The Future - your thoughts?

[Bill Pierce]

Got an email from Bill Foley, an old friend from the times when we were both working in the Middle East. Foley won the Pulitzer Prize for photos of the Christian militia massacres of Palestinians in Beirut's Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in 1982. A year later his picture of the massacre of the Marines in Beirut was nominated for a Pulitzer. Anyway, Foley is obviously a skilled photographer.

Here's the email.

'I read your column tonite. I am still using my Canon Powershot S410Elph that I bought from Jeff at Fotocare in 2004.

Photographs have been published, used in shows, and it's small and a huge FOUR megapixel camera.

Love this camera. But, I must admit, the S90 is a very cool camera, and may be my next "always have a camera" camera.'

More and more professional photographers are using little digitals. And, the little digitals are getting better. They are certainly not going to replace the big DSLR's for much work. But are they going to replace the digital rangefinders? Please, your thoughts.

 

[Jamie123]

Got an email from Bill Foley, an old friend from the times when we were both working in the Middle East. Foley won the Pulitzer Prize for photos of the Christian militia massacres of Palestinians in Beirut's Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in 1982. A year later his picture of the massacre of the Marines in Beirut was nominated for a Pulitzer. Anyway, Foley is obviously a skilled photographer.

Here's the email.

'I read your column tonite. I am still using my Canon Powershot S410Elph that I bought from Jeff at Fotocare in 2004.

Photographs have been published, used in shows, and it's small and a huge FOUR megapixel camera.

Love this camera. But, I must admit, the S90 is a very cool camera, and may be my next "always have a camera" camera.'

More and more professional photographers are using little digitals. And, the little digitals are getting better. They are certainly not going to replace the big DSLR's for much work. But are they going to replace the digital rangefinders? Please, your thoughts.

I dunno. Did 35mm compacts replace rangefinders? Compacts such as the Contax T2/T3 are much closer in quality to a Leica M6 than a S90 is to a Leica M9.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

I'm just waiting - and I don't think it will be long now! - for a few more to use that larger APSc sensor, then I think it will be my main tool.
Dave.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I dunno. Did 35mm compacts replace rangefinders? Compacts such as the Contax T2/T3 are much closer in quality to a Leica M6 than a S90 is to a Leica M9.

Among my friends, the Contax and the Leitz Minilux did replace the full Leica M in many street situations. Discontinued, the Contax T3 soared in price, costing more used than new. I had two T3's until my son finally talked me out of one and a Minilux. I don't use 35mm film very much, but these cameras are the ones that most of my 35mm film goes through. As I said, among my friends, this is not an uncommon situation.

I have not compared the S90 to the M9, but large G10 prints at low ISO's were not distinguished from similar M8 prints when I was showing portfolios even when I asked "which was sharper" and other leading questions.

 

[Bruin]

For me, there's still a HUGE difference in portability between the average compact and the smallest interchangeable-lens, mirrorless camera (EVIL). Honestly, I don't want to carry my RF (film or digital) with me all the time. But a compact, sure. And the more capable that compact is, the better. I think that even with the rise of EVIL cameras, there will still be a market for premium fixed-lens compacts like the LX3, S90, even the Sigma DPs.

Bill, have you seen the new Samsung TL500? It's a compact with a swiveling 3" AMOLED screen, 24-72mm f1.8-2.4 equivalent lens, image stabilization, and RAW capability. Not a bad alternative to the S90 if Mr. Foley can wait a bit this year.

 

[Austerby]

I think low-cost, mass-produced products replace themselves - so digital pocket cameras have replaced 35mm pocket cameras and are in turn experiencing replacement with "better" digital pocket cameras - and now also with things like the iPhone camera which adds a whole new social use for instant photography.

Some very special items - and I'm thinking here particularly of Barnack Leicas, manual Nikon SLRs, Rolleiflexes, M-Leicas and Hasselblads (add your own) - work in such a way that they never really get "replaced" - new users pick up old examples and re-discover them.

So, no, I don't think digital rangefinders will be replaced by higher quality pocketable digital cameras - I think they will co-exist quite happily, though the p&s digitals being the more endangered of the two: in twenty years I bet people will still use rangefinders, but I doubt there will be the concept of the separate pocket camera. A camera will just be another function on a handheld device with permanent on-line status automatically uploading to facebook or its equivalent.

 

[emraphoto]

it is an interesting question that i have been asking myself lately.

the g10 image wise was a great camera but in operation it fell apart for me. i have been eyeing the micro 4/3 offerings with much attention these days and have decided to give one a kick at the can. my main "issue" has been the manual focus interface so i have set the expectations low. with that being said i can't help but wonder "what if"?

i'll hold off telling the M's for now.

 

[btgc]

With 35mm film cameras, ergonomics and extendability mostly rules choice, not "which is sharper" - that's my assumption.

Should it be too different with digital compacts?

 

[Jamie123]

Among my friends, the Contax and the Leitz Minilux did replace the full Leica M in many street situations. Discontinued, the Contax T3 soared in price, costing more used than new. I had two T3's until my son finally talked me out of one and a Minilux. I don't use 35mm film very much, but these cameras are the ones that most of my 35mm film goes through. As I said, among my friends, this is not an uncommon situation.

I have not compared the S90 to the M9, but large G10 prints at low ISO's were not distinguished from similar M8 prints when I was showing portfolios even when I asked "which was sharper" and other leading questions.

Many professionals did and do excellent work with both film and digital compacts. Sure, if your primary reason for using a rangefinder is the size then a compact is a very good compromise but, in all honesty, I don't find the M9 that small to start with. You can get one of the entry level Canon SLRs (500D or whatever they're called these days) which won't be that much bigger than an M9 but much cheaper. I'm pretty sure anyone who pays thousands of dollars for an M8 or M9 + lenses has more reasons than the small size.

I think some people will find that their digital compact is more than enough for them but, just like with film, I don't think they will ultimately replace digital rangefinders.

As for your friend still shooting a 6mp camera, I hope he upgrades soon. A while back I went to a national press photo award exhibition and some of the pictures that were printed at 8x10 were a horrible pixelated mess. I'm sure they looked good in the newspaper but I think if you're going to shoot potentially award winning pictures it's a good idea to think
past the newspaper page.

 

[Jason Sprenger]

It seems pretty evident that little digitals have displaced all RF's for most pro's where a small camera is needed. Basically, the handiest device capable of reaching ISO 400 with usable results is what's going to be used. And today, handy means digital.

An M9 might be better but it's also more than an order of magnitude more expensive and despite being released for months is still not generally available. It's just plain easier to go with other options at this point, toss it in your pocket or bag and go work.

Nevertheless, I expect an f2.0 lens and a couple of notches of ISO sensitivity could be welcome. Here's where micro-4/3rds really can have an impact. Bigger, better sensors while keeping a small, handy form factor and allowing for fast lenses.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Well, digital compacts have only one digital RF to replace, the M9! So I suspect for many but the most well-heeled professionals, it's going to be a compact digital camera or nothing!

I've been carrying a Panasonic LX-3 with me lately, and have been mostly pleased with it as a RF replacement.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I'm pretty sure anyone who pays thousands of dollars for an M8 or M9 + lenses has more reasons than the small size.

Absolutely

 

[Bill Pierce]

An M9 might be better but it's also more than an order of magnitude more expensive and despite being released for months is still not generally available. It's just plain easier to go with other options at this point, toss it in your pocket or bag and go work.

Nevertheless, I expect an f2.0 lens and a couple of notches of ISO sensitivity could be welcome. Here's where micro-4/3rds really can have an impact. Bigger, better sensors while keeping a small, handy form factor and allowing for fast lenses.

Absolutely, again.

 

[Ronald M]

Try to make a decent print 8x10 from one. Then compare it to a dslr.

If you need something, anything, to make a photo 2x3 in a newspaper, it is satisfactory.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Try to make a decent print 8x10 from one. Then compare it to a dslr.

If you need something, anything, to make a photo 2x3 in a newspaper, it is satisfactory.

Ron -

I have many full sized prints on 17x22 paper from the G10, the M8 and the 5D Mark II. Where it's been possible to maximize the quality of image (low ISO, decent aperture, no image movement) the viewer's choice of "best" image just becomes pot luck. They pick the G10 just as often as the M8 or the 5DMII. Some folks have run much more controlled tests tossing in a medium format back and come up with the same results with prints on 13x19. Move away from the optimum conditions into available darkness and there is no question that the little cameras deliver lower quality results. But to a lesser degree, so do the Leicas.

As far as something as small as, say, a 6x9 image on 8x10 or 8 1/2 x11 paper, that's just not a test. I have a 4-5 megapixel camera with a sensor just a little under C size that under optimum conditions produces such a print, even a slightly larger one, that can't be distinguished from the cameras with more megapixels. Where you easily see the difference is big prints, high ISO's and cropped images.

 

[jack palmer]

A Leica isn't a small or lightweight camera anymore, if it ever was. A Nikon FM is just about as small and lighter in weight. But my money is on mico 4/3 especially the Gf-1.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I dunno. I think 4/3 is an anomaly. A transitional format at best. It's neither this nor that.

 

[sevo]

It is pretty obvious that EVIL cameras have begun to displace the 35mm SLR paradigm which ruled the past 50 years.

Whether this will affect rangefinders, whether film or digital, is hard to tell - there always have been niches for cameras that are different, if only because it is good for a photographers publicity and reputation to have some noticeably different techniques, at any rate as long as he strays towards the heavy, big, complex or expensive side. But the next camera type to be as dominant as the 35mm SLR can hardly fill the role of providing alternatives beyond normality.

It might still be that the M9 type rangefinder is too close to the EVIL mainstream to survive - but then, the entire M series has been closest to 35mm SLR among alternative formats and camera types and survived nonetheless.

Sevo

 

[Harry Lime]

"But are they going to replace the digital rangefinders? Please, your thoughts."

What digital rangefinders?
;-)

Aside from the M9 there is no other D-RF in production and it's so expensive and sold in such small numbers (compared to the rest of the market) that it really is a specialty item. So, I don't know if it really is accurate to talk about the existence of a digital rangefinder market.

Therefore I don't think it's so much a case of high-end compacts (Ricoh GRD, S90 etc) and EVIL cameras (M4/3rd) taking over the RF market (which really doesn't exist), but eating away at the entry level DSLR market.

M43rd happened to be in the right place at the right time, offering a viable balance between size and performance. Now given it's success everyone wants a piece of this emerging market. Sony, Nikon and others are rushing APS-C powered EVIL cameras to market.

We reached a tipping point where these smaller cameras have started to produce a level of IQ, that is viable for a lot of people under many circumstances. Like you said, in print it's often difficult to tell a shot from an M8 and a G11 apart. Where the M8 and DSLR still win is ergonomics and viewfinder.

Once EVF technology evolves another generation or two, there is a real chance that the traditional DSLR with an optical viewing system, especially on the low end, will disappear.

Now, all we need is for Voigtlander/Cosina to release a series of fast manual focus primes for M43rd and APS-C for these cameras...

Economics may also have something to do with it. Everyone is broke these days and it appears that things are going to remain pretty bleak for the next few years. A good compact or M43rd camera can cost half as much as an entry level DSLR, while providing nearly the same IQ.


Personally I'm starting to seriously look at something like a M43rd camera or a highend compact like the GRD III. I really disliked lugging around my D700, because it was quite bulky. But something as small as these cameras can be easily tossed in a bag or jacket pocket without much thought and the IQ is really excellent, unless you head over 400 or 1600asa.

So, yes I do see the market for these kind of cameras growing significantly over the next few years and improving in everything from image quality to ergonomics.

 

[sjw617]

So, no, I don't think digital rangefinders will be replaced by higher quality pocketable digital cameras

Most people do not even know a digital rangefinder even exists. It is not even a possible choice for PROBABLY 99+% of people looking for a camera.

Steve