How much better is RF image quality over SLR?

[E. von Hoegh]

The difference in native sharpness will be utterly swamped by other factors, mainly by the technique of whomever is holding the camera. I remember reading the very same debate in magazines in the mid 1970s and it makes no more sense now than it did then.

 

[heespharm]

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.

For some anecdotal evidence... With a slr digital or even worse film I can only shoot 1/30 on a 50mm lens before the image is unsharp and that's with concentrating hard not to move.... With my rangefinders I can down to 1/8 if I really try hard not to move... Anybody who has shot a GOOD leaf shutter will know... The first time you dry fire the camera you'll be like "did it fire???" Because it's so quiet...

But yeah the difference is very little... Mirror slap and shutter curtains moving can both be violent movements but in the end it's a wash....

I think this discussion is ridiculous... Just get out there and shoot... The differences are minuscule at best!!!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BrianShaw]

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

...

That's my hypothesis!

 

[Moopheus]

Hmmm, and what about ergonomics? I think it plays a more important role here, even more than a lighter or heavier weight. And...

.

It doe splay a role, for sure. I'm sure one of the reasons I can more easily shoot at 1/15 with my Konica is that it has a compact fixed lens--the center of mass is more directly over my hands when I hold it. With my Nikons, the lenses are larger and heavier, so more of the weight is unsupported. With my RB67 (speaking of ridiculous mirror slap!) I can't handhold it under 1/125, but with my Fuji, it is easy. Even a Speed Graphic, which is big and heavy, is easier to shoot handheld.

 

[RobC]

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?

It doesn't. Its just that RF users try harder just for the kudos of being able to claim they shoot at 1/15.

 

[heespharm]

It doesn't. Its just that RF users try harder just for the kudos of being able to claim they shoot at 1/15.

Nope I use both... It's not possible to shoot my slr at the same speeds as my rangefinders ... Trust me I've tried and ended up with trash negatives... Clearly you have not shot a rangefinder with a good leaf shutter (and I'm not talking about a Leica).... You won't even know sometimes that you've clicked the shutter because it's so crisp and light you don't get any feedback from the body...

But once again none of this matters! It's all just as sharp and useable as any other camera... Different strokes for different folks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nodda Duma]

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.

Find a high quality USAF 1951 bar target or other optical resolution pattern and you'll be able to test yourself.

For mirror slop, take images with and without mirror lock.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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'm not sure if SLRs have image stabilization as some DSLRs and modern lenses do.
From practical POV with RF camera it is less shake on slow shutter speed. I could make it at 1/10 or even slower with 35mm lens.
As it was mentioned before, 50mm and wider RF lenses seems to offer less distortions as it is visible on many pictures I have seen.

For me it is also important to have as much as possible aperture blades. RF lenses have it, while SLR lenses often more primitive with visible defects in bokeh.
I could also find more "character" in RF lenses and SLR lenses more on "no name" side to me in image rendering department.

 

[BrianShaw]

Find a high quality USAF 1951 bar target or other optical resolution pattern and you'll be able to test yourself.

For mirror slop, take images with and without mirror lock.

Methodology is not the issue. Time is... and determining the limits of practicality on the DV.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Find a high quality USAF 1951 bar target or other optical resolution pattern and you'll be able to test yourself.

For mirror slop, take images with and without mirror lock.

A good rough-and-ready test target can be as simple as a few pages from a telephone book stuck to the wall.
I get better sharpness with my Nikons than I did with my Olympi - not due to the lenses, but due to the larger heavier bodies.
MLU is essential for closeup and macro work, but so is a steady floor. I once lived right on the corner of a busy intersection and heavy truck traffic could blur an image.
I've never gotten a critically sharp negative at 1/15 handheld, and I don't think many others do either.

 

[jose angel]

.... It's not possible to shoot my slr at the same speeds as my rangefinders ... Trust me I've tried and ended up with trash negatives... Clearly you have not shot a rangefinder with a good leaf shutter (and I'm not talking about a Leica).... You won't even know sometimes that you've clicked the shutter because it's so crisp and light you don't get any feedback from the body...

The slap you feel on your hands after shooting a reflex is pretty irrelevant for the sharpness of the image. It happens once the shutter is closed.

The "bad" vibrations are the residual ones induced by the movement of the mirror, prior to the shutter opening. Only when the mirror stops, the shutter opens. This residual vibrations are absorbed by the camera body, and affect the image quality. You can check the feel by shooting at very slow speeds... try it and tell me if this "first slap" is as noticeable as the second one (better if you use ear caps or loud music to avoid being influenced by the noise).

 

[heespharm]

The slap you feel on your hands after shooting a reflex is pretty irrelevant for the sharpness of the image. It happens once the shutter is closed.

Is that why every slr (7film/digital) I own including my hassleblad has a mirror lock up feature? And the manual in every case says its to reduce vibrations while shooting??? Or is that just fancy marketing going back into the 50's?? No sarcasm... I really do want to know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

I agreebut I measured a 50%improvement in resolution going from a Hasselblad to a Mamiya 6 for 35mm,I wouldn't bother. the name brands are all excellent.

