times have changed

[Eric T]

I rarely shoot film anymore. I occasionally take a few shots with a Fujifilm GF670 or GA645Zi. In the digital realm I usually use the Fuji XT-1 and X100s. The only mirrored camera I use with any regularity is the Sigma SD1m - the IQ is amazing. I bought a Sony A7r recently and I enjoy using my M lenses on it.
Bill's post that began this thread is spot on. Since the advent of the Panasonic G1, so much has changed. As much as I like rangefinders, the rangefinder itself is an 80-year old focusing system that just can't compete with today's systems. And modern mirrorless cameras from Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony have the small size that made rangefinders so convenient.
We are in a great era for camera technology. Let's enjoy!

 

[rscheffler]

It seems to boil down to what value we each derive from the equipment (features) we choose to use.

I'm relatively new to rangefinder photography, having acquired a used M9 in late 2010 with a few Zeiss ZM lenses to see what the fuss was about and whether it could effectively augment certain aspects I found wanting with my Canon DSLR kit. Some of the points taken from Reichmann above were factors in the decision and I won’t bore you with all the reasons for my decision.

I've since demoed all of the Sony a7 cameras for a couple weeks each and have not sufficiently enjoyed any of them, despite the excellent sensors in each of them. An exception was the a7S's silent electronic shutter, which I thought was great. But that alone wasn't enough to override the rather poor UI design consistent with the Sony cameras. I'm not against dials and buttons, which my Canons all have. It's just that where the Canons work comfortably, quickly, intuitively and efficiently, the Sonys don't. An M9/M240 avoids a lot of this through sheer simplicity, which I find a refreshing alternative to everything else in the ‘35mm’ digital market. Surprisingly, the contrasting UI philosophy does not complicate the process of using it side by side with DSLRs.

I have not found live view via EVF in mirrorless cameras to be a godsend when it comes to wide angle work. It’s fine for framing, but with peaking active, chances are the entire scene is swimming in artifacts, necessitating magnified focus to know exactly where the plane of focus is, so critical with today’s high resolution sensors, which then adds more delay. With the RF it's instantaneous and simple. As is pre focusing/hyperfocal distance and working from the lens’s focusing scale. The RF patch also instantaneously tells me just how far off focus is and gives me an idea if depth of field will cover this.

Could I achieve equivalent results with a mirrorless system? Yes, I’m sure I could. Would I enjoy it as much? I’m not so sure. So far I have not tried a mirrorless system that effectively became transparent and got out of my way while concentrating on the subject at hand. Leica M is good at this, as are my Canon DSLRs.

I don't really see mirrorless causing me to move away from RF. At the moment mirrorless sits in too much of a gray middle ground for *my* needs; not excelling at high speed AF in the range of lighting conditions I need for sports work, while not sufficiently supplanting the features I value in the M kit. M lenses remain smaller than any other FF system, are virtually unparalleled in optical quality and also offer that debatable matter of 'character’. They currently also achieve their fullest performance on an M camera (though the a7 sensor modified cameras by Kolari Vision look very promising).

If anything, with recent mirrorless advances, such as Samsung's NX1, I may sooner be replacing my Canon DSLRs than the Leica (if any mirrorless system ever releases a fast high grade 400mm+ equivalent lens). For now, live view and popping the EVF onto the M240 gives me the features I need from ‘mirrorless’ while keeping the unique features I value in the M system, all in one camera.

As for the Kravitz special edition… It seems to have stirred up a lot of discussion on the forums and a lot of negative remarks. I’m ambivalent. I don’t care because it’s not something I would consider buying in the first place. But I can see it appealing to the meticulously coiffed people I walk past in upscale shopping districts in their carefully faded designer jeans and Hunter Green quilted down jackets who seem to value unique, beautiful, rather inaccessible things. The camera has a certain vintage look beyond that of a fresh out of the box Leica M, even if somewhat artificial. But then, isn’t that the popular perception about these affluent poseurs who seem to buy Leica special editions? They can’t genuinely be photographers, can they?

 

[rjschell]

Whether it's on a Leica IIIf, Retina IIa, or Nex-6; my SBOOI 50mm finder is my window on the world.

 

[michaelwj]

But I would never say to a film shooter that you shouldn’t be using a rangefinder. From my point of view, you are one of the lucky ones that can use a rangefinder.

The lucky ones indeed, where photography is a pure hobby. No assignments (that aren't self-imposed), no deadlines (other than breakfast and dinner), no consequences when it doesn't go to plan.

I really enjoy using my film M, so much more than any digital button filled camera I've ever used. It doesn't get in the way and allows me to enjoy my hobby to the fullest. It's a pleasure to use in ways I struggle to explain to the current DSLR users. I'm yet to covet a mirrorless camera or any other digital camera, but from a practical use point of view, I see your point and understand why many people use them.

 

[agfa100]

Well I do have to add I use my RX-1 with my old Leitz 35mm viewfinder, I set up the camera with the lcd turned off you still get the autofocus green light in the lower corner which I catch out of the corner of my eye.
wbill

 

[jkjod]

I am not a professional, so take my comments as you will. I own both a a7 and a M2. The reason I choose film and the M2 more often, compared to the Sony, when taking photos of my family is purely because I enjoy taking photos with the M2 more. The Sony is an amazing camera, but if someone were to ask me what I'd rather shoot with it would absolutely be a rangefinder. Pure and as simple as that, it makes me happiest while taking photographs - and as a hobbyist I feel like that's the point.

 

[uhoh7]

Went from film M's to a Nex, then a Ricoh GXR so I could use my M lenses and now I have a Sony RX-1 for just about 95% of what I want to do.... Leica is a designer product now, they still make great lenses.
wbill

That's right, great lenses for the M mount body. From every era. Elmars, Sonnars, Biogons, Distagons, Summiluxes and Summicrons. Now even Sonnetars 🙂

It took me months to get used to RF, but now my M9 is in for shutter and I have to shoot the A7 EVF and focus with no infinity stop: awful.

Yes the RX-1 and the Fujis are nice little AF cameras, and if that's all you want and need, why not?

But let's not pretend they are the same thing. The RX-1 has taken the new way the furthest, and it's a great camera...with one lens and one look, and only one practical method of focus. Automatic.

Which is fine for those who like it.

The real trouble for me with the digital Ms is the bloat factor. The M6 is very nice, the digital Ms are too big and heavy, and maybe someday we will get relief from that.

My A7.mod with a thin sensor CG actually shoots the great RF glass pretty well, but not as well as the Leicas.

However the future may bring some Konost like alternatives that really do make the great M and LTM glass sing.

 

[farlymac]

I came to this forum, Bill, because I was starting to get serious about my rangefinder use. It's a great source of information, I've "met" a lot of good folks, and get some feedback on areas I can improve on.

I'm also a gear head. So it's nice to hear what others experiences with equipment are, so I don't go jumping to buy something that will not turn out to be advantageous for my usage. And it's nice to share my experiences with little known gear.

I would like to be able to "go digital", but for me, there is too much uncertainty in the market for me to choose one system or another. One camera looks like it would be the best, but has lousy video capability. Another with great video means I would have to abandon my favorite brand. And then there is the choice of format; full frame, APS-C, m4/3. None of them have matured enough for me to feel like I could be comfortable with the way they work. And some manufacturers seem okay with putting out buggy product, using the customers as guinea pigs to find out where all the faults are. Then next year they bring out another model.

That's why I like shooting film. It will be the same in one camera as in another. I can buy equipment at a fraction of what I'd spend on digital. I can easily switch back and forth from rangefinders to SLR's, sometimes shooting both at the same time. On a lot of my cameras, I don't even have to worry about batteries. And if I want more resolution, I just grab one of the medium format models.

