Does a digital rangefinder make sense?

jaap said:
With the M8 those top quality optics are not fully utilized and that is the pain in the a......
Click to expand...

I wonder what you are doing on a digital forum. Apart from interjecting trollish remarks, that is....
 
gdewitt said:
but there is a need for a rugged, compact, manual digital camera with a traditional user interface and top-quality optics.
Click to expand...

Maybe the new Sigma DP1 could fit the bill?
 
sgy1962 said:
Why a digital rangefinder? I suppose to use existing M lenses is one reason, but that reason is dilluted a little because of this 1.33 crop factor. I suppose if someone just likes using a rangefinder, that's a sufficient reason.

But it seems to me that many of stengths of a film range finder -- no mirror slap; small and light, ect. -- are thrown out the door in the digital age, where many are smaller and lighter with instant presto change of iso settings and have high opitcal qualities at a fraction of the cost, or sacrifised when with a digital M (e.g., losing the mechanical nature of the Leica M). Just curious.
Click to expand...

The best reason in the world using Leica M glass on a quality digital camera.
 
fgianni said:
Maybe the new Sigma DP1 could fit the bill?
Click to expand...

You didn't include any smilies of any kind, so I can't tell if you are joking or not. Besides, I've already ordered an M8.
 
Last edited:
With the Leica M, I am looking through a simple pane of glass, not only at the area of interest inside the viewfinder frame, but also at all the additional information around the area of the intended photo. This is like a head's up display in a fighter jet. This capability helps the photographer be more selective in capturing the desired photo but still be aware of other (perhaps) esential elements in his/her environment.

Then there's all the advantages of smaller size, quieter shutter (no mirror slap) and the beauty of a much simpler design.

SLRs have a role to play (usually in macro or telephoto work) but for me, less is more.

-g
 
AndyPiper said:
The mechanical nature is one attribute of a Leica M - but only one of many. Since digital is by definition electronic, one cannot have both digital and mechanical. Therefore one must make a choice - film and mechanical, or digital and electronic. I do not see any reason why I should give up the OTHER unique attributes of Leica M photography (most of which are far more important than the "mechanics", as any M7 user will testify) simply to do it digitally.

I guess for me it comes down to this: there are many digital SLRs that can shoot at high ISOs with reasonable quality and accept fast prime lenses. A small portion of them allow for crisp split-image manual focusing - but that portion is generally the heavier, more professional cameras (try and put a split-image screen in a DRebel or D50/D80). I guess a Nikon D300 that took SD cards would be worth looking at - at least one can get 3rd-party split-image screens and it would meter to some extent with manual lenses - but it ain't here yet.

There are many light and compact P&S cameras, some with quite good optical quality, but all with f/3.5-f/4.5 fixed zoom lenses, or the occasional f/2.8 fixed focal-length prime lens (Ricoh, e.g.) None can shoot above ISO 400 without producing colored oatmeal(porridge) for an image. And all are AF-centric - if they offer manual focus at all, it is poorly implemented and harder and slower to use thatn AF.

As in the days of film, a high-quality rangefinder is still the only way to get SLR performance (ISO speed, interchangeable lenses of high (>f/2.8) aperture, rigorous and fast split-image focusing) in a definitively smaller, lighter package.

The only SLR (in fact the only other digital camera) that realistically compares to the M8 in build and attributes, IMHO, is the Canon 1D - 1.3x crop, 8 Mpixels, split-image screen available, SD cards available. it weighs 2-3 times as much, depending on lens, and bulks at least 3x the volume. And costs $700 less than the M8 (once one buys the split-image screen). Hardly an enormous savings given the ergonomic difference. Or, of course, the Leica R9/DMR combo, which is much heavier, and MORE expensive by several kilobucks, especially if I have to change lens systems.
Click to expand...


Very well put Andy, you wrote what I was thinking.
 
jaapv said:
I wonder what you are doing on a digital forum. Apart from interjecting trollish remarks, that is....
Click to expand...
OOh I,m sorry I didn,t know this forum was only intended to praise the M8 I,am so sorry

I love that small sensor in the M8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
ghost said:
ay ay ay. what's so god-awful about a 1.3x sensor?
Click to expand...
If you're happy with that sensor then go for it.

I (yes I, NOT EVRYONE) would expect more from a camera in the Leica M family tree. In my opinion this is not a Leica M camera that Oscar Barnack would have had in mind. It just doen,t fit in the traditional Leica M philosophy.
This Leica M is the wrong way to go digital in my opinion just my opion.
I live in a country were everyone can have his own opinion and I,m very happy with it
 
jaap said:
No a digital range finder with a crop factor doesn,t make sense at all !
Click to expand...

If you consider, 620, 120, 220, MF LF etc vis-a-vis 135 format (better known as 35mm) the extra crop factor of these digital systems is tiny by comparison.

So, a 35mm is 45mm with 1.33. Those who have 45mm MF lenses that behave like 28mm should be pointing the finger (it means your 28mm FULL FRAME 135 lens is about the FOV of a 6x6 45mm)! A 28mm MF lens, why 35mm people have to buy a n 18mm lens for the same view
So one can easily claim that 35mm people have lived with cropping all along.

RF, and SLRs have lived in a cropped world for over 50 years. Damning a system over crop factors is what seems to make little sense!
 
Last edited:
The 1.3X sensor is the perfect sensor

The 1.3X sensor is the perfect sensor

For a rangefinder camera the 1.33X sensor size is the perfect size. There are alot of technical reasons why I say that, but the main reason is:

TATTA......Nobody but CANON makes a full frame sensor and nobody else ever will!! They have the fill frame 35mm market to themselves and they are keeping it.

Well, never say never but...

Nikon aint gonna do it. They don't even release any FF lenses anymore. Nikon is the only other player that would have a significant impact on creating a full frame market

So get use to it.


Rex
grrr... :bang:
 
jaap said:
It just doen,t fit in the traditional Leica M philosophy.
Click to expand...

Leica seems to think differently. But I guess you know better what the Leica philosophy is than Leica does.
 
rvaubel said:
TATTA......Nobody but CANON makes a full frame sensor and nobody else ever will!! They have the fill frame 35mm market to themselves and they are keeping it.

Rex
grrr... :bang:
Click to expand...


That's a very good reason :eek:
 
rvaubel said:
TATTA......Nobody but CANON makes a full frame sensor and nobody else ever will!! They have the fill frame 35mm market to themselves and they are keeping it.
Click to expand...

Kodak used to.. I would not be surprised to see Sony and Nikon joining Canon by Christmas of 2008, but rumors are never easy to judge.

rvaubel said:
Nikon aint gonna do it. They don't even release any FF lenses anymore. Nikon is the only other player that would have a significant impact on creating a full frame market.
Click to expand...

They release a lot of DX lenses because that's what people tend to buy for their range of DX cameras. Wideangle zooms in DX terms (starting at 16-18mm) with good quality FF coverage would be much larger and more expensive than needed. All lenses in other categories (telephoto, macro etc) are still FF.

But a FF Leica with today's sensor technology? I'm afraid you'd might cry at sight of the results..
 
gdewitt said:
You didn't include any smilies of any kind, so I can't tell if you are joking or not. Besides, I've already ordered an M8.
Click to expand...

Google the camera, look at the specs, then you decide if the camera is a joke or not.
Personally I can't wait to get my hand on one, APS sized foveon sensor in a camera as big as the leica D-Lux-2, with fixed focal 28mm (equivalent) lens, I could consider retiring my TC-1
 
fgianni said:
Google the camera, look at the specs, then you decide if the camera is a joke or not.
Personally I can't wait to get my hand on one, APS sized foveon sensor in a camera as big as the leica D-Lux-2, with fixed focal 28mm (equivalent) lens
Click to expand...

I second on that.
 
Short answer-Yes

Long Answer-
I think the error is in the question. For those who enjoy rangefinder photgraphy, it certainly makes sense. There is no absolute answer. In a perfect world, I prefer the look of film.These days I don't have the luxury of time. I just bought an R-D1. I simply love that camera. With the different filters and the Leica lens I have, I get very close to the look of film. This camera saves me money and time!! (had a DSLR, just didn't enjoy shooting with it) There must be a special quality to rangefinders otherwise there wouldn't be a site like this....
 
Last edited:
I've used my R-D1s every day since it arrived a couple of weeks ago. So yes, it makes sense.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom