SLR or RF?

[bigbluesky]

Hey folks

Would appreciate some advice here.

I'm currently using alternative film (polaroids, holga, holga polaroids) and sometimes digital (the nikon d70). Big reason I switched to using alternative film (and instant film!) was the need for the "kick" which film gives and digital didn't provide for me. Hence I'm currently considering investing in a 35mm film system but don't want a bulky slr type set-up. I have read that rangefinders offer a good compromise on creative controls (depth of field etc) and weight. But I've also come across articles which talk about how taking a photo with an RF is different- like you must look through the finder and make two circles/spots align or something... that sounds really confusing to me and I'm not sure I would like shooting with a complex viewfinder process.

My questions are:

1) Could someone tell me simply how this viewfinder process works? Is it that much different from the usual see-and-shoot (WYSIWYG) method?

2) slr OR RF?

Would anyone recommend a light old-school looking slr instead of an RF? I think all I want is to do street photography/travel photography with it- and will prob only use a 50mm.
Basically I want something relatively light, compact and vintage looking (along the lines of canon ae-1 / bessaS).

Thank you.

 

[alternatve]

Focusing a RF is very simple.

Basically, you look through a viewfinder, like a compact. The difference is that there is a different coloured patch (circle, rectangular or even diamond shaped) in the viewfinder. To focus the lens, simply turn the focusing ring till the image that you see in the viewfinder and the image in the patch coincide.

RFs usually are built smaller then SLRs as it does not have or need the large mirror box of an SLR. Also, as the user does not look through an RF's lens, it's lenses are smaller then an SLR. Furthermore, RFs usually have a much quieter shutter sound then a SLR, which is great for street photography.

Samuel

If you want a compact SLR, a Nikon FG, Canon AE-1, Minolta X-700, Pentax ME supers and Olympus OM-10 are all very compact. However, do take note that it's loud shutter and mirror crash might not be the thing you are looking for for street photography.

 

[bigbluesky]

Focusing a RF is very simple.

Basically, you look through a viewfinder, like a compact. The difference is that there is a different coloured patch (circle, rectangular or even diamond shaped) in the viewfinder. To focus the lens, simply turn the focusing ring till the image that you see in the viewfinder and the image in the patch coincide.

RFs usually are built smaller then SLRs as it does not have or need the large mirror box of an SLR. Also, as the user does not look through an RF's lens, it's lenses are smaller then an SLR. Furthermore, RFs usually have a much quieter shutter sound then a SLR, which is great for street photography.

Samuel

If you want a compact SLR, a Nikon FG, Canon AE-1, Minolta X-700, Pentax ME supers and Olympus OM-10 are all very compact. However, do take note that it's loud shutter and mirror crash might not be the thing you are looking for for street photography.

Thanks Samuel for your input. Just to clarify then- is one able to control DOF using an RF by turning the focusing ring? I am thinking here of a typical slr 50mm whereby you can just control the depth of field by turning focusing ring, and shoot wysiwyg style- that's v easy and convenient. How does this work for RF?

 

[alternatve]

Thanks Samuel for your input. Just to clarify then- is one able to control DOF using an RF by turning the focusing ring? I am thinking here of a typical slr 50mm whereby you can just control the depth of field by turning focusing ring, and shoot wysiwyg style- that's v easy and convenient. How does this work for RF?

I don't quite get what are you driving at.

Depth of Field is controlled by three factors, the distance from the target to the camera, the size of the aperture and the length of the lens. In this case, a RF is the same as a SLR, just that in a SLR, you can see the images blurring and coming into focus.

Do correct me if I am wrong in any way.

Samuel

 

[bigbluesky]

Sorry Samuel, don't think I made myself clear.. yes, i meant, if it was possible to adjust the focusing on an RF so you can see through the viewfinder if the objects in foregrd/bgrd are becoming blur/ sharp.

