So...why hate SLR's? [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

mabelsound

07-09-2008, 14:24

back alley

07-09-2008, 14:29

i think you are mistaken about us hating slrs.

the 'evil slrs' is tongue in cheek.

and i personally think having a link to the slr forum on the main page of a rangefinder forum would be in bad taste.

joe

f/stopblues

07-09-2008, 14:32

SLR's being evil is pretty tongue-in-cheek around here. I'd venture to say that the vast majority of members here also own an SLR.

As for the viewfinder comment, you may want to duck or find some cover from that one ;)

visiondr

07-09-2008, 14:34

I don't hate SLRs. I hate the crummy, dark, cramped viewfinders, even the best SLRs have.

mabelsound

07-09-2008, 14:39

Well, I like the finders on my RF's very much. But I don't see them being any better than the ones on my SLR's. It's apples and oranges: one's larger and brighter, but the other is more precise. Though I'm sure people will debate that, too.

Anyway, glad it's tongue and cheek. But, you know--is it really perverse to have the SLR forum listed on the left? You know, along with the scale focus forum? And the...camera bag forum?

back alley

07-09-2008, 14:41

no one said perverse, in bad taste, is what I said...

blw

07-09-2008, 14:42

Ouch....first you attack the disgust for SLRs and now you attack the bag threads link!

We hate SLRs because they chased our beloved rangefinders off the mainstream camera market forever.

<sarcasm alert>

kshapero

07-09-2008, 14:46

Hate is such a strong word, lets say....I spit on the evil SLR.:D:D
Anyway life is all about different strokes for different folks.

crawdiddy

07-09-2008, 14:57

Yes, we only half-jokingly pretend to hate the evil SLRs.

However, our contempt for digital imagery is deeply entrenched and personal. :mad:

f/stopblues

07-09-2008, 15:01

Yes, we only half-jokingly pretend to hate the evil SLRs.

However, our contempt for digital imagery is deeply entrenched and personal. :mad:

If we are "deeply entrenched and personal," I'd be curious as to your description of the APUG folk. :)

blw

07-09-2008, 15:03

Yeah....fie on digital!

And you people and your digital SLRS!!!!!!

Zut alors! Shouldn't those people be out shooting macros instead of putzing around on RF forums?

<alert still on>

FallisPhoto

07-09-2008, 15:06

I've really been enjoying the hell out of this forum over the past few months, but I can't quite get my brain around the anti-SLR sentiment. I certainly understand liking rangefinders--they are awesome. But why hate SLR's? They focus better with long lenses, the viewfinders are generally better IMHO, giving you almost exactly what you get on film. And though I generally prefer the engineering and styling of RF's, many SLR's are quite beautiful.

The whole "Evil SLR's" thing seems odd to me--and the absence of the SLR forum from the menu bar on the left is inexplicable. Obviously, this is an RF board, and is overwhelmingly about RF cameras. But almost all of us have and use an SLR, too, and both types of cameras are a part of our artistic lives. So why the hate?

SLRs and rangefinders compliment one another's abilities to a nearly ideal extent. Each system's weaknesses almost exactly match the other's strengths. I think you're mistaken about people hating them. I think a really serious photographer would have both systems -- even if it does mean 1,000 years in hell for every SLR he owns.

Solinar

07-09-2008, 15:44

crawdiddy

07-09-2008, 16:12

If we are "deeply entrenched and personal," I'd be curious as to your description of the APUG folk. :)

OK, those people are fanatics.

mabelsound

07-09-2008, 16:14

SLRs and rangefinders compliment one another's abilities to a nearly ideal extent. Each system's weaknesses almost exactly match the other's strengths.

I TOTALLY agree with that. That's why I love 'em both! And I love digital cameras, too, for that matter. I wish there were more digital rangefinders.

I have no complaints with the bag forum, BTW. That's where I heard about my wonderful Domke F-803! I just feel as though SLR's deserve to be over there as much as bags, or scale focus cameras (of which, yes, I own a couple). It wouldn't water down the "brand"--the SLR forum wouldn't suddenly become more popular and overwhelm the RF discussion. It would just be nice to get to click it from the home page, when I get the Pentax screwmount bug. Discussion of photo techniques, artistic approaches, etc., slops over into SLR's so often that it seems silly to omit it.

mabelsound

07-09-2008, 16:16

Also, honestly--how many of us, if we're out shooting with a DSLR, ACTUALLY feel foolish when we're in a crowd of other people doing the same thing? It's hard to imagine this actually matters for most photographers.

