for you...'
-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 30, 2002.
The greatest difference for me is the focussing with that tiny patch. Its a lot easier with an SLR as you can focuss the WHOLE image, but the RF wins when focussing in low light.
-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 30, 2002.
It's nothing to do with taste IMO - the M system is a specialist tool - very good (read unbeatable) at certain things but limited in other areas. An SLR system is much more versatile and to a pro who has to tackle a large variety of jobs it's a more 'all round' solution. I have often compared the M with the Porsche 911 - similar gradual evolution of a unique design solution. Great for the track, weekend fun and as an ultimate drivers car - but with limited abilities in the everyday transport catagory.
-- Johann Fuller (johannfuller@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.
Johann, I would compare the M (more so the M7) more with TVR than a Porsche. Great fun when it works, but breaks down a lot! :)
-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 30, 2002.
Range finder cameras are not for everybody ?An assumption which I consider mostly a myth:
1 - Most photographs are taken within the field of view and the distance range which is compatible with RF lenses.
2 – Depth of field visual estimation (unless you ever use your lenses at full aperture)is possible only with SLR’s having a real aperture closing device. Most if not all high end SLR’s are so equipped but more common amateur ones are not. Besides, closing the aperture with such a device will considerably darken the image on the ground glass and will in fact give a poor image of what will be recorded on the film (and in no occasion this is sufficient to know the real limits of the DOF when the image blown and printed: this clearly indicated in the famous book “The Hasselblad Manual by Ernst Wildi). Anyway, most shots will be taken by a SLR user without bothering to close down the aperture… So the absence of DOF control is not a practical liability.
3 – When using a fast lens at wide aperture, focusing is likely to be more precise with an RF than with an SLR due to the binary nature of the RF indication… When using a lens (particularly a wide angle) closed enough to use a DOF table, classic manual focusing lenses will likely have an engraved DOF scale on the barrel and be it used on a SLR or a RF, scale focusing is a better way to estimate the DOF than any aperture closing lever on a SLR and faster than an AF lens under 50mm focal length without even bothering to frame the subject.
4 – Particularly in 35 mm format, most high end SLR’s are as cumbersome and obtrusive as medium format SLR’s hardly an advantage if the photos you’re taking are within the current range of lenses available for an RF camera.
However, in certain circumstances, it is preferable to use an SLR or a view camera.
1 – Macro-photography (IMHO medium format is better than 35 mm in this case)
2 – Long tele-lens operation (if it is for action photography a modern 35mm with AF is preferable)
3 – Very precisely composed shots, particularly when using “effect” filters or gradual filters (For which a MF SLR or sometimes a view camera work much better. Or when you have to use an instant film for control (MF SLR’s with interchangeable magazines or view camera mandatory)
4 – Architecture, when you need the typical PC movements (PC lenses might be fine, a real view camera is better)
Despite the general opinion, I think these four points concern fewer shots actually taken than those for which an RF camera will be neutral or at an advantage. Particularly when it goes to small format where the bonus of a very compact outfit is maximum.
The seed of truth behind the myth is probably a combination of the all too natural difficulties to adjust to another way to take picture when coming from the SLR world and the fact not a single RF camera body of today offers what modern 35mm SLR’s offer in terms of technology, even when this technology is totally relevant to the RF concept.
Friendly.
François P. WEILL
-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 30, 2002.
I think people say rangefinders aren't for everyone because the SLR has become the mainstream camera. There are SLRs that can be used like point and shoot cameras (eg. Nikon N55) and professional SLRs (Nikon F5 R8 etc.) and everything in between. With and SLR what you see in the viewfinder is what you get and if it is AF you don't need to focus. If the SLR has evaluative metering you don't need to know much about metering to get well exposed images 90% of the time. With a rangefinder (even a Contax G2) you need to know more about shooting than you do with a fully automated SLR.
-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), May 30, 2002.
Notice how in the last month or so people have popped up trying to dump their RF stuff, saying they made a mistake buying it? I think that if you have spent a long time seeing through an SLR, moving to a RF creates a problem "seeing" and the other way around. I've owned a number of RF cameras, starting with a press camera when I was 12, and just have never been able to feel comfortable composing through an SLR, and my photos have shown it. I could never get used to looking down into a TLR, either. I suspect it's more habit than anything else, but why re-learn with a different camera something you can alread do well?
-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.
My chief complaint with the Leica M is the imprecise framing afforded by the framelines. I have a Fuji 645s that doesn't seem to have this problem so perhaps it doesn't apply to all RF's. The high cost of Leica maintainence [compared with mechanical SLR's like the Nikon] is another issue. The Leica rangefinder mechanism is, from what I have read, a very complicated mechanism and the shutter, though capable of lasting far longer than those of other cameras, seems to require periodic adjustment. The thought of $300 CLA's is anathema to me. But then, if you have to think about the cost, perhaps you really shouldn't own one. OTOH, those summicron lenses are just about the finest thing that has ever happened to photographic glass.
-- John Myers (mymacv@aol.com), May 30, 2002.
RF is great for situation where precision framing is not requiredAl Smith's two pictures are excellent illustration of advantage of SLR over RF The first one was taken with RF, due to inherent perspective error of RF, precision framing is not possible
