How much better is RF image quality over SLR?

BrianShaw · Feb 12, 2015

David Lyga said:
... I simply do not know, but for a lens to sell for multiples of what a Nikon lens does, maybe there HAS to be a reason.

Nobody ever want to try to explain that... but it is quite a fact!

David Lyga · Feb 12, 2015

Maybe, quantitativeness should at least get engaged to esoterism, even mysticism.

Maybe there are effects that, although we are not conscious of, are there, nevertheless. I tend to want proof in life, but all I am saying is this: everything that is 'there' might not be visible in a direct sense. - David Lyga

David Allen · Feb 12, 2015

Moopheus said:
Since this is only a factor after you've already pressed the shutter, it's hard to see how it could possibly affect your photo.

If at the point of taking your picture (pressing the shutter) something moves into the frame you can see this with a rangefinder and rectify the situation. With an SLR you will not have seen it happen.

In general, it is not much of a problem for most people for most of the time. However, if you had to multiple shots of large groups of people you would value the benefits that a rangefinder delivers. One of the most boring (but rather lucrative) jobs that I regularly did when I worked commercially was large groups of people in a busy conference situation where nobody had the time or inclination to hang around waiting for me to take multiple frames to ensure that I had one with all of them with their eyes open. With a rangefinder you can pretty much see everyones eyes as the flash goes off. With practice you can do this to some extent with a Hasselblad (or similar camera with waist level finder) where you focus, frame and then look up at the point of depressing the shutter.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

fotch · Feb 12, 2015

The best lens is the one you use. :munch:

baachitraka · Feb 12, 2015

You don't need to worry about RF or SLR, when you are on TLR land.

wildbill · Feb 12, 2015

11% better.

Moopheus · Feb 12, 2015

David Allen said:
If at the point of taking your picture (pressing the shutter) something moves into the frame you can see this with a rangefinder and rectify the situation. With an SLR you will not have seen it happen.

No, you cannot react fast enough. The shutter is open for far less time than it takes for a signal to get from your brain to your fingers.

benjiboy · Feb 12, 2015

This is a perennial question that people ask, and in more than 60 years of using range finder and S.L.R. cameras as far as image quality is concerned for practical purposes I have seen no perceivable difference.

BrianShaw · Feb 12, 2015

Even when my eyesight was better, my experience was quite the same.

E. von Hoegh · Feb 12, 2015

tomfrh said:
I've read that Rangefinders have better image quality than SLRs due to not having to accomodate a moving mirror.

How significant is this in practice?

Does anyone have any links to photos taken with a good rangefinder vs an SLR?

My background is 35mm slr shooting. Rangefinders are a bit of a mystery!

Tom

Fourty-two.

MattKing · Feb 12, 2015

Bob Carnie said:
I may disagree with most- but for a long period of time when I was printing portfolios for film photographers on a regular basis.. Rangefinders (Leica , Contax, Fuji 69 to name a few) completely blew out Nikon, Minolta, and Canon in terms of print quality.

The only mirror slap camera that seemed to hold was the Hassalblad...

Also most of the fashion photographers in my neck of the woods used Pentax 6 x7 because of that big slap , and the more gentle skin tones..

:munch:

This is because rangefinders are sexier .

frank · Feb 12, 2015

wildbill said:
11% better.

Thank you!

fotch · Feb 12, 2015

wildbill said:
11% better.

+1

MDR · Feb 12, 2015

Mustafa I have to disagree Leica glass is good but Schott glass = Zeiss is better. Leica glass is more rounded though and Zeiss is more clinical for photography I prefer the former for microscopes the latter.

As for the difference between Slr and RF some lens construction are not really suitable for SLR the 50mm Sonnar design is one of them longer Sonnars are available for SLR, Wide angles lenses for RF cameras don't need to be retrofocus designs in reality many of them are. As for the image quality I believe that since RF allows the use of simplier lens designs they often fair better than SLR lenses that are more complicated designs with more elements and therefore have less contrast. With modern lenses the difference shouldn't be visible. As an exception to the rule for a short time the Summicron for the R Leicas was better than the Summicron for the Ms the modern APO-Summicrons are again sharper than their predecessors but also lack any kind of soul imo.

As a final word it depends on the Rangefinder and lens you use for a time pretty much every camera mfg. made Rangefinders. The camera with ther highest RF accurancy was the Contax and the results from the Sonnars paired with a Contax are hard to beat. Pre-War Leicas are not as good as the Contax neither are the pre-war leica lenses better than their Zeiss counterparts.

Nodda Duma · Feb 12, 2015

BrianShaw said:
Nobody ever want to try to explain that... but it is quite a fact!

Actually I provided a theory based on my experience in the industry above. Schott glass, lower volumes, and German labor all contribute to higher cost...but not necessarily higher quality.

David Lyga said:
. There might be something subliminal about Leica glass even though saying 'might' might (justifiably) rile the mathemeticians amongst us.

I'm not sure what a mathematician would think. I don't know of any mathematicians who really understand the practical aspects of optics. My opinion, based on living and breathing optics -- REAL optics, not just academic theory -- for decades, is that this is a Ford vs. Chevy argument. A Ford guy will always think Ford makes the best truck.