That's not to say I don't feel extra hip shooting with a Robot Star. ;-)

BigSteveG

07-09-2008, 16:21

Slr's are great....they're very useful....really....they make great doorstops....targets for range practice...paperweights....projectiles to throw at my idiot neighbors....dog toys...fishing weights....impromptu hammers...oh yeah, they can used to make images. Sometimes I forget.

blazeicehockey

07-09-2008, 16:32

To admit that you have an SLR is the first step to recovery :)

Next thing we know, RF members will be admiting they shoot in auto exposure mode!! Perish the thought, be gone thy auto devil!

shadowfox

07-09-2008, 16:41

mabelsound, consider this, there are hundreds of photo forums that are mostly populated with SLR stuff out there, but there is only one RFF.

The "Evil SLR" sub-forum was created to talk about SLR's for those of use who just can't shut up about them :p

I think there are some RFF-ers who genuinely dislike SLR's because it doesn't fit into their workflow. But for the most part, it's friendly jabbing among friends.

IMHO, in this sub-forum we should talk about SLRs within the context of shooting the types of pictures that RF cameras are designed for. That way there will be a lot of useful comparison and discussions going on, otherwise, it's a bit out of place.

mabelsound

07-09-2008, 16:47

IMHO, in this sub-forum we should talk about SLRs within the context of shooting the types of pictures that RF cameras are designed for. That way there will be a lot of useful comparison and discussions going on, otherwise, it's a bit out of place.

That's precisely why I'm glad there's an SLR forum on RFF. I have signed up for, and abandoned, several SLR and DSLR forums over the past few months, and keep coming back to our little Evil SLR corner, because I like discussing these cameras with THIS community. There is no unpleasantness quite like posting your favorite photo of a weird dude on a street corner and having the thread drop like a stone, while meanwhile all around you people are heaping lavish praise upon mountains, weddings, and owls.

charjohncarter

07-09-2008, 16:48

I agree, we probably all shoot SLRs. It's just a joke. I have 7 or 8 SLRs, 7 RFs, and probably 7 scale focus. Each and everyone gives me pleasure in some way (even my AF,AE 35mm cameras). This forum is about RF gear, and film use (with a little digital thrown in). I would come here if I didn't even have an RF camera. Sit back, relax and enjoy the members (and their knowledge).

nikonhswebmaster

07-09-2008, 16:53

I don't hate SLRs. I hate the crummy, dark, cramped viewfinders, even the best SLRs have.

That I have never experienced, even my Nikon F's had very bright, 100% viewfinders.

Mackinaw

07-09-2008, 17:08

That I have never experienced, even my Nikon F's had very bright, 100% viewfinders.

Fred, you mentioned one of the few SLRs' that I still pull out of my closet and use now and then. An original Canon F-1 is the other.

Jim B.

Keith

07-09-2008, 17:09

I agree that the nice thing about this place is that it doesn't revolve around SLR's ... 'cause we do love our Leicas, Kievs, Hexars, Ikons etc etc ... but deep down we all know in our hearts that they're actually a better design than a rangefinder and can do anything a rangefinder does with capabilities to spare!

Look through the viewfinder of an Olympus OM with a fresh bright screen, check the size and weight against any of your rangefinders and tell me it's not true! :p

nikonhswebmaster

07-09-2008, 17:14

Fred, you mentioned one of the few SLRs' that I still pull out of my closet and use now and then. An original Canon F-1 is the other.

Jim B.

I had not looked through an F in a long time. Last month I was given an Photomic F and a couple of lenses that belong to one of the Dalai Lama's personal cooks (to possibly sell), who escaped with him and now lives in NYC.

I believe the camera was a gift from the Dalai Lama.

Anyway the viewfinder, using the standard A screen and a 501.4 is very bright.

back alley

07-09-2008, 17:40

just for the record...i own NO slr cameras.

oftheherd

07-09-2008, 17:41

...

makes feel like part of the herd - Moooooo-oooooh!

Pardon me?! :D :D

oftheherd

07-09-2008, 17:42

just for the record...i own NO slr cameras.

We know that Joe. But we still love you. :D

Keith

07-09-2008, 17:46

just for the record...i own NO slr cameras.