My biggest worry is film emulsions being pulled from the market, especially ones I haven't had the joy of using yet. And gone are the days of running into the local drug store to buy a roll to finish a days shooting. Guess I'll have to start stocking up during the winter.

I would love to buy into the Leica system, but it's way overpriced for my current situation. My ideal outfit would be an M4 or M6 with 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm lenses. Something I could brass up on my own, and would use every day. Not one of those high priced shelf queens Leica is marketing to a select group of folks. Over on The Online Photographer blog, someone suggested talking up one of the owners about how the brassing on one of the other cams was oh so nice, but yours is , well, "okay".

My first digital camera was a learning experience, and my second one continues that. I'm not satisfied with it, since the metering system can't make up it's mind whether to over or under expose each shot. It does have some nice features, but lacks a viewfinder, so sometimes I'm shooting blind. It's hard for me to see all the information clearly on the screen, so I wind up mainly shooting in Program mode. But I keep trying.

If I have to start shipping off my film for development ( current abode has bad pipes, and no where I can easily make light-tight), that would likely be the impetus for me to make a digital system decision, and go with it. Until then, I'll keep burning film.

PF

 

[c.poulton]

I think that your argument stacks up for digital Bill, however for film shooters such as myself, the rangefinder model still has all the benefits you list.

It will be interesting to see what direction Leica go down in the next few years, as what defines a rangefinder camera, is, well, the rangefinder. Go away from that to another focusing method and you end up with a mirrorless compact system camera.

 

[kkdanamatt]

The KravitzCam and all the other "limited edition" Leica cameras are simply a means to an end: extra profit for Leica.

The super-rich buyers of the KravitzCam subsidize the regular Leica product line.

Therefore, that extra profit enables Leica to sell a regular 35mm lens for $2995 instead of $3000.

So regular guys can save $5 on every Leica item they buy.

 

[Hsg]

what you think of Leitz and the pre aged Kravitzcam.

It is a progressive move by Leica. Leica is looking at the future and its trying to position itself so that it stays relevant in an age where its past is on the verge of irrelevance.

Nobody is going to buy a Leica and then go out to document the misery of the world, that task has been relegated to video, which does a very good job of it.

A cool accessory among celebrities and yuppies and hipsters, that is what Leica believes is its future.

 

[Rikard]

I agree regarding digital cameras. Mirrorless is where digital will end up. For film, the rangefinder still serves it's purpose. I can't see myself ever going back though, so film rangefinders is what I'll end up with.

 

[kbb]

Sadly, since having to wear +2 diopter eyeglasses, the M rangefinder became non-functional for lenses wider than 50mm.
The always on, never blacked out optical finder is still the only viewing system that allows you to see at the moment of exposure.
The bad: no extreme close ups.
The good: No auto focus

 

[colonel]

Actually the opposite

Actually the opposite

I use and have used extensively the Sony A7 series, which I regard as brilliant. I also love the Fuji X series. Not a fan of M4/3s but let's not go there ...

But I still spend the majority of time with an M7 and M240 ......
Well I am not a professional photographer so you are probably using other stuff.
But there is something beautiful, relaxed and rewarding about using the Leica M which I keep coming back to.

It's the camera system I always take when traveling and when walking every day

 

[sjones]

The lack of an affordable digital rangefinder was one of the reasons that prompted me to switch from digital to film. While I initially assumed that I would split time between digital and film, the process of shooting film was so thoroughly enjoyable right from the onset that I never went back to my DSLR (I’m a hobbyist, and all of the flexibility that affords me…).

Like others on this thread, I also use an M2, and the tactile quality alone (as with my iiif) adds greatly to the overall photographic experience. The rangefinder, in general, is also the best camera type for my style.

This said, if forced to shoot digital, I would certainly consider trying out some of the mirrorless options (though constantly hoping for a relatively inexpensive full-frame Zeiss or Bessa digital rangefinder to enter the market).

As it stands, I have the camera outfit I want, and one that will likely hang around until I call it quits on this planet.