hagerman@friday.DEC (03/18/86)
x
<flame on>
In "Upgrading an old Nikkormat" Jordan at UCB writes:
...
then again, I was "raised" on a Nikkormat ... I find those split
screens to be a hassle, and very SLOOOOOWWW ... There's nothing like
knowing what the the image is really gonna look like. Also, if you do a
lot of shooting where the main image area is not in the center of the
finder (I do -- most pros do too), it makes for a lot of difficulty in
focussing and shooting quickly and accurately. I find I can get just as
much use out of the edges of the screen as I can the middle.
So if you like to use the edge of the screen to focus, why
get rid of the split image screen?
...
squeezing the shutter trip and winding. Using this technique, I am able
to hand hold a 135mm f/2.8 on my F-2 at up to 1/2 second.
B. S.
...
and buy whatever is appropriate for fulfilling them. Sure, a Leica is a
terrific camera, but if it doesn't let you frame quickly enough to get
the picture of your daughter blowing out the candles, what good is it?
This is ridiculous. The point of a rangefinder camera is
that it is easier to focus because your eye can see mismatched
lines better than it can resolve out-of-focus images. If
you are taking flash pictures at a birthday party the aperture
is going to be up around f/11 anyway, so focussing isn't
all that critical: you can use a rangefinder or SLR equally well.
<flame off>
The SLR vs. rangefinder controversy peaked about 10 years ago when
professional photographers pretty much unanimously decided that the
SLR was, for them, the way to go. They decided this because for
long lenses (> 100 mm) there is no question that the SLR is better.
There was never any question that the rangefinder is faster to focus,
or better to focus in the dark. In fact, many SLR users can't even
focus properly in the light: try reading the article in Modern/Popular
Photography about 6 months ago where they were trying to find out
about hand-held blurriness and discovered that their results were
invalid because the (presumably experienced photographers) hadn't
focussed well enough.
Choose the camera that suits your own opinions, but don't muddy the
waters by making inaccurate comments about rangefinders: we old-time
Leica fans are quite sensitive.
Doug Hagermansasaki@harvard.UUCP (Marty Sasaki) (03/19/86)
The rangefinder vs. SLR debate reminds me of the old joke:
Q:Which kind of camera underexposes film more often,
rangefinders or SLRs, and why?
A:Rangefinders, because of lens caps.
--
----------------
Marty Sasaki uucp: harvard!sasaki
Harvard University Science Center arpa: sasaki@harvard.harvard.edu
One Oxford Street phone: 617-495-1270
Cambridge, MA 02138jordan@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu (Jordan Hayes) (03/20/86)
In article <1740@decwrl.DEC.COM> hagerman@friday.DEC writes:
Also, if you do a lot of shooting where the main image
area is not in the center of the finder, it makes for a
lot of difficulty in focussing and shooting quickly and
accurately. I find I can get just as much use out of
the edges of the screen as I can the middle.
So if you like to use the edge of the screen to focus, why get
rid of the split image screen?
Well, you see, I don't use the edges EXCLUSIVELY, and when my subject
happens to be in the middle of the screen (like for sports and
photojournalism in general), the split screen gets in the way. Also,
they black out on smaller apertures.
Be careful in reading what I say. The reason that I say it makes it
harder, is that you really need to use the split screen (i.e., the
center of the frame) to focus, and then re-compose ...
This is not the only reason. There are two issues here, and I tried to
address them both in one sentence. Sorry if you didn't parse it
correctly ...
using this technique, I am able to hand hold a 135mm
f/2.8 on my F-2 at up to 1/2 second.
B. S.
Believe what you will, but I've had many occasions to use photographs
that were taken hand held at that speed. Granted, my hands are not
rocks, but when you're shooting for a paper, you can't see smaller
movements, and the technique I descibe is very useful. Try it sometime,
and couple it with concentrating on breathing evenly. You'll
be surprised how much shock dampening you can do without a tripod.
Of course, you'll also need a quiet mechanical shutter. By the way, the
FM-2's shutter release is one of the smoothest I have ever seen. Blows
the doors off an FE-2, and leaves tons of auto cameras in the dust.
It's even smoother than the F, which is a joy to shoot.
Sure, a Leica is a terrific camera, but if it doesn't
let you frame quickly enough to get the picture of your
daughter blowing out the candles, what good is it?
The point of a rangefinder camera is that it is easier to focus
because your eye can see mismatched lines better than it can
resolve out-of-focus images.
Oh, really? When I had a Leica, I used it because it was small, light,
EXTREMELY QUIET, and it was built to take the abuse that I (unfortunately)
had to inflict on it. I "put up with" the rangefinder because of all
the other plusses it had for me. Other problems with using a rangefinder
include parralax and problems with longer lenses ...
Again, I think you aren't really reading what I am saying. My point is
that you can buy "a great camera" (i.e., a Leica), but if what you
really need is something to take pictures of your fast children in more
situations than you care to figure out exposure, by all means buy an
automatic camera -- solve your needs, not your ego.
If you are taking flash pictures at a birthday party the
aperture is going to be up around f/11 anyway, so focussing
isn't all that critical: you can use a rangefinder or SLR
equally well.
Who said anything about a flash? I'm talking about the increased
complexity of a "great camera" if *you're not interested in taking the
time with it* ... as for using an SLR or a rangefinder equally well,
give someone who has never used either kind of camera a Minolta x-700
(god, I can't believe I just said that) and a Leica, and see what the
story is about "equal" ...
By the way, even with flash at f/11 if your subject is within 3-5 feet,
you still don't have a helluva lot of depth ... especially when it
could be a table of little kids. A quick guess says that at 3 ft, you
get less than 3 feet of depth (on a 50mm ...) -- also, flash is pretty
unusable at that range. If your flash can put f/11 worth of light
into the scene, I hope you don't mind shadows ...
My whole point of this is that you can't say "what's a good camera to
buy?" You can only ask "given my needs, what would make for a good
investment?" The original person wanted to know an answer to the first
question, and I was trying to show that it was a bogus question.
The SLR vs. rangefinder controversy peaked about 10 years ago
when professional photographers pretty much unanimously decided
that the SLR was, for them, the way to go.
And why was that? Well, you say that
They decided this because for long lenses (> 100 mm) there is
no question that the SLR is better. There was never any
question that the rangefinder is faster to focus, or better to
focus in the dark.
I disagree. Having used both systems extensively, I don't see a real
big difference between focussing with a rangefinder and a split
screen on an SLR ... however, for reasons pointed out above, I find
the SLR superior with a non-split screen focussing screen. It's much
faster, especially in low-light. I don't understand where you are getting
the idea that a rangefinder is easier to focus.
It's probably more along the lines of SLR's are easier to adapt to
using gee-whiz lenses and such. Most of what you call "the pros" is
really the photo-journalism world, which (due mostly to places like
LIFE) began to demand faster speeds, longer lenses, more shots (thus
bringing on high-speed motor drives and auto-winders) -- stuff that the
rangefinder never was set up to do.
These "pros" (and, even though I used to count myself among their
ranks, I put that in quotes) have much different needs and requirements
of a system than Dear Old Dad.
Choose the camera that suits your own opinions, but don't muddy
the waters by making inaccurate comments about rangefinders: we
old-time Leica fans are quite sensitive.
Sorry to upset you "old time Leica fans" (of which I am also one ...),
but I said nothing inaccurate. For certain kinds of work, anything less
will not do, but for others, you'd hafta be crazy to use one.
I'm also sorry that you would choose a camera based on your opinions,
rather than facts.
/jordanjer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (03/28/86)
Jordan Hayes writes: > Using this technique, I am able to hand hold a 135mm f/2.8 on my F-2 at up > to 1/2 second. > To which Doug Hagerman replies: > B. S. While I often disagree with Mr. Hayes :-), I must admit that I tend to agree with his claim, inasmuch as you *can* hand-hold a 35mm camera with a long lens and relatively long shutter speed with no problems. The strange thing about this is that if you believe you can do it, often you can; if you think you can't, you will move the camera. I think that if you think about "am I going to be able to stand still? How still? How much movement would still give a reasonable photograph?" etc., you will be conscious of body movement and will tend to move. If you just concentrate on standing still, it often works! Not as well as tripod-mounted photographs, but very well. Recently I photographed some eels in an aquarium at Sea World that way, using an exposure of about 1/2 second; the eels were sitting still in a hole in a rock, so the only problem was camera motion; I remember hearing these two tourists talking (tourists are always talking when you're trying to make photographs at Sea World :-)); the woman said "He's not using a flash! You can't take pictures without a flash, can you?" to which her husband replied, "yes, but it won't come out sharp because you can't hold the camera still enough." But they did turn out very well. I also have a very sharp picture of the space shuttle launch pad with an eagle flying nearby which was made in daylight with a hand-held 300mm lens. The moral of this story being, you shouldn't believe you "can't" do something, because often you can. (Of course, often the pictures do turn out blurred, too; though not all that often, maybe 30% of the time. It's better to try and not have it come out than not try at all; film doesn't cost much.) On the other hand, I agree with Mr. Hagerman about the difficulties of focussing a 35mm SLR with the various "focusing aids"... it's been my experience that the loss of sharpness due to not getting an exact focus tends to be much more of a problem than camera shake, because it also occurs when you have the camera mounted on a tripod (indeed, as someone pointed out, is much worse if you use a "microprism" focusing aid when the camera is on the tripod, since you have to push the tripod handle to get any motion to see if the camera is in focus). If you really want sharp photographs, use a large-format camera. Sharp photographs are a whole different style of photography, though; sometimes the loss of detail is advantageous, such as when you photograph an outdoor scene with small amounts of litter lying around. Sometimes a green speck on the ground is better than a green speck that says "Doublemint". -- E. Roskos "I bought some sushi once. Took it home and cooked it. Pretty good... tasted a lot like fish." --Taxi driver in _Desperately_Seeking_Susan_
falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) (03/29/86)
> Jordan Hayes writes: > > > Using this technique, I am able to hand hold a 135mm f/2.8 on my F-2 at up > > to 1/2 second. > > > To which Doug Hagerman replies: > > > B. S. > > While I often disagree with Mr. Hayes :-), I must admit that I tend to agree > with his claim, inasmuch as you *can* hand-hold a 35mm camera with a long > lens and relatively long shutter speed with no problems. ... > If you really want sharp photographs, use a large-format camera. Sharp > photographs are a whole different style of photography. I routinely take photos with 1/4 sec. exposure ('normal' length lens). I have occasionally taken 1/2 sec. exposures and gotten away with it. I do it like this: One foot in front of the other, both knees locked. If at all possible, I lean against a wall or something. If I can lean over something and rest my elbows that's better still. In general, I press as many points of my body as I can to imobile objects as I can. Most importantly, I press my head against any wall that's behind me and press the camera to my face. Next, I take a deep breath and hold it. Then I slowly press the release, so that the actual moment of release comes as a surprise to me; that keeps me from tensing up (and moving) just before the shutter clicks. I have pictures I've taken with long lenses out of airplanes while holding the camera with one hand and flying the plane with the other. Of course I never try this with less that 1/60 if I can help it although I've gotten away with 1/30 on occasion. As for large format cameras, I have an aerial photo taken with a Bronica of the college where I used to work. You can see the entire campus (every building), and the mountains in the background AND see the individual branches on some of the trees. When blown up to 14x17, you still can't see the grain. I love medium format. -ed falk, sun microsystems