SLR's for Luddites (OR How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Both of My Cameras Equ

[msakamoto]

OK, first off, I've been shooting since I was six, but I'm an amateur. I shoot maybe 20 rolls a year and I don't own a working digital camera. I am tech-geeky enough to talk shop about lenses and stocks but not enough to know what I'm talking about when it comes to chemistry and light spectrum analysis.

However, I am a successful artist who understands a variety of media from the inside out (dance, theater, installation, digital media, film, video, etc.). In other words, I have a very inclusive worldview. Which is why I don't (YET...) see the giganimous advantage for real-life, street, candid or documentary photography in rangefinders over SLR's.

My first real camera was a Canon Pellix SLR and a 50mm lens, which I used from age 14 to 22, when I dropped it in Florence, Italy while shopping on the Ponte Vecchio (don't tell my uncle who dragged that thing all the way back from 'Nam in 1969 and gave it to me a few years later). I then used a Cheap Vivitar SLR w/35-70 zoom. Then when I hungered for a non-crappy lens, I shot with a Rollei B35 w/40mm Zeiss lens (OK, only a Tessar, but I liked pretending I was a real German with it!). When my (ex-)wife broke that, I bought my first Nikon kit, an FE with 50 and 28 lenses. Now, I'm using a Contax G1 w/45mm, a Canonet G-III QL-17, and occasionally my Nikon.

So while I've never owned an M3 or an F5, let alone something made after 1996, I've pretty much had every basic SLR and rangefinder experience there is. Frankly, I don't know what everyone's complaining about.

I see the world plenty while shooting with my SLR. I just keep moving and pay attention to my surroundings. Like any longtime SLR shooter, I've developed my peripheral vision, not only with my real eyes, but with my mind's eye as well. You can do this with an SLR because you aren't using brainspace to worry too much about what the image will look like sa many rangefinders user have to.

I don't worry about AF or AE getting in the way since I'm a Luddite and do everything manually still (thank goodness I look younger than my years cuz I act like a cranky ol' geezer).

OK, so my SLR is heavier and larger than my Canonet or G1. But you know what? It's MUCH LIGHTER and NO BIGGER than my buddy's M3, which gave me a backache trudging around the sand in the last beach shoot.

Yes, his 51 year-old Leica will outlast both myself and my friend's parrot (i.e. forever), but my QL-17 will not (it's well made, but it did cost $25) and my G1 will not (cuz it's got all those electro doo-dads for young whippersnappers' delight that rangefinder afficionados constantly decry in modern SLRs). However, my FE and Nikkor lenses WILL probably still be clicking away after my arthritis has finally reduced me to being only able to operate my iPod 23.0 XG.

Yes, the thunk-thwack of my SLR made that young couple kissing on the park bench want to rip my throat out, but, frankly, they wanted to do that as soon as I pointed my camera at them, which by the way is black, which no one can see at night when I like to shoot with available light and fast film (yes, SLR's can do this too just fine under duress).

No, I can't see my "decisive moment" when the mirror clicks upwards. Can anyone say "the beauty of ambiguity"? I know you can, because otherwise you wouldn't be exposing random silver particles with old machines. You also know how to say it because I hear you say it everytime you talk about not needing to see through the lens but rather through a bright viewfinder that also shows you a couple feet of life around the frame and how much closer to the world this brings you than the WYSIWIG of SLR's. can anyone say "the ambiguity of hypocrisy"? (I'm not mudslinging, guys, just calling 'em like I see 'em).

Also, that Pellix SLR I learned on - it has a unique, semi-transparent mirror that DOESN'T flip up and black out the viewfinder when you shoot. In other words, it's the ultimate WYSIWIG film camera. (OK, now I GOTTA get it fixed...)

That said, I love rangefinders.

That said, I love SLR's.

That said, 'nuff said.

[richard_l]

I love SLRs too. The nice thing about this forum is that usually you can talk about your rangefinder(s) without someone asking "What's a rangefinder?"

[payasam]

There's no denying that the rangefinder camera is less conspicuous than the SLR (we're talking full-frame 35 mm here). There's also no denying that the SLR can be made inconspicuous if it's held in a hand and pre-focussed fairly accurately, so that all you need to do is raise it to your eye, fine tune the focus, fire. Photographers with the wrong technique can turn themselves into fluorescent green elephants even if their cameras are thimble sized.

[Poptart]

"Giganimous"? Someone owns a thesaurus. (Albeit one of the smaller jurassic land mammals, it was nevertheless a dangerous animal, being very bitey.) Almost as incongruous as a rangefinder.

[payasam]

Clearly, Poptart, you haven't seen the Fanged Elmotar. Came as standard with the Ugh Leica.

[Brian Sweeney]

The Pellix does not go "thunk-thwack", just a gentle little "CLICK" of the aperture blades closing down and RF-like shutter firing. And no black-out. The Retina Reflex-S kind of goes "Snipp". But the Argus/Cosina STL1000 that I started out with in 1970 definitely goes "Thunk-Thwack". Made by Cosina, that also made your Vivitar, that now makes the R2a and R3a.

