Rf Vs SLR

Discussion in 'Rangefinder Forum' started by kivis, Jan 10, 2011.

  1. kivis

    kivis Subscriber

    Messages:
    275
    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Location:
    South Florid
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Zeiss Ikon ZM vs Nikon FM3A. Which should I keep? can't afford both.
     
  2. kivis

    kivis Subscriber

    Messages:
    275
    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Location:
    South Florid
    Shooter:
    35mm
    SLR vs RF

    Zeiss Ikon ZM vs Nikon FM3A. Which should I keep? can't afford both.
     
  3. cjbecker

    cjbecker Member

    Messages:
    796
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Location:
    IN
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Which one do you like shooting more? What glass do you have? And from your sig you have 2x of the nikon.
     
  4. htimsdj

    htimsdj Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    126
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Location:
    Ohio
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I guess it depends on what else you have. Do you have any of the other cameras in your signature? Or is this a question about your only camera remaining?

    If its an only camera, I would say the SLR is more flexible - normal, wide, tele, macro, ... Plus, the FM3A can be operated independent of batteries, whereas the ZI cannot.
     
  5. ChipMcD

    ChipMcD Member

    Messages:
    30
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I think it would depend on what sort of photography you like to do. All around an SLR will probably be more rounded and necessary if you want to use long telephotos or do macro work. The ZI will be quieter and perhaps less obtrusive. Technically, the ZI lens(es) will probably be better in the same focal length, but Nikon lenses are very good, and at reasonable enlargements, probably there will not be great difference in quality, particularly when stopped down 2 or more stops from the widest aperature.

    Good luck making your choice. Between the two, there probably is no really wrong choice.
     
  6. 2F/2F

    2F/2F Member

    Messages:
    8,003
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    What things do you shoot, and what lenses do you use to shoot them?

    If all you need is a simple kit that is convenient to have on you every day, you do not need very long lenses, do not focus closer than a few feet, and if the things you are shooting will hold still for you most of the time, I would say to keep the RF.

    If you need anything other than that, meaning more versatility, I'd keep the SLR. In most cases and for most people, the SLR is the better-suited camera for the job at hand.
     
  7. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,714
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Only you can decide that.
     
  8. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,714
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Only you can decide that.
     
  9. elekm

    elekm Member

    Messages:
    2,056
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Location:
    New Jersey (
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Keep the Nikon and pick up one of the new Carl Zeiss Planars. Win-win.

    But seriously, I agree with the others that it really depends on you -- whether you like to shoot closeups and which camera feels best to you.
     
  10. jacarape

    jacarape Member

    Messages:
    98
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Location:
    Virginia
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Tough decision...I just went through it between a Hassy and a Leica RF. I really like both but for my older eyes the RF is easier to focus. I had an FM3A years ago, great camera also I think it will hold it's value more the the ZI.

    But for my experience, I'd keep the ZI for the quality of wides available. Zeiss never made a dog Biogon, and there are always used Summilux ASPHs...
     
  11. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    18,000
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I've resisted the temptation to give one answer in one thread and the opposite in the other, and instead, I've merged the two threads to keep discussion coherent.

    Everyone sees all the new threads in the "new posts" view, unless they've specifically hidden forums they don't want to see, which is fairly unusual, except for the off topic forums, so there is no need to create duplicate threads.
     
  12. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,714
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks Dave. I was confused why my post did not show up, when in fact it was two threads.
     
  13. kivis

    kivis Subscriber

    Messages:
    275
    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Location:
    South Florid
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Wides on RF's seem to have less distortion. The FM3a seems supremely durable. i like the idea of adding a Zeiss lens. Those Voigtlander lenses also look nice.
     
  14. jacarape

    jacarape Member

    Messages:
    98
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Location:
    Virginia
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    From what I've read, it is much easier to design a wide for a RF that has no mirror box to clear then for an SLR. The Zeiss Distagons are reverse telephoto lenses which are much harder to correct for barrel distortion, (retro vs. non retro focus lenses). A good example is the 38mm Biogon on the Hasselblad SWC. FWIW, the Mars Rover Navcams are a Biogon/Hologon hybrid. But you probably know all of this.

    Both cameras are fine machines and will suit you well. It is more of a question of how you want to shoot.
     
  15. stevebrot

    stevebrot Member

    Messages:
    113
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Location:
    Vancouver US
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Which do you like better? Apples or oranges? Both are excellent, durable cameras and both support excellent optics. The SLR can do many things that are difficult with the RF while the RF has the advantage of being somewhat more nimble. It depends on your style of shooting and your subject matter.


    Steve
     
  16. kivis

    kivis Subscriber

    Messages:
    275
    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Location:
    South Florid
    Shooter:
    35mm
    which style is which?
     
  17. j-dogg

    j-dogg Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,322
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Location:
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Keep the FM3A.
     
  18. T42

    T42 Member

    Messages:
    121
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Hello Akiva S.

    If I am reading your tagline correctly, you have FIVE SLR's. Is that right?

    If this were my problem, I would keep the rangefinder and at least one good SLR from that arsenal quoted above. For me, that would be the F2, as it is the only SLR listed with 100% frame accurate viewing, plus I don't need the AE of the FM3a.

    As others said, it all depends upon the kind of shooting you do and do not do.

    If I had to reduce my arsenal to ONE, it would be the F2. And that mainly so as to preserve as much flexibility as possible in picture making.

    OTOH, if I did not care about telephoto, macro, and a few other things that SLRs do better than RFs, then I would keep an RF. Even though it is more limited in capabilities, I prefer shooting with an RF. Seems more at one with my hands and eyes as I use it.

    Good luck with the decision.

    :smile:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2011
  19. Q.G.

    Q.G. Inactive

    Messages:
    5,682
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Since keeping both doesn't cost anything, that can only mean you need to sell one to get some cash.
    The Zeiss Ikon will sell for more. So keep the Nikon.
     
  20. perkeleellinen

    perkeleellinen Member

    Messages:
    2,261
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Location:
    Warwickshire
    Shooter:
    35mm
    It seems to indicate also that he has two FM3As:
    So I think losing one of them is probably the least painful option.
     
  21. andysig

    andysig Member

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Here's the solution I've just implemented for the same problem: I've kept my SLR body and a 100 mm macro lens and a 2x converter. That does what my new ZI can't i.e. close up and two lengths of telephoto. My initial lens kit for the ZI is 18, 35 and 85 mm. I reckon I've got all the bases more or less covered.
     
  22. Soeren

    Soeren Member

    Messages:
    2,457
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Location:
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    hmm Im a bit puzzled here. Maybe its not for me to know but why can´t you afford to keep both? The money you get for selling an analouqe camera (at least a Nikon) wont last long and speaking about getting Zeiss lenses for either one or the other doesn´t make sense, they cost a fortune.

    If its about concentrating on one system, one type of camera much depend on what kind of photography you do and which focal lenghts you like the most. If its strictly a money problem then keep the nikon, lenses are cheaper and the system more versatile. Maybe youll give up superior wide angle image quality but would you honestly know the difference if not compairing?
    best regards