Yup. Or obsessives. Move up a format if things like that matter. Absolute sharpness in 35mm is like owning the world's largest Shetland pony.sounds like a rich -man's problem.
I mean the nature of SLRs is that you view at full aperture*. This is generally held to be a disadvantage for composition**. However if the lighting conditions necessitate the widest possible aperture, being able to see how the scene will look photographed is a definite advantage***.You mean
-) fast lenses make only sense with SLRS, due to the brighter finder image, nonwithstanding effects on shutter speed or DOF?
or
-) fast lenses make no sense at rangefinder camera due to the rangefinder not being precise enough?
Yup. Or obsessives. Move up a format if things like that matter. Absolute sharpness in 35mm is like owning the world's largest Shetland pony.
Never understood the fuss about fast lenses for rangefinder cameras, either. Fortunately for camera shops, some people care.
True. Also rangefinders are delicate mechanisms that go out of whack easily compared to a Fresnel screen.a rangefinder may lead to the opposite, the misconception of high DOF.
Good idea. You could always use a hotshoe finder of course.A answer to this was the Praktina SLR. Not only the very first system-SLR, but it also incorporared in addition a Galilei-finder
Yes, quite a few had spring mounted DoF buttons. I suspect they were rarely used as the screen darkened enough to make sharpness hard to tell.Also some SLRs had the DOF control at ones release-fingertip
And if Cartier-Bresson had a Novar he would still be better than all of you. Isn't this kind of like deciding whether to get rid of your Michelangelo or your Raphael?
It's a complex argument I'm not equipped to answer, but there are a number of potential weak spots in all film cameras that have been addressed with varying degrees of success. One is the flatness of the film plane. Contax went for a vacuum back on their last RTS iteration - no point having an optically stellar lens if the film isn't optimally placed. Helicoid focusing mechanisms can produce movement if they are worn or imperfectly made, especially in longer lenses. A millimetre of focus movement can be the difference between sharp and soft. The Contax rangefinder mount has no lens helicoid, all focusing is done on the camera body. Digital sensors collect light rays horizontally via the rear lens element, film is more forgiving of the angle of luminance.Can anyone comment on the idea of 35mm rangefinders having an advantage over SLRs optically (and getting the most out of optics) due to the lens not needing to be moved outward to make room for a mirror mechanism as is the case in SLRs? Clearly this need for shifting the lens outwards has been managed well by optical designers, but at what cost?
Can anyone comment on the idea of 35mm rangefinders having an advantage over SLRs optically (and getting the most out of optics) due to the lens not needing to be moved outward to make room for a mirror mechanism as is the case in SLRs? Clearly this need for shifting the lens outwards has been managed well by optical designers, but at what cost?
I can't think of any reason why an SLR is at an optical disadvantage, ...
...bellows cameras in all formats separate the lens from the film plane. ...
Adding an optical group not designed to concquer faults in existing groups, but to achieve an additional effect (here extending rear focal distance), from my point of view must be regarded as additional source for aberrations. And data confirms my view.
...bellows cameras in all formats separate the lens from the film plane. ...
Retro focusing lenses for compacts like the Olympus clamshell designs managed to shrink things further. OTOH Mamiya TLRs retained fine optical quality at lens extensions long enough to require substantial exposure compensation. According to Nikon, the larger lens throat on their latest full frame digital - bearing in mind it's the same format as 35mm - allows for improved wide angle lens design, especially wide aperture versions. I suspect the IQ differences are at the optical extremes rather than run of the mill 35 to 135mm designs.That is a good point, and why I started with 35mm thinking it is more of a film size issue, but you are correct that there are 35mm bellows cameras also (such as the Retina RFs). I suspect the bellows are used more to allow folding in these cases than a need to extend the lens out further than other RF 35mms, but I could be wrong (it may also depend on lens design).
The Olympus clamshell cameras just employ the opposite to retro-focus optical design.Retro focusing lenses for compacts like the Olympus clamshell designs managed to shrink things further.
My mistake, retrofocus is a reverse telephoto lens.Exactly - reversed retrofocus is the term.
I don’t have any lenses that hold me back because of lack of quality. Both of the op’s lenses would be more than enough for my skills, but I happen to have the ZM sonnar. I really like that lens and wouldn’t dream of replacing it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?