Is there any truth that a RF takes better photos?

i think rf will take better pictures for people who prefer to use an rf to an slr, likewise, vice versa for slr for people who prefer it to an rf.
 
leicashot said:
cameras don't take pictures, people do.
Click to expand...

While this is true... I do believe that a particular camera can inspire someone to want to use it, to get out more, to feel more comfortable, etc. Sure, some people really believe they are just tools and each one is equal... but if you use a rangefinder in the first place, you don't generally think this way. I'm of the opinion that the camera does matter with regard to comfort and desire to want to use it over another camera.

Technically, a rangefinder is no better than a SLR, etc.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Really? They just take them at random? You don't need anyone speeding, or running a light, to trigger them?

Sorry: couldn't resist. But 'security' cameras do, indeed, take them at pre-programmed intervals. Even then, someone has to switch them on.

Whereas, as far as I am aware, none of my cameras (or anyone else's) has ever decided to take a picture without being instructed to do so.

Mind you, some cameras take their time. As a friend of mine said of the early Coolpix, trying to photograph his daughters aged 5 and 7, "By the time it gets around to taking a picture, they'll be wearing make-up and going out with boys."

His older daughter is 15 now, and apparently has a boyfriend. I wonder how the boyfriend likes the picture?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Sure, you need some human agency involved at a certain point for there to be a photograph (as with any artifact). Somebody has to produce the camera for starters.

But still, a photograph is the result of an automatism and we generally accord authorship to a person to the extent that the automatism was triggered with intentions or at least intent. And where there is little intention involved at the triggering stage we defer the question of authorship to the selection stage (editing). I think it would be hard to argue that a person caught speeding by a traffic camera can be accorded authorship of the image of his car. After all, the last thing he/she wanted is to take a picture. The person who programmed the camera could indeed be said to act with intent as he framed the shot and was determined on capturing speeding cars. However, one could think up many examples how a camera could be set up to take random pictures of random things that no one could intend in advance.

In the end I think we just have to concede that ultimately it is really the camera that takes the picture. But we can take comfort in the fact that it's people who make cameras take good pictures. :)
 
I think you're right. A RF is sharper than an SLR because the lens is closer to the film plane. At least that's what I've read. This is probably a non factor in actual prints at medium to large sizes though, so to me it doesn't matter. A print from a Leica SLR lens is PLENTY sharp, and will enlarge very well. That's because it has high resolution and excellent native IQ.

Really, you have to factor in actual IQ vs sharpness, and what you plan on doing w/ the neg (assuming we're talking film here). A sharp lens w/ not so good bokeh is of little use for portraits, a not so sharp medium format neg will give you higher quality big prints than a really sharp 35mm neg, etc.
 
Last edited:
I knew I was going to take some hits for what I said but at least it got some emotion going. Ya baby.
 
I was once going to buy a Fiat Punto but happened to sit in a BMW M3, well, the ashtray was just perfect, beautifully positioned and not too small. So I ended up spending three times the price of the Punto, not that the M3's a better car mind, as everyone knows it's the driver not the car right, it'll not get me across London any faster, but that ashtray was just so much more me.


Do you see what I did there.
 
No. My favorite/best images have come from a spread (about even) of
Canon 30D with 24-70mm f2.8L glass
Mamiya RZ67 ProII with 110mm f2.8 and TMAX 400 film, nikon scanner
Olympus OM2 with 135mm f3.5 lens
Canon VI-L with 85mm f1.9 lens

I have some good shots with the rangefinders. When they are good they are very good. But so far they have not ended up as a best by any trend.
And film versus digital - both mediums have best images. The lens seems to be the best indicator of stretching good to great.
 
Better photographers take better photographs.

I prefer to shoot with my rangefinders, but I wouldn't say I take "better" photos when I use them. Just as many of my personal favorite photographs were taken with my Nikon F3 as with my S3.
 
kshapero said:
I knew I was going to take some hits for what I said but at least it got some emotion going. Ya baby.
Click to expand...

So you DID know you were starting an argument!

It has been a while since I used an SLR, but I much prefer framelines and seeing what's outside the border. It is even better keeping both eyes open.

There is probably an element of "cognitive style" that enters into this. I have seen comments from those who dislike the distraction of seeing anything not captured in the final image, so they are polar opposites to me and my ilk when it comes to this.

Randy

P.S. A friend has promised me an old SLR (Nikon, not sure of the model), so may have the opportunity to compare in the future.
 
Sadly I get more "These are great." statements when using my Canon 5D mk2 than I do using my Leica M9. I wish it was the other way around especially considering the cost. But the M9 goes everywhere with me. The 5D does not.
 
Your interest towards your own photographs may very well rely on what is on the picture (i.e., the subject, and the emotion it drives...) so if you use to (like most people having the choice may do) travel to interesting places and meet interesting faces and situations rather with some 35mm RF stuff than some SLR or MF gear because the 35mm RF equipment allows you to walk and travel lighter, chances are, that most of the photos you will prefer will be some shot with 35mm RF gear.

In 2011 I travelled to Toronto and some other nice places and each time I took a single camera with me, my Rolleiflex 3.5F, so, when I look back, from today, at my 2011 production, it seems to me that the most interesting part of it was shot on square MF film ; OTOH when I look at what I shot in 2008-2010, I must admit that what pops-up is the 35mm RF production, because I had always taken that kind of stuff alongside with me... and you know what ? My favourite photos of the 1985-2000 period were all shot with 35mm SLR gear, just because this is the only equipment I had then... ;)
 
As everone else has said, people take the picture, not the camera. I think you might be more careful about composition using a rangefinder because it slows you down. I have taken good pictures with all sorts of camera, so it is really just the camera you happen to be using at the time.
I will say that certain lens/camera combinations might produce better results for specific types of picture. For example I almost always use my D300s with a Tamron 90mm macro for my macro shots. I also use the Leica or Fuji X100 for street shots. So if I take a good macro shot it will normally be with the D300s and if its a good street shot it will be a rangefinder.
 
I don't think it makes a difference either way. What has made a noticeable difference for me is the ZM Planar which is a superior lens to any SLR lens I had previously. I am sure the Zeiss SLR version would produce similar results. In the end it is the talent and vision of the photographer that makes the difference. When I browse through the galleries here, there are a number of members that consistently post excellent if not superb images using a variety of cameras and lenses. Personally I don't place too much emphasis on whether or not a rangefinder produces sharper or "better" images. At this point in time I enjoy using a rangefinder so that's why I do it.
 
Interesting observation (rather than "finding") but my experience makes me answer the question withthe negative reply that (somewhat) rhymes with 'troll'. ;)

It is likely a matter of statistics, though. My best images were shot with non-RF cameras but I have many more "non-RF" images to choose from.
 
I conducted a 100% unbiased experiment to provide an answer to this thread. I tested my M6 TTL Millennium, FM3a, EOS Elan 7ne, Hasselblad 500cm and AGFA Record III 6x9 folder. I loaded them all with Tri-X. I placed them all on a tripod, pointed them at the same subject, lit exactly the same for each camera, I then did my damnedest to get each one to take a picture. I can tell you, unequivocally, that not one of them did anything. Not a single one fired their shutter. What a stubborn pile of metal, and plastic in the case of the 7ne.

So, as a result of this test, without any outside intervention, say by someone who we will call a photographer, I can say that a RF is equally inept at taking photographs as any other camera. Not better, not worst.
 
Jamie123 said:
Sure, you need some human agency involved at a certain point for there to be a photograph (as with any artifact). Somebody has to produce the camera for starters.

But still, a photograph is the result of an automatism and we generally accord authorship to a person to the extent that the automatism was triggered with intentions or at least intent. And where there is little intention involved at the triggering stage we defer the question of authorship to the selection stage (editing). I think it would be hard to argue that a person caught speeding by a traffic camera can be accorded authorship of the image of his car. After all, the last thing he/she wanted is to take a picture. The person who programmed the camera could indeed be said to act with intent as he framed the shot and was determined on capturing speeding cars. However, one could think up many examples how a camera could be set up to take random pictures of random things that no one could intend in advance.

In the end I think we just have to concede that ultimately it is really the camera that takes the picture. But we can take comfort in the fact that it's people who make cameras take good pictures. :)
Click to expand...

Oh, sure. I wasn't really arguing, but equally, I could get into the idea that one can 'take a picture' in one's head (Lartigue's argument), though admittedly, one can't then show it to anyone. But afterwards, if one were good enough, one could paint that same scene. I'm thinking of something I saw over 50 years ago: two flying-boats taking off in the Bay of Tripoli. It's still (sort of) taking a picture.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top