BrianShaw · Feb 12, 2015

Nodda Duma said:
Actually I provided a theory based on my experience in the industry above. Schott glass, lower volumes, and German labor all contribute to higher cost...but not necessarily higher quality.

Pardon my error. Yes you did.

tomfrh · Feb 13, 2015

Thanks for all your replies!

One or two of you have mentioned that you can shoot at a slower shutter speed with a rangefinder and still maintain a sharp image. I don't understand why a rangefinder would allow slower shutter speeds. Could someone explain?

Moopheus · Feb 13, 2015

tomfrh said:
Thanks for all your replies!

One or two of you have mentioned that you can shoot at a slower shutter speed with a rangefinder and still maintain a sharp image. I don't understand why a rangefinder would allow slower shutter speeds. Could someone explain?

Basically, less vibration in the camera from no mirror slap, esp. With leaf shutters. Also, rf cameras are typically smaller and lighter than slrs.

jose angel · Feb 13, 2015

tomfrh said:
Thanks for all your replies!

One or two of you have mentioned that you can shoot at a slower shutter speed with a rangefinder and still maintain a sharp image. I don't understand why a rangefinder would allow slower shutter speeds. Could someone explain?
---
Basically, less vibration in the camera from no mirror slap, esp. With leaf shutters. Also, rf cameras are typically smaller and lighter than slrs.

Beware: there is a huge myth on this, so I understand that you don`t understand this. I don`t understand it, too

Think that when shooting handheld, the movement induced by arms (vibration) is waaaay higher (<<much higher>>) than the one from the mirror slap, so the mirror is not an issue at all. It looks like some can hold a camera like screwed over concrete, up to the point that the mirror vibrations cause unsharpness while their body don`t... (!)

Camera shake is caused by an angular movement; a lighter camera is not necessarily better to avoid this movement. In fact, I`d say the opposite, as a bigger mass need a higher force to be moved. Hmmm, and what about ergonomics? I think it plays a more important role here, even more than a lighter or heavier weight. And...

Just one more thing; "still maintain a sharp image". What does it mean? It`s obvious that handholding a camera will cause image unsharpness. So, is there a point where an unsharp image is sharp? Is there somebody that when shooting handheld, get the very same level of sharpness/unsharpness on each shot? I think not.

Paul Cunningham · Feb 13, 2015

Moopheus said:
Basically, less vibration in the camera from no mirror slap, esp.

This is the most salient point for me, and a reason why many SLRs (Hasselblad, Nikon) have mirror lock up modes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jose angel · Feb 13, 2015

... to shot on a tripod (tripods are actually steadier than arms).

Xmas · Feb 13, 2015

No sale only the very early SLR system cameras had much mirror bounce (impulse) on mirror up.

The early Nikon F production was most pronounced, cause I don't hold a camera tight I never used less than 1/250, but by Nikon F2 or FM the impulse was much less. For example I can feel the shutter curtain acceleration impulse on a Leica M, but a F2 is not really worse.

The F mirror lockup was to clear the 21mm symmetric wide angle, it was not usable for vibration reduction normally.

But if you are testing even 135 mm lenses on rfdr or SLR you need a solid tripod, otherwise you will be testing the tripod vibration spectra... 50 kg of ferro concrete...

Dali · Feb 13, 2015

tomfrh said:
I've read that Rangefinders have better image quality than SLRs due to not having to accomodate a moving mirror.

How significant is this in practice?

Does anyone have any links to photos taken with a good rangefinder vs an SLR?

My background is 35mm slr shooting. Rangefinders are a bit of a mystery!

Tom

Photographers often rant about image sharpness but, at the end of the day, they mostly buy SLR. This (and other comments read here) would give you the answer to your question.

BrianShaw · Feb 13, 2015

jose angel said:
Beware: there is a huge myth on this, so I understand that you don`t understand this. I don`t understand it, too

Think that when shooting handheld, the movement induced by arms (vibration) is waaaay higher (<<much higher>>) than the one from the mirror slap. It looks like some can hold a camera like screwed over concrete, up to the point that the mirror vibrations cause unsharpness while their body don`t... (!)

Camera shake is caused by an angular movement; a lighter camera is not necessarily better to avoid this movement. In fact, I`d say the opposite, as a bigger mass need a higher force to be moved. Hmmm, and what about ergonomics? I think it plays a more important role here, even more than a lighter or heavier weight. And...

Just one more thing; "still maintain a sharp image". What does it mean? It`s obvious that handholding a camera will cause image unsharpness. So, is there a point where an unsharp image is sharp? Is there somebody that when shooting handheld, get the very same level of sharpness/unsharpness on each shot?

I'd really LOVE to see data on this. There is a lot of anecdotal stories but I remain skeptical that the difference is as big as some folks portray it to be.

Xmas · Feb 13, 2015

BrianShaw said:
I'd really LOVE to see data on this. There is a lot of anecdotal stories but I remain skeptical that the difference is as big as some folks portray it to be.

If it is small enough for the difference to not be detectable then you wont get much evidence.

There may be more difference in how two different people hold (ie release the shutter of) a camera than in the impulse two different cameras produce pre and during the exposure.

The people who shoot in available darkness successfully will be using every trick in the book.

Blue tacking both the table legs to floor and the camera base plate to the table during pub jazz gig with noisy drummer, lots of light but Fresnels facing the wrong way.

How much better is RF image quality over SLR?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency