aizan
Veteran
warning: delusional crazy talk below dotted line. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
hi bill. good question, and since photokina is coming up, i might as well spill the beans.
ricoh gave me a modified grd iii with a built-in viewfinder several months ago for beta testing (production cameras are being manufactured as we speak!). it has illuminated framelines that are both parallax and field-size corrected, and there is a bracket in the middle that indicates the focusing spot. the meter display runs along the left edge and looks just like the one in the bronica rf645.
the best thing about it is that i can slip it into a pant or shirt pocket without having to deal with bulky accessory viewfinders, either putting them on or removing them, or worrying about them snagging on something and falling off, or being scratched. there's also no cause for a shoulder strap. it's a dream come true!
if only it were true!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
hi bill. good question, and since photokina is coming up, i might as well spill the beans.
ricoh gave me a modified grd iii with a built-in viewfinder several months ago for beta testing (production cameras are being manufactured as we speak!). it has illuminated framelines that are both parallax and field-size corrected, and there is a bracket in the middle that indicates the focusing spot. the meter display runs along the left edge and looks just like the one in the bronica rf645.
the best thing about it is that i can slip it into a pant or shirt pocket without having to deal with bulky accessory viewfinders, either putting them on or removing them, or worrying about them snagging on something and falling off, or being scratched. there's also no cause for a shoulder strap. it's a dream come true!
if only it were true!
Last edited:
btgc
Veteran
Digital cameras are advancing so rapidly that upgrading them to catch new good (and often simply very needed!) features rises costs above "buy once and then it's free" baseline.
Photography isn't especially cheap - one pays either for film/de/prints or for upgrades. That's how I see this.
Interesting, that many are either F or D people, denominating other side. When I think about food, I don't blame meat when I eat sweets or vice versa
Photography isn't especially cheap - one pays either for film/de/prints or for upgrades. That's how I see this.
Interesting, that many are either F or D people, denominating other side. When I think about food, I don't blame meat when I eat sweets or vice versa
gavinlg
Veteran
It is smaller, but still has the same form factor.
The way I see it, there are 2 main types of digital cameras - SLR's, and Rangefinders. The e-p1/GF1 are much closer to a rangefinder than an SLR. I would list similar form factor, both lacking a mirror, both having native tiny and good quality lenses, and myself using both in a similar fashion as the reasons.
I don't think the fact that a camera has a mechanical/optical rangefinder is the reason why people use a rangefinder camera - I think it's because of it's form factor, the native tiny/high quality lenses, the improved shutter vibration as compared to an SLR, the quieter operation compared to an SLR, and all these attributed are mutually shared between rangefinders and mirrorless digitals such as the e-p1.
I'm not saying that the mirrorless digital will replace the rangefinder, I'm saying it's a natural offshoot or progression from the rangefinder tree, and that's why they're popular on this forum. It's almost complimentary to the rangefinder system.
user237428934
User deletion pending
For me the killer feature of a rangefinder is the rangefinder not the size. I never liked manual focussing with the split screen of an old SLR. But I really love the manual focussing with a rangefinder. It's something special although I am slower compared to the AF of my 5D but that's not a problem most of the time.
I had a mFT camera and I think it has nothing in common with a rangefinder.
gavinlg
Veteran
Fair enough - for sure the actual mechanism of focus is different, and that may be a major reason for you to see no correlation between the 2 cameras.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Bottom line to me is not a film vs digital thing, but a "which camera do I actually use" thing. I don't have a digital Leica M (and won't, now that I've got the E-P2), but I have several film Leicas (along with other 35mm RF's). In the past if I wanted a small "Leica form factor" camera to shoot with, I would pick up one of my Leica M's. Now, I mostly reach for the E-P2. It's a personal answer, of course, but tells me the direction I'm moving.
But in my case, it was always the small, solidly built camera with a quiet shutter that attracted me to Leica M, not particularly the rangefinder focusing, which I have no particular feeling for. RF focusing works, as does SLR, and now the EVF on the E-P2, so I've never really cared what I was focusing with.
But in my case, it was always the small, solidly built camera with a quiet shutter that attracted me to Leica M, not particularly the rangefinder focusing, which I have no particular feeling for. RF focusing works, as does SLR, and now the EVF on the E-P2, so I've never really cared what I was focusing with.
Arjay
Time Traveller
I agree with Pickett Wilson. I know both sides of this discussion, using both an analog RF (Hexar RF & AF, full-frame) and a Nikon DSLR (DX format).
It does come down to usability, and not to analog or digital.
I feel that my DSLR is too bulky and too loud for Street photography. OTOH, I love my Hexars for their large film/sensor format, giving me the opportunity to play with bokeh when shooting with wide apertures. µFT or even smaller sensors don't offer this feature, and APS-C (e.g. Sony's NEX cameras) only offers it to a limited degree.
And then there's autofocus: My Hexar (or any Leica) either forces me to measure focus distance using its rangefinder (my Hexar AF requires me to aim it with high precision), or I can only use these cameras manually via zone focussing when I want to shoot from the hip. That, however rules out playing with OOF area rendition.
Theoretically, there's a solution to the focusing dilemma: Use an AF camera that can be configured to lock on the closest object in the FOV. Many DSLRs can do that, as well as many smaller P&S cameras.
So, we are really talking about a certain style of shooting - unobtrusive, fast, and with a certain compromise between manual control and supporting automatic functions.
I presently cannot see one single camera concept that will be able to meet all those requirements, and that leaves us with lots of things to talk about in our quest for the right technique:
How can we
It does come down to usability, and not to analog or digital.
I feel that my DSLR is too bulky and too loud for Street photography. OTOH, I love my Hexars for their large film/sensor format, giving me the opportunity to play with bokeh when shooting with wide apertures. µFT or even smaller sensors don't offer this feature, and APS-C (e.g. Sony's NEX cameras) only offers it to a limited degree.
And then there's autofocus: My Hexar (or any Leica) either forces me to measure focus distance using its rangefinder (my Hexar AF requires me to aim it with high precision), or I can only use these cameras manually via zone focussing when I want to shoot from the hip. That, however rules out playing with OOF area rendition.
Theoretically, there's a solution to the focusing dilemma: Use an AF camera that can be configured to lock on the closest object in the FOV. Many DSLRs can do that, as well as many smaller P&S cameras.
So, we are really talking about a certain style of shooting - unobtrusive, fast, and with a certain compromise between manual control and supporting automatic functions.
I presently cannot see one single camera concept that will be able to meet all those requirements, and that leaves us with lots of things to talk about in our quest for the right technique:
How can we
- either bend a DSLR to be fast, unobtrusive and as silent as possible, or
- preset/configure P&S style cameras so that they give up many of their overly automatic functions?
oftheherd
Veteran
I don't own a Leica, I expect I never will. I own one interchangable lens RF; a Kiev. I own several FLRF which I use from time to time. That is mostly the XA, because it fits on my belt or in a pocket if I don't want the flash. I like that camera. I own a Canon P&S which I take with me from time to time as well. It is expecially good to snapshots of family when I want instant access to the photos.
Nonethless, I can relate to Mr. Peirce's question as to smaller cameras getting to be preferred. I have had a small SLR for many years, the Fujica ST 901. I didn't appreciate it for its small size when I first got it. I had a back stronger than my mind. I could carry two SLR with lenses, and an MF with no trouble at all. No longer true.
Now I really like my Fujica, also my Yashica FX 103 with three zooms from 18mm to 150mm. That covers all my most used FL. In MF, I find I really like 120 folders for their small size, and I can zoom with my feet. Mind you, I'm not throwing my Super Press 23 away, but you need a limber for the camera, and a caisson for the aluminum case with lenses and backs.
In LF, I am becoming enamored to my RF Recomars and one RF Vag. Mind you, they aren't featherweights, but a Recomar with two aux lenses and 5 cut film backs is managable for that large negative. A 6x9 roll film back takes care of other multiple shooting desires.
