Bill Pierce
Well-known
I was scrolling through the sub sites of the RF forum, checking out which sub forums had the most viewers. Guess what? The clear winners had nothing to do with rangefinder cameras. They were
Digital Compact System Cameras - whose sub forums include Sony Nex, Micro 4/3, Fuji X and Ricoh M Mount.
Digital Fixed Lens Advance Compacts - whose sub forums include Leica fixed lens compacts, Fuji, Sony and others.
Are these cameras the “new rangefinder?” As a working stiff, I’ve always used a variety of cameras. But the camera that was always with me and the mainstay of my personal work was a rangefinder, a Leica, film and digital. But for some time now, I haven’t been using a rangefinder. I’ve been using cameras that are talked about in those two forums. The cameras have gotten better, and I’m learning how to get the most out of them. I’m stunned by the image quality of cameras that are small enough to almost always be with me and rarely intrude on what they are photographing. If those forum viewer figures are correct, I’m not alone. Have you switched? What have been the advantages? …the disadvantages? Any tips for others?
Digital Compact System Cameras - whose sub forums include Sony Nex, Micro 4/3, Fuji X and Ricoh M Mount.
Digital Fixed Lens Advance Compacts - whose sub forums include Leica fixed lens compacts, Fuji, Sony and others.
Are these cameras the “new rangefinder?” As a working stiff, I’ve always used a variety of cameras. But the camera that was always with me and the mainstay of my personal work was a rangefinder, a Leica, film and digital. But for some time now, I haven’t been using a rangefinder. I’ve been using cameras that are talked about in those two forums. The cameras have gotten better, and I’m learning how to get the most out of them. I’m stunned by the image quality of cameras that are small enough to almost always be with me and rarely intrude on what they are photographing. If those forum viewer figures are correct, I’m not alone. Have you switched? What have been the advantages? …the disadvantages? Any tips for others?
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Hi Bill,
There's something wonderful about the feel of a rangefinder in the hand. Hard to beat.
But for work, coming back with the image is always the most important thing. Used to use my M6 and M8.2 when I wanted to get in and work close (the DSLR's are just too intimidating to folks). That was pretty much the whole reason I owned the Leicas. But lately, I'm finding I can get "good enough" pictures (at least according to my editors, and after all, they're the ones paying the bills) when shooting a Nikon 1 V2. Which is even tinier than my Leicas, and with split second auto focus, it works great for those tight, fast moving shooting situations.
Took me a while to come around. When I have lots of time during an assignment (a rarity) I still like to use the Leicas, because the image quality IS better. But with most of my assignments, I am covering fast moving situations, and I can't beat the V2 for catching those fleeting moment.
Best,
-Tim
There's something wonderful about the feel of a rangefinder in the hand. Hard to beat.
But for work, coming back with the image is always the most important thing. Used to use my M6 and M8.2 when I wanted to get in and work close (the DSLR's are just too intimidating to folks). That was pretty much the whole reason I owned the Leicas. But lately, I'm finding I can get "good enough" pictures (at least according to my editors, and after all, they're the ones paying the bills) when shooting a Nikon 1 V2. Which is even tinier than my Leicas, and with split second auto focus, it works great for those tight, fast moving shooting situations.
Took me a while to come around. When I have lots of time during an assignment (a rarity) I still like to use the Leicas, because the image quality IS better. But with most of my assignments, I am covering fast moving situations, and I can't beat the V2 for catching those fleeting moment.
Best,
-Tim
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The small advanced fixed lens compacts are interesting and relate to the one camera one lens theory IMO. They limit you in an interesting way but certainly not image quality!
It's not hard to see why these catagories have become so popular .. they really simplify photography.
It's not hard to see why these catagories have become so popular .. they really simplify photography.
thirtyfivefifty
Noctilust survivor
No, they are not. Smartphones replaced the digital point and shoots we used to have, and these new large sensor compacts replaced the old small compacts of yesteryear. Simple as that. Rangefinders are rangefinders just as DSLRs are DSLRs.
Larry H-L
Well-known
I've pretty much made the switch to Olympus and Panasonic m4/3 cameras. I'll take out the RFs for special occasions, but my every day carry camera is almost always an m4/3.
Image quality is excellent, so good that I have used the cameras for some smaller commercial jobs. The fact that one can use most any lens brand is very appealing to me.
Image quality is excellent, so good that I have used the cameras for some smaller commercial jobs. The fact that one can use most any lens brand is very appealing to me.
Pablito
coco frío
Yes and no.
Yes, mostly for assignments that mean getting on a plane. Using NEX system with great success. The 7 and the 5r with EVF. Lovely IQ
But NEX is no good for fast moving stuff.
And for some jobs the D800 is just so much better.
zauhar
Veteran
Recently I rented a Ricoh GXR with M module for the express purpose of having images ready at the end of an evening event, not 'in a day or so' (I always use film).
The GXR is good - it was easy to use compared to the few digitals I have tried, it produced nice image quality, and with no worries about mounting my Leica lenses. The EVF was not bad.
BUT, As I stated in another thread, I was also relieved to send it back! Maybe I needed more time to bond with it. Anyway, it eliminated any small yearning I had for a compact digital (at least for the moment), so that was a worthwhile investment.
Randy
The GXR is good - it was easy to use compared to the few digitals I have tried, it produced nice image quality, and with no worries about mounting my Leica lenses. The EVF was not bad.
BUT, As I stated in another thread, I was also relieved to send it back! Maybe I needed more time to bond with it. Anyway, it eliminated any small yearning I had for a compact digital (at least for the moment), so that was a worthwhile investment.
Randy
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
After many years of being an intermittent shooter with an OM2s, I took a sabbatical from writing and publishing poems, and became increasingly committed to photography and also gear--more film gear than digital, more rangefinders than otherwise. I had a middle-class income that could sustain this peculiar variant on the pursuit of creative happiness, though I never had designs to be a collector, but to rotate the use of everything I had--the M4, the IIIc, the Rolleis (flex and 35s), and so on--with the M43 and GXR and GRD digitals on the supposition that technical (gear) variety helps keep seeing fresh and critical skills sharp.
When I do my infrequent LR censuses (I've organized photographs by camera for the past year) and cull the herd of images going back 4 years now, it's clear there are more keepers in the M43, GXR, GRD, and XE1 threads than in the film threads. This isn't surprising, since the only film cameras I have used more than 1-3 years are the OM2s and OM4, and it's far easier to learn from manual metering/exposure mistakes shooting manually on the GXR/M mount with instant feedback than to blow a roll of FP4 by metering the wrong EV for the scene with the M5.
Yet there are photographs here and there in my catalog that totally repay the whole of the modest investment in, say, the Rolleiflex 2.8D, and in the GW690, and especially in the Bronica RF and the 2 Ms.
But now I am in the unfortunate position of being downsized, so that film and development have become the luxury I can rarely afford. Like some of our colleagues here, I will soon have to return some of the film cameras to the great gearstream to offset the cost of living on a radically reduced salary. I will shoot my roll of film over a period of weeks, not hours, and will devote some involuntary free time to getting back into development, and being far choosier about what I pay to have scanned. But mainly I will be wringing every penny of investment and creative happiness out of the M43, the GXR, the GRD4, and the XE1. I don't expect to be as focused as Keith currently is with his Sigma, but it will be similar enough, and I will enjoy it the best I can--until I regain an income that supports rangefinder-love, or can draw on Social Security and retirement savings to shoot and develop as much as I can afford.
When I do my infrequent LR censuses (I've organized photographs by camera for the past year) and cull the herd of images going back 4 years now, it's clear there are more keepers in the M43, GXR, GRD, and XE1 threads than in the film threads. This isn't surprising, since the only film cameras I have used more than 1-3 years are the OM2s and OM4, and it's far easier to learn from manual metering/exposure mistakes shooting manually on the GXR/M mount with instant feedback than to blow a roll of FP4 by metering the wrong EV for the scene with the M5.
Yet there are photographs here and there in my catalog that totally repay the whole of the modest investment in, say, the Rolleiflex 2.8D, and in the GW690, and especially in the Bronica RF and the 2 Ms.
But now I am in the unfortunate position of being downsized, so that film and development have become the luxury I can rarely afford. Like some of our colleagues here, I will soon have to return some of the film cameras to the great gearstream to offset the cost of living on a radically reduced salary. I will shoot my roll of film over a period of weeks, not hours, and will devote some involuntary free time to getting back into development, and being far choosier about what I pay to have scanned. But mainly I will be wringing every penny of investment and creative happiness out of the M43, the GXR, the GRD4, and the XE1. I don't expect to be as focused as Keith currently is with his Sigma, but it will be similar enough, and I will enjoy it the best I can--until I regain an income that supports rangefinder-love, or can draw on Social Security and retirement savings to shoot and develop as much as I can afford.
Last edited:
Harry Caul
Well-known
I actually made the opposite progression to many here. I found RFF while researching and eventually purchasing my Olympus E-P2 (digital compact system cameras). After many years of small P&S digitals, the E-P2 was my first "serious" camera purchase -- bought at a time when i finally had enough disposable income to play around with. RFF was a natural home for me in part due to the types of people populating the board and the approach photography I've felt I've always shared, but hadn't yet taken seriously. I was realizing that bigger sensors could achieve a different look -- one that I vaguely remembered to be more pleasing from during my film days (P&S then too), but at the same time wouldn't necessitate me buying a hulking black DSLR. For me my E-P2 just opened the door to what RFF had to offer!
Flash forward to today and I've rediscovered film by way of a Contax G2, a Leica M3, a few Rolleiflex, an Oly OM1, a Pentax 67, a Plaubel 670 and a Polaroid 195. And I just got my first 4x5 press camera in the mail 2 says ago! I did say I opened the door to what RFF had to offer -- that includes the GAS
. Seriously though, I love knowing that you can buy and really use these cameras to figure out what works with your particular style, and then sell what you don't click with for essentially no depreciation. I've also learned very much about optics and the technical aspects of photography over the last few years. Changing formats that often really forces you to understand the science behind photography in a way that isn't even required to be a "pro" anymore.
Anyway, I still use my Oly, but now I've upgraded to the OMD. Is it the "new rangefinder"? In a technical sense, of course not. But could these new classes of digitals be the spiritual heirs to one of the rangefinder's most important characteristics -- a 100+ year legacy of pushing the bounds of marrying compact size with performance? Yes, I think they might be the first digitals to do so.
Flash forward to today and I've rediscovered film by way of a Contax G2, a Leica M3, a few Rolleiflex, an Oly OM1, a Pentax 67, a Plaubel 670 and a Polaroid 195. And I just got my first 4x5 press camera in the mail 2 says ago! I did say I opened the door to what RFF had to offer -- that includes the GAS
. Seriously though, I love knowing that you can buy and really use these cameras to figure out what works with your particular style, and then sell what you don't click with for essentially no depreciation. I've also learned very much about optics and the technical aspects of photography over the last few years. Changing formats that often really forces you to understand the science behind photography in a way that isn't even required to be a "pro" anymore. Anyway, I still use my Oly, but now I've upgraded to the OMD. Is it the "new rangefinder"? In a technical sense, of course not. But could these new classes of digitals be the spiritual heirs to one of the rangefinder's most important characteristics -- a 100+ year legacy of pushing the bounds of marrying compact size with performance? Yes, I think they might be the first digitals to do so.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I don't think Bill was suggesting that these cameras are actually the 'new rangefinders' ... more that they have established their dominance in what is effectively a rangefinder forum.
thompsonks
Well-known
I'm right on the cusp: I didn't admire the color rendition of the M240, so I bought a second M9 body and then waited a few weeks to find out what a 'Mini-M' would be. I was disappointed or even pissed off by the hype for the Vario, so I reacted by buying a Fuji X100s. To date, the second M9 remains in its minty condition, almost unused, and I've been enjoying the Fuji considerably. The interface is maddening and the autofocus not too fast, but the images seem as good as M8 files were. I find I have to do less post-processing than with Leica files – the colors need a bit of added Vibrance or Saturation, but seem to register where I want them without as many LR/PS adjustments.
And I like the way it feels in my hand (with a wrist strap): its weight is less than a film M by about the same proportion as a film M is lighter/handier than an M9. When the Winogrand show appered in San Francisco, some of us from the SF RFF group saw it together and watched the video of Winogrand actually shooting, twitching the camera in front of his eye. The Fuji feels like you can use it that way, though the autofocus is a bit slow. It seems to want to be zone-focused, which is OK because there's more DOF wirh the APS-C sensor and 23mm lens. I've been able to slip some X100s shots into a portfolio about a changing neighborhood – 14x21 prints shot over a number of years with M8s and then M9s. The files seem as good as M8, though not M9; yet the higher ISO capability and faster shutter speeds for indoor shots makes it and the M9 a toss-up for low light. At f2 the bokeh is even OK!
The next generation from either Fuji or Sony could be a digital Leica-slayer: full-frame with built-in hybrid viewfinder and faster autofocus. This would be the Mini-M that I was hoping for – I wanted these features, or at least some of them, and a chance to use M lenses.
I remain a loyal rangefinder user – digital Leicas, plus Nikon RFs for film, and a battered and retired M4. I won't stop 'RFing.' But the Fuji is becoming a constant companion, the one always in my purse or pack, and almost the successor to my rangefinders. So I guess I'm close to being one of the switch-hitters that Bill was writing about.
And I like the way it feels in my hand (with a wrist strap): its weight is less than a film M by about the same proportion as a film M is lighter/handier than an M9. When the Winogrand show appered in San Francisco, some of us from the SF RFF group saw it together and watched the video of Winogrand actually shooting, twitching the camera in front of his eye. The Fuji feels like you can use it that way, though the autofocus is a bit slow. It seems to want to be zone-focused, which is OK because there's more DOF wirh the APS-C sensor and 23mm lens. I've been able to slip some X100s shots into a portfolio about a changing neighborhood – 14x21 prints shot over a number of years with M8s and then M9s. The files seem as good as M8, though not M9; yet the higher ISO capability and faster shutter speeds for indoor shots makes it and the M9 a toss-up for low light. At f2 the bokeh is even OK!
The next generation from either Fuji or Sony could be a digital Leica-slayer: full-frame with built-in hybrid viewfinder and faster autofocus. This would be the Mini-M that I was hoping for – I wanted these features, or at least some of them, and a chance to use M lenses.
I remain a loyal rangefinder user – digital Leicas, plus Nikon RFs for film, and a battered and retired M4. I won't stop 'RFing.' But the Fuji is becoming a constant companion, the one always in my purse or pack, and almost the successor to my rangefinders. So I guess I'm close to being one of the switch-hitters that Bill was writing about.
Contarama
Well-known
I bet Bill will own a M240 someday if he doesn't already. It is an interesting question.
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134530
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134530
i am now retired from being a photojournalist.
i use point and shoot digital on almost every occasion.
No! They are not like a rangefinder, my M3 or M6.
They are adequate.They serve a purpose.
I have never felt a real bond with any electronic marvel.
i don't carry a cell phone. If i did it would be an i-phone..
Saturday night i snapped a Blues Band. I could not do real
justice. i thought about those high ISO numbers..
i am stuck at 400! Sure i can go to more.More blur.:bang:
i thought of a DSLR but most have really slow lenses in zooms..
So one needs a prime! i found a solution for next time..
I will use my real RF, the M3/M6.Push process to 800 or 1600,
a small flash to give a minute punch, close up.
Maybe the whole world is going mobile/DSLR/EVIL but i walk,
to my own beat. Always did.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134530
i am now retired from being a photojournalist.
i use point and shoot digital on almost every occasion.
No! They are not like a rangefinder, my M3 or M6.
They are adequate.They serve a purpose.
I have never felt a real bond with any electronic marvel.
i don't carry a cell phone. If i did it would be an i-phone..
Saturday night i snapped a Blues Band. I could not do real
justice. i thought about those high ISO numbers..
i am stuck at 400! Sure i can go to more.More blur.:bang:
i thought of a DSLR but most have really slow lenses in zooms..
So one needs a prime! i found a solution for next time..
I will use my real RF, the M3/M6.Push process to 800 or 1600,
a small flash to give a minute punch, close up.
Maybe the whole world is going mobile/DSLR/EVIL but i walk,
to my own beat. Always did.
back alley
IMAGES
my switch was from a pair of rd1s to the fujis. and while the fujis are not rangefinders they offer a very similar experience. i still focus and then compose, i shoot in the low numbers - never machine gunning, i still prefer to carry 2 bodies with 2 lenses when out for a specific shoot or just a body/lens when out running errands etc.
fuji has done an excellent job of offering something that has replaced the rf for me...and i never thought i would abandone my rangefinders...
fuji has done an excellent job of offering something that has replaced the rf for me...and i never thought i would abandone my rangefinders...
Bingley
Veteran
I bought into the m4/3 format several years ago. I was looking for a better quality digital complement to my film RFs, and the ability to change lenses and use "legacy" glass was a plus. I have not been disappointed. The Olympus E-PL1 is about the same size as a Leica CL, and with the Panasonic 14 and 20 mm lenses replicates in a digital context the 28/40 lenses that were sold with the CL. The jpeg images are really good. I recently upgraded to a Panasonic GX1, to get faster autofocus and better high iso performance, and b/c I already had the lenses for it. So far so good.
But here's the deal (for me, at least): these small, high quality digicams are not replacements for film RFs; they're complements. I can put a 14mm lens on an m4/3 camera and use it for indoor and low light photography, while keeping my RF for high quality bw and daylight work. Each "system" has its strengths. I will probably continue to shoot film as long as it's available and reasonably affordable, but the m4/3 cameras really do deliver great image quality and versatility in the spirit of film RFs (lightweight, stealthy, unobtrusive).
Right now, for me, a GX1 + Panasonic 14/2.5, and an M4-2 + Canon 50/1.8 is a really satisfying kit for travel and street photography.
But here's the deal (for me, at least): these small, high quality digicams are not replacements for film RFs; they're complements. I can put a 14mm lens on an m4/3 camera and use it for indoor and low light photography, while keeping my RF for high quality bw and daylight work. Each "system" has its strengths. I will probably continue to shoot film as long as it's available and reasonably affordable, but the m4/3 cameras really do deliver great image quality and versatility in the spirit of film RFs (lightweight, stealthy, unobtrusive).
Right now, for me, a GX1 + Panasonic 14/2.5, and an M4-2 + Canon 50/1.8 is a really satisfying kit for travel and street photography.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I didn't really switch, I like RF and I use film Leicas but in this forum I also read more the forum you mentioned because there is very little which has not been said about those cameras and I cannot justify the price of a digital Leica. If it will ever come out a new Epson camera I will definitively switch to it.
GLF
GLF
Yes, I've switched. Main reasons:
- Close Focus
- Auto-focus is faster for my type of photography
- High ISO
- "Cheap" but great lenses
- Rangefinder style body, SLR style 100% viewing
- Leica's prices are out of control
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
No. Mostly habit, no doubt. But thinking about how to use my Leicas is only slightly harder than thinking about how I should draw the next breath. Why embark on a new learning curve?
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, they're firmly under control. And the control is what the market will bear.
Cheers,
R.
Ok, fine Roger. Out of control in my opinion. Out of control for my wallet.