 

[heespharm]

I agreebut I measured a 50%improvement in resolution going from a Hasselblad to a Mamiya 6 for 35mm,I wouldn't bother. the name brands are all excellent.

That mamiya 6 shutter is scary quiet isn't it??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jose angel]

Heespharm, tripod mounted cameras will certainly benefit from mirror lock up, at certain speeds.
Shooting a mirror locked-up Hasselblad hand held could be somewhat difficult, at least for framing!

 

[jose angel]

I agreebut I measured a 50%improvement in resolution going from a Hasselblad to a Mamiya 6 for 35mm,I wouldn't bother. the name brands are all excellent.

BTW, the Mamiya 6 have great ergonomics. At least for me, it fits my hand perfectly, better than any other of my cameras.

 

[Xmas]

Heespharm, tripod mounted cameras will certainly benefit from mirror lock up, at certain speeds.
Shooting a mirror locked-up Hasselblad hand held could be somewhat difficult, at least for framing!

The blad has two release buttons, rather then a mirror lock up mode, you can press them in sequence readily, and not lose any framing.

But the BTL blad is full of inertia from the mirror 'brake' and the secondary shutters so is an example of the (an) early SLR design,

The later designs like an OM1 or Nikon F2 have much less mirror impulse, and the option to lock up mirror for non retrofocus lenses.

If you are shooting e.g. at 1/15 you need to do two things

- hold the camera steady through the exposure
- pick a point where the subject is also sufficiently stationary

Some subjects like animals can react to the release noise within the exposure time and rotate eye balls to a 'threat', dogs have very sensitive hearing...

Slow shutter speed shooting is not just the camera.

Noel

 

[jose angel]

Thanks, I know nothing about Hasselblad, never used them. I shoot Mamiya.

RalphLambrecht, if you are still here... Do you mean the improvement is in "tested" lens optical resolution (tripod, charts and so), or at your results when shooting hand held? (I understand you favor the Mamiya system). Just curious, thanks.

 

[heespharm]

Heespharm, tripod mounted cameras will certainly benefit from mirror lock up, at certain speeds.
Shooting a mirror locked-up Hasselblad hand held could be somewhat difficult, at least for framing!

How does the tripod make a difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jose angel]

Basically, the tripod hold the camera steady. Here, vibrations inside the camera body could certainly be noticed at the image. So if we remove this source of vibrations (locking the mirror up), the image quality will be increased.

A metaphor, hope it is a fair comparison : Imagine there is an earthquake happening at your home, and there is a strong slam in the adjacent room. The vibrations induced by the door became negligible.
Now, think you`re at home at midnight, all is calm and silent. If there is a strong slam in the adjacent room, you´ll certainly notice that small vibrations.

 

[heespharm]

Basically, the tripod hold the camera steady. Here, vibrations inside the camera body could certainly be noticed at the image. So if we remove this source of vibrations (locking the mirror up), the image quality will be increased.

A metaphor, hope it is a fair comparison : Imagine there is an earthquake happening at your home, and there is a strong slam in the adjacent room. The vibrations induced by the door became negligible.
Now, think you`re at home at midnight, all is calm and silent. If there is a strong slam in the adjacent room, you´ll certainly notice that small vibrations.

Yeah I dunno the slam may be negligible but your still in an earthquake... Duck and cover!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xmas]

Alas a web fixation the more modern SLR don't have annoying mirror bounce, they ae still noisy.

If you have a M3 and fast film and fast (5cm) lens in a print dark room, such that you can just see the enlarger in the gloom, the M3 frame and the M3 rangefinder spot will still be usable and you can use both eyes.

Not true with any of my SLRs, even a F2 with /1.4 lens you are not going to focus readily.

A Canon P and fast 35mm lens is nearly as good as the M3!

There is not real difference in print IQ unless you cant hold the camera steady and shoot at zero subject movement, that is a different problem with both the M3 and the F2 if you are using 1/15 of a second, expect lots of failures.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

How does the tripod make a difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Resonance. If the vibrations induced by the mirror are near the resonant frequency of the tripod/camera combination, they (vibrations from the mirror lifting) will excite the tripod/camera assembly, causing it to "ring' at it's resonant frequency.
I was taking some photos of a woodchuck family, with a 350mm/5.6 Soligor lens on a Spotmatic F. Mounted on a Tiltall, you could see vibration in the viewfinder for about 6-8 seconds after the exposure was made and that one frame was mush. Mounted on a huge beast of a CeCo tripod, it was rock solid. The Tiltall combined with that lens - and yes the tripod was screwed to the tripod mount of the lens - just had the right resonance to be excited by the camera mirror. I use the Tiltall under my Linhof ST IV and smaller cameras and have never had trouble with any other combination.

 

[Moopheus]

Resonance. If the vibrations induced by the mirror are near the resonant frequency of the tripod/camera combination, they (vibrations from the mirror lifting) will excite the tripod/camera assembly, causing it to "ring' at it's resonant frequency.

Oh yeah, when I put the RB67 on a tripod, I have to use mirror lockup, no matter what. Maybe I just need a better tripod.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Absolutely no difference related to the mirror. Optically it is all on the lens except for the problems of alining polarizing filters or horizon filters on range finder cameras. There are reasons the people select single lens reflex cameras over range finder cameras.