As you say, it's about strong points for the job. That was my point.
Originally Posted by John Koehrer
After all, I did say, "My opinion is that rangefinders are definitely 'fun,' and hold the occasional advantage in the occasional situation. I have a few, and I love them and the results, when used in suitable situations."
We perhaps disagree on what the strong points and suitable situations are. That's perfectly understandable, as we are different shooters. But how you read that I was stating that rangefinders are toy cameras and SLRs are real cameras from what I wrote, I do not understand; it was not suggested that a rangefinder is only for fun and an SLR is only for serious. It was simply and clearly stated that "rangefinders definitley are fun." It was a "compliment" to them, not a statement that they only hold use for the purpose of "fun."
I, for one, think they are terrible for low-light focusing, in general, and provide very little advantage in the area of stealth. That is created by the photographer more than anything IMO. As for framing, one might say that one prefers framing with a rangefinder, and who is to argue; but to say that the framing and spatial depiction of the image is more representative of what will appear on the film with a rangefinder, or that SLRs are less representative of it simply because most amateur models do not have 100 percent viewfinders is simply not correct, on an objective level. As for timing, being able to see the exact moment of exposure does not matter to me, or to any of the professionals who make their livings by having perfect timing; they use SLRs almost entirely, because they provide the best compromise of focus, framing, and timing. Maybe with a RF these guys' and gals' timing might seem a touch better, but I don't see anyone complaining about what they do with SLRs. How much would their focus and framing sink in quality if using RF's? So much that any possible, and slight, timing advantage would be rendered null and void. The skill of perfect timing comes almost entirely from the photographer, not from the camera.
Each camera has its characteristics, and like anything involving photography, it is a balancing act deciding which things are important for the work being done. When an RF's characteristics are not more burdensome or detracting than SLR characteristics, I love using my RFs.
And the subjectivity of which I spoke related to the "romanticism" and "urban legend" that goes around to "champion" their use. My "fun" comment came from the fact that I wish people could quit with this, and simply say that they personally enjoy using them. In other words, if you are going to make a subjective judgment of an item, just state it as a subjective judgment; there is nothing wrong with that. Don't try to prove a subjective statement by objective argument, was what I should have said.
Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-17-2011 at 09:07 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
I love reading threads about what lens is better or what camera body is better. They make me laugh. Everyone weights in with their pixel peeping. If more photographers spend less time on worrying about shooting resolution charts, comparing shutter lag times, bokeh, etc., and spent more time on developing their photographic instincts and shooting images they would see a vast improvement in their photography regardless of the equipment. The major manufacturers have spent millions of dollars in R&D and have hundreds of well-trained technicians designing and buildings lenses and cameras which will provide a photographer with excellent tools for taking pictures. The difference between Nikon X and Canon Y is so small it can only be measured in a lab. In the real world people can't tell the difference in a finished print nor do they care. A good photograph is a good photograph. I don't care what type of pencil or ink was used to write War and Peace. I only care that the book is a masterpiece.
I am an archaeologist and newly finished tool making , tool shape and detail selection to intelligence link book. If you look in to paleolithic stone tools which humanity works on them for 3000000 years , you find older ones are bigger and less details on them and new ones smaller and every corner hand tooled .
If you look at them , you find that range finder cameras with little lenses like Leica is the most linked to our stone tools. And people agree to that toolmaking impact on our progress of intelligence , brain organization , thinking and creating habits.
There is two options , bigger camera users are idiots because tool making points that or geniuses because they went one step more on Darwin selection but their photographs do not indicate this.
I find more happy myself when holding a Leica but not with EOS.
I have used everything from 8x10 to Leicas... Leica is the only camera to let me down twice, with dragging shutter curtains in 20°F weather.
After playing with a very fine Canon P, I decided funky framing issues with telephoto lenses and such, that I was missing many shot I would have just grabbed with a Nikon F, or similar tool.
As far as image quality and compactness, the Hasselblad system with 80mm and 150mm are hard to beat.
The Hasselblad SWC is the best non-retrofocus wide known to man (I do not own one... but borrow one from time to time. I know a guy that mounted it on a view camera and used it with 8x10 film.
For general cary around fun, I like a TLR... but still know the SLR is the way to go for best framing of my vision up close.
I have no issue with shutter lag, and while the mystique of the Rangefinder draws us in, generally the SLR was made to solve all the deficiencies of the mostly more primative rangefinder.
Yet the 8x10 camera is the ultimate tool at capturing life or the essence of the experience on a 2 dimensional sheet, a window on a past reality... a clock for seeing.
I stand by to be flamed.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
In my experience, RF lenses from 50mm and down tend to be smaller and have less distortion than their SLR counterparts. Part of the size difference is that most RF lenses are manual focus still; part of it is because of design. RF wides generally seem to have more vignetting to me as well.
As far as sharpness and contrast goes, I think that has less to do with the differences between RF and SLR design nowadays (if it ever did) and more with the resources a particular company decides to pout into a particularly design.
This is the funniest post mail I got in my life Thank you very much.
I won't flame you directly, but your guy is having you on.
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
I have a 38/4.5 Biogon in Copal #0 that I use on a Century Graphic. The lens covers 84 mm with good sharpness and illumination, cuts off completely at around 87 mm. Puts absolutely nothing at all in 2x3's corners.
On 8x10 it would make a circular image 84 mm in diameter. Massive waste of film on 8x10. Is there an 8x10 camera on which it can be focused to infinity?
38/4.5, 45/4.5, 53/4.5, and 75/4.5 Biogons made to Bertele's 1952 (or is it '53?) patent are old designs. There are better -- sharper, less distortion -- wide angle lenses nowadays. I adore my 38 Biogon, have no delusions that it is the best.
My wife sings along with that while driving
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
I saw the 8x10 negs... It was a photo-prof. Perhaps it was not a Biogon off a swc but another Biogon... but that's what I was told.
I also knew that guy to have "smoked" a few.
.... no more quoting stuff from people that lived the 1960's to the fullest.