mattvillano
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2003
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 0
This is probably a stupid question but what is the difference between a rangefinder and 35mm SLR?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
voodoocat said:Rangefinders also have a shorter distance between the lens and the film plane which provides for a sharper image.
someone said:As far as quality is concerned, I think the most noticeable advantage an RF has over an SLR would be, without the reflect mirror, the lens can be mounted deeper into the camera body thus shorten the distance between rear lens element and film, this means image can be projected from lens to film with minimum loss on color and details, since lights travel thru a shorter path. I read an article on this somewhere so I do not know if this is true but does sound logical to me.
voodoocat said:Rangefinders also have a shorter distance between the lens and the film plane which provides for a sharper image.
Yeah but when you get your camera on a tripod for slow shutter speeds it's not going to be moving is it? dampening mechanism or not the mirror still makes a vibration. That's why higher end SLR's include a mirror lockup.As for vibration, I'd think you're 1000 times more likely to induce "vibration" with either camera from just natural human movement whie the shutter is open or jerking the camera when you mash the shutter. All modern SLR's have dampening mechanisms in them to cancel out vibration from the mirror flopping up and down.
I'm afraid your bottom line is wrong. Most high end rangefinders are more expensive than high end SLR's. Leica, Hasselblad, Rollei... Also most rangefinder systems do have interchangeable lenses.Bottom line: smaller/cheaper/limited verses larger/more expensive/more versatile.