hkleinespel
Member
A rangefinder is just a focusing system...
I guess what most people really like in, let's say a Leica, is :
- great IQ
- compact (compared to a DSLR)
- discretion (again, compared to a DSLR)
- easy controls (shutter dial, aperture)
You can find that in some great compact system cameras today. In my opinion, the Fuji X line is what gets closest to this "RF feel". But even the M43, Sony NEX, etc offer all this for some models.
I thought about buying a Leica M6 after having started out on a Canonet because I loved the feel of it compared to my DSLR (which I quickly sold after getting the Canonet). But then I tried the X-E1 and I found everything I loved in my Canonet, but with interchangeable lenses and digital technology!
I guess what most people really like in, let's say a Leica, is :
- great IQ
- compact (compared to a DSLR)
- discretion (again, compared to a DSLR)
- easy controls (shutter dial, aperture)
You can find that in some great compact system cameras today. In my opinion, the Fuji X line is what gets closest to this "RF feel". But even the M43, Sony NEX, etc offer all this for some models.
I thought about buying a Leica M6 after having started out on a Canonet because I loved the feel of it compared to my DSLR (which I quickly sold after getting the Canonet). But then I tried the X-E1 and I found everything I loved in my Canonet, but with interchangeable lenses and digital technology!
zuiko85
Veteran
Inherently I've always pefered TTL viewing and composing (at eye level, not on the rear screen). Up until the Leica M 240, with it's available electronic VF, this has not been possibile with a Leica M digital.
In the film era, the Leica rangefinder's more compact form, quiet operation, quick accurate focus, and being able to see outside the frame were the strengths that sold some photographers on using the Leica M cameras as their main camera. As far a quality of image, film was the great equalizer. Yeah, perhaps Leica's RF lenses were cutting edge optically, but if you could not make compelling pictures with Nikon or Canon, or Konica or Pentax lenses switching to Leica just won't help.
The advances in digital sensors and signal processing has muddied up those waters quite a bit. Even my old (in digital years) entry level, cheap, all plastic Olympus E-410 does a credable job, and that mounting legacy lenses. Too bad the screen is so crummy and small that accurate manual focus is hit and miss at best.
The other factor is, of course, price. For the hobbyist photographers I would think that few fit into the income bracket required for admission to the hallowed halls of digital M camera and lens ownership. For myself, and I suspect 90% of the members of RFF they are as far away as the Hasselblads dumped on the moon by departing Apollo astronauts.
So....we look elsewhere. I'm thinking for myself a used OMD body when my E-410 goes belly up (the nasty little beast will now probably continue to work just fine for the next 10 years).
Additional note; As Ed Mitchell's run in with NASA over a 16mm movie camera demonstrated, the agency still claims ownership of all Apollo related equipment. So, if you do find a way to go to the moon and collect a few discarded items keep it hidden from NASA, otherwise they will probably try to snatch them from you.
A word to the wise.
In the film era, the Leica rangefinder's more compact form, quiet operation, quick accurate focus, and being able to see outside the frame were the strengths that sold some photographers on using the Leica M cameras as their main camera. As far a quality of image, film was the great equalizer. Yeah, perhaps Leica's RF lenses were cutting edge optically, but if you could not make compelling pictures with Nikon or Canon, or Konica or Pentax lenses switching to Leica just won't help.
The advances in digital sensors and signal processing has muddied up those waters quite a bit. Even my old (in digital years) entry level, cheap, all plastic Olympus E-410 does a credable job, and that mounting legacy lenses. Too bad the screen is so crummy and small that accurate manual focus is hit and miss at best.
The other factor is, of course, price. For the hobbyist photographers I would think that few fit into the income bracket required for admission to the hallowed halls of digital M camera and lens ownership. For myself, and I suspect 90% of the members of RFF they are as far away as the Hasselblads dumped on the moon by departing Apollo astronauts.
So....we look elsewhere. I'm thinking for myself a used OMD body when my E-410 goes belly up (the nasty little beast will now probably continue to work just fine for the next 10 years).
Additional note; As Ed Mitchell's run in with NASA over a 16mm movie camera demonstrated, the agency still claims ownership of all Apollo related equipment. So, if you do find a way to go to the moon and collect a few discarded items keep it hidden from NASA, otherwise they will probably try to snatch them from you.
