Difference between Leica and Nikon (Rangefinder vs SLR)

I have been trying to find the right phrase to distinguish the difference between the two, and I read the interview with Ralph Gibson on the thread and he said :

<p>

�I have spent forty years working with the Leica rangefinder. The rangefinder enables one to see what�s outside of the frame as well as what�s inside of the frame. You make a decision predicated on the presence and/or the absence of various aspects of the subject. With a reflex, the camera determines what is seen, and half the time it's out of focus. One could follow a reflex around the world and focus it from time to time until it came across a picture. With a rangefinder you see something, you make the exposure and you continue to look at what you�re seeing. The rangefinder is ideally matched to the perceptive act, the personal act of perception. I only use a reflex for extreme close-ups.�

<p>

I like the words � perceptive act�

<p>

What is your thoughts on this ?

ralph gibson needs to learn how to look at a scene without the camera

up at his face if he ever wants to use an SLR effectively. He also

needs to learn to use manual exposure and focusing on SLR's. I can

see where he is going with his argument, but the way he portrays an

SLR taking control of the scene is grossly exaggerated.

Seeing outside the frame is a much vaunted but, IMHO, highly

questionable benefit of RF cameras. It depends entirely on the

frameline in use and on the viewfinder magnification; for instance,

you don't get much of a view of what's outside the 28mm frame with

a .72 body or even, for that matter, with a .58 body. I also agree

with Matthew that Mr. Gibson needs to learn how to use an SLR to

better advantage, so that his criticisms thereof can be better

informed.

I think he's just putting a lot of fancy words on a personal

preference. The idea that SLR's are any less capable of producing

excellent photography than M's is absurd.

<p>

<center><img

src="http://www.robertappleby.com/personal/1.jpg"></center>

<p>

<p>

<center><img

src="http://www.robertappleby.com/personal/2.jpg"></center>

<p>

Can you tell? I can't, and I _know_.

Sorry, I should have said that one of those snaps was taken with an

SLR, the other with a rangefinder.

Rob,

<p>

Yeah, but you obviously missed the "decisive moment" with the SLR. (lol)

<p>

In my view, a rangefinder is just a tool, and like any other tool is

good for somethings, and unsuitable for others. I'm of the opinion

that it is counterproductive to argue RF vs. SLR - use what's right

for the task. Where there are limitations with either, learn where you

can work around those limitations, and where you can't.

Rob,

<p>

Two more examples of your work, thanks for sharing! To answer your

riddle, I think the first was taken with a rangefinder and the second

was taken with an SLR. My reasons:

<p>

The first, very dramatic picture has been carefully composed to

exclude the face of one of the two murderers, no doubt the

ringleader, as they hurry from the scene of their crime, leaving

their pathetic young victim to expire tragically on the sidewalk

(a.k.a. pavement). We are left wondering just who is this sadistic

but, no doubt, highly professional assassin? This adds just the right

amount of mystery to the picture and could only have been achieved by

being able to see outside the frame (I know this contradicts my

earlier post).

<p>

The second picture has the subject's eyes closed: exactly what can

happen with the SLR's blackout at the moment of taking the picture. I

suppose, to be fair, that another possibility is that the subject is

in a state of rapture, induced by the proximity of the hurtling train

as it thunders past her head while she inexplicably attempts to wash

her clothing on the adjacent track. I doubt this is the case, as I

have never heard of it happening, but there's always a first time.

<p>

;-)

Rob, very, very appealing photos! Regarding this argument, it just

boils down to once again, which is the best SLR or RF? Bringing in

fluffy language like "perceptive act" continues the myth that somehow

those of us that use RF's are more worthy!

<p>

I agree about the framelines, I like many use a standard .72 finder

with a 35mm, even with this set-up so little is actually visible

outside the 35 mask that it makes little difference anyway - the 50

of course is a different story.

<p>

As has been said both types of camera have their merits but although

I use an M4-P almost exclusively now I still feel a good AF AE SLR

with a decent zoom is a far more comprehensive photographic tool.

<p>

In the past when using a SLR I have never experienced this "tunnel

vision" that is often mentioned when comparing the SLR viewing to the

RF, indeed with a zoom you can keep the view wide, observing all,

then select your area of importance and "zoom in" to exclude the

periphary elements.

<p>

The vast majority of pro's earn their money with an SLR, if they

thought that they could earn it better with a RF then that is what

they would carry!

