How much better is RF image quality over SLR?

jose angel · Feb 15, 2015

You should read it too
AA said that the *general rule* in hand held shooting is to use "as fast a shutter speed as you can".
He then talk about their own tests, valid for his own way of shooting. (Thanks God he used to shoot instead of chatting on internet forums).
If he found that 1/250 works for him, doesn`t mean it works for others. Looks like 1/8 is valid for some here...

Ko.Fe. · Feb 15, 2015

Winogrand told students f8 1/250 is good one.

Rangefinders are good for street, candid photography. 1/250 seems to be optimum for it, if you don't like motion blur.

Alan Klein · Feb 15, 2015

the only rangefinder I ever had was a Nikonos IVa underwater camera. I always found I got very sharp above water shots with the 35mm lens. I always liked the muted slight "thud" when you tripped the shutter, Very nice camera to shoot although heavy. Solid and fun. Never had to worry about water, rain, sand, dirt or schmutz.

Bill Burk · Feb 15, 2015

RobC said:
Oh shame shame shame on you.

My recollection was that it was god himself who said it but I didn't like to say so without finding it first. Well I have found it and I was wrong. It was 1/250 to hand hold still.

You should read Ansel Adams the The Camera sometime. The section on hand held cameras "Shutter Speed" around page 116.

It's enlightening to know that experts on the zone system haven't read his books or weren't paying attention when they did.

Now who is going to contradict god himself?

Kind of puts 1/15 into perspective if he's right and I have no reason to doubt it

You've finally caught me.

I have two each of The Negative and The Print, but no copies of The Camera...

Bill Burk · Feb 15, 2015

A quote I heard yesterday seems fitting, David Carr - I now inhabit a life I dont deserve, but we all walk this earth feeling we are frauds. The trick is to be grateful and hope the caper doesnt end soon.

At one point in my life I held an inside joke to myself that I should start a group called the "1/60 at f/5.6 Group" because that was what I was always shooting Kodachrome 25 at.

But I know one series of handheld photographs I took at 1/60 with a 35mm camera (probably 50mm lens), color landscapes that would have been better served by a 4x5 camera. Lupine fields on the approach to Mount Goddard as the trail departs from the John Muir Trail and peters out into cross-country. Many of these shots are critically unsharp when enlarged. That really got my little dog Toto.

I don't even have a little dog Toto*, but I ALWAYS carry a tripod. So I never had any excuse for shooting handheld.

*Tom T-Bone Stankus

RobC · Feb 15, 2015

A bigger negative covers a multitude of sins

fotch · Feb 15, 2015

Alan Klein said:
the only rangefinder I ever had was a Nikonos IVa underwater camera. I always found I got very sharp above water shots with the 35mm lens. I always liked the muted slight "thud" when you tripped the shutter, Very nice camera to shoot although heavy. Solid and fun. Never had to worry about water, rain, sand, dirt or schmutz.

Scale focus only. Not a rangefinder camera. :confused:

cliveh · Feb 15, 2015

jose angel said:
You should read it too
AA said that the *general rule* in hand held shooting is to use "as fast a shutter speed as you can".
He then talk about their own tests, valid for his own way of shooting. (Thanks God he used to shoot instead of chatting on internet forums).
If he found that 1/250 works for him, doesn`t mean it works for others. Looks like 1/8 is valid for some here...

I thought most of AA shots were made on a tripod.

Sirius Glass · Feb 15, 2015

cliveh said:
I thought most of AA shots were made on a tripod.

Yes, but as he aged he stopped using large format as often and used a Hasselblad.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 15, 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

I never noticed any quality difference with viewfinders and enjoy the flexibility of SLRs. C camera and lens manufacturers have done a good job designing around the given constraints to optimize both systems.What fits your hands and way of working is more important than any image quality differences, which I don't think exist. an AF SLR is hard to beat by any manualrangefinderfocus with rhe possible exception of infinity focus.

fotch · Feb 15, 2015

RalphLambrecht said:
I never noticed any quality difference with viewfinders and enjoy the flexibility of SLRs. C camera and lens manufacturers have done a good job designing around the given constraints to optimize both systems.What fits your hands and way of working is more important than any image quality differences, which I don't think exist. an AF SLR is hard to beat by any manualrangefinderfocus with rhe possible exception of infinity focus.

