Rangefinder x SLR

[sergio_leal]

I always heard that rangefingers give sharper pictures than SLR cameras.

Is this true or I won?t notice any difference in 8x12 inches prints?

How much better (if better at all) an good rangefinder (konica,

contax, bessa) than a fine camera (F100 for example) is with good

original prime lenses ?? Thanks for your advises. Why do the range

finder are so expensive (Minoltas, Canons, and other RF were no so

expesnsive a couple of decades ago)?

[michaelging]

Sergio, all the camera you have listed will take photos that can be blown up to 16x20 with the right film, and the right person operating the camera.Some of the rangefinders have become Chic and their values have gone through the roof.

[bob_a]

First prize for the most misinformed, misguided and irrelevant question!

[jimdesu]

I think the question's fine: see your other copy of the post for my answer.

[frank granovski]

With a sharp lens on a SLR you can take sharper pictures than with a rangefinder coupled will a dull lens.

[tito sobrinho]

Bob A.

 

He had a valid question! Please, enlighten him with your vast knowledge on the subject as indicated in your answer, and don't answer him in a derogatory way as you did above.

[sergio_leal]

Bob A

If everyone were as smart and well informed as you there would be no reason to support such a forum.

Thanks for sharing nothing.

[v.anisimov]

Sergio - I'm sorry to say but I tend to agree with the irrelevancy sentiment. See my response in your mirror thread (how many threads are there anyway?)

Cheers

VA

[Ed_Ingold]

I agree with the misinformed and irrelevance issues. Starting a thread with "I heard.." is more like spreading rumors than a legitimate question (misinformed). "Why are rangefinders so expensive..." is subject to opinion and interpretation (irrelevance).

 

Rangefinders and SLR's are not interchangeable - they have completely different missions. I can use my SLR to take any picture that my Leica can take (albeit less unobtrusively), but I can't put a 300mm lens on my Leica without some prosthetic device (e.g., a Visoflex).

 

The lenses for rangefinders are not obliged to provide clearance for a mirror box, and can be simpler and more symmetrical as a results. This may result in better performance, depending on the design and manufacturing accuracy. In practical terms, there's no significant difference. Once computers were used to design lenses (mid 70's onward), and new optical glasses were developed, SLR lenses can produce outstanding results.

 

The same advances apply to rangefinder lenses, but the interest and volume is not there to keep production costs down. Only the high-end cameras, which were always expensive, have survived, and their continued survival is in question (e.g., Contax and Leica).

 

This is largely hypothetical. Pictures with my Nikon lenses appear to be as sharp as those with my Leica, and usually have more contrast. At only 8x12 (an unreasonable restriction), it's hard to see any difference between a D2h and an Hasselblad! Rangefinder cameras are smaller, lighter and easier to focus under low light than SLR's, but far less flexible in application.

[sergio_leal]

"I agree with the misinformed and irrelevance issues. Starting a thread with "I heard.." is more like spreading rumors than a legitimate question (misinformed). "Why are rangefinders so expensive..." is subject to opinion and interpretation (irrelevance)". - Edward Ingold.

All right, so I agree that my question was misinformed, irrelevant and misinformed. So what !!!!! How many stupid threads have been made in all these years in Photo.net and someone is always ready to share his/her experience and knowlwdge!!!. That is how we learn, ins?t it This is not a site for experts only exchange their so valuable vast knoledge. If so, I ask Photo.net (please) create a category for stupid people like me ask their stupid questions, because I dont earn my living (unfortunately) with photography, but instead, I do brain and spine surgery and cannot afford to stay every night in forum for as long as I wish I could!

I respect your way of seeing things and thank Mr. Edward, that despite his opinion about my thread had the courtesy to give me some information I needed.

I apologize and thank you all for you time and attention and ask the moderator to please remove my thread from this forum.

[frank granovski]

I answered you question why "rangefinders give sharper pictures than SLR cameras."

 

The lens sits closer to the film because there's no mirror, there is no mirror slap vibration and ultimately, it depends on the quality of the lens---and some shutters are smother than others, like that from the ELECTROfying Yashica Electro GSN, which I bought for $10. Its 45mm F1.7 lens is also Leica-sharp.

 

Why do rangefinders cost more today? Because today they have a niche market. years ago rangefinders were the norm so they were inexpensive. That included the Leica M3.

[del_gray]

The condition when a rangefinder makes the biggest difference is shooting in extremely low light with slow shutter speeds handheld. Good quality rangefinders can be handheld with good technique down to 1/15 sec (some claim even less) and still produce acceptably sharp images. Most SLRs vibrate much more at this speed and it is noticable. Many rangefinder lenses, especially Leicas, are also justifiably praised for their sharpness when used wide open. The super fast lenses needed at these light levels are also much smaller and easier to hold on a rangefinder than an SLR, once again aiding in producing sharper pictures in these conditions. There are of course many other differences and lots of strong opinions both ways, but this is one condition where I have found an objective, measurable difference in favor or rangefinders. Of course there are other conditions where SLRs win out (longer focal lengths, macro, zooms...). For most types of shooting, though, either type of fine camera can produce outstanding images. For many of us, the choice is based as much on ergonomics, user interface, and tactile feel of the tools more than ultimate image quality. Oh, and digital rangefinder options are extremely slim right now (a total of one model!).