Bill Pierce
Well-known
I wonder if the RF Forum isn’t really becoming the Mirrorless Forum. The rangefinder cameras and other cameras that were smaller, less conspicuous alternatives to the SLR and medium format cameras used in the days of film have been replaced in the digital world by cameras in which only one family of cameras, the digital Leicas, have an actual rangefinder. And, since those cameras use an older CCD design that, even in its full frame design, is out performed by current state of the art sensors, and have a comparatively high price tag, they play a smaller part in the digital world than their counterparts in the film world.
The biggest difference between mirrorless digital cameras is probably not whether they are rangefinders or not, but their sensor size. For now, the big battle in cameras for the advanced amateur and the pro is between APS C and Micro 4/3. All other things being equal (and they never are) you should be able to see the difference in large print image quality between full frame, APS C and M4/3. My suspicion is that since the volume money-makers are APS C and 4/3, that’s where the technical advances are first seen. APS C is going to give full frame a race for it’s money. 4/3 wont do quite as well in the big print, brightness range or super high ISO departments, but smaller sensor size can also mean smaller body size and smaller lens size. All of which can lead to smaller price.
So, questions for all the folks who started with film rangefinders and are now shooting digital. How do you feel about rangefinder focusing vs auto focus or manual focus of a magnified image? Any specific reason for using a camera with APS C or 4/3 or an even smaller sensor? (Notice “using” instead of “choosing.” If you are like me, I often choose in ignorance and decide what a camera can be used for once I have gained a little experience.)
The biggest difference between mirrorless digital cameras is probably not whether they are rangefinders or not, but their sensor size. For now, the big battle in cameras for the advanced amateur and the pro is between APS C and Micro 4/3. All other things being equal (and they never are) you should be able to see the difference in large print image quality between full frame, APS C and M4/3. My suspicion is that since the volume money-makers are APS C and 4/3, that’s where the technical advances are first seen. APS C is going to give full frame a race for it’s money. 4/3 wont do quite as well in the big print, brightness range or super high ISO departments, but smaller sensor size can also mean smaller body size and smaller lens size. All of which can lead to smaller price.
So, questions for all the folks who started with film rangefinders and are now shooting digital. How do you feel about rangefinder focusing vs auto focus or manual focus of a magnified image? Any specific reason for using a camera with APS C or 4/3 or an even smaller sensor? (Notice “using” instead of “choosing.” If you are like me, I often choose in ignorance and decide what a camera can be used for once I have gained a little experience.)
kmallick
Well-known
'For me' the big reason why the mirrorless ILCs (which I do like) will never match the RF experience is because of
1. the viewfinder going blank (for quite a while) when you take the shot.
2. not being able to frame the shot with an ability to see more than you frame
1. the viewfinder going blank (for quite a while) when you take the shot.
2. not being able to frame the shot with an ability to see more than you frame
froyd
Veteran
I was reading an old copy of the Leica Manual lately and it made for a refreshing perspective on our little corner of the photography world.
Specifically, your post reminded me how at the dawn of time, 35mm was referred to as the miniature format, and the Leica promised high quality images coupled with the previously unimaginable flexibility of a small camera. The small size was THE key feature because it allowed a departure from the more staid photography of the larger formats...
Size is no longer the defining feature of Leica. There are SLRs that are nearly as small as rangefinders, and digital cameras that are tiny, have great IQ (and can be made to be virtually silent). What has emerged as the reason to be for RFs is indeed the focusing mechanism, which to me, is unparalleled for manual focusing, and the wonderful experience of looking through a bright viewfinder... such a relief from the dark of the pentaprism, and the detached effect of EVFs.
Specifically, your post reminded me how at the dawn of time, 35mm was referred to as the miniature format, and the Leica promised high quality images coupled with the previously unimaginable flexibility of a small camera. The small size was THE key feature because it allowed a departure from the more staid photography of the larger formats...
Size is no longer the defining feature of Leica. There are SLRs that are nearly as small as rangefinders, and digital cameras that are tiny, have great IQ (and can be made to be virtually silent). What has emerged as the reason to be for RFs is indeed the focusing mechanism, which to me, is unparalleled for manual focusing, and the wonderful experience of looking through a bright viewfinder... such a relief from the dark of the pentaprism, and the detached effect of EVFs.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I’m not sure rangefinder focusing is quite the top rated tool it once was. Rangefinder focusing doesn’t actually evaluate the image on the film plane. It depends on an accurately adjusted system that controls vertical and horizontal alignment of the rangefinder spot, the cam follower arm in the camera body and the lens cam. The degree of accuracy is also effected by the base length of the rangefinder, the magnification of the viewfinder and, of course, the photographer’s eyesight. That’s a lot of variables. What it comes down to is that you should check your wide open focus at a variety of distances especially with lenses like a 50/1.4 or 90/2. Even in the film days, when you didn’t check focus with a 100% zoom on your computer screen, a lot of photographers sent a new lens or rangefinder body to the repair shop to have the tolerances nulled before they ever put it to use.
Contrast detection autofocus is probably the most accurate method of focus available in modern consumer cameras. It can, however, be slow. But it seems to get faster with every new generation of cameras that use it. Here’s a brief discussion of contrast detection.
http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs178/applets/autofocusCD.html
There’s also a link to basic information on passive autofocus.
Also, try putting your old auxilliary bright line finders in the accessory shoe of one of those evf minis. It's not a perfect match, but it's a big step forward for some of us.
willie_901
Veteran
My Experience and Thoughts
My Experience and Thoughts
Rangefinder focusing is a rewarding process. The disadvantages of analog optical RF focusing are well known. But the ability to see outside of the frame and the immediate connection with reality is compelling. The simplicity of a single-focus method is good. I had a 90-95% success rate with my Zeiss Ikon M. I also used zone focusing for one project... which was a valuable tool to learn.
Because of my RF background, I used the focus and recompose method most of the time with Nikon D200, 300 and 700. Using AF in manually minimizes delegation of thinking amd responsibility to the camera's firmware. Until DOF becomes narrow, operating the AF mannually (I press a button near the shutter to set the initial focus point) is fast and reliable. My in-focus rate is well above 95%. For action photography the D300/700 bodies perform at a very high level if you know how to configure the complicated AF system parameters,the results are amazing.
I chose and kept the X100 and X-Pro 1 because they combined what I enjoyed about using the Zeiss Ikon with the performance and convenience of digital imaging. I also focus and recompose the Fuji's as well. However, getting the most out of the focusing system is more complicated compared to an analog RF. Different situations require different focusing strategies. This is a disadvantage.*
Focusing with a magnified EVF image is useful. I do this often when focus is critical (wide apertures, low light and/or a chance of the focus lock missing the intended region). I don't find this much different than carefully focusing a RF patch. I have not experienced focus peaking, but it seems like this is a useful EVF tool as well.
My in-focus rate with the Fujis is at least as good as it was with the Zeiss Ikon. However it took me much longer to learn how to take full advantage of the X series focus system. My overall sharp image rate is higher because I can use faster shutter speeds.
I used a m4/3 system for a year and quit. The physics, both optics and light digitization,impose too much of a handicap on the m4/3 system(for me).*EVFs are improved and will keep improving. But so far they do not let you see outside the frame.
I could not tolerate the lower performace of the raw files compared to the D300 raw data. I did not like using the short focal length lenses required to achieve the angles-of-view I needed. This has nothing to do with the crop factor. It has to do with lens performance. As the focal length decreases, it becomes more difficult to make fast lenses. I noticed many of the high perfoming m4/3 lenses became larger and heavier. I did not like the loss of flexibility imposed by the increased DOF.
Today the m4/3 raw file quality is much better than I experienced. Still, the same advances are now enjoyed by the newest APS-C and 24 x 36 mm sensors. In digital data recording nothing beats signal-to-noise. Signal quality can't be too good. Surface area is the limiting factor for signal quality. The photographer has to decide how much quality they require. Diminishing returns are a real consideration. If I started using m4/3 in 2012 instead of 2010, I would likely find the m4/3 raw file to be more than good enough. But once I experienced the difference between m4/3, APS-C and 24 x 36 mm,I knew APS-C was the smallest sensor I would own.
My Experience and Thoughts
Rangefinder focusing is a rewarding process. The disadvantages of analog optical RF focusing are well known. But the ability to see outside of the frame and the immediate connection with reality is compelling. The simplicity of a single-focus method is good. I had a 90-95% success rate with my Zeiss Ikon M. I also used zone focusing for one project... which was a valuable tool to learn.
Because of my RF background, I used the focus and recompose method most of the time with Nikon D200, 300 and 700. Using AF in manually minimizes delegation of thinking amd responsibility to the camera's firmware. Until DOF becomes narrow, operating the AF mannually (I press a button near the shutter to set the initial focus point) is fast and reliable. My in-focus rate is well above 95%. For action photography the D300/700 bodies perform at a very high level if you know how to configure the complicated AF system parameters,the results are amazing.
I chose and kept the X100 and X-Pro 1 because they combined what I enjoyed about using the Zeiss Ikon with the performance and convenience of digital imaging. I also focus and recompose the Fuji's as well. However, getting the most out of the focusing system is more complicated compared to an analog RF. Different situations require different focusing strategies. This is a disadvantage.*
Focusing with a magnified EVF image is useful. I do this often when focus is critical (wide apertures, low light and/or a chance of the focus lock missing the intended region). I don't find this much different than carefully focusing a RF patch. I have not experienced focus peaking, but it seems like this is a useful EVF tool as well.
My in-focus rate with the Fujis is at least as good as it was with the Zeiss Ikon. However it took me much longer to learn how to take full advantage of the X series focus system. My overall sharp image rate is higher because I can use faster shutter speeds.
I used a m4/3 system for a year and quit. The physics, both optics and light digitization,impose too much of a handicap on the m4/3 system(for me).*EVFs are improved and will keep improving. But so far they do not let you see outside the frame.
I could not tolerate the lower performace of the raw files compared to the D300 raw data. I did not like using the short focal length lenses required to achieve the angles-of-view I needed. This has nothing to do with the crop factor. It has to do with lens performance. As the focal length decreases, it becomes more difficult to make fast lenses. I noticed many of the high perfoming m4/3 lenses became larger and heavier. I did not like the loss of flexibility imposed by the increased DOF.
Today the m4/3 raw file quality is much better than I experienced. Still, the same advances are now enjoyed by the newest APS-C and 24 x 36 mm sensors. In digital data recording nothing beats signal-to-noise. Signal quality can't be too good. Surface area is the limiting factor for signal quality. The photographer has to decide how much quality they require. Diminishing returns are a real consideration. If I started using m4/3 in 2012 instead of 2010, I would likely find the m4/3 raw file to be more than good enough. But once I experienced the difference between m4/3, APS-C and 24 x 36 mm,I knew APS-C was the smallest sensor I would own.
Both the X-Pro1 and X100 take care of this...
robert blu
quiet photographer
What attracted me toRF cameras was not the focusing mechanism but the idea to have a small camera, simple to use and with good optical quality. Following that idea the first digital camera I bought (and the only one till now) was the Leica x1. We all know the autofocus is not very quick. But I learned how to work, depending on situation sometimes autofocus, sometimes manual focus. I think having started to take photos enough years ago, in a time in which speaking of autofocus was like science fiction helps me a lot.
Aps-c sensor should be good enough for my photography, maybe even the 4/3 because I do not print larger than A3+. So long there are dedicated wide angle lenses.
robert
Aps-c sensor should be good enough for my photography, maybe even the 4/3 because I do not print larger than A3+. So long there are dedicated wide angle lenses.
robert
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Assuming you have a oversize rangefinder relative to your lens. Thread mount Leicas or the Contax have no such thing - but they are a smoother experience than many current EVIL cameras nonetheless. So there must be other factors in their favour - my guess is that we lost the immediate connection with the camera. Indeed we did so some time before digital - AF and program automation were the inventions that created the big gap between user and camera. The Minolta 7000 already was the first thing remote controlled from the rear rather than handled by hand...
PointOmega
Established
Interesting post. Having used an X-pro 1 for 2 months before deciding to sell it recently, I would note the following:
1. The EVF, for me at least, removed all joy from the experience. Compared to a RF, the view is cramped, and the screen blacks out when you press the shutter. It's like watching a movie. It is too easy to miss the moment.
2. I liked the OVF at first, but it cannot be used with MF lenses, and you rely on the camera for focus confirmation, i.e., you have little control over what's in focus.
3. Based on the above, I realized why I love rangefinders. The form factor is great, but completely secondary. It's the wide open optical viewfinder and, critically, the ability to carefully focus using the finder. Only a true rangefinder can provide this for the time being.
1. The EVF, for me at least, removed all joy from the experience. Compared to a RF, the view is cramped, and the screen blacks out when you press the shutter. It's like watching a movie. It is too easy to miss the moment.
2. I liked the OVF at first, but it cannot be used with MF lenses, and you rely on the camera for focus confirmation, i.e., you have little control over what's in focus.
3. Based on the above, I realized why I love rangefinders. The form factor is great, but completely secondary. It's the wide open optical viewfinder and, critically, the ability to carefully focus using the finder. Only a true rangefinder can provide this for the time being.
mrmeadows
Established
I don't yet have personal experience with any mirrorless camera system. I'm game to try this type but am uncertain whether any can satisfy some of my preferences. Examples: Do any of them have mechanical manual focus, rather than manual focus-by-wire? Do any of them enable zone-focusing that's as easy to use as it is on lenses that have hyperfocal distance markings on the lens barrel? These particular issues are important to me but seem not to be adequately treated in most reviews. Do you have experience with these issues that you can pass along?
--- Mike
--- Mike
BobYIL
Well-known
49th year with the M-Leicas. Some of my observations:
#1. With film, calibration of the rangefinder was not that critical most of the time, especially with 50 & 35mm lenses.. With digital the resolution of the final picture is too high, thus requiring well-maintained calibration. (Rather a time-consuming and costly process with Leicas.)
Better solution: Liveview on the LDC display and/or in the finder (free of any rangefinder errors.)
#2. Framing for different FLs with the classical viewfinders are quite limited, cumbersome with longer lenses, prone to parallax errors, flares (sometimes):
Better solution: As the #1, Liveview feature via finder, none of the above shortcomings.
#3. Classical viewfinders: Complicated mechanisms, lenses, prisms, cemented optical elements subject to dust, fogging and seperation, requiring CLA..
Better solution: Electronic finders as described above.
#4. Integration of electrical display components like meter needles, LEDs, shutter speed indicatiors, ISO, etc., into the classical viewfinder: Extremely complicated, prone to failure in long run.
Better solution: Mini-display characters of any number of functions onto the LCD finders.
Finally, after watching the below videos, I asked myself if we really need something other than a fast and accurate AF.. Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipfO_JE8EB4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejm88UWIrFU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-WLvEvqMZE
#1. With film, calibration of the rangefinder was not that critical most of the time, especially with 50 & 35mm lenses.. With digital the resolution of the final picture is too high, thus requiring well-maintained calibration. (Rather a time-consuming and costly process with Leicas.)
Better solution: Liveview on the LDC display and/or in the finder (free of any rangefinder errors.)
#2. Framing for different FLs with the classical viewfinders are quite limited, cumbersome with longer lenses, prone to parallax errors, flares (sometimes):
Better solution: As the #1, Liveview feature via finder, none of the above shortcomings.
#3. Classical viewfinders: Complicated mechanisms, lenses, prisms, cemented optical elements subject to dust, fogging and seperation, requiring CLA..
Better solution: Electronic finders as described above.
#4. Integration of electrical display components like meter needles, LEDs, shutter speed indicatiors, ISO, etc., into the classical viewfinder: Extremely complicated, prone to failure in long run.
Better solution: Mini-display characters of any number of functions onto the LCD finders.
Finally, after watching the below videos, I asked myself if we really need something other than a fast and accurate AF.. Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipfO_JE8EB4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejm88UWIrFU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-WLvEvqMZE
willie_901
Veteran
As far as I know, no mirrorless camera (Leica Ms and the RD-1 being the obvious exceptions) fully integrates mechanical manual focusing as part of the camera system.
The Ricoh GXR A-12 (M mount) comes the closest. Many others work well optically with M lenses. As the focal length decreases, artifact levels at the frame edges increase. I don't believe any are designed to provide focus confirmation with an OVF. Mechanical focusing can only be evaluated using an EVF. This works well for some people and not so well for others. Focus is evaluated using a contrast-based method called focus peaking or by digitally zooming in on the actual focus region. Many find this method to be quick and accurate. Others complain it's utility with wide-angle lenses is limited.
Any time a M/LTM lens is mounted, the barrel focus markings can be used as a guide. At the same time, the smaller sensors means the marks are too close together for a given aperture. The observed DOF will be greater than the lens' estimates. This means right now very few lenses have useful DOF markings. I know of one. There may be a couple of others.
Zone-focusing using lens barrel markings is available on numerous platforms. A wide-variety of lens mounts are supported by third-party adapters. I understand EVF focus peaking is the most common method employed.
The GXR-A12 does zone-focusing natively because it only works with M or LTM lenses. This is the most straightforward approach, but there is no optical finder.
The X-Pro1 can be fitted with a Fuji M adapter. This adapter integrates M lens use with the camera electronics to minimize the menu manipulations required to switch between XF lenses and M/LTM lenses, and to provide user created in-camera adjustments for vignetting and out-of-frame color aberations. Because the X series provides quick, convenient switching between OVF and EVF displays. One could confirm and adjust focus using the EVF and quickly switch to the OVF to compose and press the shutter. This can't be nearly as convenient as using and optical RF. But it is practical in some situations.
As far as I know, with all other platforms, the mirroless system was not designed with mechanical lenses in mind. This doesn't seem to deter photographers from enjoying mechanical lenses or from interesting photographs.
The X100 and X-Pro 1 have an optional, thin, horizontal bar at the bottom of the finder that dislays focus distance and DOF for both the OVF and EVF displays. Unfortunately Fuji's firmware engineers calculate the DOF using conservative parameters and the actual DOF is greater than the estimated DOF. I do not believe the focus/DOF bar works with M/LTM lenses.
I hope this helps.
Lss
Well-known
In my experience, rangefinder focusing works the best for me when I need quick, accurate, and consistent results. Handling is also great. Magnified-mode focusing is slow and often quite clumsy. It however provides great accuracy. A manual focus camera could implement both methods, although the digital M line currently lacks this due to sensor technology. AF performance is somewhere between these two methods for most of my use cases.
Smaller sensor has two obvious advantages: cost (think yield) and potential system size. Personally, I don't have much need to go smaller than M, and I prefer the output of larger sensors. For many purposes the MFT line is anyway a good compromise, and I am thinking about the OM-D.
Dogman
Veteran
My experience is different from that of Lss. AF works more accurately than my eyes, faster than my reflexes and more consistently than I can muster manually. Even the slowest AF system beats manual focus in these respects for me personally. I discovered this many years ago when I bought my first Canon AF film body and it's even more evident today as I age. When I was using my Leicas, I often zone focused in bright light. When shooting in low light at wide apertures with the Leicas, I frequently missed focus. That doesn't happen to me that often with today's AF cameras. I admit to having once been a curmudgeon, Luddite--whatever--when it came to automation but, these days, I'm a believer.
I have no desire or need for a full frame digital camera. I own APS-C, 4/3, micro 4/3 and compact cameras. The APS-C has the edge in overall image quality and performance but it's also my least used format. The smaller formats are more practical for my normal use, even considering their limitations. The whole sensor size debate reminds me of the arguments between the medium format shooters and the 35mm shooters of 50-60 years ago. In the end, both sides had valid points but the smaller format won the popularity contest because it was "good enough".
Bill said, "Also, try putting your old auxilliary bright line finders in the accessory shoe of one of those evf minis. It's not a perfect match, but it's a big step forward for some of us."
I do this with my Olympus E-Pen bodies. Although the optional Olympus EVF is great for using with zooms, I still prefer the simplicity and uncluttered view of the OVF. Nothing is perfect anyway but you can learn to work the spaces in between the limitations.
I have no desire or need for a full frame digital camera. I own APS-C, 4/3, micro 4/3 and compact cameras. The APS-C has the edge in overall image quality and performance but it's also my least used format. The smaller formats are more practical for my normal use, even considering their limitations. The whole sensor size debate reminds me of the arguments between the medium format shooters and the 35mm shooters of 50-60 years ago. In the end, both sides had valid points but the smaller format won the popularity contest because it was "good enough".
Bill said, "Also, try putting your old auxilliary bright line finders in the accessory shoe of one of those evf minis. It's not a perfect match, but it's a big step forward for some of us."
I do this with my Olympus E-Pen bodies. Although the optional Olympus EVF is great for using with zooms, I still prefer the simplicity and uncluttered view of the OVF. Nothing is perfect anyway but you can learn to work the spaces in between the limitations.
Aristophanes
Well-known
APS-C due to volume is by far the cheapest sensor. Comparing larger sensor formats APS-C outsells m43 by about 40:1 in the photography market.
System size is relative to ergonomics. I find some m43 cameras too small.
If film cameras become only a salvage market, then Leica owns the entire RF legacy and resulting market.
mgilbuena
San Francisco Bay Area
Agreed; as the photographic medium has grown to include mirrorless interchangeable cameras, criteria that was previously only satisfied by digital rangefinder cameras are now met by the micro 4/3 platforms and APS-sized mirrorless cameras. In the film era, size did not greatly differ between the smaller SLRs and Rangefinders; thus, criteria on choosing one from the other was more dependent on the focusing mechanism and build qualities. As such, the shift in culture applies strictly to the digital crowd.
I entered the world of Rangefinder photography when I yearned to increase simplicity with primes and carry a lighter bag. At that time, there wasn't a digital body that satisfied my needs for manual focus and easy-to-access critical functions such as aperture, shutter speed and iso.
We live in a great time today; with options such as the OM-D, XPro-1 and the Nex series, we can use current and legacy glasses alike. I believe this is what makes Rangefinderforum unique. We are a community that specifically embraces and cherishes legacy hardware: predominantly the Leica mount lenses. For those mirrorless solutions, our first order of business is buying an adapter to use these legacy glasses. In fact, whole products are avoided if favorable performance is not reached using our legacy glasses.
For me, I have developed a stronger desire to shoot short clips while photographing -- a natural extension of being an observer and record keeper of this world. This criteria is nicely met with the XPro-1, Om-D and Nex series; unfortunately, not with the Leica platform. This, along with the ability to have smaller apertures in low-light conditions has made our community take our [leica] glasses and bind them onto alternative digital backs.
What would I like to see in the M10? Rangefinder patch covering the entire field of view. Ability to record movies. A second focus ring that acts as a helicord to allow closer photography. That's really it.
Change is constant; this is a very exciting time in the world of photography. I believe we have reached a point, especially with the OM-D and Xpro-1, that the digital technology has matured to a point where one can safely invest in these bodies for a period of 5-10 years.
I can't imagine what's next... holographic projections?
I entered the world of Rangefinder photography when I yearned to increase simplicity with primes and carry a lighter bag. At that time, there wasn't a digital body that satisfied my needs for manual focus and easy-to-access critical functions such as aperture, shutter speed and iso.
We live in a great time today; with options such as the OM-D, XPro-1 and the Nex series, we can use current and legacy glasses alike. I believe this is what makes Rangefinderforum unique. We are a community that specifically embraces and cherishes legacy hardware: predominantly the Leica mount lenses. For those mirrorless solutions, our first order of business is buying an adapter to use these legacy glasses. In fact, whole products are avoided if favorable performance is not reached using our legacy glasses.
For me, I have developed a stronger desire to shoot short clips while photographing -- a natural extension of being an observer and record keeper of this world. This criteria is nicely met with the XPro-1, Om-D and Nex series; unfortunately, not with the Leica platform. This, along with the ability to have smaller apertures in low-light conditions has made our community take our [leica] glasses and bind them onto alternative digital backs.
What would I like to see in the M10? Rangefinder patch covering the entire field of view. Ability to record movies. A second focus ring that acts as a helicord to allow closer photography. That's really it.
Change is constant; this is a very exciting time in the world of photography. I believe we have reached a point, especially with the OM-D and Xpro-1, that the digital technology has matured to a point where one can safely invest in these bodies for a period of 5-10 years.
I can't imagine what's next... holographic projections?
Sam Kanga
Established
(I responded on another forum about this too - in case anyone thinks they've seen this before -Sam)
Hi Bill, following up on your point - I do like shooting with a rangefinder, or perhaps even a small size camera for that matter - with most of the shooting I do I try to be quick and unobtrusive, and a small camera lends itself to that. It is certainly possible to shoot that way with a larger and noisier camera, the small camera just makes it easier (“chapeau” to the photographers who use larger cameras).
My goal is to find a smallish digital camera that will let me work as quickly and confidently as the rangefinders. I haven’t tried the Nex-7 in any real situation, and the X-pro1 apparently has slowish auto-focus (I've only played with one). Generally, I really would rather not trust any of the cameras out there to focus for me (don't know about dslrs). I've missed too many shots, even using zone focus etc. I guess I need to practice, practice, practice, if I want to shoot like I did with the film cameras - but still too much diving into menus for my liking. Speaking for myself and some of us who used to shoot film. I only need about 4 things in a digital camera:
- decent viewfinder (Leica was perfect, don't need more)
- adjust shutter speed via a dial / or easily
- adjust aperture on lens
- focus manually
don't need a meter in camera - although I understand that all cameras will have one
don't need crazy iso (I rarely pushed tri-x / HP5 to 800, or 1600, now I can even do that with colour - great!
If it's kept simple, one can be fast. If anyone needs the other things, there are so many great cameras out there that can do them well. The Leica should be as simple as possible, concentrating on great image quality, better battery life, quiet operation, larger buffer?(don't have an M9 - name's not Rockefeller!)
One can be blazing fast with rangefinders – I only know the Leica Ms, but I’m sure the Zeiss are just as quick. With the simple Leicas, I can be fast, rarely miss a shot, and can’t think of 10 shots I’ve missed in 30 years due to focus. I've missed way more shots because I've not been prepared (the 8th deadly sin, I believe).
Ok enough wingeing - I always go back to this old story about Alex Majoli shooting in Iraq with ancient Olympus digitals. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844
Thanks
Sam
flip
良かったね！
I think this is a good point. To the extent that one really cannot bet their life on the field in focus in an RF shot, the RF system pales next to a view on the actual shot. I suppose that the issue for most is if the mechanics of using each system of camera impacts on the other half of the photographic tool (the photographer) sufficiently to swing the balance of the equation back the other way.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'll miss the SLR when it eventually disappears from production. Although it does take up space in the camera the principal of an image being reflected off a mirror onto a ground screen to be viewed via a prism without any electronics being involved is still my choice of focusing method ... it's real and what you see is exactly what you get. It's not subject to the vagaries of an RF mechanism and the small price you pay is the momentary blackout of the finder which I never even notice to be honest. EVFs are EVFs and have a long way to go before they don't simulate watching the world on a damaged TV! They are an accurate means of focusing but they certainly don't please the eye.
Call me a dinosaur but the day they completely stop making cameras without mirrors, screens and prisms I'll be sad because I still think it's the pick of the three systems currently on offer.
Call me a dinosaur but the day they completely stop making cameras without mirrors, screens and prisms I'll be sad because I still think it's the pick of the three systems currently on offer.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I have had the Sony NEX, Sony A65 and tried the new Fuji offerings as well as various DSLR's. The manual focusing is very counter intuitive to me. Very much a "sort of" deal. The heart of RF's is the quirky focusing which allows so much personal creativity. I guess the M9 has that but I don't have that kind of money. So I "suffer" the M3 while film is available. Creativity and intimacy matters to me. my two cents.