Bill Pierce
Well-known
I hear a lot of folks describe some digital cameras that accept or can be adapted to M mount lenses as “rangefinder alternatives.” The only digtal alternative that I know is the Epson RD-1 series. Here’s Sean Reid’s excellent review for the Luminous Landscape.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml
I’m exceptionally fond of some of the digitals that can accept M lenses. I really like the Ricoh A12 unit with M lenses and use it all the time. But I don’t think these cameras are Leica rangefinder substitutes. They don’t allow for simultaneous viewing and accurate, rapid focus with the manual focus M lenses.
For the most part, accurate manual focusing for these digitals relies on focus peaking or some kind of magnified view. While there are situations where this can actually mean more accurate focusing than rangefinder focusing, it’s a slower system than seeing the full picture frame through essentially the glass window of the bright frame viewfinder and simultaneously using the rangefinder spot to focus.
That view through the bright line finder can be replicated by using bright line finders in the accessory shoes of other cameras. But then, how do you focus quickly? The rapid, simultaneous focusing and viewing can be achieved with autofocus, but that means no M lenses. Should the digital photographer who can’t afford an M9 give up all his wonderful old M lenses and just go with the flow? Will there ever be a camera he loves? You tell me what you think (I know this is a highly emotional subject, but no people or camera bashing.) If this thread lasts longer than a page before descending into a web based fist fight, I’ll tell you what I’m doing to fight the Leica $$$ blues.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml
I’m exceptionally fond of some of the digitals that can accept M lenses. I really like the Ricoh A12 unit with M lenses and use it all the time. But I don’t think these cameras are Leica rangefinder substitutes. They don’t allow for simultaneous viewing and accurate, rapid focus with the manual focus M lenses.
For the most part, accurate manual focusing for these digitals relies on focus peaking or some kind of magnified view. While there are situations where this can actually mean more accurate focusing than rangefinder focusing, it’s a slower system than seeing the full picture frame through essentially the glass window of the bright frame viewfinder and simultaneously using the rangefinder spot to focus.
That view through the bright line finder can be replicated by using bright line finders in the accessory shoes of other cameras. But then, how do you focus quickly? The rapid, simultaneous focusing and viewing can be achieved with autofocus, but that means no M lenses. Should the digital photographer who can’t afford an M9 give up all his wonderful old M lenses and just go with the flow? Will there ever be a camera he loves? You tell me what you think (I know this is a highly emotional subject, but no people or camera bashing.) If this thread lasts longer than a page before descending into a web based fist fight, I’ll tell you what I’m doing to fight the Leica $$$ blues.
Greg M.
Member
I have a couple of better-than-a-point-and-shoots... a Coolpix 5000, and an Olympus C-5050. They're OK, but they're old and not fast (like me!)... not really useful in a deadline/work/news context. I had a Canon G9, which was darned close, which has gone to Digital Heaven... played with a cousin's G12, which was closer, even, still... but no cigar.
Four-five years ago, I acquired a couple of Panasonic L1's, on the vague promise of fast prime lenses, from Olympus and Panasonic. I have zooms, which are terrific... but the zooms are big, and I already have Nikons with big fast(er) zooms. Now, Micro 4/3 is getting the lenses that Regular 4/3 users were looking for. Really nice cameras, that do SOME kinds of things well... but, Grrr...
This past couple of weeks, I have decided not to play.
I no longer regularly do editorial or commercial assignments... and if I do, I can use the digital Nikons, and that's OK... but, since I am now a Free and Clear Artist... the Heck with them.
I dug out the M's, and the Rolleis, and I am shooting pix that I want to shoot, the way that I want to shoot 'em... on B&W film, the way I did for decades... and I scan 'em.
And... That's The Way It Is. I'm too old to wait for camera manufacturors to make what I want. I already have what I want.
Greg.
