My ideal camera - does it exist?

[Lax Jought]

I love photography, and at the moment my main carry-everywhere camera is the Leica M8.2 with a 35mm Voigtlander lens on it. With the 1.33x crop of the M8 that comes to about 47mm which was what I was going for.

But I also sometimes carry with me a compact LX5 and a Canon 7D to do the kind of things that the Leica cannot do. The LX5 I use for absolutely silent shots and macro shots which it seems to do well enough, and the 7D for the extreme telephoto lens on it. I could use the 7D for macro shots too I suppose but then I'd have to change lenses.

Everything else, I'm more than happy to stick with the Leica.

However, sometimes I don't want to be carrying 2 cameras around (the Leica with at least one of the other cameras). As much as I love my Leica, I do wish for one camera that can do it all.

So... does this camera exist:

1) It must have a rangefinder focusing system. I say this is crucial for me because many of my photos are taken in ultra or extreme low-light conditions. I took my Canon DSLR 7D out with my Leica in the dark of the night, and the 7D failed miserably, whereas my Leica came through for me. This is because with the Leica, I could see through the viewfinder and find the tiniest and barest visual focusing point even if it is the tiniest microscopic sliver of light on the edge of an object, and use that as a point of reference to gauge focus overall. With the DSLR, I couldn't even see anything through the viewfinder to find a focus point because it's way too dark and everything is out of focus to begin with it's so it's impossible to find focus.

2) It must have manual focus, for the reasons stated above. My LX5 and 7D could not find focus at all in the dark conditions. I really needed my eye to find it myself.

3) It must have at least APS-C or larger sensor size, I really enjoy having a shallow DoF option and the image quality that comes with larger sensors.

4) And macro...

5) Video recording at 1080p full HD at 24/25p.

Is this asking for too much? Zoom is not essential, I'm happy to stay put at 50mm or its crop equivalent, ie. interchangeable would be great but if it was fixed at 50mm-ish, I wouldn't mind at all.

 

[Archlich]

Why can't I shoot 1080p vedio with the M9?!

 

[Lax Jought]

Why can't I shoot 1080p vedio with the M9?!

Because the M system does not do video?

 

[Neare]

You're out of luck. :/

 

[Bobfrance]

Only the M8, M8.2, M9, & RD-1 are digital and have rangefinder focusing.

 

[thegman]

If it must be digital, and it must be a range finder, then your options are very limited. If want video, macro etc. then you really cannot have than in a digital RF right now.

If I were you, I'd question just how set you are on range finder focusing. You could also look at odd solutions like accessory range finders and sticking one on a DSLR, but that's not going to work on very fast lenses with sufficient accuracy.

Have you considered M lenses on a mirrorless camera like a Sony NEX? No range finder, but they have "focus peaking", which seems quite good.

 

[Bobfrance]

You could fit a different focus screen to your Canon to improve manual focusing.

 

[ruby.monkey]

I'd have thought a decent EVF would be far more friendly to low-light manual focussing than any mechanical r/f system.

 

[BobYIL]

You are not alone for dreaming such a camera... but let's prepare ourselves for a change..

- First off, unless Leica (or someone else) comes up with some up-to-date sensors, either APS-C or FF size, we would still be dreaming of real low-light capability (beyond ISO 3200) no matter how bright or accurate the optical rangefinders could be.

- The classical rangefinder viewing allowing framing for rather limited range of focal lengths with limited magnifications especially for lenses longer than 50mm do not suffice to employ one camera for all needs, put aside limited close focusing capability and parallax errors, forget about macro.. (also precise framing for most cases...)

- Lens size and dimensions generally need to be constrained within certain limits as to not (or least) interfere with the view through the optical finder.

- Low-light photography does not necessarily mean having to employ f1.4, f1.2 or larger apertures to compensate the limitations of the sensor's high ISO characteristics. There are many situations that require sharp fields deeper than the razor-thin DOFs of very high speed lenses. No matter Leica likes it or not, ISO 3200-6400 became the "norm" in 2012 for such camera designs (if not also higher...)

IMHO, such issues are not to be satisfied with the classical optical means even through some zoom-viewfinders (extremely complicated due to zoom requirement for the rangefinder window too...) That's why the Nex-7 and X-Pro1 have opted to take different paths... and I am inclined to believe that anything new to come from Nikon or Canon to be called mirrorless will follow the same path too.

