Digital Substitute

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
9:55 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
On one of the last segments discussing why we like Leicas, all manner of things came up except rangefinder focusing. It made me think that one important thing about Leicas is the size. In general, they are one of the smallest cameras to give top quality images in their format size. Easy to carry, easy to always have with you but no compromise in image quality compared to other 35mm film cameras.

For me, that's not true with the digital, especially in the high ISO realm. Wondered what folks had found as a digital substitute. I'm not sure there is one. I'm currently using a Canon 5D Mark II with 2 small lenses, the $90 50/1.8 and the 35/2. It's not the perfect solution, but the small lenses certainly shrink it into much more of an "always with you" camera than the big mid range zooms.

I wondered what other digital photographers were doing and if it wouldn't be useful information for all of us.
 
As my ZI is not available at present I've used my old 5D (Mk 1... gasp) with 50 1.4 a lot. Again a nice combo, and not too big compared to a 1Ds3 or the 24-105 L lens.
Mike
 
I remember last summer how upset I was that the Sigma DP1 was selling for $600 USD over there and around 700 Euro over here (at the time roughly $1000 USD). As a result of this ridiculous price discrepancy, I jumped on the bashing bandwagon, after having heard of all of the many problems.

Now that the price has plummeted and a certain online dealer began dumping excess stock, I picked up a NIB DP1 for 250 Euro and couldn't be happier for the narrow applications I have used it for.

At the moment I use it during daylight hours only, at ISO 50 and ISO 100, in manual exposure and focus modes.

My only other super-wide angle lens is the 15mm Heliar and, comparing images made with it on the R-D1, the Sigma 16.6mm image is much much better. No vignetting, wonderful sharpness, brilliant colors, small package.

I've never been one to take just one camera with me anyways, so now I have a great set of small, dedicated ones, like the Leica CM, the Fuji Natura, the Hexar AF and now the Sigma DP1.

If anyone has been hesitating to get one of these the price is great right now. I predict it will go back up to 400 Euro or more in a matter of weeks.
 
As you say, Bill, there is no substitute. But my solution is similar to yours: D300 with 24mm 2.8 and/or 35mm 2.0. When I get the D700, it will be the 35mm and the 50mm 2.0. Also, I have the Panasonic LX3 which has a 24mm (equivalent) f2.0 lens are very decent high ISO performance. Attached photo was done with the Panasonic at very low light levels, I think ISO 1600, f2, probably 1/8 sec. The Panasonic anti-shake system works pretty well.
 

Attachments

  • P1000766.jpg
    P1000766.jpg
    62.6 KB · Views: 0
Rangefinder-focusing is THE reason for me to use rangefinder-cameras, with my eye-sight I can't manually focus a 135 film SLR at f/2.0 (or f/1.4) and AF still doesn't work fast / precise enough in dim light. The only digital camera that I have owned and used coming close to a Leica was the Epson R-D1s.
 
The Nikon D90 with the CV 40mm 'pancake-ish' lens is small for a DSLR kit. But I still hate the overall DSLR ergonomics, so the camera's going back to the murky eBay waters.
 
D700 + 50 2.0 Nikkor H. Found a near mint sample for $50 which I bought as a learning tool for repair work. Turned out too nice to take apart so i boufht an Ai conversion ring.
It is kind of glued on the D700 now, 35 2.0 original Nikkor in the bag and a 105 2.5 next to it.

For a one lens set, 35/70 2.8. But i would rather use the old primes.
 
I have the LX3, which is pretty good but no substitute. Interestingly I have decided there is something about composing on a screen that encourages me to miss important details, details that I seem to notice when looking through a viewfinder. I think my ultimate substitute will have something I look through - a point I was never sure about until recently.
 
When I go digital, I alternate between a Nikon d200 with a Nikkor 28mm/f3.5 AI or CV 40mm/f2 or my Ricoh GX 200. They all suck compared to my ZI or Nikon FM3a.
 
Recently I've tried out a couple of fairly small lightweight DSLR's that my friends think are the greatest thing since blue flashcubes. At least the cubes fired WHEN you pushed the button, not five seconds later. Digital is great for what digital does well. So far I can still see to focus and compose and I don't need anti-shake technology to hold the camera steady.
 
Tried dSLRs. Tried the better smaller digitals (like the older Olymous C-8080 above just about all of them). But, for me, there really is no true substitute...yet. I'm confident there will be at some point. There sure as hell isn't one out there for me now.


- Barrett
 
Epson RD1. My M6TTL and Hexar RF have retired, but my Leica lenses have not.

I also have the D300 with small primes solution... but it's really not particularly small.
 
I'm still waiting for Olympus' first micro-4/3rd camera. If it's true to what Olympus like to specialize in, it'll be small in size without quality compromise.
 
My substitute for a Leica when I want top quality at high ISO in a compact package is the Fuji GA645! Delta 3200 film looks less grainy and has finer detail than any 400 speed film in 35mm, it's still more compact than any DSLR and digital files are only a scan away.
Far cheaper than a 5D or D700.
 
I have high hopes for the DP2.

I normally only shoot 35 & 50mm lenses and the DP2 has a 40mm.
It's looks pretty small and given it's size I don't know of a real competitor.
There's only one problem. At $600-700 the DP2 isn't exactly cheap.

I've also considered a Nikon D40x and the new 1.8/35mm. That's a pretty small package for a full featured DSLR.




So, far I'm sticking to an M body and scanner...
 
Al Kaplan said:
Recently I've tried out a couple of fairly small lightweight DSLR's that my friends think are the greatest thing since blue flashcubes. At least the cubes fired WHEN you pushed the button, not five seconds later. Digital is great for what digital does well. So far I can still see to focus and compose and I don't need anti-shake technology to hold the camera steady.
Click to expand...

i am pretty sure most SMALL dslrs on the market can be operated in M (for manual) thus making them really no different than film slrs in speed of operation. the argument that digital cameras (specifically dslrs) have unacceptable shutter lag is pretty 1998.

hell, even the dp1 that everyone bemoans as being hampered by slow autofocus has little to no noticeable shutter lag when scale focused and run on manual.
 
Lag is lag. Scale focus might speed things up but the DSLR's that I played with are the devil to focus manualy other than scale focus.
 
I am waiting for that compact olympus thing, while it might not do high iso like a canon or nikon (in fact I bet all my marbles it wont) I will still have to have one if they have a prime lens for it, it will certainly suit me well for the times high iso is needed and a small camera keeps it with me all the time.

I am kind of done with DSLR's, I still have not bothered to replace my beaten 20D and dont really see a reason to carry all that weight around with me. DSLR's are so ugly and so big....its ridiculous....also I just dont believe that there is no market for a compact big sensor camera that maybe or maybe not has a big viewfinder type thing in it like a ricoh grv1 or something like that, I think most people have just forgotten about good viewfinders and dont know they want it :)
 
Last edited:
Al Kaplan said:
Lag is lag. Scale focus might speed things up but the DSLR's that I played with are the devil to focus manualy other than scale focus.
Click to expand...

even you must know that the lag experienced by most has nothing to do with the capture medium. it's autofocus and exposure lag.

you should try out that focus confirmation thing... manual focus is a whole new ball game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom