Oh my!

[kiev4a]

My Pulitzer Prize camera survey elsewhere in the forum indicates only 24 0f something like 90 cameras used to shoot Pulitzer Prize photos were non slrs. One of them was a box Brownie and 12 were Speed Graphics. 10 were Leicas and there was one Nikon S3. Most Pulitzer winners are "action" photos--you have s split second to record something that will only happen once. The fact that the vast majority of winners were shot with SLRs sort of compromises the idea that rangefinders are better for action shots.

[herron]

The fact that the vast majority of winners were shot with SLRs sort of compromises the idea that rangefinders are better for action shots.

Following that line of thought, Wayne, should I dust off my Speed Graphics for sporting events?



-----
that's a joke, by the way...my humor sometimes takes getting used to! ;D

[mayokevin]

I think some peoples personal vision is better suited to a SLR and others are better suited to a rangefinder. I am sure some of it is what you are used to using but I think people see better with different viewing systems. If your vision is in tune with SLR viewing you will never understand the allure of rangefinder viewing and vice versa. Of course we haven't discussed waist level or ground glass viewing yet.

[doubs43]

kiev4a said:

The fact that the vast majority of winners were shot with SLRs sort of compromises the idea that rangefinders are better for action shots.

Wayne, I can't agree. If 98% of photographers eligible to receive a prize use an SLR then it stands to reason that the SLR has a greater chance - by far - of taking the winning photo. It has little to do with which camera is the better for a given circumstance.

Consider this: When a photographer with a RF camera trips the shutter, he/she sees exactly what the camera has taken at the instant the shutter fires. A photographer using an SLR must either anticipate the correct time to trip the shutter or get something different than what he/she saw when the shutter was tripped because of the lag time during mirror rise. The delay in the shutter actually firing during a given action will record something different than the photographer saw as he/she took the shot.

The mass exodus of professional photographers from the RF to the SLR in the late 1950's and 1960's forward almost guaranteed the dominance of the SLR in winning prizes. It has nothing to do with which is the better camera but far more to do with what equipment is being used. In the years when the Graflex cameras garnered awards, I'll wager that the Graflex was the favored tool of the press photographer as opposed to other types. i.e., the 35mm RF or TLR.

At any rate, I use and enjoy both without favoritism and even throw in a TLR or folder from time to time. As long as there are two different items doing the same job, there will be arguments over which is the best. Cars, computers, skateboards, cameras....... you name it. The debates make good copy and sell magazines or whatever. I enjoy reading them but don't take them seriously. The disputes will endure long after I've been planted 6 feet deep. Some will even take the arguments personally.

Walker

[John Parry]

Good, good, good Brian

Keep it up

Regards - John

[doubs43]

brianvsweeney said:

I guess it depends on what sport or what action. I prefer the RF for action shots when I can get in close, SLR's for "events" where a longer lens is necessary. I own a lot of SLR's, especially Nikon. And a lot of RF's... especially Nikon.



The above shot was taken with my M3 with the Summicron on it. Prefocssed on the prior cycle of the swing, tripped when the RF image coincided again. Shot at F4, high shutter speed.

Now, ask my Mom which camera takes the best pictures...

I agree; it depends and what works for one action event may not be as good for another event as a different type camera.

Pre-focusing is one of the "secrets" of taking good action shots. Your picture of Nikki on the swing is a perfect example of that technique. Sometimes a little luck catching the perfect expression isn't a bad thing either!

Walker

[kiev4a]

You're right of course about the camera of choice being the one popular at the time. I suspect in the future nearly the all the winners will be digital shots. I do disagree, however, that the rangefinder shooter knows exactly what he shot while the SLR doesn't. The shutter lag time on an slr and speed of the mirror is so quick that I don't think the average eye looking through a rangefinder viewfinder is going to be able to pick out anything it wouldn't also see through an SLR viewfinder. The brain simply doesn't work that fast. For me, particularly shooting with glasses, the view through any rangefiner viewfinder is only a vague approximation of the are recoded on the film, whereas, at least with the Nikon F series cameras, I can see the whole viewfinder and ot shows me exactly what will be included in the photo.

Like you I enjoy shooting with a variety of camera types. Bot I always have felt most comfortable with the SLR. During my press photographer days, I started out shooting with a Rollei tlr (company camera) but event6ually switched to my own 35mm SLR becaus of more lens choices. I also had a Leica M3 but I seldom used it except in situations where the SLR shutter noise might be disturbing. Again, I think it's primarily a matter of what a person gets used to (and possibly if they wear glasses).

I've always been a big believer in pre focusing whether using a rangefinder, slr or tlr.

Digital is another story, however, at least digital point and shoot. The shutter lag on my Canon A80 drives me nuts. No way you can shoot action other than trying to anticipate where the subject will be when the shutter finally fires.