Is there an alternative??

Dogman said:
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.
Click to expand...

A wise move indeed! ... Take the OM-D for example, having a very fast AF to compete with the professional DSLRs; 3D AF tracking for moving subjects, 16MP, hi-res EVF, image stabilizer allowing to shoot even at 1/4sec, weather-sealed, very usable ISO 6400 and these all for $999. Add to it a DG Summilux 25/1.4 ($539) and a 50mm brightline finder for uninterrupted view, you are equipped to play the modern version of HCB! (Even faster than he could ever been. :D)

Joke aside, do you think that there would be any digital Leica to be as fast as the combination above as long as the existing M-lenses are used? Never...

If the point was uninterrupted view, then the brightline finders are available from 18 up to 135mm.. all we need is to put a semi-transparent dot in the center of the finder to indicate where AF was aimed to. The machine is doing the rest..
 
I love the X100 and if I bought the X Pro 1 I would only be using it with the three lenses or other lenses developed for it. The M lenses are great and do well on other formats, but I really could not be bothered. In the end I did get the M9, but that commits me to DNG and quite a lot of software learning. I am quite happy with the JPEGs out of the X100 and hope it would be the same with the X Pro 1. The amortization and comparative short life of the M9 do not concern me as much as some think it should. I have an 8 year old digital and electronics in OM cameras working well after nearly thirty years. I have been paying $25-30 per roll for processing and scanning and prints and haven't the space or time for a darkroom. I don't see why the M9 shouldn't last 10 years. Fifty years, like my M2, is just not a reasonable ask. At 10 years it will have more than paid for itself, both in film not bought and processed and in terms of other stuff I decide I don't need to buy.
 
I like the finder on my M3 far too much to change away from it. I like film for its subtlety, though I admit I seldom achieve the results I desire. I also like digital for its immediacy. One of my bags, therefor, contains an M3 with 15, 50 and 90, plus an EP-1 with the 17mm and optical finder, plus a G2 with the Oly 45~150, plus a M to M43 convertor. It isn't too much to carry and there's very little I can't tackle with that lot.

Embrace compromise and it's amazing how much fun you can have! ;)
 
At least for the moment, the only digital RF equivalent is the M9 and, yes, I consider FF sensor coverage essential. However, even the M9 is merely a digital approximation to shooting a film M: battery concerns, image aliasing, form factor, sensor dust, not to mention the tactile aspects of wind-on.

Since I have a menagerie of camera types (film P&S, SLR, RF, digital P&S, DSLR), I simply enjoy what the world offers at this time. The true RF experience can vary from the unified view of the M to the separate windows of the Barnacks. You can even attach a Leitz FOKOS to that schmancy digicam and call yourself a connoisseur of RF. :)

For lovers of RF glass, current options include film (of course), RF cropped digital sensors, the M9, and digital Visoflex. I use the latter extensively on the Canon 1Ds and have five suitable lenses (90-280mm).

I expect FF sensors to reach the NEX and economy digital-RF bodies in the near future. It's a market that will support a premium price, and the digital P&S market is dying from oversaturation and the cell phone invasion.
 
Great topic and responses.

I don't expect a focusing mechanism to be developed just for legacy glass that will be faster or better integrated than peaking. We can hope.

But, I do want to use old glass and have full focus and exposure control, with direct, usable dials in a reasonably sturdy package. By my measure, the M9 is still the only "mirrorless", full frame camera with full (simple, excellent) manual controls and good build. No compromises.

So, the question seems to circle back to the eternal hunt for a less-expensive (better!) alternative to the Leica body - a digital expansion of the Bessa R, Minolta CL or Zeiss ZM theme for your LTM/M glass.

I suggest that this remains largely Leica's legacy, which is still compelling and technically attractive to many (if expensive). It's always been about fully supporting the breadth and quality of their glass and I speculate that will remain the case.

To paraphrase Greg M, I have what I need and I'm not waiting for the manufacturers to build my perfect digital camera and I don't have time to hack gadgets struggling to match the operation of their antecedents.

