The future of small cameras

[Bill Pierce]

Because it has the option of a bright line finder and a somewhat similar body shape, the Fuji X-Pro is often compared to digital Leicas. Truth is, however, that you can put accessory bright line finders on any camera that has an appropriate accessory shoe, and there are any number of digital cameras that share the important aspect of the digital Leica’s body shape, usually at the expense of sensor size - i.e. smaller than a full frame DSLR. What are the real differences and similarities between the other small, non mirror digital cameras and the Leica?

To me, the most obvious difference is price. And the sad aspect of that difference is that the Leica is often used as a piece of conspicuous consumption jewelry and rarely found in the hands of the future of photography, serious young photographers. The good aspect is that the camera is built like a tank and some of the lenses are among the best. (Although, these days, there are less expensive “runner ups” that come incredibly close.)

The other obvious difference is focusing method - and it goes beyond manual vs. automatic. Rangefinder focusing is a fast and fuss free. Live view, the focusing system found in many of the non mirror digitals is just plain poky. Rangefinder focusing accuracy is effected by the tolerances of the lenses’ rangefinder cam and the body’s cam feeler and can often be less than perfect, something made more obvious by good, really fast lenses shot wide open. Live view, contrast detection, on the other hand is measuring focus on the sensor itself and, used properly, is spot on accurate. More and more mirrorless cameras are combing phase detection and live view to speed up auto focus.

I would be very interested in knowing what to you are the important differences between a digital Leica and other top of the line, small, mirrorless cameras? How does that effect you as a photographer, and how does it effect the future of small cameras?

 

[jsrockit]

What are the real differences and similarities between the other small, non mirror digital cameras and the Leica?

With Leica you get great exterior build quality and a mechanical rangefinder with a whole slew of great lenses at a high cost. With mirrorless you get all sorts of frankenstein cameras. The Fuji X-Pro1 is rangefinder shaped with an optical VF but also acts like a SLR (100% VF) in EVF mode i.e. what you see is what you get (even if filtered through a small TV). For me, that was a good thing. I had a camera that felt similar to a Leica but with AF (which I like as much as RF focusing) that could focus down to a few inches and offered two ways of viewing. It opened up possibilities that the Leica (M8, M9) couldn't offer like high ISO, AF, close focus, lighter weight, etc. It seems mirrorless is still in its infancy and designs are still being hammered out. They haven't matured yet.

I think the true difference for many is that if you like manual focus more than any other types of focus and prefer a RF to do your manual focusing with, a mirrorless camera (as they currently stand) will never live up to expectations. Mirrorless is AF first with manual focus as an afterthought.

To me, the most obvious difference is price. And the sad aspect of that difference is that the Leica is often used as a piece of conspicuous consumption jewelry and rarely found in the hands of the future of photography, serious young photographers. The good aspect is that the camera is built like a tank and some of the lenses are among the best. (Although, these days, there are less expensive “runner ups” that come incredibly close.)

It's sad, but true. However, to exist, I guess Leica had no choice but to go this route.

 

[michaelwj]

snip/

To me, the most obvious difference is price.

The other obvious difference is focusing method - and it goes beyond manual vs. automatic. Rangefinder focusing is a fast and fuss free.
/snip/
I would be very interested in knowing what to you are the important differences between a digital Leica and other top of the line, small, mirrorless cameras? How does that effect you as a photographer, and how does it effect the future of small cameras?

Hi Bill,

To me these factors are the other way around. Focusing method is the ONE this that differentiates an M from any other camera (mirror or not). The focusing method goes beyond all the extras like price/form/sensor size etc.
Like you say, focus peaking is pokey, manual focusing with live view is horrible, and after that we've just got an autofocus camera for better or worse.
IMHO, the only reason other mirrorless cameras are even compared to an M is because they can take Leica lenses. If they couldn't (i.e. flange distance), would we even be having this conversation? I think not.