I am not switching to digital as my preferred type of camera. I am liking smaller more and more.
I don't know Mr. Peirce, is it just our age?
Nonethless, I can relate to Mr. Peirce's question as to smaller cameras getting to be preferred. I have had a small SLR for many years, the Fujica ST 901. I didn't appreciate it for its small size when I first got it. I had a back stronger than my mind. I could carry two SLR with lenses, and an MF with no trouble at all. No longer true.
Now I really like my Fujica, also my Yashica FX 103 with three zooms from 18mm to 150mm. That covers all my most used FL. In MF, I find I really like 120 folders for their small size, and I can zoom with my feet. Mind you, I'm not throwing my Super Press 23 away, but you need a limber for the camera, and a caisson for the aluminum case with lenses and backs.
In LF, I am becoming enamored to my RF Recomars and one RF Vag. Mind you, they aren't featherweights, but a Recomar with two aux lenses and 5 cut film backs is managable for that large negative. A 6x9 roll film back takes care of other multiple shooting desires.
I am not switching to digital as my preferred type of camera. I am liking smaller more and more.
I don't know Mr. Peirce, is it just our age?
jarski
Veteran
on the contrary I believe finder and focusing are precisely the reason to use these cameras, and why some people like them so much. finder really distincts them from the rest of the herd, that comes with all sizes, shapes, and form factors.
biakalt
Long Tran
i have external VF on my Ricoh GRD2, much intuitive that way than composing with LCD. turn on snap focusing and fire away. i wish M8 or M9 was as thin as other Ms, thats a main thing that draw me back from getting a digital M
Last edited:
Uhm, if I could afford it says the man with the following:
35mm: Voigtlander Bessa R4A : CV Color Skopar 20mm f4 : CV Nokton 40mm f1.4
MF: Pentax 645 : 35mm-A f3.5
Digital: D700 with fast AIS glass : NEX-5 with M & F Adapters
The design of the lenses for a Rangefinder is distinct from the SLR for normal lenses and wider. No need to increase the back-focus using negative elements either explicitly, or folded into the optical formula. The rendered image is "just different". You cannot buy a 50mm Sonnar formula lens for an SLR.
I like the look of the RF lenses, and use them on my EP2.
Many of the threads on this forum are in regard to lenses.
I like the look of the RF lenses, and use them on my EP2.
Many of the threads on this forum are in regard to lenses.
Last edited:
djonesii
Well-known
my cRF cameras
my cRF cameras
My Epson RD-1 is without a doubt a coupled range finder.
My Alpenhause converted polaroid 900 is without a doubt a coupled range finder.
My Speed Graphic is without a doubt a coupled range finder.
This is the only forum I can find that really speaks to the RF nature of these cameras. ( The largeformatphotography.info lot is more about the film size than the cRF)
The Bronica 645 was a cRF ( but alas sold to fund GAS)
My Fuji GA645Zi is just at the edge of what is a range finder, but not coupled. Same with the Contax G1 ( also sold to fund GAS)
So, yes, this is a RFF!
I have flirted with an M mount adapter, but the micro 4/3rds is not a cRF.
( while it does give me some of the shooting characteristics of a cRF)
If some electronics company were to some how make a dispaly that mimicked a RF patch with an EVF or rear screen, that would indeed be a coupled RF, and from what I know of developing code, if someone wanted to, they would be able to write that bit of code.
Dave
my cRF cameras
My Epson RD-1 is without a doubt a coupled range finder.
My Alpenhause converted polaroid 900 is without a doubt a coupled range finder.
My Speed Graphic is without a doubt a coupled range finder.
This is the only forum I can find that really speaks to the RF nature of these cameras. ( The largeformatphotography.info lot is more about the film size than the cRF)
The Bronica 645 was a cRF ( but alas sold to fund GAS)
My Fuji GA645Zi is just at the edge of what is a range finder, but not coupled. Same with the Contax G1 ( also sold to fund GAS)
So, yes, this is a RFF!