The first one is a street boy trying to catch the attention of a

couple of Yemeni tourists in downtown Bombay, while the second is a

Gujarati washerwoman collecting her washing from the railway tracks

(where she had spread them out to dry), waiting for a train to pass,

again Bombay.

I think the ability to see outside the frame does sometimes aid

composition because it helps to suggest alternative framings for the

shot. But I don't think it's a major advantage. Gibson's claim that

with the SLR, the camera determines what is seen, seems to be a

peculiar remark. It's not like I don't know what's out there before

I look through my SLR! When I see something exciting, I shoot, with

either camera. I don't think my composition is wildly different,

either way.

I think you guys are missing the point somewhat. Obviously the

same shot can be taken with both types of camera. What the r/f

does is to tend to lead you into seeing and taking different types

of pictures. Over a period of time using m6's my pictures have

changed - the way that they are composed, the way that the

edges of the frames have become more "central" to the picture

etc. : more than anything, how much more important

backgrounds have become in my compositions - when I used

slrs I tended to either blur them out or crop them out. Now,

clearly, if I started using slrs again extensively I could take the

same pictures as I'm taking now. BUT, if I'd stayed with the slrs I

don't think I'd take these kind of pictures at all.

Let's face it, it's easy to rubbish these ideas (they are pretty

subtle, after all), but if you look at Ralph Gibson's colour work, for

example, you can see what he means - the fact that everything is

in focus in the v/f of an r/f means he's made more aware of

colour mass in the background which would be o.o.f. in an slr.

Similarly, Salgado's more classically composed and structured

images are more SLR like - they're slower, more thoughtful,

more like old paintings. BTW, and FWIW, I'd be happy with either

fellow's portfolio.

What I mean I think is that a person needs to know what type of

image they want to create before living their house, then choose

equipment appropriately - for me the technology certainly steers

me in one direction or the other - I'd be lying to say it makes no

difference. (Could be I'm just weak willed)

How about Bill Allard's take on it, from "William Albert Allard: The

Photographic Essay", ISBN 0821217356, p.41:

<p>"With an SLR, you're looking at your subject through the optic;

you're literally seeing what the picture is going to look like. You

have a device that will show you your depth of field, the area that

will or will not be in critical focus. This is particularly true for

me, because I'm often shooting at the maximum aperture of the lens,

the aperture you actually view through. This helps you see how areas

of color are affected. It can tell you if that blue has a hard edge,

or if it's somewhat soft and blended into something else.

<p>"When you're looking through a rangefinder, though, everything is

sharp. The rangefinder window is by and large a focusing and framing

device that lets you pick a part of the subject you want to be in

critical focus. The only real way you can tell how the rest of the

picture is going to look is by experience, or maybe a quick look at

the depth-of-field scale on the lens itself. I think the rangefinder

frees you up in a certain way. You're probably going to work a

little looser in a structural sense, because everything is clean,

clear, and sharp. When I look through an SLR, I think I'm a little

bit more aware of compositional elements, of the structure of the

image. With a rangefinder camera, I'm seeing certain spatial

relationships."

I happen to agree totally with what Gibson says. I do shoot

differently when I use a rangefinder as opposed to an SLR, and the

main difference I find is that with the rangefinder, exactly as he

says, I tend to leave the camera at my eye and look around me through

it and expose when I see what I want. With the SLR I watch, see

something, bring the camera up to my face and freeze it with the

camera. Does either make a better photo. I don't think so and I

don't think that is what Gibson is saying. My take on what he has

said is that for his personality the rangefinder way works better.

Hate to say it, but with what - 15 or so major books behind him,

countless gallery exhibitions, prints that most of us can't afford -

I think he probably has the right to state his opinion.

T add fuel to the debate, I notice differences in my photographs when

I switch from my auto focus Nikon to my manual focus Nikon! Not

better or worse, just different.

Bob, as people we all have a right to state our opinions. I'm sure

there's a difference for the individual snapper whether he prefers

the one or the other, but I don't think it's something you can see in

a picture. My personal style hasn't changed in any way due to the

switch.

Rob,

<p>

Why, in your estimation, are these two examples you've offered,

excellant?

I like them, but my reference was to the potential of two types of

camera, not to my own pictures.

