wattsy Posted December 10, 2015 Share #281 Posted December 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've heard this myth about the RF viewfinder many times over the years. It is just as patently untrue, IMO, now as it was the first time I heard it 50 years ago. There is a great deal of mythology spoken about a rangefinder camera but it is nonetheless a significantly different method of framing a photograph than is using a reflex camera. I don't necessarily buy into the arguments about spontaneity and so on but I personally find an RF viewfinder a better method of taking most photographs simply because it is the least intrusive for me. Using an RF enables me to frame something that I already see with my eyes without substantially changing that view when I bring the camera to my eye – it is the closest thing to just holding up a cropping tool as a framing device. An SLR by contrast changes the view completely and introduces a layer of abstraction that I don't need (all but the things in the plane of focus become blurry and I can no longer see beyond the edge of the cropped view). The SLR view thus removes me from the scene in a way an RF doesn't (an EVF is IMO even worse and, being somewhat like watching TV, feels like an additional retraction from reality). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 Hi wattsy, 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 #282 Posted December 10, 2015 With fifty years of working with both SLR and RF cameras, and EVFs as long as they have been available, I see no point to propagating sophistic myths about advantage of one over the other. A waste of time, and a disservice to those who have not had the advantage of using all these camera types for very long by feeding them disinformation and prejudicing their objectivity. Yes, RFs and SLRs/EVFs allow you to see a scene differently, and there are concrete advantages/disadvantages to both in different situations. Why not talk about that—what situations favor one type of viewfinder over the other—rather than silliness about "spontaneity of composition", and insist that THAT is the big hooey? I choose an RF camera because it is slimmer in my hands, the lens tends to be smaller (which intimidates a subject less), there's no "eye-blink" of the aperture opening and closing like there is with an SLR/EVF camera (which is noticed by many subjects, subconsciously, and causes a reaction), and because an RF camera has less internal mechanism banging about to cause vibration (not so much so over an EVF camera) which allows for hand-holding at lower shutter speeds without camera vibration causing an issue. And because they tend to be quieter (again, not so much so over an EVF camera). These are REAL, TANGIBLE, DEMONSTRABLE advantages for certain shooting situations. I choose an SLR/EVF camera because it is much more capable of precise image framing, critical focusing, can be used successfully with a much wider range of focal lengths, can focus closer, and generally poses far more versatility with many more camera features built integral to it than RF cameras in general (this has changed somewhat with the M typ 240 line which has TTL live view and the possibility of add-on GPS/multifunction grip, etc). These are REAL, TANGIBLE, DEMONSTRABLE advantages for certain shooting situations. I'm happy to discuss the SL's position as a "real camera for the pro" based upon tangible advantages/disadvantages like that rather than specious and silly ephemera which are expressive more of emotional bias and misinformed myth. Both types of cameras—built beautifully and with nuanced design for ergonomics, with performance, reliability, and consistency on their side—combined with lenses of the qualities that honor the LEICA brand make my heart sing and help me produce the photographs I have in my imagination in ways that lesser made, less capable cameras do not. That's why I spend these ridiculous amounts of money for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 10, 2015 Share #283 Posted December 10, 2015 But you left out that an optical viewfinder will give you a more direct view of the scene with no DOF effects. An SLR is more like seeing the image whilst an EVF is more of a TV/video experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 10, 2015 Share #284 Posted December 10, 2015 To repeat for the third time, it is the spontaneity of composition that is being discussed, not the speed at which the shutter button is pressed. The difference in the amount of time it takes to jiggle the EVF around to gain strongest composition, versus the amount of time to just move the rangefinder viewfinder straight to the right, the left, up, or down. It's a difference of a split second. I'd suggest that if the photographer has the technical discipline to make that kind of composition, then it's a short step to appreciate that kind of photography. Hmmmmm well, We've been to Venice recently, and I used the SL with the 24-90 most of the time - really as a conscious effort to see whether I could catch those decisive moments . . . . I found that I could, and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have got any of these pictures had I been using an M . . . For a combination of reasons, for example 1. I wouldn't necessarily have had the right focal length 2. some were taken in rather poor light, necessitating a wide aperture . . . 3. All of these 'moments' appeared and disappeared pretty quick and in these instances the AF performed very well Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Here the couple just had a quick peck at the centre of the bridge - SL nailed the focus at 90mm Half a second later and dog had jumped off the bench Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Here the couple just had a quick peck at the centre of the bridge - SL nailed the focus at 90mm Half a second later and dog had jumped off the bench ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253686-leica-sl-a-real-camera-for-the-pro/?do=findComment&comment=2946212'>More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 10, 2015 Share #285 Posted December 10, 2015 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The girl put her arm up over her head for just a second - I was looking elsewhere and managed to spin and grab the shot These seagulls marched past just a few feet away - again, the AF nailed it, but it was only there for a second. 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 Here's an example where, given the right lens (35mm?), I probably would have done better, because I would have been able to see around the image and arrange the composition faster. the gesture and the conjugation of the 3 lasted a millisecond . . . but in this case they were staying in the same place, so that the AF didn't really present an advantage. It's been years now since I've been shooting with M cameras . . . . and with another camera system with AF to shoot alongside (there have been several different ones). Finally Leica have come out with 'another' camera which really works for me. . . Mostly I'll be shooting it with the Zoom(s), but it does a creditable job with an M lens in the evening. I think each has different advantages. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The girl put her arm up over her head for just a second - I was looking elsewhere and managed to spin and grab the shot These seagulls marched past just a few feet away - again, the AF nailed it, but it was only there for a second. 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 Here's an example where, given the right lens (35mm?), I probably would have done better, because I would have been able to see around the image and arrange the composition faster. the gesture and the conjugation of the 3 lasted a millisecond . . . but in this case they were staying in the same place, so that the AF didn't really present an advantage. It's been years now since I've been shooting with M cameras . . . . and with another camera system with AF to shoot alongside (there have been several different ones). Finally Leica have come out with 'another' camera which really works for me. . . Mostly I'll be shooting it with the Zoom(s), but it does a creditable job with an M lens in the evening. I think each has different advantages. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253686-leica-sl-a-real-camera-for-the-pro/?do=findComment&comment=2946214'>More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 10, 2015 Share #286 Posted December 10, 2015 But you left out that an optical viewfinder will give you a more direct view of the scene with no DOF effects. An SLR is more like seeing the image whilst an EVF is more of a TV/video experience. Irrelevant. That's nothing but opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 10, 2015 Share #287 Posted December 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The difference between a window, a projected image and a television is opinion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompoes Posted December 10, 2015 Share #288 Posted December 10, 2015 The visual experience is an opinion, not the type of tool Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2015 Share #289 Posted December 10, 2015 Peter - walking away from that experience and wanting an S is entirely understandable. Shows you're sane. Is the 1/125th flash sync speed OK for you? You could opt for the circular shutter lenses of course. Unfortunately that's not an option for me - looking for an 'R10-like' solution to use with long R lenses, with 1/180th or 1/250th flash sync, which the S can't do, if I read correctly. So, back to the SL, in terms of which your impressions (not) of the viewfinder are most interesting. Thanks for posting those. Hello Rick, sorry for the late reply, been traveling….. Flash sync?…..I never use flash these days, haven't for many years. But if I was to use flash it would most likely be in a studio environment or similar so 1/125th is just fine for me. The viewfinder comparison was night and day for me, and yes I realize it's a very personal position I take when I say I have yet to find an EVF that comes even close to an OVF no matter whether it's in a still camera or a cinema camera. No EVF yet on any system I've looked at gives a true idea of what the lens is actually seeing, Leica's included of course. By it's very nature an EVF gives you an interpretation of the scene, a mirror gives you the real thing. Horses for courses though. Many of you are dead happy with the current EVF offerings while for me they are not there by a long mile, maybe I'm just a Luddite that refuses to move on….But it's a S for me next, not an SL primarily on the grounds of having a true VF. I love that the S's finder is so like my R9's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted December 10, 2015 Share #290 Posted December 10, 2015 Discussing prime vs zoom is not useful. Everyone knows the advantages and disadvantages. When you use one or the other you are consciously appraising the advantages and disadvantages of each and making a conscious decision for the photographic opportunity coming up. Ps. Primes are better then zooms $€¥^%$¥ la la la I can't hear you ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted December 10, 2015 Share #291 Posted December 10, 2015 There is a appreciable number of differences between optical rangefinders, single or twin reflex finders and electronic view finders. The differences can be experienced by just looking through each of them. Their intrinsic technical differences lead to different ways of using the camera. Some of those differences have their foundations in the way those finders work and some are necessitated by cognitive limits of the operator. Those differences are real, tangible and demonstrable and not subject to any amount of shouting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted December 10, 2015 Share #292 Posted December 10, 2015 Surely, being objective, if one likes EVF over OVF - That's fine. Even the other way round is Fine.. Personally I find the M OVF more attractive.. The EVF on my XV though not a good example is rather clinical & of course you have the blackout.. I would step up to the S any day.. Not really tempted by the SL.. In the end, it's what suits you and what you have in your hand that matters.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 10, 2015 Share #293 Posted December 10, 2015 tompoes, on 10 Dec 2015 - 16:22, said:tompoes, on 10 Dec 2015 - 16:22, said:The visual experience is an opinion, not the type of tool ??? The type of tool creates the experience... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 10, 2015 Share #294 Posted December 10, 2015 The rangfinder forces you to take a picture with you right eye, thus using a different part of your brain. The SLR cameras are mostly used with the left eye. I do know of any right-eyed person who uses his left eye with an SLR. Regardless, the hemispherical theory of the brain having different modes (analytical / creative) is a myth. Further, each eye transmits to both sides of the brain. Finally, there are SLRs, in particular Nikon's action finder and their high-top prism that allow the user to view the scene with both eyes open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 10, 2015 Share #295 Posted December 10, 2015 Discussing prime vs zoom is not useful. Everyone knows the advantages and disadvantages. When you use one or the other you are consciously appraising the advantages and disadvantages of each and making a conscious decision for the photographic opportunity coming up. If you're referring to my post, then you're right . . . . but I'm not sure that there was much zooming done before any of those shots. Ps. Primes are better then zooms $€¥^%$¥ la la la I can't hear you ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 10, 2015 Share #296 Posted December 10, 2015 But you left out that an optical viewfinder will give you a more direct view of the scene with no DOF effects. An SLR is more like seeing the image whilst an EVF is more of a TV/video experience. Irrelevant. That's nothing but opinion. The difference between a window, a projected image and a television is opinion? Read your sentences. "... will give you a more direct view ..." : By what metric? "... is more like seeing the image ..." : By what metric? "... more of a TV/video experience ..." : By what metric? None of these are objective, tangible, measurable differences. They're all opinions, based on your perception, weighted to your biases regarding how you feel about these types of viewing media. They are all "like" one thing or another, not measurably but in your perception. The only objective, tangible fact in those sentences is that you get a view of the scene with no DoF expressed by in- or out-of-focus imaging in what you see with the tunnel optical viewfinder. BTW, remember that an SLR viewfinder is also an optical viewfinder albeit of a different type (mirror reflex viewfinder in the SLR vs tunnel optical viewfinder in the RF). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 10, 2015 Share #297 Posted December 10, 2015 I have my M-P out this morning and immediately had a giggle when I made an exposure, wide open @ f/1.5, and noted that what appeared on the LCD in review looked *nothing* like what I was viewing and attempting to focus on in the viewfinder. And that the focus point was an inch or two too far away, so I just knocked the distance setting a smidge closer, took the shot again, and got what I wanted. With the SL, I would have seen the plane of best focus precisely and would have achieve what I wanted on the first exposure. I laughed when I remembered this thread with that little experience in mind. Leica M-P typ 240 + Nokton 50mm f/1.5 ASPH (LTM) ISO 200 @ f/1.5 @ 1/350 It doesn't matter one bit. I love shooting with the M-P, and I love shooting with the SL. They're two entirely different kinds of cameras, that's all, and promote different ways of perceiving the world. One is not better or worse than the other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 10, 2015 Share #298 Posted December 10, 2015 Speaking of viewfinders and DOF, I thought the M2 had a nifty feature. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 10, 2015 Share #299 Posted December 10, 2015 Speaking of viewfinders and DOF, I thought the M2 had a nifty feature. .. That's cool and very clever. Long gone, sadly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 10, 2015 Share #300 Posted December 10, 2015 Read your sentences. "... will give you a more direct view ..." : By what metric? "... is more like seeing the image ..." : By what metric? "... more of a TV/video experience ..." : By what metric? None of these are objective, tangible, measurable differences. They're all opinions, based on your perception, weighted to your biases regarding how you feel about these types of viewing media. They are all "like" one thing or another, not measurably but in your perception. The only objective, tangible fact in those sentences is that you get a view of the scene with no DoF expressed by in- or out-of-focus imaging in what you see with the tunnel optical viewfinder. BTW, remember that an SLR viewfinder is also an optical viewfinder albeit of a different type (mirror reflex viewfinder in the SLR vs tunnel optical viewfinder in the RF). 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.