I have flirted with an M mount adapter, but the micro 4/3rds is not a cRF.
( while it does give me some of the shooting characteristics of a cRF)
If some electronics company were to some how make a dispaly that mimicked a RF patch with an EVF or rear screen, that would indeed be a coupled RF, and from what I know of developing code, if someone wanted to, they would be able to write that bit of code.
Dave
wgerrard
Veteran
For me, it's the size and convenience of a camera, not how it focuses. I wear eyeglasses and own an M2, a Bessa R4M and an OM-2N. Framing and focusing are the easiest with the OM. The entire frame is always visible, which I can't say for the M2 or the Bessa.
Meanwhile, the VF on my new Sigma DP2-S is brighter than the VF on any of those three. It's just a dumb piece of glass with a box drawn on it, but it is bright.
We often hear RFF'ers assert that they'd love to have the "full-frame" capabilities of the M9, but can't afford it. So, they fall back to a cheaper alternative. In the long run, however, I think the emphasis on a sensor the size of a 35mm frame will grow moot. What counts is the amount of information captured on a sensor. As technology improves, sensors of any given size will capture more information. Likewise, the price of sensors of a size one or two notches below the cutting edge will also trend down. The very best, the very largest, sensors will always be expensive. But, relatively cheap consumer-level sensors, I'm confident, will capture more information and produce better images than the biggest and best sensors currently in any Canon, Nikon or Leica.
I also expect to see dramatic improvements in the displays in desktops and laptops, which means images displayed on screen will also show a dramatic improvement. The display technology in Apple's new iPod's is a good example of this. Does anyone think Apple is not trying to figure out how to build desktop and laptop screens using the same displays?
What this means, then is that film rangefinders will be used for a very long time by folks who like using them and who like the look film engenders. Many people will migrate to new digitals that deliver the characteristics and ergonomics of an RF without the actual RF bit. It also means, i suspect, that we will see very, very few digital RF's at any price point.
Arjay
Time Traveller
I respectfully disagree.
This isn't merely about sensor resolution, but about the combination of sensor diagonal and lens focal length: With shorter diagonals, one has to use shorter focal lengths for a given angle of view. The shorter the focal length, the more depth of field will be produced by the lens.
The 'advantage' of smaller sensors can readily be seen in any cheap digital P&S camera on the market: Almost anything is in focus - almost always.
Exactly this point was my motivation to move from a digital P&S to a DSLR several years ago. What I was missing were smooth, elegantly diffused OOF areas.
So, large sensors aren't just a status seeker's fad, but a necessity for anyone who likes to produce photographs that retain the look of pictures many of us grew up with in the old film days.
Of course, image information will increase with sensor pixel count. This might be useful for print size, but not for OOF area appearance.
Apart from sensor resolution, I do hope that future generation image sensors will offer more contrast rendition (expressed in the number of reproducible EVs), rather than more pixels that mostly just are prone to produce ugly image noise. The print size available with today's image sensors is sufficient for almost any amateur's requirement. Better contrast rendition still is one point in which film excels over digital sensors.
kevin m
Veteran
Rangefinders have always been a niche camera, but in the digital age, the niche has gotten a bit smaller. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I personally knew several people shooting M's when film was the medium, and I know only one who owns a digital M.
My personal guess as to why is that with digital sensors, many of the RF advantages have evaporated. When we were all shooting 400 speed film (more or less,) then no mirror slap, handhold to 1/15th, excellent f1.4 (or better) lenses were a real plus. That seems less the case now with many digital cameras having excellent high iso performance. It seems the best reason to shoot with a rangefinder now is simply that it pleases you to do so.
My personal guess as to why is that with digital sensors, many of the RF advantages have evaporated. When we were all shooting 400 speed film (more or less,) then no mirror slap, handhold to 1/15th, excellent f1.4 (or better) lenses were a real plus. That seems less the case now with many digital cameras having excellent high iso performance. It seems the best reason to shoot with a rangefinder now is simply that it pleases you to do so.
paulfish4570
Veteran
"So, I see this forum focussing less on a certain camera class, but much more on a certain style of using our cameras, no matter whether they be analog or digital."
Well said, Arjay.
Well said, Arjay.
wgerrard
Veteran
Arjay, I mean "information" to include more than resolution: Colors, contrast, brightness, etc. All those and more are included in the information conveyed by the photons that strike a sensor or a piece of film.
I understand your points, but I wonder how long it will be before technology allows us to manipulate something like depth of field. I don't think it would be difficult to calculate the actual depth of the plane of focus for a given lens and a given subject, and the display it in the VF or on the LCD. That display could certainly be numeric. But, even better, turn the image sideways and display it graphically. That done, give the photographer the ability to shrink or grow that area by manipulating that image, with the camera automatically making the needed focus and aperture adjustments.
Given sufficient processing power, it ought to be possible to display what an image will look like before the shutter is pressed. I.e., chimping before the fact. If a camera can render that display in, say, half of a second or less, I think many photographers would welcome that capability.
These advances will not mean much to photographers who print in traditional darkrooms. However, most of us, I suspect, don't fall into that category.
NickTrop
Veteran
@ Juan - It's not a film v digital thread. I'm not a film basher at all. However, to me - and to Bill's initial question, and as others have alluded:
1. Rangefinders were/are/remained popular for certain types of photography because they were more discrete than other types of cameras... Hence, this forum' popularity.
2. However, technology has eclipsed the advantages of using them for this kind of photography...
1. Fast autofocus (and innately small "film plane") negates need to shoot at F5.6 for DoF
allows you to better shoot blind from the hip...
2. No need for film + gigabites of storage on a little chip + decent (lately) battery life to allow for volume shooting, no delays to load camera...
3. No shutter = completely silent operation. No noise at all. They're so quiet, in fact, that a fake shutter sound is added to let the user know if you've taken a pic. This feature can be disabled.
4. ISO is now variable, and the little cameras have overcome their major drawback - the ability to shoot in natural lighting w/o a flash. Multiple point intelligent metering allows for perfect exposure 98%(?) of the time. Many cameras have image stabilization (not the F20 but it uses another method...) negates the need to shoot at 1/30th to avoid camera shake.
Old school was to shoot at F5.6, 1/30, with 400 speed film in your camera. How can it be argued that the ability to shoot with a variable ISO, with a completely silent camera that weighs a few ounces, with a tiny camera the fits in the palm of your hand that has a lens that collapses right into the camera, that fits in a shirt pocket - no problem (with a decent built-in flash if you need it - yet), that you can take anywhere, that can rapidly auto focus, that can accurately set metering and exposure - all in less than a second, is not a better tool for street photography than an old rangefinder? Add to this the incredible flexiblity to do virtually anything in post... including making the output resemble Tri-X with grain added, or even add bokeh (though admittedly that takes a little work and is not always practical)?
The quality won't be as good if you pixel peep. It will look virtually indistinguishable to film - to my eye, on prints up to 8X10.
The aspects you mention are more important in other kinds of photography - not street photography, which is all about "the decisive moment" and composition. You simply don't need that much control for this... In fact, manual control gets in the way.
If your photography is about optimizing sharpness, dynamic range, tonality don't shoot digital or small format film. Neither digital nor small format cameras - including Leicas, come close to medium format in these areas... Shoot larger formats.
These are the reasons why digital has destroyed small format - even those "soccer moms" know this... Maybe they're the smart ones?
The reasons we (self included) continue to shot with film gear is the following:
A. We fashion ourselves as "photographers", have a certain image we want to project, and need to be seen with certain gear. We "get off" when people ask us "Wow... what camera is that Oh, Mr. So-and-so, are you a photographer? And we tell them about our darkroom and how we "still develop black and white..." blah, blah, blah...
B. We simply like the charm, or the tactile pleasure, or the nostalgia of older cameras. They're essentially toys - not tools.
C. We couldn't afford these cameras when they were new when they were "the cat's pajamas" and now that they're obsolete and we can afford them. We're like kids in a candy store and get "GAS" and buy up scads of them...
D. We like the manual "craft" for shooting film, developing our own stuff, and making our own prints.
E. We're really collectors but would never admit it openly.
F. We've always shot film, are set in our ways...
G. All of the above to varying degrees.
And there's nothing wrong with A,B,C,D,E,F,G! But let's be intellectually honest. The technical advantages of which we speak are largely rationalizations for A,B,C,D,E,F,G! - at least as far as small format is concerned.
1. Rangefinders were/are/remained popular for certain types of photography because they were more discrete than other types of cameras... Hence, this forum' popularity.
2. However, technology has eclipsed the advantages of using them for this kind of photography...
1. Fast autofocus (and innately small "film plane") negates need to shoot at F5.6 for DoF
allows you to better shoot blind from the hip...
2. No need for film + gigabites of storage on a little chip + decent (lately) battery life to allow for volume shooting, no delays to load camera...
3. No shutter = completely silent operation. No noise at all. They're so quiet, in fact, that a fake shutter sound is added to let the user know if you've taken a pic. This feature can be disabled.
4. ISO is now variable, and the little cameras have overcome their major drawback - the ability to shoot in natural lighting w/o a flash. Multiple point intelligent metering allows for perfect exposure 98%(?) of the time. Many cameras have image stabilization (not the F20 but it uses another method...) negates the need to shoot at 1/30th to avoid camera shake.
Old school was to shoot at F5.6, 1/30, with 400 speed film in your camera. How can it be argued that the ability to shoot with a variable ISO, with a completely silent camera that weighs a few ounces, with a tiny camera the fits in the palm of your hand that has a lens that collapses right into the camera, that fits in a shirt pocket - no problem (with a decent built-in flash if you need it - yet), that you can take anywhere, that can rapidly auto focus, that can accurately set metering and exposure - all in less than a second, is not a better tool for street photography than an old rangefinder? Add to this the incredible flexiblity to do virtually anything in post... including making the output resemble Tri-X with grain added, or even add bokeh (though admittedly that takes a little work and is not always practical)?
The quality won't be as good if you pixel peep. It will look virtually indistinguishable to film - to my eye, on prints up to 8X10.
The aspects you mention are more important in other kinds of photography - not street photography, which is all about "the decisive moment" and composition. You simply don't need that much control for this... In fact, manual control gets in the way.
If your photography is about optimizing sharpness, dynamic range, tonality don't shoot digital or small format film. Neither digital nor small format cameras - including Leicas, come close to medium format in these areas... Shoot larger formats.
These are the reasons why digital has destroyed small format - even those "soccer moms" know this... Maybe they're the smart ones?
The reasons we (self included) continue to shot with film gear is the following:
A. We fashion ourselves as "photographers", have a certain image we want to project, and need to be seen with certain gear. We "get off" when people ask us "Wow... what camera is that Oh, Mr. So-and-so, are you a photographer? And we tell them about our darkroom and how we "still develop black and white..." blah, blah, blah...
B. We simply like the charm, or the tactile pleasure, or the nostalgia of older cameras. They're essentially toys - not tools.
C. We couldn't afford these cameras when they were new when they were "the cat's pajamas" and now that they're obsolete and we can afford them. We're like kids in a candy store and get "GAS" and buy up scads of them...
D. We like the manual "craft" for shooting film, developing our own stuff, and making our own prints.
E. We're really collectors but would never admit it openly.
F. We've always shot film, are set in our ways...
G. All of the above to varying degrees.
And there's nothing wrong with A,B,C,D,E,F,G! But let's be intellectually honest. The technical advantages of which we speak are largely rationalizations for A,B,C,D,E,F,G! - at least as far as small format is concerned.
Last edited:
Dogman
Veteran
Okay. Let's tally the score on historical challenges for cameras in use for photojournalists.