Compare the precision of an optical rangefinder against the one on the Nex series with their selective small rangefinder window to be "moved" around the whole field of view, up to 9.5X magnification and "peaking" in different colors and intensity... it is a surprising experience. As a rangefinder user of some 50 years, I would be pleased to enjoy the new technologies based on OLED EVF and/or hybrid optical/EVF.. They have just started...

Regards,

Bob

 

[Roger Hicks]

Does this camera exist? No, it doesn't. And, for the reasons others have given above, I'm not sure it could.

Cheers,

R.

 

[user237428934]

I'd have thought a decent EVF would be far more friendly to low-light manual focussing than any mechanical r/f system.

Maybe. If there was something like a decent EVF. I've seen them all and they still are not what I expect.

 

[pvdhaar]

It's my considered opinion that the ideal camera does exist.. There's one caveat though.. It's always a camera that you don't have. 😀

 

[Lax Jought]

Only the M8, M8.2, M9, & RD-1 are digital and have rangefinder focusing.

If want video, macro etc. then you really cannot have than in a digital RF right now.

I was thinking about this, I could do without video, there are other compacts cameras that can do video quite decently, I could possibly do with one of those strictly for video. Macro, yeah you have a point. Someone else brought up the parallax issue which I had completely forgotten about, which makes macro impossible on a rangefinder.

If I were you, I'd question just how set you are on range finder focusing.

I thought about this a lot, and it wasn't until I brought my 7D out that night which settled it for me (it simply didn't work), I need rangefinder focusing.

IYou could also look at odd solutions like accessory range finders and sticking one on a DSLR, but that's not going to work on very fast lenses with sufficient accuracy.

Hmm... I didn't know such things existed!

Have you considered M lenses on a mirrorless camera like a Sony NEX? No range finder, but they have "focus peaking", which seems quite good.

I looked up 'focus peaking', I need to do more reading on this but I'm not sure if this is what I'm looking for. I did have a look at the NEX (specs online) but as I understand it, it's nothing like rangefinder focusing in which two 'in focus' images are present in the viewfinder, this is actually the key which allows me to find focus relatively quickly (or at all, when compared with the 7D) in very low light.

You could fit a different focus screen to your Canon to improve manual focusing.

What do you mean?

I'd have thought a decent EVF would be far more friendly to low-light manual focussing than any mechanical r/f system.

The best way I can decribe it is just above, where there are two already 'in focus' images in the middle of the rangefinder viewfinder, so that allows me to catch the tiniest focus point in the darkness from which I can have a point of reference. So it could be an edge, a tiny backlight or reflection.

With the 7D focusing method, I found out it hard to find focus and in fact even when I came close to focusing, I wasn't sure if it actually was in focus because I could hardly see. I was using a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens.

- First off, unless Leica (or someone else) comes up with some up-to-date sensors, either APS-C or FF size, we would still be dreaming of real low-light capability (beyond ISO 3200) no matter how bright or accurate the optical rangefinders could be.

...

- Low-light photography does not necessarily mean having to employ f1.4, f1.2 or larger apertures to compensate the limitations of the sensor's high ISO characteristics. There are many situations that require sharp fields deeper than the razor-thin DOFs of very high speed lenses. No matter Leica likes it or not, ISO 3200-6400 became the "norm" in 2012 for such camera designs (if not also higher...)

Actually, when I was talking about low light photography, I know it's strange but I'm not actually talking about high ISO performance, I'm talking about what I can actually 'see' through the viewfinder to find focus points. Most of my low light photography is actually taken with at ISO 160, 320 or more rarely at 640. I never go above those ISOs as it gets incredibly noisy at that level. I compensate by staying with low shutter speeds, the lowest shutter speed I found that I can hold a steady hand is 1/4 seconds on the shutter dial. If I am leaning on a wall, I could possibly get away with 1/2 seconds.

Does this camera exist? No, it doesn't. And, for the reasons others have given above, I'm not sure it could.

One can dream! 😱

 

[Lss]

You can't have everything. My compromise solution is to mainly use the camera that works best for 90% of what I want to achieve. The remaining 10% is covered by other equipment or ignored when necessary. It sounds like you have found that same solution in your M8.2 + CV35 setup. My solution happens to be an M8 with a CV35.

 

[Lax Jought]

You can't have everything. My compromise solution is to mainly use the camera that works best for 90% of what I want to achieve. The remaining 10% is covered by other equipment or ignored when necessary. It sounds like you have found that same solution in your M8.2 + CV35 setup. My solution happens to be an M8 with a CV35.

oh believe me I'm not asking these questions with the view that the world owes me everything. It's more on the side of aspirational daydreaming. Although if someone on these forums could point me to the best alternative, I'd be more than happy to look at it. What's piqued my interest of late is the Fujifilm X-Pro1 but with the way it focuses I think I would only be back at square one trying to focus unsuccessfully with my 7D.

Your 90% scenario sounds almost like my scenario as it is now, although my ratio is probably more around 75-80% ideally.

Incidentally I've been using my M8 + CV35mm almost exclusively for the past year since the day I got it. So it is with this past year's photographic journey that I came by this 75-80% figure, after estimating the number of times I've felt I could do with a telephoto or a macro shot (and I haven't got on me anything other than my M8).

 

[BobYIL]

Actually, when I was talking about low light photography, I know it's strange but I'm not actually talking about high ISO performance, I'm talking about what I can actually 'see' through the viewfinder to find focus points. Most of my low light photography is actually taken with at ISO 160, 320 or more rarely at 640. I never go above those ISOs as it gets incredibly noisy at that level. I compensate by staying with low shutter speeds, the lowest shutter speed I found that I can hold a steady hand is 1/4 seconds on the shutter dial. If I am leaning on a wall, I could possibly get away with 1/2 seconds.

That was what we were doing until some sensors began to deliver acceptable pictures @3200-6400 ISO.. The goal is to be able to capture images under low light conditions sometimes with shutter speeds to secure the outcome, why limit yourself?

Further, compare the view (display) of a Nex under extreme low light conditions against the view of an M-finder, for example. Try to focus the Nex the way I described above while focusing the M camera too. (I have both and done these comparisons several times..)

 

[Bobfrance]

What do you mean?

An old-school split prism focusing screen like those employed on pretty much all manual focus SLR cameras before AF came along. I always found them quick and accurate. I have something similar on my Rolleiflex.

These guys do one.
http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/item--Canon-7D-Focusing-Screen--prod_7D.html

 

[Lax Jought]

That was what we were doing until some sensors began to deliver acceptable pictures @3200-6400 ISO.. The goal is to be able to capture images under low light conditions sometimes with shutter speeds to secure the outcome, why limit yourself?

I only have my M8.2 to take very low light photos with, and I've found that ISO 640 is the maximum I will go, anything above that has horrible noise in very low light.

I've never had the opportunity to play with the M9 though, so I don't know what ISO performance I will be able to get in the same circumstances.

Further, compare the view (display) of a Nex under extreme low light conditions against the view of an M-finder, for example. Try to focus the Nex the way I described above while focusing the M camera too. (I have both and done these comparisons several times..)

I don't know anyone with the NEX too so I haven't had a chance to play with it. Are you talking about the NEX on liveview...?

An old-school split prism focusing screen like those employed on pretty much all manual focus SLR cameras before AF came along. I always found them quick and accurate. I have something similar on my Rolleiflex.

These guys do one.
http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/item--Canon-7D-Focusing-Screen--prod_7D.html

ah yes somebody else mentioned this previously, I really have to look into this, thanks Bob! Why did you install this on your Rolleiflex? You're talking about the TLR, right?

 

[Bobfrance]

...ah yes somebody else mentioned this previously, I really have to look into this, thanks Bob! Why did you install this on your Rolleiflex? You're talking about the TLR, right?

It's not the same make as the screen on my rolleiflex (I think it may be a Maxwell screen or some such) but it does employ similar focusing methods including the split prism.

I installed it in my TLR because it was sharper and clearer than my existing screen and the split prism in the centre makes for much more accurate focussing.

A split prism is not unlike a rangefinder patch in that you have two separate images that you have to line-up the only difference being that they are one above the other as opposed to two overlaid as with a rangefinder.

Anyway a picture is worth a thousand words...

Out of focus

And in-focus

You can see the split ring in the centre. There is also a surrounding ring (which I think is some kind of freznel lens arrangement) that aids focus also.






A screen is probably worth a try as it is a lot cheaper than another camera. Plus you can have fun with some old manual focus Canon glass. 🙂
.

 

[Lax Jought]

wow hmm... this looks very interesting... this is what I was talking about when I mentioned rangefinder style focusing....