- Charlie
 
I don't have a lot to offer here as a newbie to the M mount and manual focus. But I tired of carrying a big DSLR and found the GXR to be a great travel camera. (I travel for work and work a week on week off schedule and can be anywhere in the world)

I've just recently purchased the M mount for the GXR and my first lens (one that I can afford) a Leitz Summicron 40mm.

Bill, as a fellow GXR shooter, I'm curious as to what lenses you held on to to shoot with the GXR. I'm interested in adding a couple more lenses to cover the other focal lengths I'm missing.

Thanks for starting this thread.

As a hobbyist there is no way I could afford the M9 but I am thoroughly enjoying the effort in learning this new system and the IQ this almost 40 year old lens provides.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Maybe there will be a rangefinderless rangefinder.
Click to expand...

I love that.

And of course there is an alternative to the digital rangefinder. An "alternative" is simply another option. It doesn't have to mimic every aspect of the original choice.
Hell, the rangefinder itself is an alternative to larger SLR/DSLR systems.

A lot of us keep pointing out that the rangefinder experience - for many users - is about using a compact camera with interchangeable lenses. It's the small form factor that we crave. How the thing achieves its focus is a secondary consideration for many, if not most, users.

For those of who don't/won't/can't spend $20,000 on a camera and three lenses, the XPro-1 may be an excellent alternative at 15 percent of the price.
After all, you can take pictures with either system.
 
I've just recently purchased the M mount for the GXR and my first lens (one that I can afford) a Leitz Summicron 40mm. Bill said:
I have 2 35mm lenses, which become an effective 50mm on the 1/2 frame GXR. One is a tiny f/2.5; the other a monstrous f/1.2. I use the little one outdoors and the big one indoors. A 21mm, f2.8 Angulon becomes my effective 28, and an old Leicaflex 60mm macro becomes my 90 mm. That's my basic kit along with some longer Leicaflex lenses, which, although the GXR sensor is set up for shorter lenses, work well and produce good images. And about 90% of my GXR photography is done with the 50mm equivalents. I think you will be able to do a lot of your pictures with your 40.
Click to expand...
 
Bill Pierce said:
I have 2 35mm lenses, which become an effective 50mm on the 1/2 frame GXR. One is a tiny f/2.5; the other a monstrous f/1.2. I use the little one outdoors and the big one indoors. A 21mm, f2.8 Angulon becomes my effective 28, and an old Leicaflex 60mm macro becomes my 90 mm. That's my basic kit along with some longer Leicaflex lenses, which, although the GXR sensor is set up for shorter lenses, work well and produce good images. And about 90% of my GXR photography is done with the 50mm equivalents. I think you will be able to do a lot of your pictures with your 40.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the quick reply Bill. When I bought the GXR it came with the A12 28mm but I find it a bit wide at times. At other times my 40 can be a bit long. So I think the other challenge we're having trying to mimic or replace the FF Film or FF digital bodies is finding the lenses that work for our style of shooting with a cropped sensor.

So I may rent a couple lenses down the road that fit between my 28 and 40mm which acts like a 60 on the GXR to see if I really need something in the 35 - 50 range.
 
So, is the M3 yet the entry level Leica for us mere mortals? Are we the film users and lovers the last breed of contrarians before the demise of film?

May I add to the somber underlying topic of this column, how hard it is to have Ektachrome film developed (at least in my country). I am considering smuggling the chemicals to do so!
 
My GXR with A12 and M-mount lenses does produce very pleasing results at a price that seems reasonably in the ballpark compared to an M9. I tried the M8.2 and didn't like the funky film-advance sound or the fact that I paid four times as much as I did for the GXR with pretty much same results. I grapple with the issue that I'm undertaking a new form of photography that is more digicam than rangefinder (have the GXR viewfinder that is too small for my viewing ease). So what I'm doing with this setup has a lot of the earmarks of point-and-shoot. When I bring up a film Leica to my eye, feels like I'm going to create something that might--if I'm lucky--be of a little more significance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom