The Digital RF Alternative

[Bill Pierce]

Even as the SLR took over much of photography, the rangefinder was used when you needed a camera that was effective in shooting in dim light or needed a small camera that didn’t attract too much attention or one that was portable enough that you could almost always have it with you. Some of that has changed in the digital world.

The ability of some DSLR’s to shoot at extremely high ISO’s with top quality high aperture lenses combined with digital Leica’s poorer performance with high ISO’s has pretty much turned over “available darkness” photography to top of the line DSLR’s. There are problems with DSLR autofocus handling dim, low contrast subjects. It’s not a perfect world. The cameras are big. You see photographers preferring the cameras where autofocus can be fine tuned for individual high aperture lenses or bracketing manual focus, and using bright line auxiliary finders that had their original homes on top of rangefinder cameras when shooting under extreme conditions that make low low light photography difficult. But, in the dim, dark world where rangefinder was king... Well, in the dim, dark digital world, the DSLR is now king.

As a small, inconspicuous, always with you camera, the digital Leica is superb. But other small digital cameras are evolving and improving.

Check out Michael Reichmann’s piece on the Luminous Landscape

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

A Canon G!0 produces images that a test audience has difficulty in distinguishing from similar images taken with a Hasselblad and digital back. I can back this up with some 17x22 prints of my own. And, the G10 is an old camera. Newer, presumably better, small digitals are being released all the time.

I think the Leica still has the edge in a number of departments. But I do think you can get exceptional results from some of these small digitals that cost under $1000 dollars and come with a lens (and, recently, that lens can be a high-speed, fixed focal-length lens).

None of us has the time or the money to play with every candidate so I hope that some of us will share experiences, not only about specific camera models, but about techniques that produce high quality images.

Since I’m going first, I have the easy job.

1) Use the lowest ISO if at all possible.

2) Use a tripod if necessary (Little camera; little tripod. I’ve used a small light stand equipped with a ball & socket tripod head. I use a Leica table top tripod and ball head all the time.)

3) Bracket exposure rather than just shooting one shot.

4) Don’t just stab the release button.

5) And since you’ve given up stabbing the shutter release, do everything to brace yourself, come to rest, depress the shutter release to the point the autofocus and auto exposure kick in, after that has happened, then squeeze off the shot when the moment is right.

Bill

 

[BearCatCow]

in the dark

in the dark

If using a small digital camera (G10, Panasonic LX3, Ricoh GX100 etc), autofocus in the dark can take over 1 second.

In that situation I like to manual focus. The depth of huge on these tiny sensors are HUGE so you can scale focus very crudely and do just fine.

Also B&W shots will reduce the harshness of noise made by small sensors.

 

[coelacanth]

First of all, I am so glad you decided to stay. I'm probably too new to truly appreciate your contribution to this community to date, but I'm looking forward to learning a lot from your posts and work.

I think my technique is not really technique but a preference to get the image I like. I mainly shoot b/w film only. So my technique to get the quality I like from a digital camera is

1) Find a camera that produces most film grain-like noise.

2) Use ISO 400, 800 or even 1600 and shoot B/W only. (I personally shoot b/w to start with instead of RAW>convert to b/w)

This way, I can use digital camera as my "Delta 3200 @ 1600 or 800" camera while I carry ISO 100 - 400 film camera for regular b/w photography. Another beauty of this set up is that I can avoid long developing time of high sensitivity film. 😉

LX3

LX3

GR Digital

 

[back alley]

i carry an rd1 with me most of the time, everyday. i usually have the 28 or the 15 mounted. the 15 makes for a smaller package and is like a p&s, it's so easy to use.

i print (at least my lab does) to a maximum of 8x10 so the 6mp max isn't much of a constriction for me. prints are framed in plain black frames and hung gallery style all over my place.

 

[wlewisiii]

I'm with Memphis in the "shoot film and scan" school. I use the lowest ISO film that I think I can in a given situation though that often means 400 or 800 anyway. The other thing I've found that helps is remembering things from my rifle shooting - bracing, bipod/tripod, breathing, light touch on the trigger/shutter and those are all things that are of use when I do find myself using digital.

William

 

[Bill Pierce]

One thing all of us know, and all of us forget, is that when you hit the button on an automatic camera, any auto from super DSLR to pocket mini, there is going to be some kind of delay while the camera focuses and determines the exposure. It varies tremendously depending on the equipment you use, but its always there. Sometimes there are differences in delay between program and aperture or shutter priority. Sometimes focusing options produce different delays. It makes sense to know your camera and what makes it most responsive. Sometimes it’s turning the clock back and using the super auto camera on manual.

