Bill Pierce
Well-known
How the times have changed. In January of 2009 Michael Reichmann wrote a piece in the Luminous Landscape that talked about the advantages of the rangefinder camera. Reichmann is one of the most intelligent and thoughtful writers on the web, and, when he wrote the article, it was on target. But how the times have changed in just a little over six years. Here are the advantages he listed then as rangefinder advantages.
Light weight, low bulk, small size
Small Lenses
Quiet Operation
Slow Shutter Speeds (no mirror slap)
Seeing Outside The Frame.
Rangefinder Accuracy
The Intimidation Factor
Finally, and for many people possibly most importantly, an RF camera dictates a different way of seeing. With an SLR we see the potential photograph on the groundglass. It looks something like the picture we’re going to get. That’s one of this type of camera’s great appeals. With an RF camera though we are looking through the viewfinder at the subject.
Sounds a lot like he is describing one of the many small mirrorless cameras on the market today. Indeed, in the last years the Luminous Landscape has reviewed and posted the pictures from a number of mirrorless cameras. We can’t ignore the difference between TTL viewing and the bright line finder of rangefinder cameras. To some it is not important, to others it is. Fuji has a number of small digitals with both TTL and bright line finders, cameras that let you use whichever finder is appropriate. Accessory bright line finders from Leitz and Voigtlander are available to fit almost any cameras. But the expense of these options is going to prevent some folks from taking advantage of them. If this is a negative on a scorecard for mirrorless cameras, the focusing accuracy of live view is an advantage. (Some cameras increase the speed of auto focusing by combining live view with phase detect.)
There was a long time when my primary cameras were rangefinders. I used them for all the reasons that Michael Reichmann lists. But today, outside of the studio, I use mirrorless for the most part. (My DSLRs are still better for quickly moving football players and running dogs.) My rangefinders are seeing very little use, and I was not tempted to purchase the Leica M-P “Correspondent” created in collaboration with rock star Lenny Kravitz even though I spent most of my life as a correspondent. http://www.shutterbug.com/content/l...edition-m-p-“correspondent”-set-lenny-kravitz
I know most folks came to the Rangefinder Forum because of an interest in rangefinder cameras. Am I the only one who no longer is much of a rangefinder photographer? I’d love to know what you think and what you’re doing these days. And, of course, what you think of Leitz and the pre aged Kravitzcam.
Light weight, low bulk, small size
Small Lenses
Quiet Operation
Slow Shutter Speeds (no mirror slap)
Seeing Outside The Frame.
Rangefinder Accuracy
The Intimidation Factor
Finally, and for many people possibly most importantly, an RF camera dictates a different way of seeing. With an SLR we see the potential photograph on the groundglass. It looks something like the picture we’re going to get. That’s one of this type of camera’s great appeals. With an RF camera though we are looking through the viewfinder at the subject.
Sounds a lot like he is describing one of the many small mirrorless cameras on the market today. Indeed, in the last years the Luminous Landscape has reviewed and posted the pictures from a number of mirrorless cameras. We can’t ignore the difference between TTL viewing and the bright line finder of rangefinder cameras. To some it is not important, to others it is. Fuji has a number of small digitals with both TTL and bright line finders, cameras that let you use whichever finder is appropriate. Accessory bright line finders from Leitz and Voigtlander are available to fit almost any cameras. But the expense of these options is going to prevent some folks from taking advantage of them. If this is a negative on a scorecard for mirrorless cameras, the focusing accuracy of live view is an advantage. (Some cameras increase the speed of auto focusing by combining live view with phase detect.)
There was a long time when my primary cameras were rangefinders. I used them for all the reasons that Michael Reichmann lists. But today, outside of the studio, I use mirrorless for the most part. (My DSLRs are still better for quickly moving football players and running dogs.) My rangefinders are seeing very little use, and I was not tempted to purchase the Leica M-P “Correspondent” created in collaboration with rock star Lenny Kravitz even though I spent most of my life as a correspondent. http://www.shutterbug.com/content/l...edition-m-p-“correspondent”-set-lenny-kravitz
I know most folks came to the Rangefinder Forum because of an interest in rangefinder cameras. Am I the only one who no longer is much of a rangefinder photographer? I’d love to know what you think and what you’re doing these days. And, of course, what you think of Leitz and the pre aged Kravitzcam.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Everything you describe there is spot on.
But I'm coming back to using my film rangefinders, a ZI and a Bessa R4A, and loving it (alongside a Fuji X series system and a Sigma Foveon one).
One of the really great things about shooting film is that it keeps my mind off of upgrades and more on techniques. For me, that is a huge bonus.
But I'm coming back to using my film rangefinders, a ZI and a Bessa R4A, and loving it (alongside a Fuji X series system and a Sigma Foveon one).
One of the really great things about shooting film is that it keeps my mind off of upgrades and more on techniques. For me, that is a huge bonus.
Ranchu
Veteran
I'm mainly using small, automatic fixed lens rangefinders. They're light, deploy quickly, dont shake, and I don't have to look at raw files, they just eat all the light there is.
OP, no I'd love to use rangefinders for most of my work. But I shoot in tough areas sometimes and can't afford to lose the Leicas so I use Fuji X.
My hope is that Fuji, Nikon, Canon or Oly make a Leica knockoff that is affordable.
I'd also like to see a M43 with a shutter dial and simple manual controls. If it was a rangefinder, so much the better.
As far as film? I'm set with the M6 and SWC. I love them both.
My hope is that Fuji, Nikon, Canon or Oly make a Leica knockoff that is affordable.
I'd also like to see a M43 with a shutter dial and simple manual controls. If it was a rangefinder, so much the better.
As far as film? I'm set with the M6 and SWC. I love them both.
YYV_146
Well-known
I've always told people that if HCB lived today, he would not be shooting Leica, but a EM1 or A7s. The man clearly could have used an articulated screen...
I just finished four rolls on a friend's M6, the last time I shot 135 film was some three years ago. The M6 was fun and a great experience. It actually made me want an MP pretty badly. But I won't be replacing any of my mirrorless bodies with an RF, even a digital one, soon. There are people who no doubt cherish the process of making photographs more than I do, but for me the EVF, with peaking, built-in level and exposure preview is an incredible, almost brutally efficient way of making photos. No chimping, no focus and recompose, just line up the peaking indicators, quickly stop down as needed, and shoot. Sure, I feel further away from the subject, but I nail more frames and have more time to focus on composition or extra takes. I am told that you can reach this level of efficiency with an RF...and I will maybe find out one day. In the meantime, mirrorless it is.
In particular, the A7S has completely freed me from worrying about ISO. There are moments when you don't even realize you're shooting at 12,800 or 20,000, and the pictures turn out just fine, with very manageable noise. I can also shoot in absolute silence, which is a huge deal if you're working in a symphony hall or experimental theater.
Anyways, I can go on about this. I'm here because I still use RFs on the occasion, and virtually all of my lenses are made for rangefinders. I might be one of the most serious M lens users on this forum by cost - a F1.4 setup from 21 to 75 plus the Noct F0.95 - but I've never owned a film RF made by Leica or digital RF.
I just finished four rolls on a friend's M6, the last time I shot 135 film was some three years ago. The M6 was fun and a great experience. It actually made me want an MP pretty badly. But I won't be replacing any of my mirrorless bodies with an RF, even a digital one, soon. There are people who no doubt cherish the process of making photographs more than I do, but for me the EVF, with peaking, built-in level and exposure preview is an incredible, almost brutally efficient way of making photos. No chimping, no focus and recompose, just line up the peaking indicators, quickly stop down as needed, and shoot. Sure, I feel further away from the subject, but I nail more frames and have more time to focus on composition or extra takes. I am told that you can reach this level of efficiency with an RF...and I will maybe find out one day. In the meantime, mirrorless it is.
In particular, the A7S has completely freed me from worrying about ISO. There are moments when you don't even realize you're shooting at 12,800 or 20,000, and the pictures turn out just fine, with very manageable noise. I can also shoot in absolute silence, which is a huge deal if you're working in a symphony hall or experimental theater.
Anyways, I can go on about this. I'm here because I still use RFs on the occasion, and virtually all of my lenses are made for rangefinders. I might be one of the most serious M lens users on this forum by cost - a F1.4 setup from 21 to 75 plus the Noct F0.95 - but I've never owned a film RF made by Leica or digital RF.
Mcary
Well-known
Can't really explain why but as much as I try to like mirrorless cameras they just do nothing for me. I read all the wonderful spec of camera like the Sony A7 and think boy that sounds like a great camera but have zero interest in buying or using one.
agfa100
Well-known
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
wbill
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Interesting, because my limited rangefinder use is with film, too.
gb hill
Veteran
Apart from an iphone I've yet to join the digital ranks. I enjoy both my rf & film slr camera's. I have no interest in digi p&s or dslr's. I am intrigued by what Fuji has brought to the table. I'd love to give a small mirrorless camera a go. My thinking is those who have used rf camera's in the past make the small mirrorless camera more desirable to them.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Same here. Spent more but got what I want. M9 and 'Cron. Sweet.
I still find a mechanical RF to be the best manual focus method for me. However, it isn't the right for for the way I want to photograph anymore. I like being able to focus close.
Michael Markey
Veteran
That`s a reasonable analysis.
Sadly I don`t often use my two film M`s on the street anymore finding mirror less both quicker and quieter.
I did take an M out the other day for some street work ... boy did it feel heavy.
As you said Bill ...most of the M`s advantages can now be said to apply to the mirror less cameras.
So I too am looking for a digital back for my M mount lenses for street work.
The M`s have been religated to more sedate work
Sadly I don`t often use my two film M`s on the street anymore finding mirror less both quicker and quieter.
I did take an M out the other day for some street work ... boy did it feel heavy.
As you said Bill ...most of the M`s advantages can now be said to apply to the mirror less cameras.
So I too am looking for a digital back for my M mount lenses for street work.
The M`s have been religated to more sedate work
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Thank you, Mr. Pierce for this thread.
I was thinking to write about something close to yours, but I'll be better to add comment here.
The RF in my sig and avatar was my first camera to get the Picture. And it was the only camera I used for one decade. I wasn't good at photography at all. And for another decade or even more with P&S and SLR. Just snapshots of family and "I was here".
All of the sudden I became interested in photography about six, five years ago. DSLRs became affordable and helped me most, almost 100K frames were taken. 99% of them were for learning purpose.
And then one day I looked at film scans taken with SLR just a couple of years ago and film took my soul back. And my family RF came back and it was superior to any (D)SLR. It just feels right and simple. But I was trying another SLRs, Folders, View, TLRs and Scales and it was not my thing. I have tried LTM Leicas and with external VF is feels cumbersome and archaic.
Still every time I use my family RF, which is very primitive FSU camera made in millions, I'm surprised how pictures come out. It isn't camera+lens+film anymore, but something like a pen and list of paper to draw.
Something which doesn't hold me for technical things you have described. LiveVew, AF...
I could add the load of menus and buttons, batteries, chargers, memory cards, fw bugs and all kind of processing limitations which makes it kind of annoying and commanding on me. I prefer iPhone with single button, to be honest, for just "going out".
The only camera I find and settled for now to give me most creativity groove is film M. No, I didn't look at this Krawitz-shmawitz thing, zero interest in me for it.
I have beaten M4-2 with falling vulcanite and this is the camera which gives me the most. Don't get me wrong, I'm not using RF cameras for "assignments" , but DSLRs, where I deliver what average person wants and able to digest ...
Aside from the mass It just a few of us who needs this - RF patch and frame lines with space around them all in one viewfinder, which give you some extra vision and not just physically.
What I was going to write, before you open this thread, it is something which makes me feel what RF cameras are giving to some of us some specific vision and style. And maybe just a few of us who are able to see and feel it in other RFers pictures.
It has grown so bad on me now, I have almost lost interest in any other picture taken with something else. "Others" is more for socializing reason to me.
My M4-2 is not just Canadian, it is Ontarian and this is huge fetish factor to me.
Canada is where my family new life has started. FED-2 is my connection with my origins. I wouldn't mind to get beaten and worn out NATURALLY M2 or 3 to have original German one because it is where RF culture and style have started.
Sorry, Sir, to be in the opposite from you and some of those who are "I did my film thing in the past and ya-da-ya-da". I think, I gave enough personal reasons to forgive me for my film Maddiness.
I was thinking to write about something close to yours, but I'll be better to add comment here.
The RF in my sig and avatar was my first camera to get the Picture. And it was the only camera I used for one decade. I wasn't good at photography at all. And for another decade or even more with P&S and SLR. Just snapshots of family and "I was here".
All of the sudden I became interested in photography about six, five years ago. DSLRs became affordable and helped me most, almost 100K frames were taken. 99% of them were for learning purpose.
And then one day I looked at film scans taken with SLR just a couple of years ago and film took my soul back. And my family RF came back and it was superior to any (D)SLR. It just feels right and simple. But I was trying another SLRs, Folders, View, TLRs and Scales and it was not my thing. I have tried LTM Leicas and with external VF is feels cumbersome and archaic.
Still every time I use my family RF, which is very primitive FSU camera made in millions, I'm surprised how pictures come out. It isn't camera+lens+film anymore, but something like a pen and list of paper to draw.
Something which doesn't hold me for technical things you have described. LiveVew, AF...
I could add the load of menus and buttons, batteries, chargers, memory cards, fw bugs and all kind of processing limitations which makes it kind of annoying and commanding on me. I prefer iPhone with single button, to be honest, for just "going out".
The only camera I find and settled for now to give me most creativity groove is film M. No, I didn't look at this Krawitz-shmawitz thing, zero interest in me for it.
I have beaten M4-2 with falling vulcanite and this is the camera which gives me the most. Don't get me wrong, I'm not using RF cameras for "assignments" , but DSLRs, where I deliver what average person wants and able to digest ...
Aside from the mass It just a few of us who needs this - RF patch and frame lines with space around them all in one viewfinder, which give you some extra vision and not just physically.
What I was going to write, before you open this thread, it is something which makes me feel what RF cameras are giving to some of us some specific vision and style. And maybe just a few of us who are able to see and feel it in other RFers pictures.
It has grown so bad on me now, I have almost lost interest in any other picture taken with something else. "Others" is more for socializing reason to me.
My M4-2 is not just Canadian, it is Ontarian and this is huge fetish factor to me.
Canada is where my family new life has started. FED-2 is my connection with my origins. I wouldn't mind to get beaten and worn out NATURALLY M2 or 3 to have original German one because it is where RF culture and style have started.
Sorry, Sir, to be in the opposite from you and some of those who are "I did my film thing in the past and ya-da-ya-da". I think, I gave enough personal reasons to forgive me for my film Maddiness.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
"I know most folks came to the Rangefinder Forum because of an interest in rangefinder cameras. Am I the only one who no longer is much of a rangefinder photographer? I’d love to know what you think and what you’re doing these days. And, of course, what you think of Leitz and the pre aged Kravitzcam."
_
I had what i now consider to have been an 'experimentation period' with rangefinders. From maybe 15 years ago until about five years ago, i owned 3 Leica M7s, a Zeiss Ikon, Mamiya 6, a handful of Contax G2s, and Fuji GA-somethings. I was interested in the whole 'Leica thing' because of the imagery created with them by the 'legendary guys in the 50s-70s, and because the lenses were so good. I think i basically 'put up with' rangefinder viewing and composing, just to get the lens and no mirror slap advantages. But, i eventually grew too frustrated with looking through a 'disconnected window,' and at having to focus>recompose, and at not being able to focus quickly/efficiently enough for the kinds of pictures i wanted to take.
And, now that we have digital, the mirror slap thing is moot. ISOs on SLRs are more noiseless than they are on Leica digitals, so no one really has to shoot below 1/60 anymore.... And, with digital, EVERYTHING is so sharp that no one needs a three or four grand Leica lens.
The Kravitz thing. Jeezus. Well, the camera is very, very pretty. But, at twice the cost of a 'regular' one, it's incredibly silly. They make only 150 of the sets, and charge a fortune, so it's hard to imagine these will actually be used. So, you buy one, and you have a worn out camera that has never been shot. Stupid. re: Lenny Kravitz — stupid, also, that Leica awarded this piece of kit to a person who has never demonstrated anything with a camera. Maybe he's extraordinarily talented. But, he hasn't demonstrated it, and there are countless photographers who HAVE put in the work who are more deserving and would certainly lend greater value to the brand and the particular product.
The 'pre-aged' thing. Well, we buy washed jeans. I'm not (too) opposed to relic'd guitar tributes. Aesthetics are important. I can understand wanting the look of something that has seen 'experience.' I don't want to have to wear a pair of jeans every day for three years in order to get a certain look. I play guitar, but probably wouldn't buy a pre-worn guitar, although i have considered them. But, a 20k camera? No. Maybe it's a nuanced argument, but i do have dividing lines, and one thing is not necessarily the same as another. I wouldn't buy a pre-worn Porsche, with 'race abrasions.' That's not the same thing as saying that i WOULD buy an old M with 'real' brassing. As long as someone actually did use the thing and the object itself 'earned' the markings. Pre-worn, as associated with a camera, seems faker than i would want to be.
I've only seen a couple of shots from the Kravitz book. Those, and the concept, as i comprehend it, don't seem to warrant this tribute. Maybe some of you have other opinions and can steer me toward a different understanding.
_
I had what i now consider to have been an 'experimentation period' with rangefinders. From maybe 15 years ago until about five years ago, i owned 3 Leica M7s, a Zeiss Ikon, Mamiya 6, a handful of Contax G2s, and Fuji GA-somethings. I was interested in the whole 'Leica thing' because of the imagery created with them by the 'legendary guys in the 50s-70s, and because the lenses were so good. I think i basically 'put up with' rangefinder viewing and composing, just to get the lens and no mirror slap advantages. But, i eventually grew too frustrated with looking through a 'disconnected window,' and at having to focus>recompose, and at not being able to focus quickly/efficiently enough for the kinds of pictures i wanted to take.
And, now that we have digital, the mirror slap thing is moot. ISOs on SLRs are more noiseless than they are on Leica digitals, so no one really has to shoot below 1/60 anymore.... And, with digital, EVERYTHING is so sharp that no one needs a three or four grand Leica lens.
The Kravitz thing. Jeezus. Well, the camera is very, very pretty. But, at twice the cost of a 'regular' one, it's incredibly silly. They make only 150 of the sets, and charge a fortune, so it's hard to imagine these will actually be used. So, you buy one, and you have a worn out camera that has never been shot. Stupid. re: Lenny Kravitz — stupid, also, that Leica awarded this piece of kit to a person who has never demonstrated anything with a camera. Maybe he's extraordinarily talented. But, he hasn't demonstrated it, and there are countless photographers who HAVE put in the work who are more deserving and would certainly lend greater value to the brand and the particular product.
The 'pre-aged' thing. Well, we buy washed jeans. I'm not (too) opposed to relic'd guitar tributes. Aesthetics are important. I can understand wanting the look of something that has seen 'experience.' I don't want to have to wear a pair of jeans every day for three years in order to get a certain look. I play guitar, but probably wouldn't buy a pre-worn guitar, although i have considered them. But, a 20k camera? No. Maybe it's a nuanced argument, but i do have dividing lines, and one thing is not necessarily the same as another. I wouldn't buy a pre-worn Porsche, with 'race abrasions.' That's not the same thing as saying that i WOULD buy an old M with 'real' brassing. As long as someone actually did use the thing and the object itself 'earned' the markings. Pre-worn, as associated with a camera, seems faker than i would want to be.
I've only seen a couple of shots from the Kravitz book. Those, and the concept, as i comprehend it, don't seem to warrant this tribute. Maybe some of you have other opinions and can steer me toward a different understanding.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
"Sorry, Sir, to be in the opposite from you and some of those who are "I did my film thing in the past and ya-da-ya-da". I think, I gave enough personal reasons to forgive me for my film Maddiness." Ko.Fe.
No apologies necessary. When it comes to film, I think the Leica M system is great. And it’s not without regrets that I find myself shooting very little film.
Much of the time I use several prime lenses on multiple digital bodies, often because the primes are faster than a zoom lens and often because I’m an old person set in his pre-zoom ways. But I don’t change lenses in the field. Too much chance of dirt and dropping. Sadly, there’s no way I can afford multiple digital Leica bodies. And since I’m, for the most part, a digital photographer, using very expensive bodies in a world where the technology is advancing so quickly that cameras become quickly outmoded, doesn’t make sense.
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.
No apologies necessary. When it comes to film, I think the Leica M system is great. And it’s not without regrets that I find myself shooting very little film.
Much of the time I use several prime lenses on multiple digital bodies, often because the primes are faster than a zoom lens and often because I’m an old person set in his pre-zoom ways. But I don’t change lenses in the field. Too much chance of dirt and dropping. Sadly, there’s no way I can afford multiple digital Leica bodies. And since I’m, for the most part, a digital photographer, using very expensive bodies in a world where the technology is advancing so quickly that cameras become quickly outmoded, doesn’t make sense.
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.
honozooloo
Established
I agree Bill, times have and are changing.
For some, the difference in approach with a real RF means a world of difference, but I suspect that for many of us, the fact that mirrorless systems offer so many overlapping advantages that RFs offer, with clear cost and IQ advantages going to (some) mirrorless systems has meant that mirrorless systems are being adopted in the same niches once occupied almost exclusively by RFs.
I've always liked RFs for the simple, "connected" feeling I get when I use them. Nothing will ever replace that.
But, like you, I find myself using mirrorless systems for work because they're just a better suited tool for the work I do. Surprisingly my mirrorless systems are even doing better than I expected in traditional DSLR roles like shooting fast moving objects with telephotos (the X-T1 and 50-150 is a shockingly good combo for action). So I'm not much of an RF user either, even if a part of me wishes I still were.
As for the Kravitz edition, BARF. Can't one just buy a nicely worn M-P on eBay, or buy a brand new M-P and wear it down for a few years for it to look like that if that's your thing? I think the way that Leica appears to be focusing its effort on silly stuff like Hermes box sets, Kravitzcams, and incremental improvements to existing M models, and less effort on creating actually useful or innovative gear is precisely the reason RFs have become less relevant in the past few years in the first place.
EDIT: One final thought - to look at things on the positive side, isn't it a great time to be a photographer? The fact that we have so many compelling compact camera options some of which are comparable to all of our favorite RF brand is awesome!
For some, the difference in approach with a real RF means a world of difference, but I suspect that for many of us, the fact that mirrorless systems offer so many overlapping advantages that RFs offer, with clear cost and IQ advantages going to (some) mirrorless systems has meant that mirrorless systems are being adopted in the same niches once occupied almost exclusively by RFs.
I've always liked RFs for the simple, "connected" feeling I get when I use them. Nothing will ever replace that.