Four-five years ago, I acquired a couple of Panasonic L1's, on the vague promise of fast prime lenses, from Olympus and Panasonic. I have zooms, which are terrific... but the zooms are big, and I already have Nikons with big fast(er) zooms. Now, Micro 4/3 is getting the lenses that Regular 4/3 users were looking for. Really nice cameras, that do SOME kinds of things well... but, Grrr...
This past couple of weeks, I have decided not to play.
I no longer regularly do editorial or commercial assignments... and if I do, I can use the digital Nikons, and that's OK... but, since I am now a Free and Clear Artist... the Heck with them.
I dug out the M's, and the Rolleis, and I am shooting pix that I want to shoot, the way that I want to shoot 'em... on B&W film, the way I did for decades... and I scan 'em.
And... That's The Way It Is. I'm too old to wait for camera manufacturors to make what I want. I already have what I want.
Greg.
Peter Klein
Well-known
Bill: My solution was to buy a Leica M8 and a few IR filters. I bought mine in 2007 when the problems were known. No regrets. And today, a used M8 is an even better deal. I'm shooting just like I used to with film M's. I'm just using 35mm lens as a normal lens and a 28 as a wide, instead of 50 and 35. Life is good. I'd feel differently if I preferred a wide-angle view. But fortunately, I'm pretty much a normal to medium-long kind of guy, so I'm fine.
I also picked up a used Panasonic G1 to play with all my lenses. Image quality-wise, it's a distinct notch below the M8 when I pixel-peep. But for 8x10-ish prints in reasonable light, it's perfectly usable. I find that I usually use the native micro 4/3 lenses on it, because they are much more convenient. But, a 90mm VC Lanthar makes a wonderful 180mm-equivalent telephoto when traveling, focused with the 10x focusing digital magnification. A 50/3.5 OM Zuiko macro is wonderful on it. I can focus better than I ever could with a manual SLR, *if* the subject doesn't move.
The G1 is not a rangefinder, as you say. It's something else--a kind of combination of SLR, TLR with waist-level finder, with a bit of video camera thrown in. I've played with a friend's GR A12 and got the same impression.
So I wouldn't say that mirrorless cameras that take M lenses are RF alternatives. They are a whole new ballgame--something that gives you some very different, but very interesting ways to use your M lenses. They're also a lot of fun. They give the RF user back some things we give up by not using SLRs, and we can do them with our wonderful RF lenses.
As adjuncts to an RF, very nice. As a substitute, no way.
I also picked up a used Panasonic G1 to play with all my lenses. Image quality-wise, it's a distinct notch below the M8 when I pixel-peep. But for 8x10-ish prints in reasonable light, it's perfectly usable. I find that I usually use the native micro 4/3 lenses on it, because they are much more convenient. But, a 90mm VC Lanthar makes a wonderful 180mm-equivalent telephoto when traveling, focused with the 10x focusing digital magnification. A 50/3.5 OM Zuiko macro is wonderful on it. I can focus better than I ever could with a manual SLR, *if* the subject doesn't move.
The G1 is not a rangefinder, as you say. It's something else--a kind of combination of SLR, TLR with waist-level finder, with a bit of video camera thrown in. I've played with a friend's GR A12 and got the same impression.
So I wouldn't say that mirrorless cameras that take M lenses are RF alternatives. They are a whole new ballgame--something that gives you some very different, but very interesting ways to use your M lenses. They're also a lot of fun. They give the RF user back some things we give up by not using SLRs, and we can do them with our wonderful RF lenses.
As adjuncts to an RF, very nice. As a substitute, no way.
Adanac
Well-known
If someone bequeaths me a M9, I'll be only too glad to shoot it. On digital I miss the additional control over depth of field and originally intended perspective of my lenses. Purchasing one is not in the cards. It isn't the cost, but what the cost is for - a camera with a shelf life. I just can't justify that and would rather put the funds into lenses, which I certainly have done. In the meantime I wait for an alternative.
After 30 some odd years I've packed my darkroom and have largely made the switch to digital now, and aside from not having a full frame equivalent to my film cameras, I'm loving being able to find other uses for the time I spent in the darkroom or scanning negatives and positives to get them in digital format.