But one simple way is to press the button, let the camera determine exposure and focus and hold the button down until that final push that clicks the shutter. We all know this, and then we get excited, raise the camera to our eye, push the button and get angry when the camera does its delay thing - and we miss the moment.

There are disadvantages to setting focus and exposure before before we make that final shutter click, but is it any different from using an older, totally manual film Leica? Yes, it is different; it’s slightly quicker than the manual Leica. But it really let’s us nail the specific moment - if we remember to do it.

 

[Dogman]

I've found I can satisfy about 80% of my photographic requirements with a G-10.

The GF-1 looks even more useful.

I'm looking forward to even more choices in small sophisticated digital cameras.

 

[Merkin]

In a lot of ways, digital compact cameras out-Leica the Leica. The original concept of the Leica camera was of a miniature format (35mm was definitely considered a 'miniature format') camera that could take loads of photos (36 at a time where 12 or 16 was previously king, many were still taking one shot at a time) before reloading, while being small, nimble, quiet, and fast to operate. Today, in retrospect, Leicas, which have changed surprisingly little in the last 70ish years, are, compared to compact digital cameras, slow to operate with precision* (compared to full auto mode on a digital p/s), extremely limited in the number of shots you can take before reloading, as well as large and loud. In the digital world, 35mm is not exactly a miniature format, but point and shoot sensors are. The speed with which a Leica lens could be changed 70 years ago was the speed equivalent (back then) of our zoom lenses today. You couldn't print a 35mm negative as large as you could medium format or sheet film, and you can't print from a compact sensored camera as large as you can from a full frame digital camera today. Basically, Leicas were the high-end point and shoots of their day. In fact, with APS-C sensors starting to make their way down to the compact market, the compact point and shoot camera is poised to, in my opinion, outdo the Leica of 70 years ago. Sure, we are all waiting for that miniature format digital that has a decent viewfinder, better controls, and a few more models with aps-c sensors and interchangeable lenses, but that is just a matter of a (very likely) short time.

* For those of you inclined to disagree with this, keep in mind that with a point and shoot, you can still pre-set your controls manually according to the sunny 16 rule, and you can use hyperfocal focusing, just like you can with a Leica. However, if you want to use the rangefinder to achieve precise focus, and you want to meter to get a precise exposure, this takes far longer than it does for a point and shoot to autofocus, meter, set exposure, and fire.

 

[Jason808]

As much as the gf-1 impresses me I am really leaning toward the Canon G11. The hi iso samples really looked good for a compact and I almost like the "texture" of the 1600 image better than 800. But if I really want low light performance I would go with my Nikon DSLR anyway

 

[Rich Sustich]

I'm with Back Alley on the RD-1 w/ 15mm. Really works like a perfect P&S. Also have the 21mm and 28mm in my shoulder bag.

But the camera that always goes with me is the Leica D-Lux 3. Small and unobtrusive in all black, 10 MP, shoot at 400 well into faint light.

One solution to the mechanics when you push the shutter is to us the 2 sec. self-timer. Even if all you have is a hard surface (no tripod), the 2 sec. solves any shake from depressing the shutter.

 

[sojournerphoto]

The Ricoh GX-100 can make very nice prints if you shoot at base iso and work in raw. Also, its in camera B&W is pretty nice. Finally, if you stick below 400iso and work in B&W it can make nice normal size prints.

I have a 21 by 14 inch print of a raw file that has been very heavily stretched using cureves atc in Photoshop and it's excellent - not toally clean, but exactly what I envisioned.

I sometimes stick an old Russian multi finder on it and shoot in 3:2 mode (or I could use the Zeiss 25/28 finder but that seems faintly ridiculous as it costs about 50% more than the camera).

Mike

 

[Bike Tourist]

Well, I'm getting tired of waiting for my ideal digital RF. I'm thinking of bolstering Ilford's and Kodak's bottom line by getting a film-based Leica again. I'm 73. I can't wait forever!

Some of the digital cameras that might be tempting are constructed without viewfinders or else with cheap tunnel finders. I can't imagine donning my reading glasses, holding the camera out at arm's length while shading it from the sun and squinting at a screen showing slow-developing, vague outlines of the reality in front of me.

What's that? M9? Yeah, sure!

 

[wgerrard]

I use an RF and an OM-2 because they're small, not because they use film. If someone markets an affordable digital camera, RF or otherwise, on which I can use my lenses with no crop factor, and if it comes with a good EVF, I'm there.

That said, I'll be very tempted to sell the RF and its lenses (and my scanner) if/when a 4/3 camera with an EVF I like comes on the market. I've been using a GX200 with its EVF. I find the EVF isn't much use in either very bright or very dark light, but the autofocus is more reliable and accurate than are my aging eyes staring at an RF patch. Hence, as long as the EVF lets me can see well enough to frame, I'm OK. (Presumably, an EVF ought to be able to lighten a dark scene before it displays it?)

Also, the quality of large prints is, I think, irrelevant in the consumer market. Most folks buying those under-$1000 DSLR's and 4/3 cameras never pay for anything other than a drugstore print.

EDIT: I should add that I have no real incentive to make prints, at least color prints. So, a camera's ability to produce a 1600-pixel image on my monitor is much more important to me than its ability to produce an 8x10 print. All of which really makes me wonder why I'm futzin' around with scanning film. I can't be alone.

 

[Paddy C]

That said, I'll be very tempted to sell the RF and its lenses (and my scanner) if/when a 4/3 camera with an EVF I like comes on the market. I've been using a GX200 with its EVF. I find the EVF isn't much use in either very bright or very dark light, but the autofocus is more reliable and accurate than are my aging eyes staring at an RF patch. Hence, as long as the EVF lets me can see well enough to frame, I'm OK. (Presumably, an EVF ought to be able to lighten a dark scene before it displays it?)

EDIT: I should add that I have no real incentive to make prints, at least color prints. So, a camera's ability to produce a 1600-pixel image on my monitor is much more important to me than its ability to produce an 8x10 print. All of which really makes me wonder why I'm futzin' around with scanning film. I can't be alone.

You're not. I'm (mostly) right with you. Except that I also shoot MF and love the cameras I use for it.

I'm waiting until the Spring (maybe end of Spring) to see how this sector develops. DLSRs are what they are, and it doesn't look like there's going to be a lot of development in that sector in the next year except for the addition of better and better video. The small camera space is hot right now and I don't want to jump on anything until it sorts itself out a bit more.

 

[Gary Sandhu]

My iPhone is good enough for a carry around all the time camera; but I'm only really satisfied shooting leica or Nikon film, M8, or D700 -- right now, I'm deciding what to take with the kids for Halloween tonight. Since my M8 is getting fixed, it's probably going to be hr D700 with a 20/3.5 AIS and the 50/1.4 AF. I did, however, take some kodachromes and also some Provia with my Mamiya 7. After all, the kids are only going to grow up once.

 

[Frankie]

1) Use the lowest ISO if at all possible.

2) Use a tripod if necessary...

3) Bracket exposure rather than just shooting one shot.

4) Don’t just stab the release button.

5) ...do everything to brace yourself, come to rest, depress the shutter release...

Bill speaks with experience...I can't agree more.

I don't understand why we can accept retail films/processing from ISO 25~400, but criticize digital for excessive noise beyond ISO 3200... Push processing Tri-X begets grain and contrast...and that was art?

CCD has a natural speed of ISO 100 with underexposure latitude of about 4 stops. Live with it as we did with transparency films... How many have push process Kodachrome, ever?

And, when in doubt, bracket. Film/processing is free. 🙂

Steadying a shot is the first serious step in photography. There is nothing artistic in blurry images.

Speaking of view finding, seeing what the film/sensor sees is best. Many old large format cameras support it, as do now in EVF. Other camera types, from RF, SLR, TLR... are all approximation in time or space.

I recently had an opportunity in a Tokyo camera-mart seeing through the GH-1 and GF-1 EVF and the optical EP-1 view finder...side by side. The EP-1 optical is still the best, but the GH-1 is not far behind...the GF-1 simply not good enough. Given my mature eyesight, I could no longer argue against a good EVF...especially with its built-in diopter adjustment.

I am sure the next generation 2.8 Mp EVF will be better yet...coming to us next spring.

And, who says standard lens must be 50mm focal length? It is always the FOV [in degrees] that counts. 17mm or 20mm (M4/3) or 35mm (M8) is just a convenient number.

Seeing best is photographing best. A steady shot is the best shot. I am sure even Henri wouldn't disagree.

 

[wgerrard]

My iPhone is good enough for a carry around all the time camera...

It won't be long before every adjustment we expect of a camera/lens combination will be adjustable digitally in cameras the size and shape of an iPhone. We'll be able to adjust focus, DOF, and, to an extent, exposure and field of view, in camera before and after we take the shot. In other words, things the size and cost of cellphones will produce images as good as the best of today's hardware, with the same degree of control and flexibility, and without the encumbrances of multiple lenses.