jacoggins opened this issue on Jan 17, 2004 ยท 26 posts
Finder posted Fri, 23 January 2004 at 7:13 PM
I'll be happy to tell you something that I consider a major difference: - Viewfinder BLACKOUT. The main practical, operational issue that turned my attention to direct-view cameras - with their seperate optical systems or framing and focusing, as Michelle mentioned - is that I just could not get used to the SLR's almost unavoidable viefinder blackout (Canon makes an SLR with a special fixed mirror that puts part of the light to the viewing screen, and the rest to the film at the same time). Especially because I love photographing people I suppose, it's unnerving to me to never actually be able to see the framed scene in the viewfinder at the precise instant that the picture is actually made. Although now it's almost more of a psycological or metaphysical kind of thing to me, one practical example of this disadvantage is "How do you know if they BLINKED?! Now of course, a digital can also get you out of that jam, but there are some other factors that keep me with my Tri'X B&W film. Another thing that's somewhat related to this is that with a direct-view camera (most RF cameras are) you're looking straight through glass optics; the image is not projected onto a screen, as with an SLR or TLR or view camera. Now to be sure, those later three DO show you an image that is MORE like the negative that you're composing, if you can manually stop the lens down while you're viewing for 'depth of field preview'. Evaluating your composition on ground glass through a stopped-down lens VERY much 'translates' the scene into how the picture will look (minus exposure- and film- related factors). Regardless of DoF preview, the major thing that this does is convert the 3D scene into TWO DIMENSIONS - your eye doesn't change focus as you 'look around' in the finder, just like the final print will be. With a direct-view camera your eye is still 'focusing through the scene', so everything is 'in-focus' as far as you eye is concerned, because your eye 'focuses on what you look at' - at any rate, it looks 'natural'. This is rather the opposite from what happens in an SLR viewfinder; if you're viewing with the lens wide open - the default for most SLRs - and yet planning to shoot at a smaller aperture, you're seeing much-REDUCED DoF, and if the exposure calls for you to stop-down for is below f/4 or f/5.6 or so for preview, the view gets very dim. Not only can you often 'see more' in the sense of 'viewfinder DoF', but this natually brings us to another way that you see more when composing with an RF camera: A practical SLR or digital can only show you a MAXIMUM of 100% of the framed scene; most classic (direct-view) RF cameras show you MORE than the scene that will be framed - usually MUCH more with focal lengths greater than 35mm - and then has a 'brightline' frame floating there in your view (that's what the big, 'whited-out' window is that you always see on'em - to gather light to illuminate the 'bright lines'). You have more of a sense of 'framing within the scene', as compared to the SLR that more-like 'puts you in the world of the picture'. Again, the SLR way not a bad thing - and IS 'more accuratly translating' the scene for you. The classic style of fangefinder camera - Leica, Canon, Contax, Nikon for instance - make you compose differently; it makes you SEE differently, and even THINK about photography differently. I'm tellin' ya. There are several other appreciable differences in the rangefinder way. I'll stop now. Wishing you all the best, Joe