I have to agree.

heespharm · Feb 15, 2015

RalphLambrecht said:
I never noticed any quality difference with viewfinders and enjoy the flexibility of SLRs. C camera and lens manufacturers have done a good job designing around the given constraints to optimize both systems.What fits your hands and way of working is more important than any image quality differences, which I don't think exist. an AF SLR is hard to beat by any manualrangefinderfocus with rhe possible exception of infinity focus.

I agree to disagree... Different strokes for different folks

Or some other cliche

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

benjiboy · Feb 15, 2015

I try not to get too hung up on equipment, or believe everything I read about it, I suggest the original poster does the same.

Patrick Robert James · Feb 15, 2015

Rangefinder lenses on the wide end are definitely better than their SLR counterparts. Whether or not that matters to you though is up to you.

ambaker · Feb 15, 2015

Every time I see a photograph I really like, I go out and buy the same equipment; so that I can take a picture like that. Saves all the arguing over which is best.

Now, if only I could remember which equipment went with which photos....

Sirius Glass · Feb 15, 2015

RalphLambrecht said:
I never noticed any quality difference with viewfinders and enjoy the flexibility of SLRs. C camera and lens manufacturers have done a good job designing around the given constraints to optimize both systems.What fits your hands and way of working is more important than any image quality differences, which I don't think exist. an AF SLR is hard to beat by any manualrangefinderfocus with rhe possible exception of infinity focus.

One can make either one take great photographs.

One can make either one screw up photographs.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 15, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
One can make either one take great photographs.
One can make either one screw up photographs.

if that's the only criteria,then a pinhole should do.

Vilk · Feb 15, 2015

the RFs are so verry mucho better than SLRs that they were making me feel totally inadequate and i had to sell all my leicas and keep all my nikons just to be able to take pictures at all... peeps say no difference between the pictures before and after tho'

Sirius Glass · Feb 16, 2015

Vilk said:
the RFs are so verry mucho better than SLRs that they were making me feel totally inadequate and i had to sell all my leicas and keep all my nikons just to be able to take pictures at all... peeps say no difference between the pictures before and after tho'

Some of the best RF photographs are taken with the lens cap on. This is not a problem with SLRs.

zanxion72 · Feb 16, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
Some of the best RF photographs are taken with the lens cap on. This is not a problem with SLRs.

It has been just last week I was out with my lovely Minolta HiMatic 7sII. While taking shots there had been several elderly people looking at me puzzled. I thought that they were thinking of look what that guy is doing, but a few moments later I have realized I had been shooting with the lens cap on.

baachitraka · Feb 16, 2015

Try to focus an off-centered subject with a Range Finder... :munch:

R.Gould · Feb 16, 2015

baachitraka said:
Try to focus an off-centered subject with a Range Finder... :munch:

I often do as, apart from my Rolleuflex/cord, I only ever use rangefinder's, not because of any better image quality but because I prefer them, and I often find myself taking photos in low light, I can, and often do hand hold my rangefinders, with between lens shutters, at speeds as low as 1/2 second. as to focusing on off center subject, simple, just focus on the subject and re compose, take the shot, just like you would with an old AF slr with only one focus point

tomfrh · Feb 16, 2015

Thanks for all your help guys!

I've learned that there's no practical difference between SLR and RF image quality, except that RF image quality is incomparably superior to SLR.

I've also learned that there's no real difference in their hand-held performance, aside from RF's ability to shoot at 1/8 and still get sharp photos.

RobC · Feb 16, 2015

Glad thats all clear as mud then

The long and the short of it is that has already been pointed out by several people, hand holding remove any advantages of lens quality/design that one has over another.
But if you are tripod mounting, use zeiss method for absorbing vibrations, use lenses with leaf shutters, then you will see a difference if there is one there to be seen.
i.e. technique counts for a lot when it comes to optimum obtainable resolution.

benjiboy · Feb 16, 2015

Opinions are like ass holes everybody has one.

How much better is RF image quality over SLR?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency