Does a digital rangefinder make sense?

[sgy1962]

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.

 

[RML]

Until you hold and use one, it's all just theory, isn't it? I've been holding and using a dRF for well over a year and half now and you know what... it suits me perfectly. It's not just about the pros of a rf camera, it's about using the tool that's right for me. Now that I've found the tool that's right for me, does it really matter whether some dSLR or dP&S is cheaper and has many of the same techy pros as my dRF?

 

[sgy1962]

What advantages, if any, does the M8 or R-D1 give over the rest of the digital crowd?

 

[sgy1962]

Until you hold and use one, it's all just theory, isn't it? I've been holding and using a dRF for well over a year and half now and you know what... it suits me perfectly. It's not just about the pros of a rf camera, it's about using the tool that's right for me. Now that I've found the tool that's right for me, does it really matter whether some dSLR or dP&S is cheaper and has many of the same techy pros as my dRF?

I agree. Most of us got into rangefinder photography for specific reasons. For me it was the mechanical nature of the beast, the available light aspects, combined with the instantaneous and silent shutter, with Leica's great optics. I'm just wondering whether those original reasons, whatever they are for each person, still apply in a digital world.

 

[rsh]

Between Leica and Zeiss, some of the finest optics in the world. That is one advantage.

 

[RML]

I agree. Most of us got into rangefinder photography for specific reasons. For me it was the mechanical nature of the beast, the available light aspects, combined with the instantaneous and silent shutter, with Leica's great optics. I'm just wondering whether those original reasons, whatever they are for each person, still apply in a digital world.

They do.

But don't take my word for it. Hold one, use one.

 

[Ken Ford]

IMO:

1. Direct view - I can see outside the taking frame. Great for my style of shooting.

2. More hand-holdable. Yes, my Nikon DSLRs vibrate less that my older film SLRs, but they're still not reliable to handhold at the speeds an RF can be used.

3. Stealth. I shoot the downtown area of my town pretty frequently, and my M6 *always* attracts less interest on the street than any of my SLRs - even my OM-1n and OM-2n gets more looks. I attribute this to the smaller size, less "professional" appearance and much quieter operation.

4. The glass! I have some damn good Nikkors (both MF and AF), but my Leica stuff puts it all to shame!

I'm definitely a candidate for a DRF, but sadly it probably won't happen for quite some time if ever. I just can't justify the cost of admission, particularly when I need a new DSLR body for the action shooting that comprises 75% of my photography. I don't particularly feel crippled without a DRF, though.

 

[jaapv]

Short answer: to me it does. End of discussion for me.

 

[ghost]

it makes more sense than wondering whether it makes sense. 😕

 

[Rashomon]

If you don't care about image quality, a pocket P&S like the Fuji F30 does everything the digital M does and better in some areas. 😎

And since when documentary photography (which is what the M is best at) was about the best optics?

 

[jaap]

No a digital range finder with a crop factor doesn,t make sense at all !

 

[AndyPiper]

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.

Actually, if one is going to throw away some portion of a lens's performance via crop factor, it's better to start with the best possible lens in the first place. 75% of 90 lpmm is still better resolution than 75% (or 50%) of 70 lpmm.

I suppose if someone just likes using a rangefinder, that's a sufficient reason.

Yep.

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....

Why? Digital SLRs no longer have mirrors and finder blackout?

....where many are smaller and lighter with instant presto change of iso settings

Perhaps point and shoots. Instant change of ISO is pretty useless when the sensor is so small that only the base ISO of 50 or 100 is usable.

...and have high opitcal qualities at a fraction of the cost,

Such as...? Excellent optical quality at f/5.6 is fine, but I want to be able to shoot at f/1, f/1.4, f/2 - and ISO 400/800/1600 (or thereabouts) and still have excellent optical quality.

...or sacrifised when with a digital M (e.g., losing the mechanical nature of the Leica M). Just curious.

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.

 

[gdewitt]

There are several reasons why I think it does, but primarily because IMO cameras have taken a turn for the worse over the last decade or two. Let me explain.

For years I hiked, climbed, skiied, etc., with my Nikon FM and two lenses: 24 and 85. I also had crates of bigger, motor-driven Nikon F3s and F4s, but I really connected with that little, manual, bulletproof FM and two excellent lenses. I worked most of the time with the 24. I used the DOF marks for focusing. I metered off my hand or used the rule of f/16 or just plain guessed on exposure and never lost a shot because of exposure.

But new digital cameras are huge and plastic and the UI is based on LCD panels and menus instead of a big ol' dial for shutter speed or aperture. The crop factor wouldn't be a problem if they made lenses I liked. But today's lenses are plastic, feel terrible, are zooms and don't have much in the way of DOF marks.

So how do I get back to what I used for years and loved the most? The closest I can find is the M8. I have mixed feelings about RF vs. SLR, quite frankly, so that isn't really a factor as either would work. For fast work most of the time I suppose I prefer RF. And that IS what I learned with in the late sixties and early seventies. I love my M4-P.