My alternative - for now - is the Ricoh GXR with the A12 M mount unit. It isn't the same as a rangefinder - agreed. And it does offer some benefits which I can't get on a film or digital rangefinder. But there's no doubt, if a digital rangefinder camera priced in my ball-park were to be made by someone, even Leica, I'd buy it.
Could digital support for focus of manual lenses get even better than what it is today? Maybe. I hope so.
Is there another alternative? A reasonably priced develop and scan service? Maybe that could do... but to be honest I'm enjoying the immediacy of digital and the improvements to my workflow.
I'm surely looking forward to seeing what develops in this thread.
After 30 some odd years I've packed my darkroom and have largely made the switch to digital now, and aside from not having a full frame equivalent to my film cameras, I'm loving being able to find other uses for the time I spent in the darkroom or scanning negatives and positives to get them in digital format.
My alternative - for now - is the Ricoh GXR with the A12 M mount unit. It isn't the same as a rangefinder - agreed. And it does offer some benefits which I can't get on a film or digital rangefinder. But there's no doubt, if a digital rangefinder camera priced in my ball-park were to be made by someone, even Leica, I'd buy it.
Could digital support for focus of manual lenses get even better than what it is today? Maybe. I hope so.
Is there another alternative? A reasonably priced develop and scan service? Maybe that could do... but to be honest I'm enjoying the immediacy of digital and the improvements to my workflow.
I'm surely looking forward to seeing what develops in this thread.
Yes... that is if they don't like film or mirrorless solutions. Leica prices are getting stupid high and I think the M10 will be $8500-10,000 when announced. While I have the M9 for now and the next few years, I cannot see myself buying the M10. That leaves me with my back-up plan... the Fuji X100 and X-Pro1 with native lenses. Hey, at least mirrorless cameras came out.... or the only other solution would be a DSLR or a P&S. Consider yourself lucky to have so many choices, even if none of them are perfect.
kemal_mumcu
Well-known
I'm lucky I like to shoot film, cause I don't have the money for an M9.
If I were to have to go digital, or should I want to go digital, the RD-1 would be my only realistic choice. To me the mirrorless solutions are nice but they are not a rangefinder, its not really the rangefinder experience.
Some seem to be happy with GXR/mirrorless solutions. Good for them.
If I were to have to go digital, or should I want to go digital, the RD-1 would be my only realistic choice. To me the mirrorless solutions are nice but they are not a rangefinder, its not really the rangefinder experience.
Some seem to be happy with GXR/mirrorless solutions. Good for them.
willie_901
Veteran
There are no rangefinder alternatives. A rangefinder has an analog optical finder that is mechanically coupled to the lens. There are five digital rangefinder cameras (RD1, M8, M8.2, M9, M9P).
The real issue here has to do with the lenses. If people feel their M lenses are literally irreplaceable and the technical and aesthetic properties of the lenses are not compromised on a digital platform, then there is no alternative.
I enjoyed using the M/LTM lenses I owned (ZM 35/2, ZM C-Sonnar, CV 28/3.5, Nikkor 85/2 and Canon 50/1.2). A while after the M8 was released I sold them all, along with my ZI-M body) and pursued other options. I decided to abandon film because it was apparent to me the smart phone would eventually replace the causal-use film cameras that kept local film labs in business. I decided developing my film at home was not practical.
It wasn't until my X100 arrived that I had a camera I enjoyed using because I could use it much as I used a rangefinder. I have the X-Pro 1 system on order and plan to only use the Fujinon lenses. So I compromised lens performance for the convenience and for the signal to noise/dynamic range advantages of state-of-the art sensor technology. I also use contemporary and legacy Nikkor lenses with a D700, but that platform is too large, heavy and indiscreet for many of my interests. There's another compromise... losing the nimbleness of the rangefinder platform.
I realize many of us have carefully curated a collection of M/LTM lenses (some of us have dome this over many decades) and using them provides aesthetic fullfilment. Unfortunalely enjoying these lenses on a digital platform with a mechanical rangefinder involves significant compromise of some sort (sensor resolution, signal-to-noise and dynamic range, IR filters, cost of ownership). People realize this and decide the lenses are well worth any disadvantage the rangefinder digital platforms may have. Some people even assert those platforms have no disadvantages whatsoever.
Because the choices are limited, the compromises are not trivial. I think the sucess of Fuji's, SONY's and Ricoh's approach and the diversity and of the m4/3 platform means this situation will not change in the forseeable future.
The real issue here has to do with the lenses. If people feel their M lenses are literally irreplaceable and the technical and aesthetic properties of the lenses are not compromised on a digital platform, then there is no alternative.
I enjoyed using the M/LTM lenses I owned (ZM 35/2, ZM C-Sonnar, CV 28/3.5, Nikkor 85/2 and Canon 50/1.2). A while after the M8 was released I sold them all, along with my ZI-M body) and pursued other options. I decided to abandon film because it was apparent to me the smart phone would eventually replace the causal-use film cameras that kept local film labs in business. I decided developing my film at home was not practical.
It wasn't until my X100 arrived that I had a camera I enjoyed using because I could use it much as I used a rangefinder. I have the X-Pro 1 system on order and plan to only use the Fujinon lenses. So I compromised lens performance for the convenience and for the signal to noise/dynamic range advantages of state-of-the art sensor technology. I also use contemporary and legacy Nikkor lenses with a D700, but that platform is too large, heavy and indiscreet for many of my interests. There's another compromise... losing the nimbleness of the rangefinder platform.
I realize many of us have carefully curated a collection of M/LTM lenses (some of us have dome this over many decades) and using them provides aesthetic fullfilment. Unfortunalely enjoying these lenses on a digital platform with a mechanical rangefinder involves significant compromise of some sort (sensor resolution, signal-to-noise and dynamic range, IR filters, cost of ownership). People realize this and decide the lenses are well worth any disadvantage the rangefinder digital platforms may have. Some people even assert those platforms have no disadvantages whatsoever.
Because the choices are limited, the compromises are not trivial. I think the sucess of Fuji's, SONY's and Ricoh's approach and the diversity and of the m4/3 platform means this situation will not change in the forseeable future.
BobYIL
Well-known
I think we are on the brinks of substantial changes as far as the means for focusing are concerned.
I have been using the optical rangefinder since almost half a century, today I do not recall any phase in my life including my younger years in which I was able to focus my M-Leicas as fast as the fairly-slow AF of the E-P1.. I do not remember of being able to see the relative depth of focus as easily as on the Nex-5N through “peaking” or how the focus plane moves over the whole field of view with each milimeter move of the focusing ring on a lens.. Such things are beyond imagination with the optical rangefinders.. Further, a number of digitals offer up to 9x magnification with the touch of a button. LCD screens provide exact framing free of parallax errors with field of views representing precise focal lengths to complement the viewfinders.. Add to these also the EVFs with resolutions near to what’s possible with naked eye.. Add to these the hybrid viewfinders combining what is seen through lens inside the optical frame lines of the OVF.. Such features are beyond the capabilities of the optical viewfinders, be them provided by Leica or Zeiss or any other brand.
Lighting conditions may not always be generous enough to allow zone focusing. Whether we like it or not, the AF, be it phase- or contrast-detect, is becoming the standard; the same as the automatic transmission has turned to be the standard for commuting in major towns, especially for those confronting with heavy traffic. Today within the shutter lag duration of the M9, a number of cameras are able to AF and shoot; this is not demanded by the professionals only.
We must note that all these above have been developed in the last couple of years while the conventional rangefinder had been with us since more than half a century. I am more inclined to believe that the new visual means to be brought in the next couple of years may cause the pure optical viewfinders be regarded rather as phase-out designs.
I have been using the optical rangefinder since almost half a century, today I do not recall any phase in my life including my younger years in which I was able to focus my M-Leicas as fast as the fairly-slow AF of the E-P1.. I do not remember of being able to see the relative depth of focus as easily as on the Nex-5N through “peaking” or how the focus plane moves over the whole field of view with each milimeter move of the focusing ring on a lens.. Such things are beyond imagination with the optical rangefinders.. Further, a number of digitals offer up to 9x magnification with the touch of a button. LCD screens provide exact framing free of parallax errors with field of views representing precise focal lengths to complement the viewfinders.. Add to these also the EVFs with resolutions near to what’s possible with naked eye.. Add to these the hybrid viewfinders combining what is seen through lens inside the optical frame lines of the OVF.. Such features are beyond the capabilities of the optical viewfinders, be them provided by Leica or Zeiss or any other brand.
Lighting conditions may not always be generous enough to allow zone focusing. Whether we like it or not, the AF, be it phase- or contrast-detect, is becoming the standard; the same as the automatic transmission has turned to be the standard for commuting in major towns, especially for those confronting with heavy traffic. Today within the shutter lag duration of the M9, a number of cameras are able to AF and shoot; this is not demanded by the professionals only.
We must note that all these above have been developed in the last couple of years while the conventional rangefinder had been with us since more than half a century. I am more inclined to believe that the new visual means to be brought in the next couple of years may cause the pure optical viewfinders be regarded rather as phase-out designs.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I really like the "RF-like" viewing through my X100. But I would not want the AF to be replaced with any kind of true RF. My old eyes welcome autofocus and, truth be told, my percentage of images where the focus is where I wanted it to be is far, far greater with autofocus than it ever was with my Leicas. My nostalgia for the good old days has had to undergo a reality check.
paulfish4570
Veteran
nicely put, dick.
back alley
IMAGES
i love my rd1...love the lenses i have for it.
just bought a used nikon d90 and have started to build a kit of primes for it.
the af has me hooked. i am a diabetic and some days my eyes are fine and other days focusing is a chore.
i am waiting for some user reviews of the fuji pro-x and then i might have to make a change if the camera is as good as the x100. that camera has a phenominal lens and shooting at 3200 is a dream come true.
just bought a used nikon d90 and have started to build a kit of primes for it.
the af has me hooked. i am a diabetic and some days my eyes are fine and other days focusing is a chore.
i am waiting for some user reviews of the fuji pro-x and then i might have to make a change if the camera is as good as the x100. that camera has a phenominal lens and shooting at 3200 is a dream come true.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
There's not a single digital RF that I can either afford (Leica Mx) or desire to purchase (R-D1), so I keep all my film gear and will probably buy an OM-D for digital. With m4/3 lenses I suppose one could use auxiliary bright line finders to keep one's eye on the composition while letting the AF do the focusing. The OM-D is supposed to have wicked fast focusing, so if I learn how to use that accurately, it could be an RF-like kit. And there's always zone focus for snapshot mode.
Kent
Finally at home...
Of course, there is no real rangefinder alternative, in the same way as there is no SLR alternative.
But the X100 or the NEX-7 and surely the X1Pro get pretty close.
But the X100 or the NEX-7 and surely the X1Pro get pretty close.
Dogman
Veteran
There really is no substitute for a Leica rangefinder in the realm of non-Leica digitals. And the Leica M digitals are not within the realm of my personal financial reality. I tried using my Leica lenses on various micro 4/3 bodies. They fit and the photos were fine. The problem is that my most used Leica lenses were the 35mm and 50mm Summicrons and these lenses became short telephotos in the 4/3 format. Besides, the fact is AF is faster and more accurate than my aged eyes can match.
So I gave up. Surrendered. Threw in the towel. Said, "Screw it!" Enough already.