 

[alternatve]

Sorry Samuel, don't think I made myself clear.. yes, i meant, if it was possible to adjust the focusing on an RF so you can see through the viewfinder if the objects in foregrd/bgrd are becoming blur/ sharp.

That is impossible with a rangefinder.

The rangefinder gives you a view of the surroundings as well as what you are going to shoot. Plus, there is no mirror blackout. This two points lend itself to street photography. If you want to see how the background and foreground gets blurred and such, a TLR or a SLR is the camera for you.

Samuel

 

[enivre]

If you are looking for something lightweight then definitely go with an RF, their lenses are so much smaller and more compact.

That said, it does need some getting used to as you don't see exactly what will be captured on the film. Some instances when this has been a problem for me when it comes to tricky compositions.

Why don't you go borrow one and try it for yourself? Some people love it, some people hate it... :dunno:

 

[bigbluesky]

If you are looking for something lightweight then definitely go with an RF, their lenses are so much smaller and more compact.

That said, it does need some getting used to as you don't see exactly what will be captured on the film. Some instances when this has been a problem for me when it comes to tricky compositions.

Why don't you go borrow one and try it for yourself? Some people love it, some people hate it... :dunno:

haha ok, and may i know where i could borrow one? any generous souls?

 

[casey4355]

rf is good if silence is needed and if u love wide angles.
silence bcos there is no mirror flap, wide angles bcos there is no compromise in design.
note hassy swc is specially designed to have no mirror.
generally rf teles is not good, bcos image in fram is v small.

i suppose u can get some light weight slrs and lens too.

 

[OpenLens]

If you're looking for a light-weight SLR try a Nikon FG. Really underrated...very small and compact plus you get AE (aperture priority), useful in street photography.

What you would get from a RF is faster manual focusing, the ability to see outside the frame, less sound (no mirror slap), no blackout making it easier to follow subjects while shooting or panning technique, greater hand-holdability at lower shutter speeds, extremely low distortion with wides, higher sharpness (microcontrast), and so on...

BTW, why do you need DOF preview for street photography?

SLRs are a general tool while rangefinders are a more specific tool. SLRs are a broadsword...you can cut anything with them...trees, heads...although the resulting cut may not always be pretty. Rangefinders are more of a scalpel...you can't cut everything with them but the with what you can cut the results are prettier.

 

[tandisirichai]

Hey folks

Would appreciate some advice here.

I'm currently using alternative film (polaroids, holga, holga polaroids) and sometimes digital (the nikon d70). Big reason I switched to using alternative film (and instant film!) was the need for the "kick" which film gives and digital didn't provide for me. Hence I'm currently considering investing in a 35mm film system but don't want a bulky slr type set-up. I have read that rangefinders offer a good compromise on creative controls (depth of field etc) and weight. But I've also come across articles which talk about how taking a photo with an RF is different- like you must look through the finder and make two circles/spots align or something... that sounds really confusing to me and I'm not sure I would like shooting with a complex viewfinder process.

My questions are:

1) Could someone tell me simply how this viewfinder process works? Is it that much different from the usual see-and-shoot (WYSIWYG) method?

2) slr OR RF?

Would anyone recommend a light old-school looking slr instead of an RF? I think all I want is to do street photography/travel photography with it- and will prob only use a 50mm.
Basically I want something relatively light, compact and vintage looking (along the lines of canon ae-1 / bessaS).

Thank you.

I have used both RF and SLR - psychologically, you want to look trendy, go for a SLR. But if you want to be seen 'cool' - go for a RF.:bsmilie:

Both systems have its advantages. Depends on what you want. RF system tend to be simple and easy to use.

sirichai

 

[alternatve]

If you're looking for a light-weight SLR try a Nikon FG. Really underrated...very small and compact plus you get AE (aperture priority), useful in street photography.

What you would get from a RF is faster manual focusing, the ability to see outside the frame, less sound (no mirror slap), no blackout making it easier to follow subjects while shooting or panning technique, greater hand-holdability at lower shutter speeds, extremely low distortion with wides, higher sharpness (microcontrast), and so on...

