Is there any truth that a RF takes better photos?

I feel way more comfortable with an RF 35mm than with any other type of camera: 35 SLR, MF, TLR, you name it, and it shows on the pictures
RF cameras do take better pictures when the "pilot" is more comfortable with an RF camera than with an SLR.
Akiva, IMHO the conclusion here should be that YOU are an RF shooter, more than an SLR shooter.
 
But it is possible that due the uniqueness of an RF (outside frame-lines. unobtrusiveness,etc.) and that a photographer prefers that type of camera that he just gets off better shots. And the same could be said for other formats and individual brands, too. Otherwise why do we all have preferences?
 
kshapero said:
(1) But it is possible that due the uniqueness of an RF (outside frame-lines. unobtrusiveness,etc.) and

(2) that a photographer prefers that type of camera that he just gets off better shots.

(3) And the same could be said for other formats and individual brands, too.

(4) Otherwise why do we all have preferences?
Click to expand...

1 - Not in my experience. This is an interesting but highly over-rated capability. If importance mostly to the "I'll never crop" crowd, or the "I'm still learning to frame a good image" folks. (with no effense intended to those still learning!) I also belieev that the "quiet shutter" arguement is equally interesting but generally over-rated.

2 - Yes, indeed.

3 - Yes, indeed... and the preference can be very personal so generalized statments about "best option" are not always correct.

4 - Great question... very philosophical and in perfect keeping with the name of the forum!
 
RanceEric said:
Better photographers take better photographs.
Click to expand...

This is probably the best response in my opinion. The rest is form factor and personal preference. I use rangefinders in certain situations, DSLRs in others. "Better" is very subjective and it depends on the the goal. I'm currently considering LF for certain types of images I want to make. 4X5 sheet film will be "better" for some of what I want to do.
 
I would say that there is little difference at all in the overall quality of the photos between cameras. However, I do find that certain rf lenses yield distinguishable characteristics than other comparable SLR lenses. It goes both ways, so there's no real answer to be found. I do find myself framing, moving, and shooting differently with my M cameras though, purely as a result of the M and RF design. Prime lenses, shorter focal lengths, and a unique focusing system makes me shoot in a totally different way than with my Nikon DSLR. I get closer, I shift around and frame/focus more precisely. I don't know if this yields "better" results, but I do find that I like the way I shoot when I have to slow down...
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I can say for sure that the pictures I take in my head are always better than the ones I take with my camera. So, logically, it must be the camera's fault ;)
 
absolutely yes.

but just for a reason;
I don't love to bring a slr with me, too bulky for my tastes. So most of the time my favourite shots were made with the only camera I can stand to wear: a rangefinder with a 'cron 35 v4 :D
 
kshapero said:
But it is possible that due the uniqueness of an RF (outside frame-lines. unobtrusiveness,etc.) and that a photographer prefers that type of camera that he just gets off better shots. And the same could be said for other formats and individual brands, too. Otherwise why do we all have preferences?
Click to expand...

I'd say that a photographer prefers that type of camera that he just gets off shots he prefers at the time they are shot or looked at.

If I am shooting with a 50mm only, and don't need to do some macro work, I will use my Nikon RF gear : they're lighter and smaller and their 1:1 VFs are just as good as the 100% finder of my Nikon F/F2 (end the reverse being true).

But if only the F/F2 are available at that time I will use them and probably shoot the very same kind of photos when I'm in front of the same kind of subject.

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. I can perfectly keep both eyes open even with the F/F2 and with them, there is no composing problem whatsoever, I would be very interested at knowing a lone interesting photo for which the experienced photographer decided what had to be shot by noticing something being just outside the composing frame while peering through the viewfinder and not having first noticed that thing with his own eyes without looking through the camera viewfinder.

Even the left-right reverse framing of my MF cameras isn't a problem by itself.

So, my point is :
  • RF cameras are smaller and lighter
  • SLRs are more handy and visually comfortable but they are heavier and larger, and make more noise
  • MF cameras allow you to use 120 films but they aren't small and light, in general.
All the rest (what you shoot with which or which camera or system) can quickly become uninteresting because everyone will tell something different, nobody will agree, and meanwhile nobody will try to improve his way of taking photos...


I wouldn't even dare to walk onto the "individual brands" fairway. :D
 
Jamie123 said:
Yes, and I can say for sure that the pictures I take in my head are always better than the ones I take with my camera. So, logically, it must be the camera's fault ;)
Click to expand...

We have now solved the entire philosophical conundrum, and there is no need for any further response to this thread, or indeed, to 99% of other gear threads -- although, I suppose, that the debate now shifts from which is the best, to which is the least worst.

Cheers,

R.
 
My RF cams suck at macro, wildlife and BIF ;)

I love their mechanical feel, compactness, and retro look though, so I'm willing to put up with the drawbacks. And I use them more often.
 
kshapero said:
But it is possible that due the uniqueness of an RF (outside frame-lines. unobtrusiveness,etc.) and that a photographer prefers that type of camera that he just gets off better shots. And the same could be said for other formats and individual brands, too. Otherwise why do we all have preferences?
Click to expand...
Exactly.
and I would add that maybe, the two only real differences between and RF and an SLR as picture taking machines, namely the lack of mirror slap and the release of the flange to film distance limitation, maybe, those will give the RF the edge in certain situations.
The relative precision of the RF for wides compared to SLRs may also play a role.
But at the end, I think the most important thing is the psychological issue:
If the photographer and his subject both feel more comfortable, the pictures are better, more interesting.
 
Yes, yes and yessss.:D

In your case, if you are certain the RF's photographs are better.

Taking a photograph is an emotional act.
Anything that influences our emotions will have an impact on our photographs.

So within that framework it's quite logical that we may have a specific tool that we use best.
Even if it's just our subconscious at work.
 
Highway 61 said:
, I would be very interested at knowing a lone interesting photo for which the experienced photographer decided what had to be shot by noticing something being just outside the composing frame while peering through the viewfinder and not having first noticed that thing with his own eyes without looking through the camera viewfinder.:D
Click to expand...

I beg to disagree.
when the camera reaches my eye, I have a rough idea of what I want, but the adjustments are made afterwards.
With an SLR, the longer it takes me to wait for the right picture, for the right adjustment, the less I am aware of what is around the picture. To the point that after a second or two I need to put down the camera, and reevaluate.
But of course, I am not an experienced photographer, and I rarely take interesting photos...:)
 
I don't think that there is any magic in any particular type of camera. That having been said, I seem to take most of what I think of as my best work with film. I don't even think that film is necessarily magic, just another palette. I think that any equipment or medium will improve one's photography, if it facilitates thinking more carefully about what one is doing. In my case, it's not camera dependent, but maybe having formed photographic habits with film and being aware that every shot represents a sunk cost makes me more deliberate and thoughtful when I'm shooting than I am with digital. Others might get that same "mental check" by using a rangefinder, SLR or view camera rather than some other type of camera and therefore generalize that the type of camera that they use is the best.
 
Hatch said:
Taking a photograph is an emotional act. Anything that influences our emotions will have an impact on our photographs. So within that framework it's quite logical that we may have a specific tool that we use best. Even if it's just our subconscious at work.
Click to expand...

Agreed...completely.
 
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top