I've sold all my Leica film equipment and I won't be buying any Leica digital equipment. It was great while it lasted but my Leica rangefinder days are over. As not even close substitutes, I now use a pair of Olympus E-Pen bodies with the micro 4/3 equivalents of my beloved 35mm and 50mm lenses. With accessory brightline optical viewfinders to match the lenses, the view is "sorta/kinda" like the Leica viewfinder. Well, not really. But it's acceptable and the photos are quite nice. The AF of the Olympus bodies is not as quick as that on my Canon DSLR bodies but it's faster than I could ever focus my Leicas and it hits focus more often than I ever did manually.
That's my less-than-perfect alternative.
So I gave up. Surrendered. Threw in the towel. Said, "Screw it!" Enough already.
I've sold all my Leica film equipment and I won't be buying any Leica digital equipment. It was great while it lasted but my Leica rangefinder days are over. As not even close substitutes, I now use a pair of Olympus E-Pen bodies with the micro 4/3 equivalents of my beloved 35mm and 50mm lenses. With accessory brightline optical viewfinders to match the lenses, the view is "sorta/kinda" like the Leica viewfinder. Well, not really. But it's acceptable and the photos are quite nice. The AF of the Olympus bodies is not as quick as that on my Canon DSLR bodies but it's faster than I could ever focus my Leicas and it hits focus more often than I ever did manually.
That's my less-than-perfect alternative.
Lss
Well-known
I think both my digital rangefinders bodies (M8/R-D1) are great cameras. The M9 would suit my needs and my lenses better, but it is too much money. For other than scale-focus wide angles, rangefinder coupling is simply mandatory for me to get things done. I have the NEX-5N and sometimes use LTM/M lenses on it, but I would frankly sell most of them if I did not have a proper camera for them.
semordnilap
Well-known
I like my NEX 5n, but I absolutely agree–it is missing the RF viewfinder and quick accurate focus. I've gotten reasonably quick with using peaking and image magnification, but I think it will never get close to RF focusing. And really, I feel stuck... I don't like big cameras, so I won't get a FF dslr–because I don't do this for anything/anyone but myself, I thankfully don't have to carry one of them around. But that means that I can't get a good optical vf anywhere, that's easy to focus. I tried with a nikon d7000–100% vf coverage plus a katz-eye screen, and it's still nowhere near as easy to manual focus as a film slr, let alone an rf.
I love my M8–for all its flaws, I'm very happy with the pictures I can make with it. I would love an M9 but it's not going to happen now. I'm hopeful for more interesting developments in the hybrid and electronic viewfinder over the next few years. I hope that the possibility of eliminating image blackout during capture could become a path for camera manufacturers to develop more interesting technologies, using that as a marketing point for their new finders. But who knows if anything like that will happen.
So for now, walking around with a 28 on the M8 and a 50 on the Nex 5n... We'll see what the next few years bring.
I love my M8–for all its flaws, I'm very happy with the pictures I can make with it. I would love an M9 but it's not going to happen now. I'm hopeful for more interesting developments in the hybrid and electronic viewfinder over the next few years. I hope that the possibility of eliminating image blackout during capture could become a path for camera manufacturers to develop more interesting technologies, using that as a marketing point for their new finders. But who knows if anything like that will happen.
So for now, walking around with a 28 on the M8 and a 50 on the Nex 5n... We'll see what the next few years bring.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Apologies for being away a bit. One of those jobs…….. To me, this has been an extremely intelligent thread with a lot of good, realistic comments and very little bashing. I said I would add what many of my acquaintances and I are doing to fight the “rangefinder blues.”
Being brought up on film Leicas, the digital Leica was a pleasure to use. My initial experiences weren’t good. My first two digital Leicas were defective and had to be returned. But, after that, the problems disappeared and the next camera worked flawlessly under a variety of conditions for the rest of its life with me. But, sadly, you need at least a back up body if you are going to use a camera for work. Working quickly with different fixed focal length lenses also is going to require multiple bodies. In the film days, three bodies were pretty standard for photojournalists although many photographers had more with spares in case of theft or break down on location or the need to ship them away for periodic cleaning, lubrication and adjustment.
Final image quality is the result of many factors, and the results I was getting from my “half frame” digital Leicas and what I was seeing from the M9, just didn’t justify the price of two or more M9’s. I sold or gave away almost all my Leica gear keeping about a half dozen lenses that had done an incredible job on the “half frame” digital Leica and 2 film bodies that were so worn that they could only be treated as elderly friends and allowed to retire in the home they had known for years. The M lenses now go to work on a Ricoh A12 module. The image quality is spectacular for a 12 MG camera. I’m very pleased with the unit used with their accessory LCD viewfinder or scale focusing with old Leica accessory bright-line finders. But, is it a rangefinder, even “in spirit” if not technically. No.
It does not have a bright line finder or something similar that allows you to simultaneously frame, focus and be aware of what is happening outside the frame line or in areas that would be out of focus.
A number of us are interested in cameras about to be available. Certainly the new Fuji with its hybrid finder and autofocus lenses is of great interest to transitioning M users. The Sony Nex 7 is a further departure from the RF tradition, but a lot of folks are interested in seeing it, once again with its own autofocus lenses. In other words, folks are looking for a small, discreet camera which can be used quickly in a variety of conditions and which is affordable. Essentially, the rangefinder camera is being redefined as a camera which has all the qualities of a rangefinder - and no rangefinder.
Being brought up on film Leicas, the digital Leica was a pleasure to use. My initial experiences weren’t good. My first two digital Leicas were defective and had to be returned. But, after that, the problems disappeared and the next camera worked flawlessly under a variety of conditions for the rest of its life with me. But, sadly, you need at least a back up body if you are going to use a camera for work. Working quickly with different fixed focal length lenses also is going to require multiple bodies. In the film days, three bodies were pretty standard for photojournalists although many photographers had more with spares in case of theft or break down on location or the need to ship them away for periodic cleaning, lubrication and adjustment.
Final image quality is the result of many factors, and the results I was getting from my “half frame” digital Leicas and what I was seeing from the M9, just didn’t justify the price of two or more M9’s. I sold or gave away almost all my Leica gear keeping about a half dozen lenses that had done an incredible job on the “half frame” digital Leica and 2 film bodies that were so worn that they could only be treated as elderly friends and allowed to retire in the home they had known for years. The M lenses now go to work on a Ricoh A12 module. The image quality is spectacular for a 12 MG camera. I’m very pleased with the unit used with their accessory LCD viewfinder or scale focusing with old Leica accessory bright-line finders. But, is it a rangefinder, even “in spirit” if not technically. No.
It does not have a bright line finder or something similar that allows you to simultaneously frame, focus and be aware of what is happening outside the frame line or in areas that would be out of focus.
A number of us are interested in cameras about to be available. Certainly the new Fuji with its hybrid finder and autofocus lenses is of great interest to transitioning M users. The Sony Nex 7 is a further departure from the RF tradition, but a lot of folks are interested in seeing it, once again with its own autofocus lenses. In other words, folks are looking for a small, discreet camera which can be used quickly in a variety of conditions and which is affordable. Essentially, the rangefinder camera is being redefined as a camera which has all the qualities of a rangefinder - and no rangefinder.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here is an early review (to be updated over time) of the Fuji X Pro. The reviewer chooses to refer to it as a rangefinder and does make some comparisons to the M9. Maybe there will be a rangefinderless rangefinder.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/fuji_x_pro1_review.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/fuji_x_pro1_review.shtml
pluton
Well-known
I wish Nikon had made the first 24x36 digi rangefinder; It would have been about $2500 for the body, and been reliable... with state of the art image quality.
photografity
Established
I use and love my RD-1s.... I am also looking for an affordable alternative to the RF. Having tried the m4/3 (did not like the 2x factor).
Hopefully, we'll see the X-Pro1 as the answer, however, ideally, we rather wish for a real affordable digital rangefinder (Cosina? RD-2?).
Hopefully, we'll see the X-Pro1 as the answer, however, ideally, we rather wish for a real affordable digital rangefinder (Cosina? RD-2?).