... and I don't have any contageous diseases ... ???? :p

Thardy

07-09-2008, 17:59

visiondr

07-09-2008, 18:28

That I have never experienced, even my Nikon F's had very bright, 100% viewfinders.

I used to have one too. They don't make 'em like that anymore. :(

crawdiddy

07-09-2008, 18:37

I had not looked through an F in a long time. Last month I was given an Photomic F and a couple of lenses that belong to one of the Dalai Lama's personal cooks (to possibly sell), who escaped with him and now lives in NYC.

I believe the camera was a gift from the Dalai Lama.

...and he probably got it from Richard Gere. :rolleyes:

Michael I.

07-09-2008, 19:01

I actually find thatmy 35mm SLR(nikon fm2n) is being neglected a lot since I got the leica m4 with 35 summicron. Now I use my new bronica sqai more and more for my slr needs.

wayneb

07-09-2008, 19:17

You can get viewfinders that are bigger and brighter than Leica in an SLR...try a Pentax 67!

shadowfox

07-09-2008, 19:24

just for the record...i own NO slr cameras.

Good fer ya, Joe!
SLR GAS could be more devious... and more varied than RF ;)

shadowfox

07-09-2008, 19:27

I once tried SLRs.....but I didn't inhale.;)

Good fer ya, Richard!
Once you inhaled the SLR GAS, there's no turning back ;)

usagisakana

07-09-2008, 19:27

You can get viewfinders that are bigger and brighter than Leica in an SLR...try a Pentax 67!
+1, my 67 would probably be my most used SLR now, at the detriment of my 40D..

I use both because both have advantages, and different ways of working.

tbarker13

07-09-2008, 19:33

While my first love will always be rangefinders, I do enjoy some quality time with an SLR. Currently, that's a Pentax K10D, used with a few older m42 lenses (including the 85/1.8 takumar and a 135/3.5 zeiss).
I like working with the M8 and the K10D at the same time - the M8 loaded with a 28mm or 35mm and the Pentax loaded with a telephoto. I feel like it takes advantage of the strengths of both camera types.

mhv

07-09-2008, 20:28

OK, those people are fanatics.

Pot, meet kettle.

myoptic3

07-09-2008, 20:45

jan normandale

07-09-2008, 20:47

blw, "Zut alors!" .... uh what's that Francais all about ;D

mabelsound "That's not to say I don't feel extra hip shooting with a Robot Star" you should be talking that camera and stop worrying about us dangerfielding SLR's

Personally I'd like to take this to another level.... no respect for 35mm. I'm going whole hog into 120, no more puny film for me! So stand back SLR people.

PhotoMat

07-09-2008, 21:20

I don't get it either. I also don't get all the mean comments and general low class sniping that occurs on this forum. A camera is just a tool, and some perform their function better than others. One would think that these forums would be a place to learn something about photography. Instead we are stuck w/ a lot of off the wall "personalities". They should rename the site to Ego Maniac Forum.

First you bemoan the "mean comments and general low class sniping" and then you go on to label the forum and its members as ego maniacs. Sounds like a case of "do as I say, not as I do" syndrome. Lighten up.

wlewisiii

07-09-2008, 21:28

I have several SLR's and love them dearly. The Contaflex & T90 are both insanely great classic cameras even if in rather different ways.

That said, it's my Contax II that I carry everywhere. And when the passion strikes for something else, it's almost always one of my LF cameras that goes out before the SLR's.

It's not "hate" by any means but, rather, the fact that the folks who hang out here tend to prefer to shoot in ways that use an RF's strengths rather than those of an SLR. There are many very good reasons to use a SLR &, in the modern world, a DSLR probably makes even more sense (can I have an FD compatable one please, Mr. K-san?) OTOH, I love the old CZJ glass I get to use.

HTH,

William

David Murphy

07-09-2008, 21:33

It's funny how much RFF'ers hate SLR's. Every time I list a Nikon F for sale they are clamoring to take it off my hands - thoughtful of them :-)

BTW here's my most recent list of SLR's with superb viewfinders:

Olympus OM-1 (and variants)- especially with the Beattie Intenscreen

Contax RTS (version II as I recall)

Nikon F2 (breathtaking really)

I just bought a Bessaflex TM, but not had a chance to rate it, but I have high hopes. I'm certain there are others!