Most people here at RFF also use SLR's.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ead.php?t=4548

Note that my opinion is the Canon Pellix is the SLR most like a rangefinder. I have the QL model.

[Doug]

Hi, msakamoto -- I think most of us here have and use SLR cameras and/or view cameras and so forth but this is the forum for rangefinders and rangefinder lovers. SLRs have just about every other forum on the 'net; thus the distinction. We may get a little enthusiastic here and "preach to the choir" about how wonderful RF cams are. Maybe a little hyperbole, but that doesn't necessarily mean we don't like other stuff too.

I have even used my SLRs as a test-bed for deciding on (expensive) lenses for RF cameras... Like how can I make good use of a 28mm f/2's speed, and would I be better served with a 24mm f/2.8.

I have some good shots with SLRs recently, but I don't feel right uploading them into my RFF gallery (well, I did sorta sneak one in), since there are all those other places out there and this just isn't the place for them. But I may use them, not identified as such, in RFF threads, as images relevant to the discussion.

[varjag]

To me, the biggest difference in street photography with SLRs vs RFs is the aperture used. SLR users tend to shoot wide open, as that's what they see in the viewfinder; OTOH direct finders of RF cameras prompt for keeping everything in focus for the same reason. Clearly there are exceptions, but on RF I typically find my aperture being set as small as lighting allows.

The oft-cited differences in bulk, shutter snap sound etc. also a factor, but they vary greatly between camera models: tiny discreet SLRs do exist, as do large & loud rangefinders.

[Nikon Bob]

I started late with photography and on SLRs for 10 years. I have used RFs for a year now and can see not much difference in my output, maybe I would if I did street shooting. My FM2n/FE2s are lighter than my M4 and they are not much larger to boot. Having said that, I still really like the M4 especially for it's shutter release that is allowing me to handhold at slower speeds. There are pros and cons to both and I will keep my feet in both camps. This being an RF forum I post only RF images and only mention SLRs in threads such as this. I just enjoy using an RF and am glad to have had that experience.

Bob

[GeneW]

Good cameras, all of them -- RF, SLR, TLR, LF -- are a joy to use!

No argument about that around here. We just focus more on the RF part of the joy

Gene

However, when I whip out my tiny Olympus 35RC, nobody cares. If they only knew!

[kmack]

You will have to pry my plebian AE-1 from my cold dead fingers. When I need long lenses I use the Canon. I use my Konica Auto S2 in some situations and my Zorki is always with me. The Zorki because with the collapasable 50 it fits into my briefcase or a jacket pocket. The Konica because I like the large bright viewfinder and the lens is sharp and contrasty.

Different tools for different jobs, but this has been hashed over many times here.

[Bertram2]

In other words, I have a very inclusive worldview. Which is why I don't (YET...) see the giganimous advantage for real-life, street, candid or documentary photography in rangefinders over SLR's.

Which "giganimous" advantage ?? Who said there is one ?
There are personal preferences, many photogs here on the list prefer RFs for certain purposes, from various reasons. That's all.

I've pretty much had every basic SLR and rangefinder experience there is. Frankly, I don't know what everyone's complaining about.

Who is complaining about SLRs here ? The very most of the forum own SLRs and use them parallel to their RF cameras.

I hear you say it everytime you talk about not needing to see through the lens but rather through a bright viewfinder that also shows you a couple feet of life around the frame and how much closer to the world this brings you than the WYSIWIG of SLR's. can anyone say "the ambiguity of hypocrisy"? (I'm not mudslinging, guys, just calling 'em like I see 'em).

You hear US saying anything ? We all say that, or what ?
Again there are some who prefer a RF over an SLR, some in general, some for certain purposes only.

Listening to you one could assume the RFF members are a bunch of narrow minded purists regarding SLRs as an inferior system in general ?
And it sounds a bit as if you personally were attacked or feel offenden as somebody who uses SLRs ?
If somebody explains the reasons for his preference why should this have anything to do with a kinda "ambuguity of hypocrisy" ?

This is explicitely not a purist forum of narrow minded RF fundamentalists, it is quite the opposite thing and I think that's why it is so peaceful. Too much tolerance to leave room for any kinda weak minded X vs Y confrontations, as they happen so often in other forums.

BTW I could imagine you'd be surprised to learn how very inclusive other RFF members worldview is after 50 years of photographical experience and the ownership of some dozens of cameras.

bertram

[Gabriel M.A.]

Guys, guys, clearly Rangefinders and SLRs aren't members of rival Baseball or Rugby teams, so I don't understand why they're treated as such.

If only one type of equipment were ever good, then variety wouldn't exist.

And welcome, Sakamoto.

[lynn]

I read this first thing this morning, and enjoyed it totally: the implied "knipoog" (wink) started my week with a smile.
(I think the "equ" means "equally" and whoever could argue with that? I cherish both of my children for their unique-and-different qualities...and that's rather how I - like Sakamoto - appreciate my cameras too..) :-)

[ZeissFan]

One tiny correction: The Rollei B35 had a Triotar -- not a Tessar. Although among triplets, I've always been impressed by the Triotar.

