Classic rangefinders vs SLR's

[mr._smith]

A recent post on classic rangefinders was most interesting. Lots of

links and camera suggested.

 

There's one affirmation (post or url, don't remember) that I saw where

it was said that these rf with 5,6,7 elements lens are capable of

crisp enlargements to 8x10", comparing favorably with slr's.

 

My question is what about prints beyond 8x1O", let's say to 11x14" or

even to 12x16". How will same size prints then compare with prints

from slr's ?

[rich815]

yes and no.

[bonsignore_ezio]

I haven't the time to read all the entries in the tread you refer to, and so it is possible that this point has already been made. It is common understanding that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a RF camera will always produce a sharper image and thus a better enlargement than an SLR. This is due to 1) the lack of vibrations etc. caused by the mirror moving out of the way, and 2) the distance between the lens and the focal plane being calculated more exactly due to lack of a mirror box. Here again, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL - same lens in the same conditions, same film, same shutter speed/aperture, etc. etc.

[richard_oleson]

Of course they will, if you're talking about good rangefinder cameras; An SLR is just a camera with a mirror in it, there is nothing inherently superior about it optically.

 

Particularly if you're in the habit of using a general purpose zoom lens on your SLR, a decent rangefinder will outperform it with room to spare.

[mr._smith]

So that no one is mistaken by what I called classic rf camera, i'm referring to cameras with non-interchangeable lens of the late 60's or early 70' s like the Olympus SP, Hi-Matic 7sII, Canonet QL-17 GIII. The lens on these beautys had 5 to 7 elements.

[charles_stobbs3]

At the risk of opening a 55 gallon drum full of worms I have seen earlier threads here that say that 5 to 7 elements are a necessary evil associated with larger f stops, that a 4 element lens like a tessar or an elmar will actually produce a sharper more contrasty image.

[kin_lau]

Use a good sturdy tripod. It'll make a much bigger different than slr vs rf.

 

The best of the classic 70's rf's are incredible bargains right now. Other than that, the best from both sides are indistinguishable.

 

BTW, it's really hard to compare since most of the rf's you mentioned have 40'ish mm lenses, which few slr's have.

[arraga]

<p>I've compared my canonet QL17 against a pentax SMC-M 50mm 1.4, a Nikon 50 1.8E, and a pentax SMC-M 50/2.0, using an usaf 1951 chart, posted at center and edges. The results are buried in this <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DD5u>thread</a>, except for the pentax 50mm f/1.4, which smoked all the other lenses.

 

<p>Basically, the canonet is consistently mediocre at all apertures. It's better than the pentax 50/2 at f/2.0, but it's surpassed handily by it at f/5.6.

 

<p> Of course, a tripod is not common in the canonet gestalt, and the hand-held motion blur is a great equalizer

[luis triguez]

This is an exemple of a classic rangefinder camera almost 60 years old.

TX 400 ASA<div></div>

[luis triguez]

and a detail<div></div>

[ravi_swamy]

The differences will be minor. For wideangle shots the rangefinder may be better due to the non-retrofocal design and hand held the rangefinder may be better due to less vibration from the lack of a mirror. Put the SLR on a tripod and lock up the mirror and you won't see any difference.

 

Use what you like, I use both rangefinders and SLRs for different situations. Any difference in 35mm image quality will be minor. If you want really big prints then you should switch to medium or large format for a dramatic improvement in quality.

[william_vickers1]

Mr. Smith wrote:

 

"... My question is what about prints beyond 8x1O", let's say to 11x14" or even to 12x16" ..."

 

In my experience you can get great 16x20" prints from 35mm negatives and slides, regardless of whether the camera is a rangefinder (fixed or interchangeable lens) or a SLR. I have a number of 16x20 prints on display in my home and office (some taken with SLRs, some with a fixed lens rangefinder), and they draw a lot of approving comments. I personally haven't gone larger than 16x20", but others can offer their opinions and experience.

[pshinkaw]

Is the issue the optics or the mechanics?

 

If it is a question of mechanics, one could do side-by-side test shots with a Retina IIIS and a Retina Reflex. They use the same lenses. If it is one of optics one could compare a highly rated rangefinder lens like a 50mm/f2 Summicron with a highly rated SLR lens like 50mm/f2 Nikkor. I suspect that the only differences one would find if a sufficiently large sampling were used would be the highly subjective ones like Bokeh, or color rendering. It would be an interesting test though for someone with a lot of time on their hands.

 

-Paul

[Andrew in Austin]

Just my 2 cents worth and not worth much more than that.

 

All things being equal with a normal focal length, I doubt that very many folks could tell the difference between 11 x 14 prints made with one of the better, fixed-lens RF camera like the Konica S2, S3 or my Olympus 35SP and a SLR of the same era.

 

An SLR has the capability of accepting some very nice long focal length lenses. Use whatever you are comfortable with. Most folks are able to compose better with an SLR. However, I prefer to be able to keep both eyes wide open and pay attention to the action outside the frame, so personally I prefer a range finder.

 

I'm glad someone brought this up. The humble four element tessar design is a rock solid at f/8. With that said, the Tessar design usually shows some softness around the edges when shot wide open. Again personal preference, is that upon reaching certain age a razor sharp image of yourself is very overrated.

[Jochen_S]

8x10" prints are big enough to judge a picture, at least if you have a linnentester at hand. So what's sayed about them should be the same about bigger prints, only then it should come to mind to use slower film or bigger cameras.

