Rangefinder vs. SLR: The DarkTopo Shootout!

SAD307: Konica Auto S2 with Hexanon 45mm/f1.8 vs. Nikon FM2n with Nikkor 50mm/f1.8 AF-D - Lucky 100 SHD - October, 2009

Anyone who's followed the blog knows the sordid details of my photographic identity crisis. The photo world is full of egos, and those egos seem continually engaged in trench warfare over a few issues, chief among them the issue of camera design: Single Lens Reflex vs. Rangefinder.

I've tried to stay above this bickering, and, with a few notable exceptions, have done a good job. But then my dad started loaning me rangefinder cameras, seeding doubt beneath my solid SLR foundation. Pretty soon I was lying awake at night, asking myself guilty questions like, "Can I really hand-hold my FM2n at 1/15th when the chips are down? Will the retro-focus design of my SLR lenses keep me out of the New York gallery circuit?"

There's only one way to answer these questions once and for all: A super-scientific, impeccably performed, absolutely beyond-doubt DarkTopo test! Enough arguing, speculating, and posturing: From now on, anyone who's wondering which design is better can simply read this post. Think of the bandwidth we'll save! No need to thank me, just make your donations payable to "Guggenheim Museum of Amazing Photography, Cooper Wing."

The Theory

A Single Lens Reflex camera focuses with the aid of a mirror and pentaprism, allowing the photographer to see the image more or less exactly as it will be projected onto the film. Rangefinders focus through triangulation, and the lack of a mirror system means there is less internal vibration when the shutter is released--there is no mirror to move out of the way. Furthermore, a rangefinder's lenses can be placed much closer to the film, allowing for easier lens design and, thus, better optics.

Hogwash, I always said. The choice of camera system is about 1% of the makeup of a photograph, if even that. In any given image, the thing that matters most is the photographer's vision, and second to that are things like flash, film, and processing. Then comes the camera, and the most important aspect there is the glass, not how it's focused.

And while those things are still true, shooting the Konia Auto S2 raised some questions. Some rangefinder gurus claim they can hand-hold their cameras at shutter speeds two stops slower than SLRs. Legend has it that HCB could consistently hand-hold his Leica at 1/4th of a second (and if you believe that, I have some property to sell you). But for certain, the rangefinder is quieter and easier to focus in low light. I remember a Rob Amberg photo of some women in a dark bar, completely oblivious to his presence. "With an SLR," he said, "I'd have gotten one shot. With my Leica, I took three or four before they knew I was there." The photo was sharp as a tack, even in bar light.

So I decided to test the Konica against an SLR with a comparable lens. You can't test for ergonomics, handling, and style preferences, but I could sure take some photos and see if they were sharp.

Lens Performance

In order to test my ability to handhold these cameras, I first had to establish a control, and test the sharpness of the lenses. Unfortunately, all my MTF charts were lost in a freak paper shredder accident at NerdCon last year. However, my bookcase--rife with literary classics, theology, historical biographies, and zombie finger puppets--is very much intact.

First, the Konica. I mounted the camera on a tripod, focused on Hitler's ugly mug, and shot two frames at f1.8 and f8:





Whoa. Quite a difference, which is to be expected. What I didn't expect is that the camera's framelines are whack. To compensate for the extra 5mm of focal length between the two lenses, I simply moved the Konica closer, framing the exact same area in the viewfinder and counting on the Konica's famed parallax correction. This was unsuccessful, because--who would have thought?--the framelines in a 40-year-old consumer-grade rangefinder are a little off.

There's also a slight under-exposure on the f8 shots because neither camera can change speeds by less than a full stop, so there is no way to get an equivalent exposure between f1.8 and f8. The negatives are shown here with zero processing.

But the weirdest thing is the rendering of the CD cases at the top of the bookcase. It's not just that they are sharper and contrastier at f8, but that they have entirely different values. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? The only explanation I can offer is something to do with color rendition at the extreme edge of the lens. That, or the zombies rearranged my CDs between shots.









I'm going to make a statement here, and I have absolutely no data to back it up, but since I have a rangefinder now I can do that: This lens out-resolves the film at f8. I feel like there's detail there that is being lost in the grain. Of course, this is also really crappy film. But still.

Now the Nikon:





These two shots exhibit the same discrepancy between f1.8 and f8. Not unexpected. The center tests out pretty much as you'd expect as well. At the 50mm focal length, however, the extreme upper left corner was nothing but wood grain, so I took my sample from the extreme left edge. Not exactly scientific, but if you're really worried about the variations in sharpness on the left edge of an SLR's frame and you're the type of person to actually call some guy on the internet unscientific, I respectfully suggest that you get out of the house.









I have a feeling that the Nikkor is a tiny bit sharper at f8, but it's really too close to call. Of course, the last time I shot a normal length lens at f8 on a tripod was probably for a Photo I assignment that started with "Mount your camera on a tripod and set the lens to f8."

Clearly, the Hexanon is a better performer (Oh no. I just used the phrase "better performer" on my blog. Next I'll be talking about "illusive gradations between tones" and all my lenses will be Sumi-Nocti-Elmar-Luxes.) overall, considering the edge sharpness wide open. If I had to shoot a low-light scene and make a choice based on lens alone, I'd go with the Hexanon.

That said, I think the difference is pretty moderate. Not negligible, but not night-and-day, either. Other factors about the camera's operation would matter more to me, such as the famed "handholdability" of the rangefinder design.

Handholdability

In addition to the much-lauded lack of a mirrorbox that all rangefinders enjoy, the Konica also has a leaf shutter. In theory, the radial motion of the leaf shutter (I can't believe I'm even talking about this) induces less vibration than the lateral motion of a focal plane shutter. This definitely makes it quieter than the Nikon, and in theory should make it less susceptible to motion blur than even (gasp!) a Leica.

I'm not convinced that any of that matters in the grand scheme of things. Or even the little scheme of things. In fact, I think there's a strong possibility that the coffee you drank this morning is going to impact your handholdability more than the shutter design in your camera. But that's why I'm doing this super-scientific, completely indisputable test.

I hung an American flag in the window, because the simple, high-contrast shapes would be easy to focus on and clearly demonstrate sharpness (or lack thereof). I couldn't use the bookcase, because I'd have to stoop over to photograph it head on, and I wanted to use proper form for the most steadiness. For what it's worth, I'm a steady guy: I'm 28 with no motor-control issues, I limit my caffeine, and I can put five rounds in the ten ring at fifty yards. I stood the same distance from the flag for all shots, and I shot five frames at each shutter speed with both cameras.

I sampled the same star from each photo, and you can click these images for full resolution of the sampled area:

















The results: Not what conventional wisdom would suggest. I'd say the Nikon beats the Konica at 1/8th and is a pretty even match at 1/15th. At higher speeds, I see little difference.

There are some other factors: For me, the Nikon is easier to grip. Perhaps that makes it more steady. It also has a crisper shutter release. Plus, when composing, you brace your eyebrow against the center of an SLR, rather than the end of a rangefinder, possibly providing a steadier balance. But really, if you have to consider factors as minor as these, I'd say that makes the issue negligible. In the field, it will matter more which direction the wind is blowing.

The Shocking Conclusion

The Hexanon lens has wide-open edge performance blatantly superior to the Nikkor. Other than that, I could find very few significant differences between the image quality these two cameras deliver. There is no advantage in handholdability that I can see. This conflicts with my previous observations in the bookstore, but perhaps I just got lucky. In any event, it's not worth wasting film on further tests.

So the conclusion is a real shocker: Life is short, use the camera you enjoy.