Nh3

07-09-2008, 21:42

I hate all cameras because there is no such a thing as a perfect camera. RF, SLR, view camera, TLR... they're nothing but nuisance that one has to put up with in order to make pictures.

toyotadesigner

07-10-2008, 00:02

I think the 'evel SLR' is a joke, a funny or sarcastic topic headline. This is a rangefinder forum, period. It's amazing to experience the knowledge of the photographers here, and it's a joy to read the threads, because there is no bashing like Canon vs. Nikon vs. Minolta vs. Pentax (I don't even dare to mention the DSLR forums...).

This forum is a meeting of the minds, a fruitful exchange of ideas, opinions and knowledge.

I personally use anything where I can put a film into, with a preference on rangefinders of course. My Nikon SLRs are for special purposes only. Since I've got my Contax G2 systems the Nikon system collects lots of dust in the closet, because the Zeiss lenses are second to none.

Comparing a Hasselblad or Rollei 6xxx to my 6x9 Fujis and Plaubel I prefer the latter ones because of the giant real estate they deliver with the slides. As Jan said: this is another level of photography :D

And then there are the view cameras like the Arca Swiss F compact 6x9 or the superior Horseman SW 612 Pro with a nice collection of Rodenstock Grandagon lenses, but I definitely don't want to make anybody envious.

Oh, and when I see someone shooting digital I just think: poor guy wasted a lot of money on plastic that'll be outdated faster as he can get it out of the bag :D

blazeicehockey

07-10-2008, 00:48

Oh, and when I see someone shooting digital I just think: poor guy wasted a lot of money on plastic that'll be outdated faster as he can get it out of the bag :D

Nostalgia clouds the mind? Is this like saying music from the sixties is better because it has been popular far longer than music from the naughties?

Are there armies of people out there using Konica ZUp-80's and P30T's? Probably not. I suspect that not all digital cameras will be outdated as quickly as it takes a furniture store to have one more sale. There are S3Pro, 14n and E-1 lovers out there already and I am sure the 5D will be doing the rounds for a few more years to come.

Vive la diference!

toyotadesigner

07-10-2008, 01:24

Nostalgia clouds the mind?

No. Photography is my business and I just happen to know the advantages of film.

varjag

07-10-2008, 01:53

Look through the viewfinder of an Olympus OM with a fresh bright screen, check the size and weight against any of your rangefinders and tell me it's not true! :p
Keith, I looked into them, repeatedly, in vain attempts to understand all the ravings about OM system. To me they feel like any other 70s Asian camera and with build quality of tuna fish can. I don't hate them though :angel:

Keith

07-10-2008, 01:57

Keith, I looked into them, repeatedly, in vain attempts to understand all the ravings about OM system. To me they feel like any other 70s Asian camera and with build quality of tuna fish can. I don't hate them though :angel:

'Tuna fish can' ... that's harsh! :p

ruby.monkey

07-10-2008, 02:03

.. crummy, dark, cramped viewfinders, even the best SLRs have.
Just from the ones I own, I'd say that a good-condition Nikon F or FM3a, Pentax MX, or Olympus OM2N, would easily give the lie to this.

varjag

07-10-2008, 02:04

'Tuna fish can' ... that's harsh! :p
To be fair, am a picky fellow.. hated Leicaflex just as much.

Oops, did I say "hate"?

sepiareverb

07-10-2008, 06:55

Isn't it about time for a lot of pictures of bikes? Wouldn't want to get anyone angry now.
( :angel: )

Warren T.

07-10-2008, 07:10

SLRs and rangefinders compliment one another's abilities to a nearly ideal extent. Each system's weaknesses almost exactly match the other's strengths. I think you're mistaken about people hating them. I think a really serious photographer would have both systems -- even if it does mean 1,000 years in hell for every SLR he owns.

uh-oh :eek::eek::eek:, I own six SLR's, 6000 years for me :D

my favorite: Nikon F4s

I don't mention any of them in my sig because this is a rangefinder forum, but I also appreciate being able to discuss slr with the good people on RFF who also use slr.

--Warren

mfunnell

07-10-2008, 07:23

Hmm, lets count ... 3 OMs, 3 Canon, 1 Mamiya. The Mamiya is a 645 so that probably counts 2.5 times (I'm glad I don't own a 6x7). Two of the Canons are digital which probably count double - but they're APS-C so let's call it a wash. I make that 8,500 years. But on a theological note I'll point out that if we get out at the end then its probably Purgatory, not Hell, where we work off our sins.

...Mike

NickTrop

07-10-2008, 07:25

I've always thought SLRs are better systems for interchangeable lens systems, especially on the tele side. However, the downside of SLRs for me is the shutter speed = 1/focal length rule that prohibits candid ambient light photography - even with a 50mm, in many situations with an SLR. Rangefinders are not restricted to this limitation and better tools for this purpose and generally just as good for general purpose photography. So, in the rare instances when I want to go with a wide or ultra wide - SLR (even though RFs purport to be better tools for WA, fast WA lenses are prohibitively expensive in RF-ville. The Sigma 24mm in Pentax K is outstanding (Photodo 4.4 rating) for $60, and the 19mm Vivitar PK mount I have ($20-ish) is "good enough for government work"). Portraits - it's the Jupiter 9 in M42 with PK adapter.

Everything else? Rangefinder. Except macro and when I need a super-zoom. Then it's Panasonic FZ1v2 with 12X optical zoom - f2.8 throughout zoom range + image stabilization.

Bases covered but 70% of it is covered with old fixed lens rangefinders.

charjohncarter

07-10-2008, 10:07

RE: RFs for low light photography; that is not an unintelligent point, Nick.

shadowfox

07-10-2008, 11:59

To be fair, am a picky fellow.. hated Leicaflex just as much.

Oops, did I say "hate"?

Let me know if you're selling one (Leicaflex) :D

ruben

07-10-2008, 14:02

Hi Mabelsound,

Nope. In my opinion "the evil SLR" therm was not accidental nor the hostility to SLRs by a few members is accidental either. Both flowed from a feeling that RFF was becoming a "general photography" website, and thus in its way to the grave.

But facts proved differently. By not closing its doors, RFF continues to grow as an open minded rangefinder forum. RFF continues to grow - this is a stubborn fact. In fact the owner even opened many more subforums for different type of cameras.

Now, if I am correct, hystorically the SLR camera was a revolutionary improvement over the RF that opened many doors for science, medicine and pleasure, previously closed. However, like most advances in the camera industry the new breed did not included many advantages of the previous one.

This doesn't mean that the new is "evil", nor that the previous is "arcaic". This means that you can either complement both, or choose the one that not necessarily being the most advanced still better performs for your needs. Hence the objective place of Range Finder cameras, and film.

In general, most of the edges rangefinders still have over slrs is in their unsurpassable silent operation (although here the smaller mirrors in digital cameras may surprise one day), faster focusing, and the ability of seeing the image at the time the shutter is firing. Furthermore there are a certaing subcathegory of very compact and full featured RFs, that manual SLRs never matched.

All in all the differences of tastes about RFF were skillfully managed by the owner, so don't feel personally provoked when a nasty commentary about SLRs is voiced. There is a reason for its being nasty and another reason why nobody feels worried about it.

Cheers,
Ruben

FallisPhoto

07-12-2008, 10:45

uh-oh :eek::eek::eek:, I own six SLR's, 6000 years for me :D

my favorite: Nikon F4s

I don't mention any of them in my sig because this is a rangefinder forum, but I also appreciate being able to discuss slr with the good people on RFF who also use slr.

--Warren

Lightweight! I could do 6,000 standing on my head.

... and after this post, I probably will.

FallisPhoto

07-12-2008, 10:53

Fallis - those are my sentiments exactly. The SLR, DSLR in my case, is just another tool with regards to photography. Plus, owning and using two DSLRs makes feel like part of the herd - Moooooo-oooooh!

If you have ever really looked at the things an SLR isn't very good at, you will see that those are very nearly exactly matched by a rangefinder's strong points. The two systems really are nearly ideal compliments. I don't think there could be a better pair of systems to have.

Jason Sprenger

07-12-2008, 11:35

I very much agree that an RF and an SLR complement each other very well.

Then again, the Speed Graphic offers both a RF and ground-glass in one camera. But it is a great, big box in comparison, except for pro DSLR's which are about as compact and heavy.

Solinar

07-12-2008, 11:37

Macro and long tele are why I own two SLR's to augment my RF cameras.

Although I must admit that if I had the space and funds, a Crown Graphic 23 with a couple of lens/shutter combos would top off everything that I intend to do. Either a Crown 23 or Century Graphic would give me the option of TTL or RF focusing, but at a slower pace.

mabelsound

07-12-2008, 11:56

a feeling that RFF was becoming a "general photography" website, and thus in its way to the grave.