Michael

 

[mrmeadows]

The price of the digital M Leicas is, of course, the elephant in the room. I like Leicas, I have both film Ms and digital M8s, and I have an (irrational?) emotional attachment to them after so many good years. Despite their lacking many useful modern capabilities, I would still like to buy a FF digital Leica. I can get past the fact that many other Leica owners are using them as status symbols instead of making photos. But there is another really big factor that intrudes every time I, yet again, consider making the buy: I seriously doubt that Leica's future policy will provide for repairs over the long haul. Leica has already dropped the ball on LCDs for the M8, which they claim that they can't source, despite the fact that Asia is awash in firms that will design and build custom LCD displays. So what's going to happen in 5-10 years when the LCD or some other electronic part goes bad in a new M or Monochrom or M-E? In the past Leica could make nearly all of its own components, but that no longer holds for their digital bodies. They're at the mercy of many suppliers who will probably discontinue components and require Leica to make a last lifetime buy to have any supply at all. But Leica will probably not want to invest in a lifetime supply of spares which would tie up a lot of their capital. I foresee a loud hew and cry when the fast pace of the electronics industry results in a multitude of non-functioning, very expensive but unrepairable, digital Leicas. It seems smarter to buy from Leica's "cheaper competitors", especially for people like me who may not completely wear out a digital Leica before it needs serious repairs fairly far down the road. I'm a firm believer in the fact that it's the photographer that makes good photos, and I'm sure that I can do just as well with a competitor's system. And those systems have capabilities for me to use that Leica still doesn't and may never provide. Those competing bodies are not really cheap, but at least I could afford to replace them as they become unrepairable ... three or four times for the price of one Leica!

Now if I could just get my emotions under control, I would follow my own best judgement and make the switch ...

--- Mike

 

[peterm1]

As you say there are many cameras and lenses that these days perform close enough to Leica that they make good substitutes - especially considering that many people dont have the skills required or the need for very, very top end quality. Nor should I add do they have the money to buy them. While I still enjoy using my M8 for example I often find myself going to one of my small digital cameras simply because of convenience. With the M8 I have to be on top of my form to be able to focus it adequately and get the shot reliably. With almost any of my other cameras all I need to do it so point it then shoot and know that the shot iwll turn out if I have done my work right in chosing the image and framing it.

As to the future of small cmaeras I dont think that Leica users will have much if any influence. The far bigger trend is that while people like me may be happily buying and using small format cameras like those made by Sony and Olympus and Panasonic the far bigger trend is that ordinary users are flicking instead to use their iphones and ipads in place of these cameras. In short I wonder how much of this market will remain in a few years.

 

[35mmdelux]

Sweet Jesus!

 

[Duane Pandorf]

Sweet Jesus!

LMAO.

The comparisons will never end....until Leica, for whatever reason, no longer exists or they price their bodies to beyond the stratosphere.

The new Nikon Df could have been a contender but they've included everything in it but the kitchen sink and VIDEO (Alleluia)!

The GXR-M comes closest but still too many damn buttons and the build quality not the same.

All the other compact cameras that, you have to remember its not the compact camera manufacturer that's making the lens adapters (except Fuji), can accept some third party M lens mount is driving this conversation.

Until the Japanese decide to really truly make a simple camera with a basic layout I'm never going back and won't even consider going back to a jerry rigged setup to use M mount lenses.

Its unfortunate that the FF digital Leicas cost so much but, hey, they can't even keep up the current demand. Could you imagine how long you'd have to wait if they priced the M just a $1,000 more than the Sony 7a?

 

[Bill Pierce]

I was asked off-line to expand my explanation of the difference between contrast detect and phase detect autofocus. Actually, the big difference is between contrast detect autofocus and all other forms of autofocus, be it phase detect in a DSLR, rangefinder focusing or just plain groundless focusing in a view camera. None of the later focusing systems check the focusing of the actual image whether it falls on sensor or film. Contrast detect checks the focus on the actual image sensor (and, in many cameras, at the shooting aperture eliminating the problem of focus shift when a lens is stopped down). You can regrind the cam on the rangefinder lens; you can customize DSLR focus for specific lenses; you can shim groundglasses to minimize the problem. But high speed lenses can shift focus as stopped down. Zooms will shift focus at different focal lengths. And all systems will have acceptable tolerances

All these focusing systems are more than adequate when used with intelligence. And there are a vast number of fine photographs that prove this. It’s not arguable even though there are a lot of fan boys that want to argue.

But, I do believe there is a significant difference often overlooked to focusing systems. My opinion (and there are many who will shoot me down) is that the spot on focusing of contrast detection/live view makes lenses look good. No complex designs or shifting element groups to fight focus shift, e.t.c., just exact, optimal focus exactly on the area of the frame that you choose. Thus an $800 lens can compete with a $4000 lens. Or, to put it brutally, a Fuji/Olympus/Sony/Panasonic lens can compete with a Leica lens. When I see the money problems young photographers, amateur and professional, are having compared to their now elderly predecessors, I think it’s nice that the simplicity of mirrorless live view cameras helps to make them affordable.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I was asked off-line to expand my explanation of the difference between contrast detect and phase detect autofocus. Actually, the big difference is between contrast detect autofocus and all other forms of autofocus, be it phase detect in a DSLR, rangefinder focusing or just plain groundless focusing in a view camera. None of the later focusing systems check the focusing of the actual image whether it falls on sensor or film. Contrast detect checks the focus on the actual image sensor (and, in many cameras, at the shooting aperture eliminating the problem of focus shift when a lens is stopped down). You can regrind the cam on the rangefinder lens; you can customize DSLR focus for specific lenses; you can shim groundglasses to minimize the problem. But high speed lenses can shift focus as stopped down. Zooms will shift focus at different focal lengths. And all systems will have acceptable tolerances

All these focusing systems are more than adequate when used with intelligence. And there are a vast number of fine photographs that prove this. It’s not arguable even though there are a lot of fan boys that want to argue.

But, I do believe there is a significant difference often overlooked to focusing systems. My opinion (and there are many who will shoot me down) is that the spot on focusing of contrast detection/live view makes lenses look good. No complex designs or shifting element groups to fight focus shift, e.t.c., just exact, optimal focus exactly on the area of the frame that you choose. Thus an $800 lens can compete with a $4000 lens. Or, to put it brutally, a Fuji/Olympus/Sony/Panasonic lens can compete with a Leica lens. When I see the money problems young photographers, amateur and professional, are having compared to their now elderly predecessors, I think it’s nice that the simplicity of mirrorless live view cameras helps to make them affordable.

Another matter I didn't see in the thread: close-focusing abilities. With true rangefinder cameras, basically you get 0.7m at best. With all these mirrorless EVF-type cameras, you get more SLR-like distances (0.3m or closer!). This was always an issue that bugged me when using rangefinder cameras.

 

[semordnilap]

The other obvious difference is focusing method - and it goes beyond manual vs. automatic. Rangefinder focusing is a fast and fuss free. Live view, the focusing system found in many of the non mirror digitals is just plain poky. Rangefinder focusing accuracy is effected by the tolerances of the lenses’ rangefinder cam and the body’s cam feeler and can often be less than perfect, something made more obvious by good, really fast lenses shot wide open. Live view, contrast detection, on the other hand is measuring focus on the sensor itself and, used properly, is spot on accurate. More and more mirrorless cameras are combing phase detection and live view to speed up auto focus.

This, for me, is the crux... I'm waiting for a live view focusing method that's not "poky". They're useable, and as the EVFs get better and better they get more and more useable. But I feel like there needs to be some kind of new method/tool/function—not sure what it is—before that kind of manual focusing really comes into its own.

I really like my x100s and once I learned the AF I've found I can use it well with the OVF, but given the choice I still prefer RF focussing.

On another note, I like how the mirrorless cameras are smaller than the various M's. Size is actually one of the big reasons I haven't bought an M9.

If in some fantastic future Fuji makes a successor to the X100 (or X-Pro) with a way to effectively manually focus through the OVF, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

 

[DanielDuarte]

are you able to shut off the preview feature in the viewfinder? I would have the OVF on and every time I took an image I'd get a preview of the shot in the finder, which I found extremely annoying. I returned the camera after 2 weeks, just frustrated to the nines with the AF issues.

I think the xpro is a huge step in the right direction and hooray for Fuji for having some balls, but as a 1st gen model it just isn't there yet,

 

[jsrockit]

are you able to shut off the preview feature in the viewfinder? I would have the OVF on and every time I took an image I'd get a preview of the shot in the finder, which I found extremely annoying.

Yes, of course...

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I find that modern digital cameras focus more quickly than I can.

I sold my M kit when I realised this.

 

[kbg32]

I picked up the Ricoh GR afew months ago, and I can't get it out of my hand.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

My main reasons for having a leica, both analog and Digital, is the fact it suits my style of shooting so well... I like the way leica transforms the reality I see in my eyes so well to images. BUT...The main question: What kind of images ? I like loosely composed images where nothing is "perfect". I like the feel of a wide angle, when shooting close enough, to have the space and the image "breathing ". I like the accidental harmony, I like the immediate seeing of a good image. I find DSLR limiting my seeing to "inside the frame"
OK, it might be quick in focusing, but so is the Leica when I pre focus it and don`t have to worry about focusing at all... Then the other big issue is the optical and mechanical quality and precision. When all the lenses are calibrated to the bodies-that means bodies first to factory speciofications and then all the lenses to the same tolerances, you CAN NOT have focusing errors with 21-35 and 50mm lenses. (I don`t use longer rangefinder lenses) To me the "essence of Leica" is the M, that is "Messucher"- the range finder. Some other features are also nice, such as the IXMOO cassette, that provides scratch free negatives, after 40 years using the same cassette shell...

 

[Godfrey]

Whining about the price of Leica cameras and lenses is so boring!
Get a life, do something useful with your time.

I bought one of the new Olympus E-M1 bodies, it arrived last month. I bought the Panasonic-Leica Summilux-DG 25mm f/1.4 ASPH to use with it, my primary lens (a fast normal, as usual).

- The body is stunning. Excellent sensor, superb controls, fast and responsive. The viewfinder is particularly excellent. The body is extraordinarily configurable: set it up to suit my desires and it is the most fluid handling camera body I've ever experienced.

- The lens performs beautifully. Like in "really good, outstanding." Lovely bokeh, wonderful sharpness, etc.

- Autofocus with the Summilux is virtually instantaneous. Manual focus is also superb, both with the dedicated Micro-FourThirds lenses and with my adapted Leica R lenses. Fast, positive, sure, fluid—the viewfinder and focusing system is good as it gets.​

Pick your poison and enjoy it. Make great photos.

G

 

[JohnL]

are you able to shut off the preview feature in the viewfinder? I would have the OVF on and every time I took an image I'd get a preview of the shot in the finder ... <snip>

I have had mine only just over a month now, so I started out with the latest firmware, and just one lens, at least for now, which is the 18-55. I use the OVF most of the time, and never had this issue. I did follow the early criticism of the XP1 very closely, because it seemed like just what I wanted, but then more of a prototype than ready for prime time. I still thought I was taking a bit of a risk when I got it, seeing the comments on how the focus peaking was not as good as certain others, etc, etc.

To address something of the OP, I have had three film Leicas over the years. The first was a (very) used c.1926 model 1 with a 3.5 Elmar, which I seem to remember was uncoated. I got it in the early 60s when I was a student, and used it for about 5 years, until I could afford a modern (Canon) SLR. Sometime in the 70s I got a Leica CL with 40mm and 90mm lenses, which I used for several years until it was stolen. Some years ago I got a used M7, but I have now retired this and will probably sell it. I have tried several digital replacements, of which the XP1 is the latest. I doubt I will ever get a digital M, though I did consider it during the M8 era.

The XP1 is not perfect, but overall I am *very* happy with it.

I generally have it set to manual focus, which allows me to touch the AFL button to AF the camera - focus is then locked until I hit AFL again or adjust manually. I rarely do any manual fine focusing except in dim light, and then only if I notice the distance scale is off. I find this method to be usually acceptable, and often very sharp. This cuts out the focus delay that so many have criticized. Since I tend to use the OVF, I don't usually see the focus peaking, but when I have looked at it, it generally seems to highlight adequately those areas that are within the DOF - this DOF is probably rather more generous than that shown on the distance scale (which is highly ungenerous).

With other cameras, I generally used to use AV style metering. On the XP1 I am generally using auto setting both on aperture and shutter, and have rarely found fault with this. High ISO performance is very good up to 1600 - there is noise there at this level, but it's not intrusive. I always set ISO manually and I always shoot raw.

On the whole, therefore, this camera is likely to last me for quite some time. It feels extremely well built. I am not yet sure if I'll get any other lenses for it - I already have fast primes, extreme WAs and long(ish) teles for my DSLRs, so I'll probably just take them on the relatively rare occasions that I need such exotica.

Not sure if this adds any useful light to the OP, but I hoped it might be relevant.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Rangefinder focusing accuracy is effected by the tolerances of the lenses’ rangefinder cam and the body’s cam feeler and can often be less than perfect, something made more obvious by good, really fast lenses shot wide open.

This, combined with the lousy low light performance is what finally made me sell off my digital M equipment. As a walk around camera, shooting for fun, it was fine. But I could never take it on a job where I needed to be able to, "Get the shot" every time. And I got tired of sending camera bodies and lenses off to be "calibrated" when things started to drift out of alignment and I couldn't get sharp focus wide open anymore. The camera or lens would come back, and be good for a year or so, then start to progressively get soft again.

I would love to see Nikon develop a camera that was halfway between their big DSLR's and their Nikon 1 line. I have used a Nikon 1 on jobs, and its auto focus speed and other attributes got me very usable pics as long as they were for internet clients. And the small size and weight were a huge plus when you're dashing around covering multiple events in the same day, in the city, using public transport to get between jobs.

Best,
-Tim

 

[defconfunk]

I would be very interested in knowing what to you are the important differences between a digital Leica and other top of the line, small, mirrorless cameras? How does that effect you as a photographer, and how does it effect the future of small cameras?

As has been mentioned, a digital Leica costs a small fortune. The M mount lenses, even used on the local classifieds, cost a great deal. To me, these costs are two fold - one is the obvious acquisition, but the other is the fear of carrying around such an expensive piece of kit. Simply put, if I cannot afford to replace it, it will change the context in which I use it. I can get an OM-10 for the price of a Denny's breakfast. I can get a m4/3 body for $150 off the local classified. I'd toss either in my saddlebags (both bicycle and motorcycle) without a second though. I would feel very self concious carrying around a camera that costs more than my motorcycle - and that would show in my photos.

What's the effect on small cameras? Well, I purchased an E-M1. I no longer have GAS for a FF camera (RF or DSLR). I don't even have GAS for the A7. I'm thrilled with what Olympus has to offer. When the E-M5 replacement eventually comes out, I expect at least one of my friends to either buy it, or a price-cut E-M5.

The topic of ease-of-use was mentioned. I gave my brother in law a Panasonic GX1 for his wedding. It is a very nice camera to hold, takes good photos, and while the controls are different from what we film users are used to, his wife figured it out instantly (which is good, she's got a much better eye than him, but don't tell him I said that). She may not be shooting full manual, but she's shooting in what is an intuitive to her manner and making some great shots. She may not use manual focus, but the touch screen selective focus is a very powerful tool when used well.

While I'm a dedicated VF shooter, I can see myself picking up a VF-less body (maybe even the GX1 if I ever find one used for a good price) with a pancake lens as a back-up for me and primary camera for my wife.

IMHO, the only reason other mirrorless cameras are even compared to an M is because they can take Leica lenses. If they couldn't (i.e. flange distance), would we even be having this conversation? I think not.

I think we would. Because a m4/3 (or fuji or whatever) cameras intrudes into Leica's mind-share: portable with quick shooting. The rangefinder size and focusing is what differentiated the Leica as a street camera from bulky rugged SLRs like the Nikon F. But those same features (RF only use one eye with no interuption of sight - live view & touch screen doesn't even have to cover your face, and the side mounted EVFs on the GX7 and Fuji cameras mimic the RF useage) make these cameras suitable to the same tasks. We can be as elitest as we like, the fact is some talented people are making great photos this way.