A word to the wise.
Last edited:
VF101
Established
I think this sums it up just wonderfully. I may add some more points:
- primes instead of zoom lenses
- viewfinder
- a habit of "think before you shoot" (instead of firing thru hundreds of frames per hour)
So, for me I often use the Nikon V1 (just exactly the size of the Leica CL) or a small DSLR with a small lens. Both come rather close to the RF experience.
cz23
-
I sold my M8 and then M9 and moved through a series of mirrorless systems, now settled on the Nex 7 and a few primes. Some say they like the more deliberate approach that RF cameras enforce. But I now find that a hinderance and prefer the speed and spontaneity of these smaller systems, especially one-handed and waist-level shooting. I do miss that solid, refined M9 experience sometimes, but doubt I'll ever go back. Maybe the solution is to have both, but I'm always conflicted when I own multiple systems.
John
John
Bill Pierce
Well-known
My experience is the opposite. There was an initial carry over from those professionals who used film M's to digital M's. But as of late, I have only seen the newer M's in the hands of non professionals. Professionals are going to need multiple bodies, not just for the necessary back up against equipment failure, but to work with several lenses at the same time. The expense of multiple bodies of a camera that has become a conspicuous consumption item simply does not make sense, nor is it affordable, to most working photographers.
willie_901
Veteran
I use my Fuji X system cameras just as I used my film rangefinder cameras. So I have switched and I enjoy many of the advantages of the analog rangefinders. I no longer use DSLRs except for non-commercial work. This was the case when I only owned film cameras... I preferred RFs but used SLRs as needed.
As far as tips for others, I have a few.
Exposure
Maximize exposure at the sensor. Increasing ISO above the cameras's base ISO underexposes the sensor. Retaining highlights that are unimportant to make the photograph envisioned by your mind's eye underexposes the sensor. This is not necessarily the same as the cliche expose to the right. Above base ISO, ISO only increases brightness, not exposure. The camera's inherent dynamic range decreases as ISO increases because the sensor is under exposed. Using ISO 800 or 1600 can be liberating in low light, but that doesn't mean these ISOs are otherwise appropriate.
Optimizing shadow detail can be a bit different. Some cameras actually retain more shadow detail with ISOs moderately above base ISO even though the sensor is slightly underexposed. The optimum ISO for shadow detail is camera dependent.
Don't overestimate the importance of sensor surface area with regard to image quality. More surface area is always better, but increasing the lens surface area can offset a reduction in sensor surface area. All that matters is how much light reaches the sensor when camera to subject distances are identical. If a camera system is compatible with fast enough lenses, and you can afford them, and the lenses are not too large and heavy, a smaller sensor area is not a fundamental disadvantage. These two links discuss the concept of equivalent performance in detail.
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#noise
The importance of lens glass surface area means zoom lenses on cameras with smaller sensor areas are a disadvantage as light levels decrease.
Selective DOF is an entirely separate issue. And the fastest lenses available with a contemporary 34 X 36 mm sensor will provide the most signal to noise.
As far as tips for others, I have a few.
Exposure
Maximize exposure at the sensor. Increasing ISO above the cameras's base ISO underexposes the sensor. Retaining highlights that are unimportant to make the photograph envisioned by your mind's eye underexposes the sensor. This is not necessarily the same as the cliche expose to the right. Above base ISO, ISO only increases brightness, not exposure. The camera's inherent dynamic range decreases as ISO increases because the sensor is under exposed. Using ISO 800 or 1600 can be liberating in low light, but that doesn't mean these ISOs are otherwise appropriate.
Optimizing shadow detail can be a bit different. Some cameras actually retain more shadow detail with ISOs moderately above base ISO even though the sensor is slightly underexposed. The optimum ISO for shadow detail is camera dependent.
Don't overestimate the importance of sensor surface area with regard to image quality. More surface area is always better, but increasing the lens surface area can offset a reduction in sensor surface area. All that matters is how much light reaches the sensor when camera to subject distances are identical. If a camera system is compatible with fast enough lenses, and you can afford them, and the lenses are not too large and heavy, a smaller sensor area is not a fundamental disadvantage. These two links discuss the concept of equivalent performance in detail.
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#noise
The importance of lens glass surface area means zoom lenses on cameras with smaller sensor areas are a disadvantage as light levels decrease.
Selective DOF is an entirely separate issue. And the fastest lenses available with a contemporary 34 X 36 mm sensor will provide the most signal to noise.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
daveleo
what?
I was in the process of switching from film SLR's to film rangefinders, but digital diverted
me and I never looked back.
I had shelved my FM3A and bought 2 Bessa-T's and a Leica lllf and lenses but the Digilux 2
diverted me to digital and that was it for film for me.
I could live with the EVF and autofocus so buying a true rangefinder digital was pointless and expensive so it never happened.
"The New Rangefinder" ? . . . yes in terms of small and always at hand, the new mirrorless cameras
are generally replacing the rangefinder (and the DSLR ! ) for many people.
For me, I can see me with a Fuji X-type for many years to come.
me and I never looked back.
I had shelved my FM3A and bought 2 Bessa-T's and a Leica lllf and lenses but the Digilux 2
diverted me to digital and that was it for film for me.
I could live with the EVF and autofocus so buying a true rangefinder digital was pointless and expensive so it never happened.
"The New Rangefinder" ? . . . yes in terms of small and always at hand, the new mirrorless cameras
are generally replacing the rangefinder (and the DSLR ! ) for many people.
For me, I can see me with a Fuji X-type for many years to come.
SausalitoDog
Well-known
I've switched almost completely.
Rangefinder film...sold
DSLR...still use for certain things requiring big glass - no reason not to use it when situation calls for tripod
A drawerful of P&S ... Giving away...most of my family now has nice compact cameras
Fuji's... My mainstay. The x100s is the closest to a true rangefinder and I don't feel any reluctance to take this with me as the only camera I will use today - It fits in most pockets and performs as well as almost any digital camera below medium format back size. It is just wonderful. The rest of the x series are great as well and should be even better when the peak focus firmware is release on July 23.
There is still room for improvement in this area (I believe sony and fuji will be the leaders for some time) but they are useable and addicting right now!
I just cannot see why anyone wouldn't love the auto focus option, hybrid VF, great sensors and (finally) really useable manual focus of these cameras.
I admit it, for now, I'm drinking (gulping) the kool-aid and loving it
Rangefinder film...sold
DSLR...still use for certain things requiring big glass - no reason not to use it when situation calls for tripod
A drawerful of P&S ... Giving away...most of my family now has nice compact cameras
Fuji's... My mainstay. The x100s is the closest to a true rangefinder and I don't feel any reluctance to take this with me as the only camera I will use today - It fits in most pockets and performs as well as almost any digital camera below medium format back size. It is just wonderful. The rest of the x series are great as well and should be even better when the peak focus firmware is release on July 23.
There is still room for improvement in this area (I believe sony and fuji will be the leaders for some time) but they are useable and addicting right now!
I just cannot see why anyone wouldn't love the auto focus option, hybrid VF, great sensors and (finally) really useable manual focus of these cameras.
I admit it, for now, I'm drinking (gulping) the kool-aid and loving it
zuiko85
Veteran
My contention is not that all non professionals cannot afford a Leica M 240 set up. But that, of the non professionals on this on this forum, what would a show of hands reveal as to the precentage of members who have the disposable income to consider a current Leica M digital outfit. I would guess about 10%. Perhaps that figure is way off and I am completely out of touch with the modern digital market.
thompsonks
Well-known
It's hard to say where individual choices might fall in purchasing digital Leicas, but now you can buy used M8 for as little as $1800 and an M9 for $3800, and keep using your M lenses. IMO the 240 would be worth it only if you like its color rendition and want the video, which some (many?) Leica users find superfluous. The point re: Fuji, etc., is that you can get many of the desired features of the 240 – high ISOs, quiet shutter, and excellent image quality for exhibition prints – in mirrorless cameras.
My guess is that a fair number of us who could afford a 240 just don't see the reason for buying one, because the 'marginal utility' seems slight. And of course Leica can't deliver them, which turns the issue into a hypothetical one for the time being. I probably would have bought a 240 and made my own color profiles for it, had I not tried a 100s while waiting. Now I'm off the waiting list. M9 and Fuji seem to cover all needs and situations.
I read that 50% of M240s have been sold in China. I have no idea whether or not this is true, but it looks like Leica has gone back to the Hermes days, when they were heavily pushing luxury goods – while Sony and Fuji are now working much harder on hand-held 'RF-like' cameras for photographers. Leica doesn't seem to be advancing smaller-format photography the way they hoped, with the S2, to advance medium format.
My guess is that a fair number of us who could afford a 240 just don't see the reason for buying one, because the 'marginal utility' seems slight. And of course Leica can't deliver them, which turns the issue into a hypothetical one for the time being. I probably would have bought a 240 and made my own color profiles for it, had I not tried a 100s while waiting. Now I'm off the waiting list. M9 and Fuji seem to cover all needs and situations.
I read that 50% of M240s have been sold in China. I have no idea whether or not this is true, but it looks like Leica has gone back to the Hermes days, when they were heavily pushing luxury goods – while Sony and Fuji are now working much harder on hand-held 'RF-like' cameras for photographers. Leica doesn't seem to be advancing smaller-format photography the way they hoped, with the S2, to advance medium format.
SausalitoDog
Well-known
No question that it would be nice to have the full frame on the 240. But to tell you the truth files from the Fuji are definitely large enough.
I don't think it's price of a Leica that is holding people back from buying it. I think it's the older technology. Why in the world doesn't like to put autofocus in their bodies – if you don't like it, you don't have to use it.
I'm pretty well committed to Fuji now, and it will take an awful lot to pry me away at this point
I don't think it's price of a Leica that is holding people back from buying it. I think it's the older technology. Why in the world doesn't like to put autofocus in their bodies – if you don't like it, you don't have to use it.
I'm pretty well committed to Fuji now, and it will take an awful lot to pry me away at this point
hkleinespel
Member
I'm sorry, but I think a lot of people don't consider this as "little"...
Not to say the Leica prices are not justified (people keep buying them so...), but even 2nd hand, they are not "cheap"...
Contarama
Well-known
I think this is the most important point when considering the OP question.
Camera history says the RF was displaced by the SLR. The mirrorless cameras perhaps should be called Hybrids or maybe something "special", new, revolutionary, etc. I think and they are fixing to hand the DSLR it's walking papers. Full circle almost. Film and the mirror are basically dead meat or specialty cuts now. The sensor and the processor have taken over. The masses demand it.
presspass
filmshooter
So far, I haven't switched. I tried an Olympus E-1 and lenses when they first came out and found the results disappointing. For work, when I need color and fast focusing, the EOS system does the job. For my personal work and long-term documentary work - chronicling the local volunteer fire department for the past 35 years - its a film M system. Maybe some day I'll try the 4/3 system cameras again, but that would add just another system, and I don't need the complexity.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I think alot of it has to do with what you want to do with the output of your camera. For me, if the editors who are buying the images can use the images from a small camera and lens package, that makes my life a whole lot easier.
If I were shooting something that I wanted to put in a gallery showing, I would certainly shoot FX sensor DSLR minimum, probably film and Medium Format at that.
If I'm just out and see something charming that I want to share with my wife, the iPhone works fine.
Horses for courses, I think the man said. And I think that applies to camera systems these days.
Best,
-Tim
If I were shooting something that I wanted to put in a gallery showing, I would certainly shoot FX sensor DSLR minimum, probably film and Medium Format at that.
If I'm just out and see something charming that I want to share with my wife, the iPhone works fine.
Horses for courses, I think the man said. And I think that applies to camera systems these days.
Best,
-Tim
RBruceCR
Well-known
I haven't gone digital yet, I am not a professional photographer. I have even bought my fourth camera, a Rollei 35S and have been using the last week a Rollei 35 which I find fast despite the fact that it is not a rangefinder. The Rollei 35 is not as unobtrusive as an iPhone bit it is pretty small.
TXForester
Well-known
Not just the forum, but in many situations they are as effective, since they aren't intimidating, and they are quiet and now have great image quality for their sensor size.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Considering how much more often those cameras change/upgrade/appear it's no wonder.
hausen
Well-known
My everyday camera is my Sony RX-1 The power to weight ratio of this gem still blows me away. My M6 Ti is still my favorite camera but RX-1 is generally in my briefcase when I head to work each day.