The Rollei won out over the Speed Graphic. Thirty-five mm won over medium format. SLRs won over Leica and rangefinders. Digital won over film. In each case there were benefits to be gained for the photojournalist. In each case, something was sacrificed to obtain the benefits--in most cases it was a sacrifice in image quality. But the sacrifice was deemed to be small compared to the benefits gained. I think it's happening today with many photographers picking up small digital cameras for a portion of their work instead of the big-assed DSLR and those large, heavy fast SLR lenses.
Most of my photography was being done with Leica film bodies when I bought my first DSLR. After using digital for a while, I had to admit to the benefits and I used the Leicas less and less. Then I found myself shooting with a Canon G10 more than my DSLR. No, high ISO photos were not as good as those with the DSLR but it was a sacrifice I was willing to make for the ability to use smaller, lighter and more readily available equipment.
I recently bought an Olympus E-P1. Although I have the kit zoom, I mostly use the 17mm Zuiko pancake lens and an Oly 25/2.8 with an adapter for micro 4/3. I use optical finders for both these lenses--the Olympus for the 17mm and an old E. Leitz 50mm for the 25mm (that works surprisingly well despite the aspect ratio disparity). Since the 35mm and 50mm Summicrons were my most used Leicas lenses, this system works very well. I just turn off the LCD and shoot with AF assigned to the AEL/AFL button, viewing through the optical finders. It's about as Leica-like as I am likely to get since I am now retired and unlikely to find sudden wealth.
Image quality with the micro 4/3 is better than with the small sensor G10, especially at higher ISO. The camera/lens combination is somewhat larger than the G10 but still considerably smaller than the DSLR. Compared to my APS-C DSLR, the micro 4/3 is so close, I now only find I need the DLSR for long or fast or wide lenses. And I seldom need long, fast or wide lenses.
So count me as part of the lunatic fringe as well. While I do wish Olympus or Panasonic or someone else would add a truly usable built-in viewfinder for their "half frames", I find these small cameras to be outstanding for carrying everywhere, replacing my previous Leica film cameras.
The Rollei won out over the Speed Graphic. Thirty-five mm won over medium format. SLRs won over Leica and rangefinders. Digital won over film. In each case there were benefits to be gained for the photojournalist. In each case, something was sacrificed to obtain the benefits--in most cases it was a sacrifice in image quality. But the sacrifice was deemed to be small compared to the benefits gained. I think it's happening today with many photographers picking up small digital cameras for a portion of their work instead of the big-assed DSLR and those large, heavy fast SLR lenses.
Most of my photography was being done with Leica film bodies when I bought my first DSLR. After using digital for a while, I had to admit to the benefits and I used the Leicas less and less. Then I found myself shooting with a Canon G10 more than my DSLR. No, high ISO photos were not as good as those with the DSLR but it was a sacrifice I was willing to make for the ability to use smaller, lighter and more readily available equipment.
I recently bought an Olympus E-P1. Although I have the kit zoom, I mostly use the 17mm Zuiko pancake lens and an Oly 25/2.8 with an adapter for micro 4/3. I use optical finders for both these lenses--the Olympus for the 17mm and an old E. Leitz 50mm for the 25mm (that works surprisingly well despite the aspect ratio disparity). Since the 35mm and 50mm Summicrons were my most used Leicas lenses, this system works very well. I just turn off the LCD and shoot with AF assigned to the AEL/AFL button, viewing through the optical finders. It's about as Leica-like as I am likely to get since I am now retired and unlikely to find sudden wealth.
Image quality with the micro 4/3 is better than with the small sensor G10, especially at higher ISO. The camera/lens combination is somewhat larger than the G10 but still considerably smaller than the DSLR. Compared to my APS-C DSLR, the micro 4/3 is so close, I now only find I need the DLSR for long or fast or wide lenses. And I seldom need long, fast or wide lenses.
So count me as part of the lunatic fringe as well. While I do wish Olympus or Panasonic or someone else would add a truly usable built-in viewfinder for their "half frames", I find these small cameras to be outstanding for carrying everywhere, replacing my previous Leica film cameras.