How much better is RF image quality over SLR?

[tomfrh]

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

 

[pdeeh]

utterly insignificant unless you're mounting your cameras on optical benches and making pictures of test charts, and then you'll be hard pressed to see anything

 

[Slixtiesix]

Please mind also that using a rangefinder can be much more inconvenient than using an SLR viewfinder when it comes to focussing and composing.

 

[chrisaisenbrey]

The mirror in SLR is only a “problem” for wide angle lenses. There SLR have to use the retrofocus design for the lens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angénieux_retrofocus ). The retrofocus design is more difficult to correct for distortion but I think they are a better for vignetting.

 

[Xmas]

Hi

Dont think you will detect any difference in IQ unless your tripod is one cubic foot of concrete with a screw on top.
Only early SLR wides will have a lot of distortion, but only annoying for architecture shots.
All (but the early) SLRs have very little mirror slap (now).
You can get cheaper fast wide lenses for a range finder, compared to a SLR.
And you can focus readily in twilight with a rangefinder.
A canon P, VI or 7 system kit is not that expensive, though dearer than e.g.an OM1 equivalent, supply and demand, not IQ.

Noel

 

[Jim Jones]

As suggested above, there's little difference with comparable lenses. The dearth of zooms for rangefinder cameras gives them one advantage in image quality. Framing can be more precise in a SLR. Each has advantages in focusing in certain circumstances. I've used both rangefinder and SLR for too many decades, and see little difference in image quality. Any differences that do exist are usually masked by shortcomings in the photographer's technique.

 

[snapguy]

Hoary myths

Hoary myths, like monsters under a kid's bed, stalk the land. One of them is how superior MY camera or lens is to YOUR camera or lens. Balderdash and hooey. I used a Leica M2R rangefinder and a Nikon F SLR interchangeably for professional photography and it would be impossible for anyone to see any difference in the quality. The rangefinder focused faster in low light levels and when using flash in low light level situations the rangefinder would allow you to actually see what you photographed because the flash would light up the subject for you in the rangefinder window but the SLR mirror, of course, would slap shut at about that time. Of course you could always keep your other eye open when using a SLR, thus be able to see the subject being illuminated. My Nikon SLR had a motor drive but my Leica did not. Leica did not believe in motor drives for still cameras in those long ago days because they said static electricity would build up and ruin your film. Dumb! I attended two Leica Photojournalism Flying Short Courses and this was one commandment no doubt was given to them by Moses as the 13th Commandment. The 14th Commandment was we can stand on our Leica camera it is so rugged, and Nikon cannot. I don't want any dumb camera I can stand on, I want to get the photos I set out to get. I got rid of my Leica.
The whole point of all this is don't be swayed by some dumb thing one person or the other vomits onto the Internet, including this one. Do due diligence -- see for yourself. You're the guy you have to satisfy, not the Gods of the Net.

 

[RobC]

The mirror isn't the actual problem, its that without it you can use lens designs such as biogons which are better corrected and much closer to the film. BUT these biogon lenses are usually 50mm and shorter focal lengths so if you are using 75 85 or 135 lenses and longer focal length lenses you will likely see absolutely no difference.
But if you are using 50mm and shorter with the right lens design then potentially you can see a difference but I would suggest only with the newest lenses such as the Zeiss M mount lenses where the optics have been improved significantly compared to older M mount lenses. Newest glass types and design refinements such that MTF charts show improvements. BUT you gotta get a good example of any particular lens and hold camera truly still otherwise all bets are off.
That's the theory, whether reality matches only you can tell if it works for you.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

mtf test reports only infinity focus and resolution of flat surface. If you look for 3d surface isotomes to isophotes transformation and read 3d in 2d , you have to buy a leica. And old leicas are better and they are rangefinders. So leica rangefinder is far away better than the new most expensive japanese toyota , as bach better than disco music.

 

[David Allen]

When I worked commercially, my main camera was a Hasselblad and, for specific uses, I also had a Fuji 6 x 9 rangefinder. At larger print sizes, you could certainly see a difference but this was probably more to do with the Fuji's larger negative.

Whilst it is certainly harder to make a good standard - wide-angle lens for an SLR in comparison to a rangefinder, this in reality should only effect the cheaper end of the market.

The main differences are more in terms of ways of working:

With a rangefinder:

• your view of the subject is never interrupted by the mirror
• you can view things entering the frame
• you can see exactly what you have photographed when using a flash (i.e if the subject closed their eyes or if you are getting a rogue reflection, etc)
• When working hand-held, you can shoot at significantly slower speeds and the shutter is generally quieter

With an SLR:

• you can (depending upon model) be more accurate with framing
• you will have a much range of glass available to you
• you can (depending upon model) use a pentaprism or a waist-level finder

At the end of the day, it is really just a question of what suits your photography better.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[gone]

I haven't seen any real wold differences. A sharp lens is a sharp lens. Theoretically there might be, as the closer the rear element of the lens is to the film plane, the greater the potential for a sharper shot. By that, then theoretically the RF SHOULD be sharper. but I've never seen it. The RF might be sharper at slow speeds wide open, as there's no mirror bouncing around, but I hand hold SLRs down to 1/30 or even 1/15 occasionally w/o any issues.

 

[removed-user-1]

With a rangefinder: ... When working hand-held, you can shoot at significantly slower speeds and the shutter is generally quieter

These two factors are the reasons I use a rangefinder in addition to my SLR cameras. It has little to do with any inherent improvement in the lens quality.

 

[jose angel]

Please mind also that using a rangefinder can be much more inconvenient than using an SLR viewfinder when it comes to focussing and composing.

Not every time; there are scenarios where it`s easier (faster) to focus with the RF patch than with a ground glass. Also, there is some additional view outside the frame, it could help for composing. Needless to say that using a near 1x viewfinder is great, too. RF users know it quite good.

 

[David Lyga]

as bach better than disco music.

Unquestionably, Mustafa, you are without peer here in the 'musical correctness' category, and we do thank you for this definitive, noteworthy affirmation.

All I have to say about the rangefinder issue is this: I think that most newcomers on APUG would be astounded with how good even 'cheap' rangefinder cameras can perform with their (usually) slightly wide angle lenses (as long as their focus mechanism is confruent with real (film plane) focus. There is a considerable advantage (at least in theory, as formulaic workarounds have been 'around' since the advent of the computer) with the wide angle lens' (ideal) close proximity to film plane not being restricted by that SLR mirror. In sum, it is easier for such optically refined lenses to be made for RF cameras than for SLRs.

Of course, David Allen's inference it true: the RF's superior usability (hand held) at slower shutter speeds is brought about because of far less internal movement (facilitated by that lack of mirror). But it is interesting to see how more popular the SLR became as a result of its overall advantages outweighing its disadvantages. Still, RF cameras certainly do have their rightful place. - David Lyga

 

[RobC]

mtf test reports only infinity focus and resolution of flat surface. If you look for 3d surface isotomes to isophotes transformation and read 3d in 2d , you have to buy a leica. And old leicas are better and they are rangefinders. So leica rangefinder is far away better than the new most expensive japanese toyota , as bach better than disco music.

So leica lenses can focus on more than one focus plane at once. I've heard it all now.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Stopped down there's no reason to suspect that designed for rangefinder vs. SLR is the differentiator.

When wide open... Providing enough back focus to accommodate the mirror in an SLR is a compromise in the design of the lens. Without the need for this compromise, theoretically a better rangefinder lens is possible. Note this is a concern only for wide angle lenses, when the focal length is a bit shorter than the mounting flange to film plane distance.

In practice, however, SLR lens designs have been developed much more extensively and over a longer period of time than rangefinder camera optics. Therefore I'd suspect a typical SLR lens would perform as good or better than a rangefinder lens.

Btw..Mustafa, you're a pretty sharp fellow and I enjoy reading your posts, but with all due respect you gotta stop mixing optical design and mysticism. There's no magic in Leica lens performance...just good design and expensive (for the time) high index low-dispersion glass types. The glass types Leitz worked with have now been in use for decades. Their early designs are in the public domain and well-understood in the optical design community, but honestly are a bit dated today. They can serve as starting points for new designs, but so can the hundreds of other prescriptions compiled in design catalogs such as ZeBase or packaged with Code V.

 

[David Lyga]

Stopped down there's no reason to suspect that designed for rangefinder vs. SLR is the differentiator.
There's no magic in Leica lens performance...just good design and expensive (for the time) glass types. The glass types Leitz worked with have been in use for decades. .

I happen to agree with you, but WHY is a new Leica 50mm lens selling for USD 5000? Apparently, this is an example of 'brand loyalty' in the extreme. I (we) are asking you, Nodda, a lens designer ... why, when a Nikon lens can be had for less than 1/20th of that price? - David Lyga

 

[Nodda Duma]

I happen to agree with you, but WHY is a new Leica 50mm lens selling for USD 5000? Apparently, this is an example of 'brand loyalty' in the extreme. I (we) are asking you, Nodda, a lens designer ... why? - David Lyga

Educated guess: Probably a 50% markup, meaning 2500 is split between assembly labor and material, with half the material cost being optics... $1250 split across 6-8 lenses is believable for optics with reasonable tolerances and maybe an asphere or so fabricated in Germany. I'd be curious to know what their production run numbers are. tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands a year? That price would probably be right in line for those quantities made in Europe (more expensive even than US-made optics)...especially if they are held to a higher standard == tighter tolerance and alignment requirement.

Yeah you're paying for the name brand, the relatively low volume, and the additional touch labor for alignment & test. But not for magical glass itself.

One note on the glass: the Leica Summicron used high index glass obtained from the Chance Brothers in England. When thorium oxide glass fell out of favor due to its radioactivity, Leitz and Schott developed the glass type LaK9 , the original lanthanum oxide glass. It's international glass code is 691547 and it is made by all the glass houses (OHARA equivalent is S-LAL9). Nowadays there's better choices available.

But I digress.

From an optical design standpoint, I really like the Nikkor 50 f/1.8 series E.

 

[RobC]

Because Leica specifically target the luxury end of the market and people with loads of money buy into it because they believe what they are told about superior this and that.
I never owned a Leica but I'm sure they were very good. But who were they competing against at those prices? No one, so in their market of course they were the best. Unfortunately the people who bought into that believe what they buy is the best.

Get hold of some Leica advertising literature amd you'll see what I mean. And you nedd to have experieced the German class system to understand what Leica is all about.

 

[Moopheus]

[*]your view of the subject is never interrupted by the mirror

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.

 

[Bob Carnie]

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:

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

David, Nodda,

You pay for their mathematics knowledge and quantum knowledge, art history knowledge, when in this world , you cant obtain a photocopy of a book from a library , same way , you must pay for their it.

Last two papers on mathematics of Leica quality published at 1955 and 1966. There is no paper since 50 years. What does it means , your software could not recognize what mathematics inside of a leica lens.

There are 8 things,

First , Leica Glass Research , they invented most important glasses with quantum physics and chemistry.

Second , Their knowledge of 3D Transfer Function and double PSF phase interaction

Third , Their knowledge for optical transfer function of 3D surfaces on to film. If you did not notice a 16th century south german ivory carving inspired by rubens , you have no business with a leica. You make some excellent pictures and you cant see the reality and you cant aim on that quality.

Fourth , Higher tolerances in assembly and glass curves. Nikon still uses 1950s Leica standarts.

Fifth , Ergonomy.

Sixth , looks great

Seventh , most expensive colors

Eight , nonlinearity of grades.

You pay for result of the picture and all the qualities makes it. When Rolex 10, 20 times more expensive than Leica , Leica is cheap

 

[Nodda Duma]

I'm sorry Mustafa but Leica's camera optics are just not magical. On points 1, 2, 3, and 4, you are talking about ancient history. Let me be very clear: Visible-spectrum photographic camera lenses are not where the cutting edge in optical design is today. It's progressed far beyond what Leitz did in the 1950s and even beyond what they do today.

The only real challenge is (and was) making them light-weight and cost-effective for production. That entirely involves sacrificing performance. When those aren't factors, you can do so much more.

 

[David Lyga]

Maybe, just maybe, Mustafa, there is something which transcends 'mere' quantitativeness. I am not sufficiently intelligent to know for sure but, as an agnostic, I keep my options open, always. There might be something subliminal about Leica glass even though saying 'might' might (justifiably) rile the mathemeticians amongst us. 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.

RobC: As far as the Leica glass being for 'rich buyers', let me inform you that 'rich' people are amongst the most astute when it comes to value. They usually do not throw away their money. And they usually do not worship brands without those brands earning their merit. It is usually the 'wanna be seen as rich' who flock to the Guccis and all the other 'religious' manifestations of worthiness who display such collective fealty towards such nonsense. - David Lyga

 

[BrianShaw]

... and I'm not too sure about point #5.