Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,690   Posts: 1,548,840   Online: 987
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,457
    I overcome the "time parallax problem" by dint of only ever taking photographs of sessile objects

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lower Earth
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,018
    That sounds like a fine combination (although my personal IQ tastes would lean toward a Bessa R3a w/ a Summar or collapsible 50 Summicron). I prefer AE cameras or scale focusing cameras for rangefinders because of the ability to take a quick photo. I know, a scale focusing camera is not a RF camera, but other than the RF patch, it works essentially the same.

    To me the advantages of a RF camera are small size, low weight, the ability to focus in low light, and quiet shutters. The Bessas don't have particularly quiet shutters though, at least for a RF camera. If you don't shoot a lot of close candids (coffeehouse grab shots and such), no big deal. RF camera lenses tend to be a little sharper too.

    The disadvantages are that if you shoot portraits, a SLR allows you to see exactly what you will get on the film neg. I like that a lot. That's just something that I love, seeing the image come into focus. If you're traveling, nothing beats a cheap Konica C35. So small and light you don't even know you are carrying it, and has a wonderful lens.
    Last edited by momus; 09-08-2013 at 02:27 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,287
    Images
    148
    I don't shoot much 35mm these days but used Spotmatics for years later Pentax MX/KX. However I bought a rangefinder camera (Leica M3) in the late 1980's and it became my preferred camera for general use.

    My reasons are much the same as have already been given by David Allen, Gerald Koch etc. In fact the M3 is a touch heavier than my SLRs which is an advantage, greater mass makes a camer less prone to camera shake at low shutter speeds.

    If I went back to 35mm I'd contemplate a Bessa alongside the Leica and also some of their lenses.

    Ian

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    965
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    You can see the subject even at the moment of exposure. To use an SLR one must be able to anticipate what is going to happen in the next half second. Not everyone is able to do this.
    I use both rangefinders and slrs and have never understood why people say this. You always have to do this, with either type of camera. The moment of exposure means that you have already pushed the button. Seeing it or not seeing it makes no difference at that point. No mirror movement means slightly less mechenical lag between pushing the button and the shutter opening. It's a very small amount of time. I think you would be hard pressed to show an example of when it was really significant.

  5. #15
    TheToadMen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Netherlands, Europe
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,365
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    27
    Just go for it and have fun using it!!
    Maybe in due time you'll come along a nice used Leica with lens for a reasonable price, like I did (Leica M4-2).

    An other nice option is the Bronica RF645 if you wan't to shoot 120 roll film. A very good camera and excelent glass! And easy to use & carry.

    I just love using rangefinders.
    "Have fun and catch that light beam!"
    Bert from Holland
    my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
    my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup


    * I'm an analogue enthusiast, trying not to fall into the digital abyss.
    * My favorite cameras: Hasselblad SWC, Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T2, Nikon F4s, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,864
    Quote Originally Posted by Moopheus View Post
    I use both rangefinders and slrs and have never understood why people say this. You always have to do this, with either type of camera. The moment of exposure means that you have already pushed the button. Seeing it or not seeing it makes no difference at that point. No mirror movement means slightly less mechenical lag between pushing the button and the shutter opening. It's a very small amount of time. I think you would be hard pressed to show an example of when it was really significant.
    The amount of delay is much smaller for a range finder than for an SLR. It takes time for the mirror to move out of the light path.

    Time parallax is important for certain types of subjects, racing photos for instance. A photo of a horse or car just crossing the finish line is worth more than one which misses the moment. The examples are many; a motorcross rider in mid-jump, the football player catching the winning touchdown, etc. Of course not so important when dealing with sloths.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 09-08-2013 at 10:05 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    965
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    The amount of delay is much smaller for a range finder than for an SLR. It takes time for the mirror to move out of the light path.

    Time parallax is important for certain types of subjects, racing photos for instance. A photo of a horse or car just crossing the finish line is worth more than one which misses the moment. The examples are many; a motorcross rider in mid-jump, the football player catching the winning touchdown, etc. Of course not so important when dealing with sloths.
    I do not agree that it is "much smaller", unless you can find me actual time measurements. I have a hard time believing it is significant relative to the reaction time of your finger. Racing finish lines? Really? You won't be able to do that handheld with any camera (or if your sense of timing is that good, you can do it with any camera!). Nobody ever successfully photographed those other things with SLRs? And how often do you do that anyway?

    I still say "time parallax" is mostly bs.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    753
    Images
    9
    Examples of shutter lag times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_lag (film-based Leicas are 5x more responsive than the best SLRs, digital Leicas are about two times slower than the best DSLRs)

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    965
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by miha View Post
    Examples of shutter lag times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_lag (film-based Leicas are 5x more responsive than the best SLRs, digital Leicas are about two times slower than the best DSLRs)
    Uh, the fastest time on that list an SLR. And the difference between the Leicas and the 35mm slrs on that list is measured in 10s of milliseconds. The difference between the Leica and the slowest 35mm slr on that list is one tenth of a second. So there may be a few situations where 1/10th of a second might be visible on your photo. If you can even compensate for such a small difference in your shooting. And again I say, if you can do that, then you can do it with any camera.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    753
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Moopheus View Post
    Uh, the fastest time on that list an SLR. And the difference between the Leicas and the 35mm slrs on that list is measured in 10s of milliseconds. The difference between the Leica and the slowest 35mm slr on that list is one tenth of a second. So there may be a few situations where 1/10th of a second might be visible on your photo. If you can even compensate for such a small difference in your shooting. And again I say, if you can do that, then you can do it with any camera.
    I agree with you, every camera is fast enough, the bigest lag is in our minds.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin