Only a rangefinder gives true freedom for composition.
Do you think a rangefinder gives more freedom for composition than a view camera?
35mm is a great format, with a great aspect ratio for composing. However, SLRs are the equivalent of tunnel vision. Only a rangefinder gives true freedom for composition.
Another good point. SLR's can't do as well as rangefinders in looking outside the image area. In fact, they cant even do this at all!
Can you name a leaf shutter SLR (35mm) that has the shutter in the body and has interchangeable lenses of 135mm or greater? (not including the monocular from zeiss contaflex).
One of the advantages of a leaf shutter in a camera without a focal plane shutter is that only the leaf shutter stands between the subject and the film. When you press the shutter release button, the leaf shutter can be immediately activated. These have the least amount of shutter lag (or should.)
In the case of an SLR, there is at least the mirror that must be moved out of the way before the shutter can be opened to expose the film. This results in more shutter lag than is capable of in leaf-shutter only RF cameras*.
Despite all your reasoning, this varies from camera to camera. The "shutter lag" on the 35SP is a heck of a lot longer than on any of the OM's. It requires a significant amount of time and effort to trap the needle and set the aperture blades before the shutter trips on the rangefinder.
Is SLR "shutter lag" a problem in the real world? How many shots have been missed waiting for the mirror to move? Considering that 35mm SLR's have been the standard for sports and other action venues for decades, I'm guessing that the answer is pretty close to zero.
Voigtlander Ultramatic, Bessamatic
Kodak Retina Reflex (perhaps)
and then some obscure brands, I bet. Because 35mm leaf shutter SLRs were once common in the 50s.
This is not correct. A 35mm rangefinder can be made with a leaf shutter. A 35mm SLR, to my knowledge, has never been made with a leaf shutter. The only SLR's that I know of that have leaf shutters are the Hasselblads.
Yes, because it allows more view around the selected area.
Another good point. SLR's can't do as well as rangefinders in looking outside the image area. In fact, they cant even do this at all!
Do you think a rangefinder's extra view around the selected area contributes more freedom for composition than a view camera's shift/swing/tilt feature that allows depth-of-field and perspective control?
I do prefer them for versatility but prefer MF for image qualityDo any of you prefer 35mm SLR over all others?
1. what you see is what you get.
2. interchangeable lenses
3. small but not too small
4. reliable, strong
5. cool looking, vintage, retro etc.
6. film available and reasonable priced
7. feature rich
8. accessories galore
9. very inexpensive now on used market.
10. Big enough film for nice size prints but not huge blow ups.
Im not saying I like them better than all others, Im just wondering if any of you do?
but when you use 35mm, do you feel like a loser? Do you feel like you are lowering yourself? I dont. Im just saying.I do prefer them for versatility but prefer MF for image quality
but when you use 35mm, do you feel like a loser? Do you feel like you are lowering yourself? I dont. Im just saying.
nobody will admit it. But I know people think it. The RF people, the MF people, the LF people.. slipping in snide remarks, cheap shots and backhanded compliments. I hear them quietly chuckling. I see them whispering, marginalizing, and brow beating SLR guys into submission, into second class member status. Thats right. Second class. Do you feel second class when you use your SLRs? I dont. Whos got the guts to admit it? I dont. Mock rant over. Thanks for reading.Clearly this requires an introspective look rather than a change in format . . . :confused:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?