BTW, why do you need DOF preview for street photography?

SLRs are a general tool while rangefinders are a more specific tool. SLRs are a broadsword...you can cut anything with them...trees, heads...although the resulting cut may not always be pretty. Rangefinders are more of a scalpel...you can't cut everything with them but the with what you can cut the results are prettier.

As a user of a Nikon FG, I agree with you. That camera is like a baby compared to it's adult brothers, the F series cameras.

Another point for street photography. People on the street instinctively react to SLRs, however small. But a rangefinder is not usually noticed and mostly dismissed as a simple PnS, so you can get the shots you want. People tend to relax if you brought a small camera with small lenses instead of a big hulking SLR with large zoom lens too.

Samuel

 

[OpenLens]

I have used both RF and SLR - psychologically, you want to look trendy, go for a SLR. But if you want to be seen 'cool' - go for a RF.:bsmilie:

Recent quote from a young saleswoman at a local store upon me walking in with my gray R2a in-hand: Hao ke-ai! It's looks just like an old camera! Kawaiiii!!!

:bsmilie:

 

[KLCHUA]

Recent quote from a young saleswoman at a local store upon me walking in with my gray R2a in-hand: Hao ke-ai! It's looks just like an old camera! Kawaiiii!!!

:bsmilie:

Don't know about you, but I will be very embarrased if someone calls my cam 'kawai'!!! :bsmilie:

 

[alternatve]

Recent quote from a young saleswoman at a local store upon me walking in with my gray R2a in-hand: Hao ke-ai! It's looks just like an old camera! Kawaiiii!!!

:bsmilie:

She should have called you kawaii.

Samuel

 

[OpenLens]

Don't know about you, but I will be very embarrased if someone calls my cam 'kawai'!!! :bsmilie:

Nah...if she thinks it's cute then there's no issue taking candid pics of her. I take photos inside supermarkets, shopping malls, etc... all the time with no issues while my friends with the "big cams" can rarely get a shot off before they are approached by store personnel.

Here are a few from the Carrefour down the street.

Better to have my camera relegated to 'cute' rather then seen as intrusive. That's the point of having a RF.

 

[OpenLens]

She should have called you kawaii.

Samuel

Well, I am! Just like Homer but with darker skin

 

[centurion_sg]

Try seeing the pictures here to get a general idea of RF focusing:
http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Rangefinder-Camera.html

It's a different mindset using RF as I also have a D70s. I got myself a Bessa R3M which allows me to view the scene with both eyes open. In this way I can check out the scene more clearly with peripheral vision and time my shutter to catch the right moment. RF is good for street photography, usually wide angled around the 35mm range, though some people like to take it to other extremes. It's also good for low light handheld shots as there are fast lenses which are small and light, and no mirror slap to worry about. Of course the other fun thing is developing my own B&W film at home. I guess it's just a different tool for different results. Personally I just use my DSLR for more specific tasks, e.g., landscapes, fireworks, events, and carry my RF around for anything else that I might come across.

 

[Ally]

With a RF, you can make the mistake of shooting with the lens cap ON, without realising it..
I did that more than once..
A show of hands all ye who did the same.. :bsmilie:

Being smaller and lighter than their SLR cousins, it's much more comfortable to 'wear' a RF whole day long..
Sometimes I forget that I've got my BessaR around my neck.. I definitely notice the weight when lugging my 30D around..
I can shoot down to about 1/4~1/8s with RF without handshake; my dSLR skills tops at abt 1/60s..

Besides dimensions and blank-shots, I find shooting the RFs a very rustic experience..
Very quaint.. Very old school.. Lifting the RF to eye-line just feels different from aiming a SLR..

Why don't you (TS) rent one for the weekend?

just my say..

 

[robertcapa]

With a RF, you can make the mistake of shooting with the lens cap ON, without realising it..

actually m6 will blink blink blink at the exposure indicator > - < if the lens caps ON