Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Yeah, it's not much different from the split-field focussing found in MF cameras (except you don't see through the lens). Just line up the two images and, hey presto! Compared to early SLRs, RFs are quick & easy to focus (the SLRs tended to have dim viewfinders)
Some MF 35mm cameras are just as small and light as RF ones. Nikon made a few MF SLRs in the 1980s (EM, FG, FG-20) and these were not much different (in size & weight) than RFs of the same era (possibly lighter than some).
There is something about using a RF though, I quite like dusting off my 1974 Zorki 4K sometimes.
I find RF easier to focus in low light because you are not looking through the lens. Just match up the two images and its in focus. Very easy to do. Auto focus is a lot faster though.
First serious camera was a Zorki 4K. The wind on cogs wore out. Still have the lenses (35 50 135) which I keep in the vain hope that one day I will find a camera I can use them with.
Bought a Bronica RF 645 just over a year ago. Love it. I have had some problems with it (no more than can be expected when you buy an ex shop demo model for ta s ubstantial discount)but not enough to put me off. The only down side is having to use the additional viewfinder when using the wide angle lens.
With an RF, you adjust the lens until the two images line up, and that's it.
With manual focus SLR people tend to go past the point of focus (because even if it looks in focus people think to themselves that it might not be perfectly in focus, so they turn the dial a little further), then return. This usually takes slightly longer.
RF vs autofocus isn't quite as simple. Most of the time autofocus will be quicker, but there are times when manual focussing is quicker, such as in low light (the AF can stuggle) and in tricky focussing situations (where the AF tries to focus on the wrong object). Additionally, some users are able to judge distance and adjust the lens to pretty much the correct focus while they're bringing the camera up to their eye, so there's no waiting for any AF to do its job.
Of course, much of these arguments are fairly worthless for my Fed 4 as the ragefinder patch is so dim it can be annoyingly tricky to focus!
I use an XPan II for landscape work and am able to set my lense to its hyperfocal focus before even looking through the rangefinder. This optimises depth of field. I would say that RF are ideal for landscaping but wouldn't be so suitable for other fuctions i.e. sports photography.
Hope that this helps.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top