I do hope that this is no longer a widely held feeling, and it's really hard for me to understand why anyone would hold it in the first place. You don't come to something called "Rangefinder Forum" unless you first and foremost use and like rangefinder cameras. Invariably, people who like rangefinders, in this day and age a fairly esoteric technology, are going to be into photography in general, and so will likely have other cameras too, and might want to discuss them, particularly in the context of their RF use.

Again, I'm a fairly new member, and realize a lot of discussion prior to my joining has gone into making the forum what it is today. But, speaking from a straightforward psychological perspective, I don't think there is anything that can happen here that will turn RFF into a run-of-the-mill photo forum. There's a particular artistic aesthetic here that comes from liking RF cameras, and it pervades our discussions of all other kinds of cameras, even point-and-shoots (whose forum I ALSO think should be listed on the sidebar!).

Personally, I've been using RF's for everything from 50mm on down, and SLR's and DSLR's for everything 50 and up. (I sometimes shoot wide with an SLR, but not often.) I agree that they're excellent companions.

btgc

07-12-2008, 13:11

I use evil SLRs for wide and tele - because I'm too cheap to buy into interchangeable lens RF behind Kiev. And then I'd have to adopt aux finder - while on SLR this transition is seamless to user. I agree that ILRF is cool and all, but SLR is thing itself, worth at least tryng. And loud operation add spice to process - imagine putting 28mm into face of someone and THAT sound of shutter (I'm not even mentioning winder, if one is using it) ! Da-dah! I remember times when at school we were trained to use guns and shoot at paper targets - so I can understand old army wolfs and can understand SLR users.

Probably it's time to invent prefix to be used for P&S cameras, also for digicams (as class).

mabelsound

07-12-2008, 14:11

I think part of my pro-SLR sentiment these days comes from the fact that I have gotten completely *&$^ing sick of accessory finders. Every time I attached one, I thought, "I paid 150 bucks in order to have to look through a second VF to take a picture?" I have gotten rid of all accessory finders and now am shooting 50mm and wider with the glorious R4A. Shooting 21mm on an RF without a extra finder is a joy, I can tell you! And longer stuff is all SLR.

Silva Lining

07-12-2008, 14:29

I love my SLRs as much as my rangefinders (Various Canons film & DSLR - Prakticas and Hassleblads) as they are all tools that allow me to do what I love doing - taking photographs. I come to RF to chat and read about Rangefinders, but don't think SLR's are Evil, instead I see both SLRs and RFs as equally useful to me depnding upon the situation...

...quite boring really :)

Solinar

07-12-2008, 14:48

- imagine putting 28mm into face of someone and THAT sound of shutter (I'm not even mentioning winder, if one is using it)

I've seen it done and it as subtle as a bull in a china shop. It works when the subject, usually female, plays along. This gets even better when using a flash unit in a dimly lit neighborhood bar or at a night club.

ErnestoJL

07-12-2008, 15:37

Arriving late to this thread, I have to say that "evil SLRs" sounds to me like a joke and nothing else, as most of us in the RFF forum have both types of cameras and most important, use them for what they were designed for, it is taking pictures, pictures as good as the man behind can do.

I got to admit that since 2003 I´m using mostly RF cameras just because that I found that for the pictures I like to take, the ol´n´trusty RFs are well (would I say almost) perfectly suited.

Nevertheless I do not dislike neither SLRs nor TLRs because they are excellent cameras and I feel great pleasure using them. I use (not too often) field and view cameras which are not suited for street photo nor are "fast", but the pleasure of using this old style cameras is something I would strongly recommend to any one involved in photography, as the are the same type of cameras that started this endless illness.
So I take the phrase "evil SLRs" as nothing more than a joke, not (obviously) to be seriously taken (even for RFs users!).

BTW, I´m starting on August a workshop of Pinhole cameras...

Cheers

Ernesto

ChrisPlatt

07-12-2008, 18:28

I prefer SLRs, so I am the embodiment of evil.
Might even start my own evil empire someday...

Chris

manfromh

07-13-2008, 02:21

I prefer my SLR's. Once my Pentax ME Super comes back from CLA, it will be my main camera. About a month ago I was planning on buying a Bessa R, but then realised that a full CLA for my Pentax is noticebly cheaper. I dont think there is anything the Bessa can do, which the Pentax can not.
This all is a matter (or mather?) of preference of how you want to focus.