But they're still not where I need them to be. For example, the VF magnification. I need a .58x in order to see 28mm framelines with glasses on. In fact, in my M4-P I even have trouble with 35mm framelines. But with the M7 or MP, at least there's a choice of magnifications where there isn't with the M8. I'd say that's the one biggest thing I'd ask for is a .58 VF.

So for me it doesn't come down to RF vs. SLR and so I don't think there's a need for a digital RF, per se, but there is a need for a rugged, compact, manual digital camera with a traditional user interface and top-quality optics.

 

[jaapv]

There are several reasons why I think it does, but primarily because IMO cameras have taken a turn for the worse over the last decade or two. Let me explain.

For years I hiked, climbed, skiied, etc., with my Nikon FM and two lenses: 24 and 85. I also had crates of bigger, motor-driven Nikon F3s and F4s, but I really connected with that little, manual, bulletproof FM and two excellent lenses. I worked most of the time with the 24. I used the DOF marks for focusing. I metered off my hand or used the rule of f/16 or just plain guessed on exposure and never lost a shot because of exposure.

But new digital cameras are huge and plastic and the UI is based on LCD panels and menus instead of a big ol' dial for shutter speed or aperture. The crop factor wouldn't be a problem if they made lenses I liked. But today's lenses are plastic, feel terrible, are zooms and don't have much in the way of DOF marks.

So how do I get back to what I used for years and loved the most? The closest I can find is the M8. I have mixed feelings about RF vs. SLR, quite frankly, so that isn't really a factor as either would work. For fast work most of the time I suppose I prefer RF. And that IS what I learned with in the late sixties and early seventies. I love my M4-P.

But they're still not where I need them to be. For example, the VF magnification. I need a .58x in order to see 28mm framelines with glasses on. In fact, in my M4-P I even have trouble with 35mm framelines. But with the M7 or MP, at least there's a choice of magnifications where there isn't with the M8. I'd say that's the one biggest thing I'd ask for is a .58 VF.

So for me it doesn't come down to RF vs. SLR and so I don't think there's a need for a digital RF, per se, but there is a need for a rugged, compact, manual digital camera with a traditional user interface and top-quality optics.

A first post-but worthy of a veteran. Well said -and welcome!

 

[thurows]

Simply put, Yes. This is a camera I've been waiting for for years. I love toting around less than a shoe box worth of gear and now I can get the pictures out within ten minutes shooting, resounding Yes.

 

[jaap]

With the M8 those top quality optics are not fully utilized and that is the pain in the a......

 

[tbarker13]

It is a simple thing for me. When I got out of college in 1990, I sold all my Leica equipment to pay off debt. Basically stopped doing photography - despite my degree in photojournalism. I became a reporter and just left photography behind.
Then a funny thing happened about 8 years ago. I started repurchasing my leica gear, one piece at a time. I started taking pictures again.
A few years ago, I even built a darkroom behind my house.
Sadly, however, my photography was essentially limited to a couple trips a year - i would shoot 70-80 rolls of film and spend the next 5-6 months processing and printing. So basically, due to time constraints, I was only shooting a few weeks out of the year.
Then last year I purchased an R-D1. And suddenly I am shooting all the time. I feel so free to shoot whenever I want, knowing that I only have to go home and download my images onto a computer.
Could I do that with an SLR? To some degree, yes.
But I work exclusively with available light. I don't even own a flash. I like to travel as light as possible. And frankly, I just feel more comfortable using a rangefinder. If I am more comfortable, I feel like I create better images.
Should I be spending $5k on a new Leica M8? Probalby not. And yet every day, I look at this picture of an M8 I have on my desk and I smile.
So from my perspective, a digital rangefinder makes perfect sense.

 

[Finder]

The crop factor is a red herring - if a DSLR with a crop factor does not make sense, then neither does a rangefinder with a crop factor. Obviously, the crop factor has not detered folks from buying these products and using them with great success.

Resolution is also a red herring - a lot of really great 35mm photography was done on film with resolving powers less then the optics in front of it as well as at shutter speeds that introduce blur. No one seems to care that these images are not getting the best resolution possible.

The buyer is the only factor that will determine if it makes sense.

 

[jaap]

The buyer is the only factor that will determine if it makes sense.

Unfortunately that's true !!!!

 

[AShearer]

Actually, if one is going to throw away some portion of a lens's performance via crop factor, it's better to start with the best possible lens in the first place. 75% of 90 lpmm is still better resolution than 75% (or 50%) of 70 lpmm.



Yep.



Why? Digital SLRs no longer have mirrors and finder blackout?



Perhaps point and shoots. Instant change of ISO is pretty useless when the sensor is so small that only the base ISO of 50 or 100 is usable.



Such as...? Excellent optical quality at f/5.6 is fine, but I want to be able to shoot at f/1, f/1.4, f/2 - and ISO 400/800/1600 (or thereabouts) and still have excellent optical quality.



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.

EDITED TO SAVE SPACE.

Well Said! Most of the points I was going to make (However less eloquently my writing would have been) before I saw this response.