• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Same focal length, same speed, same film format, one lens is a zillion times bigger than the other.

Latest Gallery

Autumn

D
Autumn

  • 0
  • 0
  • 10
Sol Infinitus

A
Sol Infinitus

  • 5
  • 0
  • 32

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
203,390
Messages
2,853,902
Members
101,816
Latest member
Gregg128
Recent bookmarks
0
Pieter12 said:
Unfair! An SLR lens is not the same design for wide-angle, the rear element cannot protrude as much into the body. As far as DLSR lenses go, there is the added bulk and weight for such things as AF and optical stabilization.
Click to expand...

Plus additional restraints due to need to keep light beams impinging on the sensor being normal, where with film that constraint is not critical.
 
With the reflex finder(PLOOT) you weren't limited to 135's but I guess the size/weight advantage ma y have been 😊 lost. Another reflex finder could use up to 560mm.
 
Gosh, who wouldn't want an SLR with that wide angle lens? Cool.

I shoot Olympus OM film cameras. I wish I could afford the 8mm f/2.8 fisheye. I might even use it.

olympus_8mm.jpg


Olympus also has a 16mm f/3.5 fisheye and an 18mm f/3.5 rectilinear. Both are normal size lenses, so you won't get any ooohs and ahhhs from the crowd. I have the 18mm f/3.5 and think it is a great lens to use.
 
Last edited:
OK, that's an f2.8 lens, but I though Olympus was into making cameras and lenses smaller. Here is Minolta's much more sensible f4.0 model

fisheye.jpg
 
xkaes said:
OK, that's an f2.8 lens, but I though Olympus was into making cameras and lenses smaller. Here is Minolta's much more sensible f4.0 model
Click to expand...

First, the Olympus 8mm f/2.8 is small compared to its Nikon counterpart. Second, what has sensible got to do with it? No sensible person would use an 8mm f/2.8 fisheye. You use a 8mm f/2.8 fisheye a couple of times just to make sure it works, and then you put it on your camera when you go to camera club or a workshop, I think I mentioned everyone going oooh and aaah.
 
Last edited:
Pieter12 said:
Unfair! An SLR lens is not the same design for wide-angle, the rear element cannot protrude as much into the body. As far as DLSR lenses go, there is the added bulk and weight for such things as AF and optical stabilization.
Click to expand...

Just sour grapes from one of those with equipment make obsolete in the 1960s by 35mm slrs. There were LR slrs from the turn of the twentieth century and MF slrs came in the 1950's. Crying towels supplied on request.

rotfl.jpg
 
I think we can be in agreement that this is why film SLRs died off, killed by the mighty RF systems. (I was polite enough not to mention Leica RFs, as that would be rubbing it in - right Bessas and ZMs?)
 
Huss said:
I think we can be in agreement that this is why film SLRs died off, killed by the mighty RF systems. (I was polite enough not to mention Leica RFs, as that would be rubbing it in - right Bessas and ZMs?)
Click to expand...

UH you got it bass ackwards.
 
Sure it is bigger but one will never need to worry about taking pictures with the lens cap in place...
 
Just for clarification: rangefinders have the following real advantages:

  • Lacking "what is you see is what you get" focusing
  • Lacking ability to see what the polarizer effect is through the viewfinder
  • Inability to use shorter than 21mm wide angle lenses
  • Inability to use longer than 135mm telephoto lenses
  • Providing the user the experience of needing to correct for parallax much like the TLR does for 120 film
  • Special feature to allow photographs to be made with the lens cap on, even repeatedly
What other "advantages" are missing from the list? 😛
 
Quite, good to use in low light, spot on focusing, light, a complete kit, camera, 3 lens in small bag. I carried a Nikon F, F2, with Leica IIIG or Canon 7s, then traded in my rangefinders for a F3P and FG, I liked the FG as a second body, but there were times I missed a rangefinder.
 
Huss said:
i think that is what 1F stood for.
I shudder to think what the real meaning of my F3P in that pic is.
Click to expand...

The F3 is more of an old man fart, people from 30' away can hear it, just got to pretend it wasn't you.
The MD (SBD) is a little quieter but not half as cute.
20210206_080110.jpg
 
Last edited:
ic-racer said:
Sure it is bigger but one will never need to worry about taking pictures with the lens cap in place...
Click to expand...

If you can get the lens cap off! Serously it is stoopid difficult, almost feels like it has a suction fit.
 
Paul Howell said:
The only 200 made a 35mm rangefinder that comes to mind is the 200 for Kodak Retina S, it is uncouple (if memory serves me) same lens as the Retinaflex used. All of the other 200 were used with reflex housings. The other longish lens for a rangefinder was the 150mm for the Ektar, it was coupled.
View attachment 308840
Click to expand...

The 200/4.8 does not have an RF cam, mounts on the IIIS but intended for the Reflex.

The Komura 200mm F4.5 is RF coupled and in LTM. They used to be cheap.

Of course the SLR can be used with the mirror flipped up, and small wide-angle lenses such as the Nikkor-O 2.1cm F4 can be used.
 
I want people to see what I'm shooting and get out of the way. You need to have the public fear you! I HAVE AN SLR AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO USE IT!

Full auto, high capacity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom