Is there any truth that a RF takes better photos?

Highway 61 said:
BTW those stories telling about RFs raising those special abilities to see what is out of the frame and to keep both eyes open to compose are just hoaxes IMO. :D
Click to expand...

OK, here is an example I shot last Summer - these guys were moving around pretty fast (and in different directions), by keeping both eyes open I was able to better judge where they would end up in the frame.

I am sure your reactions and experience are far superior to mine and you would take a MUCH better shot with an SLR, but I found the characteristics of the RF helpful in this case. ;-)

Randy

5932621626_5f62f0b2b6_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
rbsinto said:
Speaking only from personal experiences shooting with film SLRs and Rangefinders equipped with various Nikon, and third-party lenses, I believe I produce better photos when I use the SLR system.
I attribute this not to the quality of the lenses, but only to my greater level of comfort using using the SLR gear than the rangefinder system (almost 34 years for the former versus about five or six years for the latter).
Click to expand...
well said:)
 
The problem?

The problem?

"...my absolute best shots were fairly evenly spread between Leicas, Zeiss Ikons and Voigtlanders..."

I think I see the problem. Is it photography or an equipment test lab?
 
zauhar said:
OK, here is an example I shot last Summer - these guys were moving around pretty fast (and in different directions), by keeping both eyes open I was able to better judge where they would end up in the frame.

I am sure your reactions and experience are far superior to mine and you would take a MUCH better shot with an SLR, but I found the characteristics of the RF helpful in this case. ;-)

Randy
Click to expand...

I never said that I would take a "better" shot with an SLR, or what.

This is a very nice photograph which you display here but very frankly I still can't guess why you wouldn't have been able to take the very same photo using an SLR with a nice prime lens mounted, because you very likely had framed and composed the very same way for getting the very same result, because the composition was in your mind, not in your camera VF. Only minus : if the speed is 1/8s or something close, sharpness might have been lesser with an SLR (but, again, not too sure, I took some quite sharp photos at slower speeds using an SLR when I hadn't any RF yet).

When you look at great photographers' contact sheets, not only their most famous photos, you realize that the key is in how something become memorable was captured, absolutely not in with which type of camera it was captured, and that some myths are just... myths.

We could all post pictures here to start an endless argument, I can post pictures candidly shot with a MF TLR which have all the characteristics of "35mm RF humanist street photography style", but do you really think it would be interesting ?
 
Highway 61 said:
I never said that I would take a "better" shot with an SLR, or what.

This is a very nice photograph which you display here but very frankly I still can't guess why you wouldn't have been able to take the very same photo using an SLR with a nice prime lens mounted, because you very likely had framed and composed the very same way for getting the very same result, because the composition was in your mind, not in your camera VF. Only minus : if the speed is 1/8s or something close, sharpness might have been lesser with an SLR (but, again, not too sure, I took some quite sharp photos at slower speeds using an SLR when I hadn't any RF yet).

When you look at great photographers' contact sheets, not only their most famous photos, you realize that the key is in how something become memorable was captured, absolutely not in with which type of camera it was captured, and that some myths are just... myths.

We could all post pictures here to start an endless argument, I can post pictures candidly shot with a MF TLR which have all the characteristics of "35mm RF humanist street photography style", but do you really think it would be interesting ?
Click to expand...

Not entirely. You get a different look with a 10x8 inch camera than with a Minox.

These are extreme examples, but different cameras do encourage different ways of working.

Cheers,

R.
 
I'll stick my head above the parapet here, but there are differences between RF lenses and Slr's particularly at the wide end, when I shot film on Canon and Leica I could identify which pack of photos were shot with which camera after looking at about 4 or 5 images, I could identify a friends photos in the same way except for his Nikon 50/1.4 which I would think were RF, and I have no doubt there are others, but in general they just render in slightly different ways. This is mainly due to not having to design for the mirror clearance IMO. Can anyone point me to any 21mm SLR lens with as little distortion as a good RF version?

What I find slightly bizarre is people spending many thousands of £/$ more on RF lenses than the SLR equivalent, then in an act of inverse snobbery say they can't see any difference between the two. So they're spending three times as much for what, 20% size reduction and a nice shutter noise, but it seems to be the cool thing to say.

Now I'm not saying that an image will be less for being shot on an SLR, the differences are subtle, the best of anything usually is, and before anyone else utters the knee jerk, "it's the photographer not the camera" reply, yes I know it is, but I think it's a bit of a myth that anyone ever buys a lens or camera and thinks it will transform their talent, the idea is take the images you take and achieve the best quality you can, but please let me know if there's a percentage of your work you think would be better if the lens had been of lower quality.
 
Last edited:
My experience tells me that when I use a camera where I can set every single setting manually, I tend to spend more time per photo.
This case, mostly the composition, framing and dof are better.

On the other side, I see that I have radiant pictures with my dslr that has a good lens that gives me good bokeh. But for digital, I tend to spend more time on postprocessing like cropping so I get the good framing after I took the photo. While with my other cameras I spend more time in framing the photo before I click the release button.
 
Nothing ... absolutely nothing takes better pictures than an F6!

I know this for a fact!
 
Oooh, this should have been a poll! ;)

I agree that I take the pictures and not the camera, but I like more of the pictures I have taken with my RF than my SLR. The SLR pics are good and most of them couldn't have been taken with a RF (tele, shift, macro, etc.), but the RF pics grab my heart.

I had an extensive OM system that I sold off to get my RF and haven't looked back.
 
The VF of RF cameras with the space around the frame helps a lot to see more and then frame accordingly. This gives more flexibility in being creative. With SLR when you point the camera its framed already and the rest is dark so you have to remove your eye from the VF to get a better view or keep moving the frame which is awkward... But this only applies to a certian type of photography, street/documentary casual style of shooting. For everything else an SLR is far more useful.
 
I've followed this thread, and there's something that puzzles me. Many people seem to really believe that the camera doesn't matter, it's the photographer. I can relate to this from a symbolic point of view. Of course it's all about the subject, light, composition, etc etc that you choose. But how can a camera Not matter?

Did Schumacher win F1 worldcups without caring about the car he was driving? how can one assume that one will do extensively a certain activity (like photographing) without considering the material he'll use?! Of course the camera matters, of course one has to consider what camera(s) and lenses to use.

Yes, it's a matter of personal choices, and that's why it's so important to debate them. But camera Does matter, if it didn't we wouldn't have this great Forum filled with sections dedicated to certain brands and cameras... we'd only have a gallery, no?
 
Rui Resende said:
I've followed this thread, and there's something that puzzles me. Many people seem to really believe that the camera doesn't matter, it's the photographer. I can relate to this from a symbolic point of view. Of course it's all about the subject, light, composition, etc etc that you choose. But how can a camera Not matter?
Click to expand...

Well, quite. But there are those who live by their preconceptions ("A rangefinder can only be used for...") and those who take pictures.

There's an old saying: "Jack of all trades, master of none." Of course I use other cameras than RFs. But only when I can't easily get the pics I want with an RF -- and RFs are surprisingly versatile for landscape, travel, reportage, and more. Yes, an SLR is more versatile, but it's also inferior or (at best) equal to an RF for some things, and even where the RF is theoretically inferior, in practice, it's often at least as good.

It depends on what you like, and what you're happy with. I am repeatedly astonished by those who are too slow or too palsied to focus a 50mm lens for street photography, but rely instead on wide-angles and either zone focus or (worse still) hyperfocal distances.

Cheers,

R.
 
kshapero said:
Last night I went through probably thousands of photos I have taken over the past 6 years. I shoot with rangefinders, SLR's and digital and the majority of my favorites were taken with RF's. And my absolute best shots were fairly evenly spread between Leicas, Zeiss Ikons and Voigtlanders. Now granted this is my own judgement on things but I was amazed by the results of my findings. The other interesting fact was that I was able to easily remember which rig I used for just about every photo.
Three cheers for RF's.:)
Click to expand...
I think you got better results with equipment you like using more. You took more photos with the equipment you preferred, and since photography is really a numbers game (the more pix you take the higher the likelihood of more keepers) there should be no surprise that you got better results.
 
Switching Frames

Switching Frames

Let apart the narrower body and the lesser weight: That's definitly a positive RF aspect. But I noticed something different, which makes me more comfortable shooting with a RF rather than a SLR:

If there is time and the composition situation is a demanding one, I like to manually switch through the (Leica) standard prime frame focal lengths (28...135) to conclude which lens will better match the image I have in my mind, checking also portrait/landscape orientation. (if I carry more than one lens, of course)

With the strictly WYSIWYG VF on a SLR, particularly with a longer lens on, I find it very challenging to check for the correct wider prime lens before it is on the body.

Interstingly, after only a year of using RF cameras it seems the bright lines are etched into my mind, even without a camera. After decades of using different lenses with my SLR I hadn't evolved that knowledge. Nowadays this fact helps me taking better lens decision on my SLR cameras too... :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top