Frank Theriault wrote:
> I wasn't trying to say that slr's are better
> than rangefinders at all. I was merely pointing
> out what I perceive as a few advantages.
> Rangefinders have their advantages, too. Less
> vibration, quieter, more compact, fewer moving
> parts.
Hi Frank ...
I think the best feature about true rangefinder cameras is the
viewfinder. With the Leica, as with others, one is able to
see outside the frame lines, and can watch the scene and the
action unfold in front of you. One makes a photograph based
on the presence or absence of various aspects of the subject,
and is able to anticipate a photographic "decisive moment" by
what's taking place outside the frame line. With a reflex,
the camera tells you what it sees.
Having used a Leica quite a bit lately, I can tell you that
going back to an SLR is like looking through a tunnel or a
small tube - the view is quite restricted by comparison. If
one likes to photograph people or scenes in which there is
some action, the rangefinder offers, IMO, a much better
viewfinder, especially with lenses in the 28mm - 90mm range.
Of course, the rangefinder is much quieter, and more
unobtrusive. A Leica, for example, will get you photos that
just wouldn't be possible with an SLR. The MX and ME Super,
for example, are actually smaller than the Leica, and weigh
less, too, yet their noisy shutter, and (mostly) larger
lenses, make for a less stealthful and more annoying camera in
many instances. One exposure with an SLR in a quiet room
alerts everyone to the fact that someone's taking pictures.
It has been demonstrated time after time that people are less
concerned about being photographed with a Leica than with an
SLR. Perhaps it's because the camera has an old-fashioned and
non-professional look to it, or because the lenses are smaller
and don't pose quite the threat, or because the camera is
quieter ... it doesn't matter, people accept being
photographed with a rangefinder more easily than with an SLR.
I suggest seeing the movie "Pecker" to see an example of
this, albeit a somewhat exaggerated example.
For the techno-enabled the Leica is a poor choice. There's no
auto exposure, auto rewind, data imprinting, matrix or
multi-segment metering (heck, only the most recent even have
meters, and they're quite rudimentary), no custom functions,
etc. It's only the photographer and the camera, with the
photographer calling all the shots. The camera never
interferes with your intentions, but, unlike many wunder-SLRs,
one must develop more of a relationship with the Leica in
order to get the best results.
In many ways the Leica is much slower to operate. Film
loading and rewind are slower, and slower yet with earlier
models, yet, once loaded and in shooting mode, the camera
is amazingly fast to use.
Of course I'd never give up my LX cameras. They make a great
combination with the Leica.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You failed to mention the problem of parallaxe.
Current Leicas (for almost the last 50 years) correct for
parallax.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
