Who prefers 35mm SLR over all other kinds of cameras?

[cliveh]

35mm is a great format, with a great aspect ratio for composing. However, SLR’s are the equivalent of tunnel vision. Only a rangefinder gives true freedom for composition.

 

[narsuitus]

Only a rangefinder gives true freedom for composition.

Do you think a rangefinder gives more freedom for composition than a view camera?

 

[cliveh]

Do you think a rangefinder gives more freedom for composition than a view camera?

Yes, because it allows more view around the selected area.

 

[RattyMouse]

35mm is a great format, with a great aspect ratio for composing. However, SLR’s 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!

 

[GaryFlorida]

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!

In fact many SLRs actually show 7% less of the actual image area in the view finder

 

[removed account4]

i like 35mm ( and it's cousin the 1/2 frame ) because it is harder to point
a 4x5 camera out the window when riding shotgun. i dont' have any MF gear
and i have stuck 4x5 stuff ( box camera, graflex series d slr &c ) out the window
but it is a pain ... 35mm you just point and shoot ... AND i like the grain

 

[frank]

I tried 1/2 frame, but there was little/no size or weight advantage to the 1/2 frame camera over some of my full frame cameras, and a terrible price to pay in reduced neg size.

 

[flavio81]

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).

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.

 

[thuggins]

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.

 

[Les Sarile]

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.

Additionally there are those pellicle mirror equipped cameras that don't require the mirror to move at all.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

For the Retina Reflex IV

Lenses for Retina Reflex S, II, IV, Instamatic Reflex, and Retina IIIS[edit]
Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Curtagon 28mm f/4
Rodenstock Retina-Eurygon 30mm f/2.8
Rodenstock Retina-Eurygon 35m f/4
Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Curtagon 35mm f/2.8
Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenar 45mm f/2.8 (for Instamatic-Reflex, can be used with Retina-Reflex but not with the Retina IIIS)
Rodenstock Retina-Ysarex 50mm f/2.8
Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenar 50mm f/2.8
Rodenstock Retina-Heligon 50mm f/1.9
Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon 50mm f/1.9
Rodenstock Retina-Rotelar 85mm f/4
Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Tele-Arton 85mm f/4
Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Tele-Arton 90mm f/4
Rodenstock Retina-Rotelar 135mm f/4
Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Tele-Xenar 135mm f/4
Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Tele-Xenar 200mm f/4.8 (does not have the rangefinder cam necessary for use with the Retina IIIS)

 

[rbultman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_lag

The table on that link shows that the fastest (least shutter lag) cameras are two SLR's with pellicle mirrors, followed by Leica film rangefinders, followed by everything else. Unfortunately most of the cameras discussed on this thread are not listed in this table.

Tim, yes, this does vary from camera to camera. It is most likely a non-issue for most people. Professional sports shooters probably care about it, but there the issue is probably more about available tele lenses, not about shutter speed. The lag on my Mamiya 645 Pro seems much longer than my Canon A1. It was noticeable when shooting pictures of my kids sledding. Does the 35SP meter through the lens, requiring it to be fully open when metering? Does that happen in auto only or is the lag the same when metering manually in-camera? My Bessa R3M meters through the lens but the aperture is always stopped down to whatever I have it set to. Pressing the shutter button only releases the focal plane shutter, nothing more, as the camera is fully manual.

Thanks Les for pointing out pellicle mirror cameras. They seem to be the fastest.

I would still expect an SLR to be slower than a rangefinder due to the reflex mirror, disregarding pellicle models.

For what it's worth, I like both SLRs and rangefinders. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.

Regards,
Rob

 

[David Lyga]

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.

Topcon Uni? - David Lyga

 

[flavio81]

Is SLR "shutter lag" a problem in the real world?

Yes if you want to stop a F1 car sideways. I've ran into that problem. But that's a dumb way to shoot a F1 car, though.

 

[miha]

SLRs are best with zoom lenses which dominate the market for several decades now.
Re shutter lag, I can clearly feel how responsive my Leica R3 aka Minolta XE-1 (same chassis, shutter and many other components; 38 ms) is compared to say R4 which feels sluggish.

 

[narsuitus]

Yes, because it allows more view around the selected area.

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?

 

[MartinCrabtree]

So where can I get my 8 frame per second rangefinder????

 

[fotch]

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!

In actual use, effectively this is only true if the photographer has one eye. Of course, its not the camera but the camera/photographer team.

 

[cliveh]

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?

Yes, because your question asks about freedom of composition. A view camera's shift/swing/tilt feature that allows depth-of-field and perspective control are more related to technical issues.

 

[narsuitus]

Cliveh,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.

 

[fstop]

A camera is a tool. You choose the format that best suits your shooting situation or budget. The most versatile is the 35mm SLR.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Do 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?

I do prefer them for versatility but prefer MF for image quality

 

[GaryFlorida]

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.

 

[Les Sarile]

but when you use 35mm, do you feel like a loser? Do you feel like you are lowering yourself? I dont. Im just saying.

Clearly this requires an introspective look rather than a change in format . . . :confused:

 

[GaryFlorida]

Clearly this requires an introspective look rather than a change in format . . . :confused:

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.