YMMV but I never found using a RF bringing any advantage compared to a SLR.
Additionally, the lack of mirror slap may gain you some speed by reducing camera shake, and the viewfinder allows you to see outside the framed subject, which makes composing easier.There are trade-off. Rangefinders are compact, focus is accurate, shutters are quiet (no mirror slap), and lens designers have more flexibility when they don't have to deal with a mirror. But framing is less precise and parallax is not corrected for many cameras. Overall I'm happy to have a rangefinder system (Mamiya 7).
Here are a few advantages.
o No blackout at the moment of exposure.
o The camera and its lenses are lighter in weight and less bulky than their SLR equivalents.
o The viewfinder shows more than the actually subject. So elements entering or leaving can be seen.
o The design is simpler so less to go wrong.
o No camera shake from a mirror
o Quieter operation, less intrusive.
o Filters do not interfere with viewing. Important for IR work or very dark filters of any kind..
o Easier to focus in low light situations.
I have my fair share of Nikon SLR's and wouldn't trade them for the world but, I find I get along with the Leica M cameras just as well and they are definitely lighter than the F or F2 series and three times less noisy and the optics are second to none.
Can you explain what this dime/dim patch is? because I have never seen it on any screw mount Leica or any of the M series I am familiar with.
I'm still waiting for a full frame SLR that is smaller and lighter than my Olympus XA.
So far I have not brought home an SLR that is hard to focus, but the majority of the RF's.
I have never had a problem focusing SLRs, but many of the RF are hard to focus. I use RF cameras on rare occasion when more useful.
Here are a few advantages.
o No blackout at the moment of exposure.
o The camera and its lenses are lighter in weight and less bulky than their SLR equivalents.
o The viewfinder shows more than the actually subject. So elements entering or leaving can be seen.
o The design is simpler so less to go wrong.
o No camera shake from a mirror
o Quieter operation, less intrusive.
o Filters do not interfere with viewing. Important for IR work or very dark filters of any kind..
o Easier to focus in low light situations.
I'm talking about the part of my post that you didn't quote.So..what are we talking about?
For low light applications I do NOT recommend a rangefinder because screwmount Leicas, Soviet copies and Canons had a dime patch, M have the bright one that sometimes "disappears" in low lightl...I miss more pics with RF than SLRs.
Here are a few advantages.
o No blackout at the moment of exposure.
o The camera and its lenses are lighter in weight and less bulky than their SLR equivalents.
o The viewfinder shows more than the actually subject. So elements entering or leaving can be seen.
o The design is simpler so less to go wrong.
o No camera shake from a mirror
o Quieter operation, less intrusive.
o Filters do not interfere with viewing. Important for IR work or very dark filters of any kind..
o Easier to focus in low light situations.
Except for long exposures and early SLR models lacking automatic mirror return, I don't think the brief duration of SLR blackout is really much of a handicap. At least not in my experience. Besides, you're not looking through the viewfinder with both eyes; the other eye is free to watch the captured scene uninterrupted.
I Agree. Perhaps push was the wrong term. The folder pushes me as it required me to figure out zone, how to use a light meter, limits of hand holding, distance estimation, near/ far focus and the effects it has, and light conditions versus ISO choice. I am very, very comfortable with my SLR and the 50mm/ 135mm I use with it. It is the lightest set up I could gather up while still remaining in K mount. I have fought off GAS with pretty good success. I have one digital body and three lens, I have accumulated various K mounts and M42s due to the bodies I use, and I have my MF. The RF could be seen as a simple, easier to carry, slightly less weight alternative to my SLR. My photography these days is small trips and chasing my daughter around. I have been selling things off and going for smaller/ lighter/ packable simple gear. If I am going on vacation, it is SLR 100%. If it's around town, maybe a RF would be easier? I don't know, hence the question.
I am not committed to a Japanese offering but know that I am not dropping thousands on a Leica. It seems that my money would go much further with a fixed lens RF than an interchangeable lens German set up.
There you go, it doesn't get any better than that. One caveat-take that lens cap off!! RF cameras are not through the lens viewing.
Wait! Hasselblad screens don't return?
... If you put a matchstick ten feet in front of either of my M cameras, focus on it, then lean forward or backwards, you can see the match go in or out of focus on the rangefinder. To get the same effect on my SLRs with the lens wide open, you will fall on your face leaning forward and fall over backwards leaning back. ...
Nope they don't I shoot a 503 cxi and i am doing a lot of slow shutter works of around 8 to 16 seconds and my release cable is set to keep it open until i manually release it. Otherwise since it doesn't work with the shutter in the lens after opening, it would just close on its own ruining the shot.Wait! Hasselblad screens don't return?
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?