Who needs a SLR?

[Tim Gray]

I use my Canon EOS for concert photography. Or I guess anything else where I have to work fast.

[shadowfox]

IMHO, you're robbing yourself one of the most satisfying experience in doing photography if you don't at least give SLR a try.

It's equally silly considering that pro quality SLR's can be had for a song (literally).

RF in general and Leica M specifically are teriffic for certain situations, but SLR opens the door to so much more.

Btw, I'll say the same thing about trying out MF and LF photography

[digitalintrigue]

RF and SLR are very complementary. I like that I can shoot my M3 in close proximity to family and friends, getting candid natural expressions, that I could never get with a big noisy DSLR.

I also like that my D300 is six frames per second and autofocus when I shoot autoracing, kids, and my greyhounds. I also like that a cheapie 50/1.4 can be used essentially as a 75/1.4. In fact, the D300 and the 50 cost less than a 75 lux lens alone.

[wlewisiii]

Why limit yourself unnecessarily? It all depends on what I am looking to do.

I go through phases though - right now I'm very much in 35mm SLR mode with my Canon T90 after being in a MF RF mode for several weeks.

Light and simple snapshots/travel? Bessa R w/ a 35, 50, 90
Macro/Tele/Serious light metering needed? T90 w/ a range of 24 to 500 (plus a 2x converter to make that a 1000/16 if absolutly needed)
Movements or larger neg needed? LF - rangefinder or ground glass depending on lens needed.
Just needing to play & learn? Anything in my .sig's list...

I don't make my meat & drink from this so I try to avoid getting dogmatic about anything camera related.

William

[maddoc]

I too came from the (D)SLR world but it gave it up, since I don't need any long (zoom, tele) specialized (shift) or macro lens. Additionally (except for the MF SLR / TLR which have a magnifier in the VF), focussing with a 35mm SLR is more miss and hit for me and AF doesn't work well through windows or under low contrast etc...

[Artorius]

I need an SLR/DSLR for what a RF can't do; tele and Macro, and shotgunning exposures for the most part. I realize that back in MY day, we did use RF. I have even shot sports with a Speed Graphic 4X5, and I got the shots. But. today, why bother with so many options available to you. Hell, I still have a Mamiya MF to use when I need it. As much as I use my RF, I NEED the options, for me to complete my job.
So, in a word, I still need an SLR.

[amateriat]

When I swtiched from near-full-time SLR shooting to RFs, I wondered aloud (well, sometimes) if I'd regret my wholesale dumping of SLRs. So far, six-years-plus later, the answer is no. Mind you, I have an inherited Olympus OM-2n on hand (as well as galfriend's OM-2S), so I'm hardly bereft of SLRs, but I rarely touch them. Extreme close-up work, when necessary, is handled just fine by my little Casio EX-850 digital. Telephoto capability beyond 90mm is next to never needed. (When I was shooting with SLRs, I often had focal lengths upwards of 300mm; I rarely shot with anything above 135mm.)

You determine what you want to do photographically, then choose the gear that works best in that direction. There is no inherently "superior" format; that's why there are so many different ones.


- Barrett

[mfunnell]

Originally Posted by amateriat

(When I was shooting with SLRs, I often had focal lengths upwards of 300mm; I rarely shot with anything above 135mm.)

You determine what you want to do photographically, then choose the gear that works best in that direction. There is no inherently "superior" format; that's why there are so many different ones.


- Barrett

Exactly. I use my 100-400mm zoom, a lot. But then I shoot wildlife. Others don't, so don't need the large heavy lens, and maybe not the SLR to attach to it.

(In fact, the 100-400 is rather handy and lightweight in comparison to serious wildlife lenses.)

The right tool for the task seems a good approach to me.

...Mike

[pvdhaar]

I use a DSLR for flash, macro and tele photography. For me this corresponds to focal lengths upwards of 50mm equiv.

For wide angle I use a Bessa-T with 25mm. The 50mm is welded to the M4.

[x-ray]

SLR's both film and digital are my main system for work and about 30% of my documentary. Can't do without them due to larger selection of lenses, ultra fast and superb glass in both wide and tele, macro without headaches and precise framing. I do own a set of L zooms but primarily use prime lenses for sliughtly better quality and tradition from many years of shooting before good zooms.

[rui]

Contributing with my "2 cents", I gradually moved away from SLRs. My first kit, 11 years ago, was a Nikon F50 with two Sigma zoom lenses (28-70 and 70-300). The optics were rather weak and I started looking into prime lenses and manual cameras. That led me into buying a Nikon FE2, a 55/2.8 Micro, a 24/2.8 and a 105/25 Nikkors. I used that kit for several years and I can tell it's a great combo, even if it's a bit heavy to carry arround. That was why I started looking into old RF cameras, buying a Leica IIIf, a 35/3.5 Summaron, a 50/2 Summitar (later replaced by a classic 50/3.5 Elmar) and a 90/4 Elmar. Light, inexpensive and classy. So good I left the FE2 in the case and used it for 2 years as my main camera. The charm of the M2 started getting into me and I bought one with a 50/3.5 Elmar (M). Later I got a 90/4 collapsible Elmar, a 35/2.8 Summaron and a 50/2 dual range Summicron. That's the gear I've been using almost daily for the past year, which means that I seldom use the IIIf, rarely use the FE2 and almost never use the F50. Getting back on topic, I only feel the need for the SLR when I want macro or really wide angle (24mm), which happens less and less...

[gavinlg]

I use my Olympus OM the most. it's the same size, speed, sound, weight as a leica M and just as satisfying to use. In saying that as well, the basic kit costs less that one voigtlander M lens new.

I love RFs but my OM kit is bloody versatile. I can do ANYTHING with it.

[Dralowid]

VIVA LEICAFLEX!!!

Although I use 135mm on my M, I gave up with the Visoflex last year and bought a SL MOT. It is the only SLR I have ever owned.

This thing is built like a tank and does things the M could never do but in a Leica sort of way. Must be the only Leica that could ever be described as inexpensive...well nearly.

I use a battered 60 Macro that produces truly excellent results and a 560 Telyt that will get me arrested one day.

The only downside is that I cannot get the motor to work, so, if anyone has a Leicaflex motor they don't need, give us a shout!

Michael

[tomasis]

Originally Posted by itf

Or... maybe you think you need an SLR more than you do.

I N D E E D

[hans voralberg]

Originally Posted by Dralowid

I use a battered 60 Macro that produces truly excellent results and a 560 Telyt that will get me arrested one day.


Michael

You mean you actually carry around that bazooka of a lens

[Dralowid]

Originally Posted by hans voralberg

You mean you actually carry around that bazooka of a lens

Well, not every day, my back couldn't take it. That's why I have an M.

The Telyt is never far from either car or better still, boat.

Apart from it's obvious use as a long lens for wildlife photography, it is great fun to use.

Massive foreshortening, zero depth of field and tremendous quality. Try using it for portraits, not intimate I admit, but it keeps your subject's nose to a minimum!!!!

Michael

[Dogman]

While I prefer using rangefinders, I like SLRs and I also like the autofocus in Canon EOS bodies. My eyes are simply not good enough anymore to focus consistently with SLRs without using autofocus.

[Magnus]

I have used Leica RF's for years, 35mm and 50mm mostly. I found the pictures got boring, same angle, same view..... I decided to lay my M series aside and go for detail instead of full-frame photogrpahy. I purchased a Canon EOS3 (impeccable condition) and a Sigma 80-200 2,8. (both for less than a worn down 50mm leica lens) and went on my way, 2 years later I have not regretted this decision, it's heavy, it's loud, it's big etc. etc. but the shots I get in return are magnificent. I guess I just grew out of the 35-50 view.

One of my greatest pleasures in photography is development and manual printing, but I have given way to digital photography for anti-shake systems, low-light etc are good features, still big, heavy etc. but will open up a complete new world. I have bought a 40d body and a 80-200 IS 2.8 lens .... but I still carry my leica 50mm around though, although hardly used i will not get rid of it.

[equalizer]

Personally I don't need an SLR

Even when I used to own a Nikon SLR, I had two lenses 35 and 50mm - I can enjoy this better on a Leica M system. I hate tele lenses...

I still have a Zenit SLR though but I don't use it.