I'm not sure I follow you here. Viewing through an SLR what you see is what you get or at least 90+% of it depending on model. Why would you stop down unless you had to use stop down metering? I don't see what that has to do with composition, however. Maybe I'm missing something.Fast SLR lenses are easier to focus but give a poor impression of composition stopped down, rangefinders are better at this but most lack corrected frames.
An SLR with a wide aperture lens only registers the point of focus sharply, everything else is out of focus. If that's a 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 at a metre or so, you're talking about a wafer thin image on the ground glass screen. If you're shooting that lens on the street at f11, the SLR gives a poor representation of the negative. Wide angle SLR lenses behave slightly better in this respect, especially if they're an f2.8 or f3.5, but a rangefinder or viewfinder camera shows everything sharply at all times. Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage depends on the kind of photography you do.I'm not sure I follow you here. Viewing through an SLR what you see is what you get or at least 90+% of it depending on model. Why would you stop down unless you had to use stop down metering? I don't see what that has to do with composition, however. Maybe I'm missing something.
please do not read this as an attempt to start an argument.
Your statement left the impression that screwmount Leicas RFs were inherently (by design) dim and cannot be used at night. This is plain wrong.
An SLR with a wide aperture lens only registers the point of focus sharply, everything else is out of focus. If that's a 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 at a metre or so, you're talking about a wafer thin image on the ground glass screen. If you're shooting that lens on the street at f11, the SLR gives a poor representation of the negative. Wide angle SLR lenses behave slightly better in this respect, especially if they're an f2.8 or f3.5, but a rangefinder or viewfinder camera shows everything sharply at all times. Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage depends on the kind of photography you do.
You could keep pressing the stop down button for every shot if the camera has one, but the viewfinder would be too dim to successfully establish where focus falls away.
You do realize this is the Internet? But the real answer is: use whatever you feel comfortable with, because the real differences between RF and SLRs (at roughly the same level of quality) are far less than most of their users imagine. If this were not true, the religious war would have been settled long ago, instead of people just trotting out the same old canards over and over again. Many users have made many excellent pictures of all kinds with all kinds of cameras.
You do realize this is the Internet? But the real answer is: use whatever you feel comfortable with, because the real differences between RF and SLRs (at roughly the same level of quality) are far less than most of their users imagine. If this were not true, the religious war would have been settled long ago, instead of people just trotting out the same old canards over and over again. Many users have made many excellent pictures of all kinds with all kinds of cameras.
It's often the selenium cell meters that have a problem with accuracy, due to aging and loss of low light sensitivity. However, rangefinders with CdS meters and the proper battery are about as accurate as the CdS meters in SLR cameras.The Bessa T does intrigue me, out of everything I've seen and researched this far. Old rangefinders are everywhere but the lack of an accurate meter and usually slow shutters is a problem for me. I have a light meter but I'm not going to be able to pull it out and take a reading when my daughter decides it's time to ride the balance bike.
Mmm..yes. The whole point of a ground glass screen is to provide an exact representation of what the lens sees wide open. That is the viewing system SLR cameras are provided with. I hope you're not going to illustrate your demurral with a lot of self portraits in a mirror..?Mmm...no. Perhaps you aren't aware there are special screens for fast lenses.
If it were true nobody would use SLRs with fast lenses
Mmm..yes. The whole point of a ground glass screen is to provide an exact representation of what the lens sees wide open. That is the viewing system SLR cameras are provided with. I hope you're not going to illustrate your demurral with a lot of self portraits in a mirror..?
You do realize this is the Internet?
You dismissed an accurate and informed point with "Mmm..no", which is most condescending. I stand by everything I said regarding the viewing screens of SLR cameras relative to rangefinder and viewfinder cameras. If you'd care to re-read what I said in full, and comment on any shortcomings, we can have a discussion based on facts not putdowns.Besides insulting people personally for their self portraits are you able to say anything that makes sense?
You are just proving to be a jerk with that, besides of course being ignorant of simple fact like the existance of SLRs without automatic aperture, something that you have probably missed.
Yes the rangefinder window of Leica screwmount are small and dim, and they are difficult to focus in low light. It's the best that could have been conceived in the 20s, but after 90 years things have changed.
Of course anything is possible but in order to focus and compose correctly with my Leica IIIb I need light and a a contrasty subject.
I agree, although there is an element of pass the parcel with valuable old cameras - no one wants to be caught holding one when it breaks! A camera worth £500 is free if you sell it for £500, it ain't if it costs a few hundred to fix. That's the dilemma with cult cameras, there's sufficient financial incentive to be creative with descriptions which makes buying one a less than straightforward transaction.This is what I have done. If there is a camera that I can afford, like the Bessa T, just buy one off of eBay and use it for a while. It's lost all it's new value already so if you don't like it you can probably sell it for what you bought it for. It's like renting a camera for free. I have done it several times and had no problem...
One difference between rangefinders and slr's is the use of filters.
With a rangefinder, I can use black and white film with a yellow, orange, or even red filter left on the camera and still see the frame normally.
With a slr, the darker filters make it harder to focus. O I have to take the filters on and off all the time. But then if I am using a polarizing filter, it is much easier and accurate to use the slr.
Point in bold have already been debunked in this thread: rewatch the picture I posted of the Pentax MX. I'm pretty sure the Olympus OM is also smaller than Leica Ms that unlike what they say are NOT small cameras, or light. Screw mount Leicas were smaller, not the Ms...I don't know why you keep repeating this despite of the evidence of the contrary. Regarding the weight, a M3 with a Summicron 50mm and a Mr4 is almost 1 kg, more or less like a K1000 with standard lens (not a MX or a LX).
The design isn't simple, in particular the rangefinder is a sophisticated device with many movable parts that can get misaligned relatively easily and if it's so you won't find it out until you develop the film.
This is the rangefinder of a M3 and a M5:
Dead Link Removed
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.
Get an LX and you'll realise how outdated were the Nikon Fs in comparison to Pentax cameras.
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?