IkarusJohn Posted December 10, 2015 Share #301 Posted December 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) What a crushingly pointless disagreement. The rangefinder is perfect, for what it does, as is the EVF. It is possible to see through the rangefinder with the power off and it's even possible to take a picture with the lens cap on ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 Hi IkarusJohn, Take a look here Leica SL a real camera for the pro.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ramarren Posted December 10, 2015 Share #302 Posted December 10, 2015 More than the other has nothing to do with numbers nor has it got anything to do with perception. An SLR is a projected image, an optical RF type viewfinder is a telescope. I would say that that is an objective difference. As is an EVF to both. It is amazing that you cannot see the difference between a telescope and an LCD screen. Ah, but that isn't what you said in your original statements. Those are objective differences. Unlike "more like this" or "more direct view", etc. "This is kinda like that" is a value judgement, nothing objective about it. No need to get personal, Jaap. I'm just responding to your words. If you want to talk about the differences in viewfinders you should speak precisely, not in metaphors and similes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 10, 2015 Share #303 Posted December 10, 2015 More than the other has nothing to do with numbers nor has it got anything to do with perception. An SLR is a projected image, an optical RF type viewfinder is a telescope. I would say that that is an objective difference. As is an EVF to both. It is amazing that you cannot see the difference between a telescope and an LCD screen. Children, behave! Oh, oops, I'm not a moderator (blush) im not sure that you even disagree. Clearly all three are different, but calling an EVF a TV a dSLR a projector and a rangefinder a telescope might have some empiracle value, but it's hardly descriptive. Me? a rangefinder allows you to see around the subject (really important and involving) an EVF is real wysiwyg, and the one on the SL is so good you forget it's electronic a dSLR is nicely optical. But it's tunnel vision, likely to get disassociated from the lens and is clearly history Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 10, 2015 Share #304 Posted December 10, 2015 What a crushingly pointless disagreement. The rangefinder is perfect, for what it does, as is the EVF. It is possible to see through the rangefinder with the power off and it's even possible to take a picture with the lens cap on ... Can't agree more. It's more about words than anything real. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 10, 2015 Share #305 Posted December 10, 2015 Children, behave! Oh, oops, I'm not a moderator (blush) im not sure that you even disagree. Clearly all three are different, but calling an EVF a TV a dSLR a projector and a rangefinder a telescope might have some empiracle value, but it's hardly descriptive. Me? a rangefinder allows you to see around the subject (really important and involving) an EVF is real wysiwyg, and the one on the SL is so good you forget it's electronic a dSLR is nicely optical. But it's tunnel vision, likely to get disassociated from the lens and is clearly history Even more than that: the thing I most prize about any camera is its ability to disappear from my consciousness, become invisible, and let me engage directly with my subject. Whether RF, SLR, or EVF, the best camera disappears in my hands, from my view, so that I don't even notice which I'm using. Few cameras do this so well as these Leicas: M, R8, and SL—all three do it very well in their respective, individual ways. Must head home early so I can take a walk and do some shooting... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 10, 2015 Share #306 Posted December 10, 2015 Ah, but that isn't what you said in your original statements. Those are objective differences. Unlike "more like this" or "more direct view", etc. "This is kinda like that" is a value judgement, nothing objective about it. No need to get personal, Jaap. I'm just responding to your words. If you want to talk about the differences in viewfinders you should speak precisely, not in metaphors and similes. Not that I said anything like you suggest... <shrug> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted December 10, 2015 Share #307 Posted December 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Any of you guys take pictures, or do you stay at home and look through VF's (optical or otherwise) - for the benefit of mankind.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 10, 2015 Share #308 Posted December 10, 2015 Pictures Through any viewfinder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted December 10, 2015 Share #309 Posted December 10, 2015 Pictures Through any viewfinder Well ima' Limey.. Images if you prefer! --- yes & use any VF you like........or if your piccy (no pun intended) use the Monitor.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
firststream Posted December 10, 2015 Share #310 Posted December 10, 2015 Repeat it as often as you like: I completely disagree with this thesis. It is all just a pile of sophistic nonsense. What you are really saying is that you prefer an optical tunnel viewfinder with a coupled mechanical rangefinder over anything else for reasons that are so refined that only you and the other cognoscenti who insist upon the same thing can understand what you're talking about. Talk is cheap. Show the results and explain how they differ in concrete, demonstrable terms. Or just admit that you like what you like and that's all that matters. I'm good with that. One doesn't have to be a member of the cognoscenti to understand that showing a photograph shot in a spontaneous manner cannot show the battle for composition made prior to the shutter button being pressed. This is why Jono's and your images serve no relevance to the specific nature of rangefinder photography being discussed - the way in which, seeing outside the framelines allows the photographer to move the camera quicker in order to improve the strength of the composition than with any other type of viewfinder. Wattsy's approach of the rf/vf giving one the ability to crop-on-the-fly is one I'm generally in agreement with; it enables the quick-thinking photographer to get to composition in a way that takes away a degree of uncertainty in the decision-making process. But how can I possibly show a photograph using this technique, where the decision and thinking can be observed after the fact? That Jono and you feel it necessary to respond through images made in a spontaneous manner, makes me question whether we're talking on the same wavelength. Do neither of you see any advantage to seeing outside of the framelines? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
firststream Posted December 11, 2015 Share #311 Posted December 11, 2015 Even more than that: the thing I most prize about any camera is its ability to disappear from my consciousness, become invisible, and let me engage directly with my subject. Whether RF, SLR, or EVF, the best camera disappears in my hands, from my view, so that I don't even notice which I'm using. Few cameras do this so well as these Leicas: M, R8, and SL—all three do it very well in their respective, individual ways. Must head home early so I can take a walk and do some shooting... Interesting that Garry Winogrand had an opposite notion to his camera. He wanted to disappear from the camera's "consciousness"; to see in his photographs only that which the camera "saw"; to make his decision-making in the photographic process completely disappear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 11, 2015 Share #312 Posted December 11, 2015 ... That Jono and you feel it necessary to respond through images made in a spontaneous manner, makes me question whether we're talking on the same wavelength. Do neither of you see any advantage to seeing outside of the framelines? Actually, as you might surmise from the comment I made in #308 up-thread, if a camera is working the way I love best, I hardly see the viewfinder at all. The best camera, for me, disappears in my hands and to my eyes, allowing me to see my subject. The camera becomes, as it were, an extension of my eye and I see neither frame lines nor EVF nor focusing screen. They become irrelevant. Garry Winogrand took an opposite approach, yes. I'm happy with my photographic work, and I enjoy seeing his, so there are all kinds of ways to work this art. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 11, 2015 Share #313 Posted December 11, 2015 Time to head home, while there's still a little light out, and go for a walk with the camera ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted December 11, 2015 Author Share #314 Posted December 11, 2015 an EVF is real wysiwyg, and the one on the SL is so good you forget it's electronic a dSLR is nicely optical. But it's tunnel vision, likely to get disassociated from the lens and is clearly history So, going back to the topic. This looks IMHO like good news for the pro-shooter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted December 11, 2015 Share #315 Posted December 11, 2015 and it's even possible to take a picture with the lens cap on ... By far the best feature of the RF and will never be eclipsed by the EVF or DSLR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted December 11, 2015 Share #316 Posted December 11, 2015 The thing about the above pictures is that they were all unexpected - the kissing couple hardly disturbed their walk, the dog was only on the bench a second or so, the girl was uninteresting until she raised her arm etc. etc. Now then - I think there are other situations were an M might easily be better I think we can agree to differ here None of those pictures would have given me any difficulty with an M. and I am far from the best M shooter ... Not saying that the SL isn't better for many things, which it is .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 11, 2015 Share #317 Posted December 11, 2015 I think we can agree to differ here None of those pictures would have given me any difficulty with an M. and I am far from the best M shooter ... Not saying that the SL isn't better for many things, which it is .... Only if you had happened to have the right lens on in each case . . . . . but as someone else pointed out, that's the advantage of a zoom rather than specifically of a rangefinder. Hard to be sure what you could and could not have done if you'd been there (and I consider myself to be quite good at focusing fast with a rangefinder) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chakko Posted December 14, 2015 Share #318 Posted December 14, 2015 Touching on the A7 tangent (sorry I lost the quote)... as a user of both an M9 and an A7Rii I happily take that one on the chin! It wasn't my choice to buy the Sony for my studio, as a long time Canon user I wanted the 5DsR because I wouldn't have to learn a new work flow. The Sony is not easy to use (where the M9 is ultra elegant and most Canons I can use with my eyes closed). However, I have come to respect it. The quality I get from it is nothing short of stunning. No, it doesn't have that magic sparkle of my Leica, but it delivers silky high ISO, clarity, image size and tone in spades. Here are some comparisons under similar conditions: A7Rii Zeiss 55mm @ f1.8 M9 Summilux 50mm (type2) @ f1.4 A7Rii Zeiss 55mm @ f1.8 M9 Summilux 50mm @ f1.4 The Sony can keep up with the M9 in portraiture, a key difference for me is that the Sony pumps this stuff out at 7952 x 5304px. As for the SL, as a "professional," I most certainly have it in my sights. In addition to that Leica magic; I want the ruggedness; I want AF and I want a high resolution EVF... all of which I have become accustomed to in a short amount of time thanks to the A7Rii. I think the SL is a great way for Leica to stay relevant in a professional context and to open the brand up to others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share #319 Posted December 21, 2015 Touching on the A7 tangent (sorry I lost the quote)... as a user of both an M9 and an A7Rii I happily take that one on the chin! It wasn't my choice to buy the Sony for my studio, as a long time Canon user I wanted the 5DsR because I wouldn't have to learn a new work flow. The Sony is not easy to use (where the M9 is ultra elegant and most Canons I can use with my eyes closed). However, I have come to respect it. The quality I get from it is nothing short of stunning. No, it doesn't have that magic sparkle of my Leica, but it delivers silky high ISO, clarity, image size and tone in spades. Here are some comparisons under similar conditions: A7Rii Zeiss 55mm @ f1.8 M9 Summilux 50mm (type2) @ f1.4 A7Rii Zeiss 55mm @ f1.8 M9 Summilux 50mm @ f1.4 The Sony can keep up with the M9 in portraiture, a key difference for me is that the Sony pumps this stuff out at 7952 x 5304px. As for the SL, as a "professional," I most certainly have it in my sights. In addition to that Leica magic; I want the ruggedness; I want AF and I want a high resolution EVF... all of which I have become accustomed to in a short amount of time thanks to the A7Rii. I think the SL is a great way for Leica to stay relevant in a professional context and to open the brand up to others. I will not buy the SL. I tried it today at Leica bei Meister, München. It's not a camera for me. It just doesn't fit good in my hand ( lange hands. ) holding it for longer than a minute in one hand, lets the sharp corner at the right under side of the body cut in my hand so hard, that I got a red stripe on my hand. With my D3 body, that was never a problem. The electronic viewfinder is IMHO not the way. I like the 100% viewfinder of the Nikon D3. I really like the M viewfinder, but this electronic viewfinder does not let me see the "real thing " it's way slower that the image that I am used to. When I turn my long lens across a footballfield, or my 50mm + Leica m from one corner of the room to another in a split second, I do not want the delay of the image. The delay is IMHO really a no go. It feels to me, that I am viewing through a television screen with also has the trouble, that the image just cannot keep up with the movie. I hoped that it would feel/see better than a Q, but IMHO I cannot live with this " manco " . Holding of the camera for long times: no " pro " camera to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted December 22, 2015 Share #320 Posted December 22, 2015 Those are great portraits. Shows that lighting and post processing are at least as important as which body you use, assuming that you can get focus, which is easier with AF. The Sony shots are, however, hyper real, whereas the M9s look as if they are "photographs". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.