Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,995   Posts: 1,524,283   Online: 866
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Stanworth View Post
    Very different beasts. No SLR is as small and discreet as a 35mm RF with small lens. People react better when I use my leicas because they think it is more of a P&S than anything else. lenses are far smaller and more pocketable...kit can be made to disappear and the Leica can go under the coat etc. Much more discreet and much easier to travel light with supreme optical performance, esp at low speeds. I specifically bought the Leica when I became fed up with street shooting using a SLR. I would use pretty well any RF over an SLR for walkabout photography. Half the weight, half the bulk, quieter etc
    A Nikon FG or one of the smaller SLRs with a 20/3.5 lens is just as small. I don't see any size advantage for the rangefinders like Leica, Bessa, or Zeiss.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by cotdt View Post
    A Nikon FG or one of the smaller SLRs with a 20/3.5 lens is just as small. I don't see any size advantage for the rangefinders like Leica, Bessa, or Zeiss.
    Well, then you stick with the Nikon! I have a FM with a 50mm pancake lens, and I know what you mean. But with such a SLR kit, it's very limiting to go compact and light weight, which is sort of why I don't really buy any other lens for my FM. The most benefit of RF in terms of the size issue is however to fit a compact 35mm lens or something wider, which might be a matter of one's preference. 35mm lenses for SLR cameras are pretty big to begin with...

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by cotdt View Post
    A Nikon FG or one of the smaller SLRs with a 20/3.5 lens is just as small. I don't see any size advantage for the rangefinders like Leica, Bessa, or Zeiss.
    3.5 is slow. I want a 2.8 at least, and I want to shoot it wide open.

  4. #24
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Hmmmm...

    Nikon FM with 20mm, 35mm and 105mm:
    1579 grammes.

    Leica M6 with 21mm, 35mm & 90mm:
    1080 grammes.

    For an extra 190 grammes I can add a 15mm to the Leica kit...

    Not to mention that the rangefinder kit is FAR more compact.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut View Post
    Hmmmm...

    Nikon FM with 20mm, 35mm and 105mm:
    1579 grammes.

    Leica M6 with 21mm, 35mm & 90mm:
    1080 grammes.

    For an extra 190 grammes I can add a 15mm to the Leica kit...

    Not to mention that the rangefinder kit is FAR more compact.
    you'll still be hanging the camera around your neck so practically it makes no difference the tiny size advantage of a rangefinder over an SLR. you still can't put them in your pocket because of the protruding lens. The Nikon FM in your example is medium-sized SLR, but there are smaller ones that pretty much equal the size of the rangefinder. the main problem with the smaller lenses is the handling. the lens focusing is too close and awkward.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrey View Post
    3.5 is slow. I want a 2.8 at least, and I want to shoot it wide open.
    get any SLR system and you can get 35/1.4 lenses, or 24/1.8 or 28/1.8 or whatever. if you want something fast, it will be bigger regardless of whether it is SLR or rangefinder lens. that said, my nikkor 50/1.2 is surprisingly small.

  7. #27
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by cotdt View Post
    you'll still be hanging the camera around your neck so practically it makes no difference the tiny size advantage of a rangefinder over an SLR. you still can't put them in your pocket because of the protruding lens.

    Actually, it is more likely to be in a hip bag.

    And, the size IS an advantage, with the 15mm and 21mm fitting in a single lens compartment with lots of room to spare.

    If size & weight are no issue, I'll gladly take my Pentax 6x7, but for long walks or trips where I want top quality, a rangefinder will be (in the huge majority of cases) better and lighter than a SLR.

    And it does fit in the pocket of my mountain jackets...

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    171
    OK fine, so rangefinder systems are slightly smaller, just slightly. And really only when it comes to ultra-wides. I'll give you that. But the purpose of ultra-wides is macro, not to fit in a big scene. A 28mm is enough for most such purposes.

    Rather, the purpose of an ultra-wide is composition. You usually have a near object and it's background, so close focus ability is essential and rangefinders are just bad at that. For example, the Distagon 35/2 can focus to less than 0.3m on an SLR, but on a rangefinder I think the closest is 0.7m. Huge difference. For me, this is a big issue.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,960
    So as we can see from these posts, each system has its advantages and disadvantages.

    For work using deep-colored lens filters, including true infrared filters, it's hard to beat a rangefinder. Focusing and composing through a red or green filter isn't always easy, and focusing through an opaque filter is impossible, especially for the autofocus cameras.

    If I was doing closeups, I would want to use an SLR. Same goes for those shots that require very precise framing, and then I would want a viewfinder with 95% or greater coverage.

    For unobtrusive shooting, I would use a rangefinder and one with a quiet shutter, which probably would be either a Leica, a Retina IIIS, the Zeiss Ikon or a prewar or postwar (black dial) Contax. Maybe a TLR, depending on whether a single lens would be sufficient, would work too.

    If I was shooting a sports event, I'd probably want a motor-driven SLR and might add auto-focus to the list.

    With film cameras being a huge bargain, you can own more than one camera system and then choose the camera to fit the situation. Use the right tool for the job. This doesn't mean that you can't use a TLR or rangefinder with auxiliary lenses for closeup work, or you can't shoot infrared with an SLR. It just means that some cameras excel at certain tasks and come up short in others.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by cotdt View Post
    get any SLR system and you can get 35/1.4 lenses, or 24/1.8 or 28/1.8 or whatever.
    35/1.4 is huge with canon. The quality is good, but it's huge.
    I've tried canon 28/1.8. Most low contrast and soft lens I've ever used. Worse than the kit lens, and that's considering that I've picked the best out of 8 copies. Plus it's not small by any means.

    if you want something fast, it will be bigger regardless of whether it is SLR or rangefinder lens. that said, my nikkor 50/1.2 is surprisingly small.
    It won't be bigger, even if it's faster. It won't be retrofocus, like SLR glass, so that's one thing. The other thing I'm hoping for is that the quality will be higher.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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