Is there a digital RF other than Leica?

[gbb]

Hello All,

I shoot mostly film but have been considering getting a digicam for low light use, given the excellent performance you can get a high ISO w digital. So last night at a house concert I saw this other photographer trying to shoot in low light w a fuji x100 and a film slr w flash, which puzzled me. Nap I asked him about it and he told me in auto mode the fuji is bit and miss in low light for focus, and in manual mode it's also difficult to see clearly when you're in focus. Then he nwhipped out his m6 and of course it was a breeze to focus w it even in low light (as we all know). So my question is whether there exists a digicam w as good a vf/ rf as a bessa r but costing in the hundreds and not the thousands as a leica digital? If not, why doesn't Mr K from Cosina start making one? Thanks in advance.

 

[ruby.monkey]

No there isn't. The closest you might get (other than an early M8) is an Epson RD1 series; but they've been out of production since about 2014 and still command quite impressive prices.

Fuji's manual focussing aids are pretty good, however, and with the X-T1/2 viewfinders it's not too hard to nail focus.

 

[ruby.monkey]

(But who knows - the Konost R/F might just turn out to be real after all)

 

[Chubberino]

Fuji would kill it if they produced an true m-mount digital rangefinder

 

[Ken Ford]

I'm still hoping for a hybrid full frame M mount body with a VF like a Fuji X-Pro. I'd even be happy with a full frame EVF only M mount body based off the Q.

 

[Scrambler]

The best option for low light manual focus with RF type lenses, IMHO, are the Sonys, though similar apsc cameras would probably be the same.

The Epson is great for focus but ISO is so 2004.

Even cheap (say $200-300) Sonys have great low light and focus is doable with a button set for enlarging the focus spot. But as above the true RF options are sadly lacking.

Remember even a film RF will cost over $1000 so the Epsons are lineball with similar aged Leicas. Well, the film Leica would still be more expensive.

 

[Darthfeeble]

You can zone focus the X100 using the distance scale in the menu.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Fuji would kill it if they produced an true m-mount digital rangefinder

And if my aunt were male, she'd be my uncle.

Cheers,

R.

 

[willie_901]

...I saw this other photographer trying to shoot in low light w a fuji x100 and a film slr w flash, which puzzled me. Nap I asked him about it and he told me in auto mode the fuji is bit and miss in low light for focus, and in manual mode it's also difficult to see clearly when you're in focus. ...

With the X100T, X100F or X-Pro 2, both AF problems are solved. Of course, these are not rangefinder cameras. They simulate the rangefinder experience using a reverse Galilean OVF design.

Different RF cameras have very different finders. Some work better in low light than others. Some are barely usable in very bright light.

The signal-to-noise ratio performance of the Type 240, M-P, Type 246, Typ 262, M-D, Type 262 and M10 is similar to other brands'. The M10's performance is equal or superior to the best DLSRs. The Type 240 is only about 1/2 stop below the M10.

There's really no motivation for other brands to compete with the M240, 260 or M10 product line.

 

[gbb]

Ok then what high speed film are still made, preferably in bulk rolls?😉. I have some neo pan 1600 left but after thats gone then what?

 

[jsrockit]

Fuji would kill it if they produced an true m-mount digital rangefinder

They are already doing well with what they have...

 

[telenous]

Ok then what high speed film are still made, preferably in bulk rolls?😉. I have some neo pan 1600 left but after thats gone then what?

In bulk your best bet is HP5+ 400 which you can then push 1 or 2 stops. I don't think Delta 3200 is sold in bulk. And Kodak manages to sell bulk TriX for as much or more than their prepackaged film rolls. Yeah, I wonder what they are thinking too.😕 On the colour side you still have Superia 800, which is not expensive at all for what it is, and it's a really, really decent film.

.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Ok then what high speed film are still made, preferably in bulk rolls?😉. I have some neo pan 1600 left but after thats gone then what?

You can get 400ft and 1000ft cans of Eastman 5222 which is inherently ~200 ISO but pushes very nicely up to 1600 (as far as I've taken it.) I love this film because it doesn't need as much, if any, yellow/orange filtration to get skin tones and landscapes correct while still keeping good contrast. Eventually, it will become my only 35mm film, I'm reasonably sure.

Phil Forrest

 

[gbb]

You can get 400ft and 1000ft cans of Eastman 5222 which is inherently ~200 ISO but pushes very nicely up to 1600 (as far as I've taken it.) I love this film because it doesn't need as much, if any, yellow/orange filtration to get skin tones and landscapes correct while still keeping good contrast. Eventually, it will become my only 35mm film, I'm reasonably sure.

Phil Forrest

Thanks Phil, and is it a c-41 film or a proprietary kodak process?

 

[gbb]

And if my aunt were male, she'd be my uncle.

Cheers,

R.

Hello Roger, good to see you here, I've enjoyed reading your articles through the years and have just looked at the new website, very nice. How do you handle low light shooting on bw film?

 

[De_Corday]

In bulk your best bet is HP5+ 400 which you can then push 1 or 2 stops. I don't think Delta 3200 is sold in bulk. And Kodak manages to sell bulk TriX for as much or more than their prepackaged film rolls. Yeah, I wonder what they are thinking too.😕 On the colour side you still have Superia 800, which is not expensive at all for what it is, and it's a really, really decent film.

.

+1.

I've made superb images on HP5+ pushed to 3200 with Ilford DDX. Nearly grainless, in fact, for HP5. I've also taken to pushing modern Tri-X to 1600 in D-76, and believe it or not it works wonderfully (14 min in undiluted stock, agitate for 30 sec, then invert every 2 minutes)

 

[Freakscene]

Thanks Phil, and is it a c-41 film or a proprietary kodak process?

Neither - it's cine B&W film which you can develop for stills just the same as any other B&W film.

Marty

 

[gbb]

+1.

I've made superb images on HP5+ pushed to 3200 with Ilford DDX. Nearly grainless, in fact, for HP5. I've also taken to pushing modern Tri-X to 1600 in D-76, and believe it or not it works wonderfully (14 min in undiluted stock, agitate for 30 sec, then invert every 2 minutes)

And ddx is the d-76 equivalent in ilford or is it a high speed developer?

 

[huntjump]

Still love my Epson R-D1. I contemplated selling it, but it really still is a great camera despite the ISO capabilities being outdated compared to modern digital cameras. With that said, the color rendering is really nice and the shutter advance lever still gives me a film body feel, so switching between my M6 and R-D1 is pretty seamless.

EDIT*** But, given your desire for a drf that has low-light capabilities, I would not recommend the R-D1 for your needs. 1600 ISO and a super fast lens gives a grainy look to your shots, which I don't mind.
My R-D1
Epson R-D1 + 35/2 by Adam Jen, on Flickr

 

[De_Corday]

And ddx is the d-76 equivalent in ilford or is it a high speed developer?

Nah, ddx is Ilford's high speed. HP5 is grainier by nature than the modern-stock Tri-X, and this was important work I needed to be able to use big. I enlarged a shot to 16x20 and thats about where that particular combination gets me (DDX pushing HP5 to 3200)

Here's a rough scan:

That was about three or four years ago. Nowadays I'm shooting a lot more tri-x and the grain is so absent from the modern stock that I can use D76 for 1600 pushes all day long and it looks good!

I also push rarely enough that I didn't want to have to keep a special developer that might go bad on the shelf