Rob: I know we all have our own opinions. I was taking to task

specifically Mathews statement "ralph gibson needs to learn how to

look at a scene without the camera up at his face if he ever wants to

use an SLR effectively." Looking at Gibsons success (if you read his

article he has made his living for quite some time soley off of his

fine-art photography, and a good living at that), I just think this

is a somewhat inane statement. I'm sure Gibson can use an SLR just

as effectively as any one of us.

Fair enough. I always tend to react badly to appeals to authority,

but I appreciate your point.

Funnily enough, I think Gibson's work is almost antithetical to the

typical use of a rangefinder: his pictures are so formal and

precisely composed that I would have thought he would prefer an SLR,

given the poor accuracy of the M viewfinder. Which just goes to show

something, I suppose.

<p>

BTW, the first of my two snaps was SLR, the second M. Both 24 mm

lenses.

Some other quotes that may apply:

<p>

Bill Pierce on reviewing the first Canon F1 (c. 1970): "Looking through

an SLR viewfinder is like watching a slide show. The picture is the

only thing you see, surrounded by quiet black space."

<p>

Friedlander or Winogrand (attributions vary, but both RF

photographers): "I photograph things to see what they looked like

photographed." (If he/they used SLRs, they'd already KNOW what

something would "look like" photographed, on the focusing screen).

<p>

RE: Gibson, composition, SLRs and RFs. RG uses a 50 almost exclusively,

which means he DOES see a lot outside the framelines - and in the Leica

viewfinder the 50 is almost a telephoto with a smallish frame area

relative to the eye's field of view, which makes it easier to do "SLR"

type graphic framing than with almost any other focal length - the

wides require peripheral vision or accessory finders and the real

tele's frames get pretty tiny. That being said, I think his comments

went a little over the top - I don't think Jay Maisel (e.g.) just

"follows his reflex around the world...until it comes across a

picture."

<p>

From a technical standpoint, the lens and film don't know what kind of

camera they're mounted on - they just project and receive an image. The

difference, if any, between RF and SLR, IS perceptual - how (if at all)

they influence what/how we see.

<p>

I like Bill Allard's comparison - it's a fair stab at a very slippery

psychological difference. For me the difference boils down to

composition in space (SLR) vs. composition in time (RF).

<p>

Rob's 'quiz' - guessing, I'd say top-RF, bottom-SLR. But for my first

30 years in photography I shot SLRs and yet emulated/favored the work

of RF photographers (Manos, Mark, Fusco, Freedman, early Gene Smith ).

You can produce pictures in any style with any camera - some cameras

just lend themselves to certain kinds of perception more readily than

others.

I find rangefinders far easier to shoot with when not looking

through the viewfinder.

<p>

Otherwise, I think, like Rob, it's personal preference, and the

results are not indicative of the tool. I think experience teaches

one to see the scene without looking through the viewfinder, even if

composition is done through the viewfinder. In this case, it hardly

matters, except for what is comfortable for someone to shoot.

Everyone seems to be reading into RG's quote what they want it to

say, and not what he's actually saying. Personally, I only use an M6

and an Elmar-M, 50mm, f2.8. For me, this is the only combination that

makes sense. The 50mm frameline is approximately half of the

viewfinder area. I like being able to see twice the area that I'm

photographing. Without moving the camera, I can easily see what's

included and excluded, and reframe quickly. With an slr, this is not

possible without moving the camera around, and then you don't

remember anyway. The other thing is that there is no out of focus

with the RF. This has its good points and bad points. With an slr,

almost always, part of the viewfinder is out of focus, because, of

course, the lens is set at its widest opening. Obviously, both types

of cameras have taken classic shots that live a life of their own. As

for guessing which type took which picture, how about this: I could

care less. What does that have to do with my photography, my vision,

or my quest? But I'll say this, if I see one more boring, (everybody

and their relatives are doing it,) "the masses and cows are starving

in India," photo, I'm going to puke.

Glenn, I agree with you 100%. Western (and even Indian) photographers

tend to portray India as a vast refugee camp, which is a bit one-

sided to say the least. Which is why I don't photograph people

starving. I photograph them playing, working, doing all sorts of

things. They are all pictures of people I would count as

acquaintances and friends, and who enjoyed being photographed, often

over a long period of time. If you find my pictures boring, that's my

failure as a photographer, but if you see them as pictures of people

starving, then I suggest you're bringing your own (Western, I should

think) preconceptions to the slide show.

<p>

<center><img

src="http://www.robertappleby.com/personal/3.jpg"></center>