 

Recently somebody got bashed at the Leica forum for comparing a DR-cron to a Pentax 50mm f2.0 Takumar. - Both lenses were at least equal, but the test idiotic or something like that. -

 

Your fixed lens RFs of the 60s&70s aren't my favourite or main interest. In both realms (RF & SLR) might have been good glass somewhere. The problem with RFs are base length and adjustment. Most probably this isn't limited to Retinas, Russians and today's Cosina "Voigtlaender" / Epson. You even seem to have to send in many Leicas together with 75mm f1.4lens to have them made useable. - I wouldn't bet much on the attemt to shoot any classic RF wide open, but SLR pictures really in focus seem rare to me too.

 

Don't believe in the handholding-skill-myths woven around RFs. Check out what you can do and what infects you how much. With any classic camera I would never expect crisp sharpness without stopping down. Maybe there are some lens test results available on the web for your RF of choice. - Read them.

[Andrew in Austin]

Yep, ditto on the tripod, a big improvement no matter what you shoot with.

[arraga]

<p>One can make great looking 16x20 prints from 35mm, but they won't stand close scrutiny, compared to a smaller size.

 

<p>If you want to please the grain sniffers, print no larger than 8x10 for normal shots, and no larger than 11x14 for a shot made with tripod/high speeds, good lenses and high resolution film.

 

<p> Last night I made a 12x16 fiber print, selenium toned of a PanF 50 shot taken with a nikkor 20mm f/4. Looks <i>great</i> from 30-40cm, but as soon you start to dig into the picture, you see it's not medium format. And that's on a resolution basis alone; let's not compare film grain/tonality.

[mr._smith]

"All things being equal with a normal focal length, I doubt that very many folks could tell the difference between 11 x 14 prints made with one of the better, fixed-lens RF camera like the Konica S2, S3 or my Olympus 35SP and a SLR of the same era."

 

Andrew, this is an interesting reply which brings up two questions:

 

1- Would you say the same thing about the smaller Olymbus RC?

 

2- Why the reference to slr of the same era and not today's ?

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I might print 11x14 from a 35mm negative (if I was using slow film and a tripod). But generally, beyond 8x10, I shoot medium format. The tones in B&W prints are much nicer and it's easier to control grain for faster films.

 

I own both a rangefinder and an SLR. The rangefinder is great as a carry-around camera - small and quiet, even though limited in focal length choices and not useful for macro work. There are times when only an SLR will do.

 

Robert

[david_m]

There are so many factors that contribute toward getting a sharp print. The camera, the lens, the aperture, the photographer, the subject, the film, the developer, the paper, the enlarger, the enlarger lens, the paper developer. And after you get that all right, some people put a soft focus filter on the lens because they like that look better.

[kerkko_kehravuo]

This is the point:

 

"Kin Lau , sep 21, 2005; 01:31 p.m.

Use a good sturdy tripod. It'll make a much bigger different than slr vs rf"

 

Take any high end device of any princip, use it on high end tripod and you do get results. I have been using Hbl SWC 905 both handheld and on tripod. In both cases results are high professional level, but still you can see easy the difference on light table. (I am shure everyone already knew this.)

 

Kerkko K.

[mr._smith]

To all those who are suggesting a tripod or mf photo gear, yes I have both.

 

This tread is not about getting the best 11x14" print, it's about getting a 11x14" from a classic non-interchangeable lens rf of the 70's that has the potential to look just as good as those from any modern slr, all others things being equal.

 

In other words, when mixed together with slr prints, can one spot the prints from the classic rf at 11x14" or not.

[dan_fromm2]

Interesting question, but I think its not what you should be asking.

 

Some things can be done better or more easily with a rangefinder camera than with an SLR. RFs will focus a wide-angle lens better in poor light than an SLR can. Other things can be done better or more easily with an SLR than with a rangefinder. Long lenses are hard to use well with an RF camera, easy with an SLR. Same goes for closeup work; possible but difficult with an RF camera, much much easier with an SLR.

 

But you didn't ask about that.

 

And then you clarified by explaining that you were curious about only fixed lens leaf-shutter RF cameras. Also interesting, but pretty much a so-what.

 

The other comparison you're getting at is between fixed lens cameras and systems cameras. And here, as we all know, a system camera can do things that a fixed-lens camera can't do.

 

Were you asking for discussion of whether a good grade of fixed-lens leaf shutter 35 mm camera can take as good pictures as a good grade of 35 mm SLR limited to using only a good grade of normal lens? That's a silly question. There are few fixed-lens 35 mm SLRs.

 

You seem to be interested in printing larger than 8x10 from 35 mm negatives. Interesting question, but the answer has little to do with the type of camera used to produce the negative. Basically, producing a 35 mm negative that will print well larger than 8x10 is very difficult. The camera used matters much less than technique, both when shooting and when printing.

 

It seems to me that if you're goal is to print larger than 8x10 you're looking in the wrong direction.

 

Cheers,

[charles_stobbs3]

Also if you are using slide film you are going to have images 20" x 30" or larger.

[michael schub]

With the wide dissemination of computers by the 1970s, just about all the basic optical developments in prime lenses had occurred; subsequent developments in formulas, coatings and glass affected zoom and very wide lenses more than other primes. Consequently there is no reason why some of the better-fixed lens RF cameras should not equal the average performance of equivalent modern SLR lenses. While I haven't done a side by side, such lenses as the 45mm Yashinon-DX f1.4 and the Zeiss 40mm f/2.3 Sonnar on the Rollei XF 35 (or the Sonnar 40mm f2.8 on the non-RF Rollei 35SE) should more than hold their own against a modern SLR

 

As an aside, I think that throwing a tripod into the equation sort of defeats the purpose of using 35mm. If you need to carry around a tripod why not just go for a medium format, which has the capacity to beat any 35mm hands down in image quality in 11x14 enlargements.