But, like you, I find myself using mirrorless systems for work because they're just a better suited tool for the work I do. Surprisingly my mirrorless systems are even doing better than I expected in traditional DSLR roles like shooting fast moving objects with telephotos (the X-T1 and 50-150 is a shockingly good combo for action). So I'm not much of an RF user either, even if a part of me wishes I still were.
As for the Kravitz edition, BARF. Can't one just buy a nicely worn M-P on eBay, or buy a brand new M-P and wear it down for a few years for it to look like that if that's your thing? I think the way that Leica appears to be focusing its effort on silly stuff like Hermes box sets, Kravitzcams, and incremental improvements to existing M models, and less effort on creating actually useful or innovative gear is precisely the reason RFs have become less relevant in the past few years in the first place.
EDIT: One final thought - to look at things on the positive side, isn't it a great time to be a photographer? The fact that we have so many compelling compact camera options some of which are comparable to all of our favorite RF brand is awesome!
Bille
Well-known
Those "small mirrorless cameras" are not "Seeing Outside The Frame". They are basically DSLRs without the R.
nightfly
Well-known
To me it's all about the sensor now that I've joined the digital world and the one in the M9 has a very beautiful look to. Files from out of the camera don't need a lot of post. Much like when I chose a film I liked and developed it how I liked it didn't need much futzing after being scanned.
Basically migrated from a M4-P and a GR1 to an M9 and a GR. Use them the same way. GR for having with me and quick grabs, the M9 when I'm going out just to shoot. My experimentation with one of the Olympus EP whatevers left me cold. The M9 is as close to perfect as I can see a digital being right now. Gets out of the way and I never have to look at a screen or touch a button or go through a menu. Aperture/shutter speed, focus, press shutter. The GR less so but as good as it can be for what it is.
Basically migrated from a M4-P and a GR1 to an M9 and a GR. Use them the same way. GR for having with me and quick grabs, the M9 when I'm going out just to shoot. My experimentation with one of the Olympus EP whatevers left me cold. The M9 is as close to perfect as I can see a digital being right now. Gets out of the way and I never have to look at a screen or touch a button or go through a menu. Aperture/shutter speed, focus, press shutter. The GR less so but as good as it can be for what it is.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Interesting post Bill. For doing sports I need to stay with the DSLR's. But for "long term" B&W documentary projects, I used to rely on a couple of Leica M film bodies and a handful of Leica lenses. I liked how unobtrusive the M body and lens was, and how it seemed to allow me to flow with a conversation with a subject, more intimately than when holding a big SLR rig.
But I got tired of the cost and time involved with getting the M bodies serviced, and the cost for a few different lenses which I would have liked to have, but could no way afford.
Slowly but surely I have transitioned to a Nikon SLR bag with an F3HP, FM2n and a bevy of very nice Nikon MF lenses (which are pennies on the dollar compared to the equivalent Leica glass, and which I can get serviced back to original Nikon factory spec by a shop here in town (APS) at a very reasonable cost and at a turnaround of a couple days) and I've found that I can do 95% of what I used to do with the Leicas. So most of the Leica gear is being sold off.
But I got tired of the cost and time involved with getting the M bodies serviced, and the cost for a few different lenses which I would have liked to have, but could no way afford.
Slowly but surely I have transitioned to a Nikon SLR bag with an F3HP, FM2n and a bevy of very nice Nikon MF lenses (which are pennies on the dollar compared to the equivalent Leica glass, and which I can get serviced back to original Nikon factory spec by a shop here in town (APS) at a very reasonable cost and at a turnaround of a couple days) and I've found that I can do 95% of what I used to do with the Leicas. So most of the Leica gear is being sold off.
John Bragg
Well-known
I am still 100% film with my camera use, although I find myself reaching for the M6 less these days, since Nikon film bodies F5 and F100 and F90X are silly cheap. Consequently I have added 3 bodies to my Nikon kit and 4 autofocus lenses in addition to the FM2n and manual lenses that I owned for 20 odd years. I will no doubt make more use of the Leica again, but for now I am relishing the ability to own and use Nikon kit that was previously beyond my budget.