I think we all agree that each format and each camera has its distinct advantages and disadvantages.

[msakamoto]

Phew, thanks for the soft landing, guys. I was afraid my message was going to be taken generally as a flame. You're all correct that most people here are fine with both camera types. However, I just keep running into posts and essays all over the web (not just in this forum) by people who do seem to want to turn it into a rivalry. I think a lot of rangefinder users tend to have a chip on their shoulder since it's such a discounted medium by the mainstream. Kind of like reverse racism, if you know what I mean.

D'oh! yes, the Triotar. Much nicer name, that...(?!)

Yes, you're right. I must apologize to my Pellix. (Sorry, darling...) It doesn't go thunk-thwack at all. It goes more like an extremely gentle "teschewtk..."

giganimous: (adj.) of an extremely large size, scale or volume; both aesthetic and physical contexts; e.g. A giganimous elephant stepped on and crushed his minisculous Minox.

[oftheherd]

Originally Posted by msakamoto

Phew, thanks for the soft landing, guys. I was afraid my message was going to be taken generally as a flame. You're all correct that most people here are fine with both camera types. However, I just keep running into posts and essays all over the web (not just in this forum) by people who do seem to want to turn it into a rivalry. I think a lot of rangefinder users tend to have a chip on their shoulder since it's such a discounted medium by the mainstream. Kind of like reverse racism, if you know what I mean.

D'oh! yes, the Triotar. Much nicer name, that...(?!)

Yes, you're right. I must apologize to my Pellix. (Sorry, darling...) It doesn't go thunk-thwack at all. It goes more like an extremely gentle "teschewtk..."

giganimous: (adj.) of an extremely large size, scale or volume; both aesthetic and physical contexts; e.g. A giganimous elephant stepped on and crushed his minisculous Minox.

Welcome msakamoto. I don't think you will find any really dogmatic people here. Just people who enjoy RF photography along with other types of photography. Since this is the RFF forum, most who post here limit threads to rangefinders. If you spend more time here, you will however, find occasional mention of SLR, TLR, and even MF and LF cameras and lenses. It just isn't the thrust of the forum. I think you will easily fit in.

[Poptart]

Thanks a million for the definition--as the pixel said to the halide.

[oftheherd]

Originally Posted by Poptart

Thanks a million for the definition--as the pixel said to the halide.

Cute.

[Brian Sweeney]

Nikon RF <-> Nikon SLR
Leica RF <-> Leica SLR
Canon RF <-> Canon SLR
Retina RF <-> Retina SLR
Konica RF <-> Konica SLR
Cosina (made) RF <-> Argus/Cosina SLR
Polaroid RF <-> Polaroid SLR (whew. Nikki's favorite camera)
Contax RF <-> Sold the Contaflex.
Minolta RF <-> Sold the SRT201. Can't win them all.
Voigtlander Vitessa T <-> Would not mind a Bessaflex.
Yashica Electro RF <-> The Right Yashica TL Electro-X has not come along yet.

Instamatic RF <-> Instamatic Reflex.

I think that is all. The Retina RF's and SLR's are the most compatible. The SLR lenses RF couple on the IIIS.

[aad]

Not much dogma here, from what I see. I like my RF because I can slip it in to my overcoat pocket (with lens collapsed) and not look like a hunch-something. My M series Pentax with the 40/2.8 pancake can only come sort of close, so the RF is whaat I have with me.

Still, I shoot about a roll a week per camera.

[payasam]

I've always wondered about the Pellix. If it has a fixed, semi-transparent mirror, the marked shutter speeds cannot be the real ones because that would lead to under-exposure. It follows that the Pellix will give more shake and blur than other cameras at the same marked shutter speeds.

"Miniscule" does not exist: "minuscule" does.

[hugivza]

An interesting thread. One of the things that I have enjoyed about the forum is the lack of dogmatism; the belief, or perhaps more correctly the lack thereof, that that the only way to nirvana or the great CPE2 processor in the sky is through fervently clutching a Leica look alike. Most of my own rangefinders purport to come from a distinctly atheistic pedigree, and I therefore really wonder if "halide" is the death of the computer in Arthur C Clark's "2001"; or perhaps it is just a question of one's viewpoint rather than belief which is where this thread started.

[Brian Sweeney]

> I've always wondered about the Pellix

I'll double-check the Pellix meter against my other cameras. I suspect that it is the Pellix meter that accounts for the 30% light loss through the beamsplitter. That would explain why the readings it gives seem so "over-exposed" to me, but the exposure is correct on the film. What I typically do is open up the lens a bit more, not decrease the shutter speed.

Overall, the moise level and shake is about the same as the Canon 7. As their is no VF blackout, it is easier to hold steady during long exposures- similar to an RF.

I do not have the manual, but the operator could have been instructed to use a compensation factor when using an external meter, as would be done using filters.

The down-side of the Pellix is separation on the Pellicle mirror. Unlike other cameras, it shows up on the film. I looked for a good Pellix for 15 years before stumbling across one with a perfect mirror. Same antique store case as the Nikon M.