Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucbarpa.berkeley.edu!jordan From: jordan@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu (Jordan Hayes) Newsgroups: net.rec.photo Subject: Re: be careful about denigrating the Leica Message-ID: <12490@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Wed, 19-Mar-86 16:58:35 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12490 Posted: Wed Mar 19 16:58:35 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Mar-86 06:10:29 EST References: <1740@decwrl.DEC.COM> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: jordan@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Jordan Hayes) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 126 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. /jordan