gazoo
Newbie
Dear everybody
I'm a bit of dilemma right now. I'm selling some of my medium format gear, in order to buy a good rangefinder camera (something I can carry around). My budget is about 1900 (with a little bit of flexibility). I need to get the rangefinder that gives me the best image quality and best handling.
So here's my propositions:
Sony NEX-3 body (around 300 dollars), and Leica/Voigtlander lens with an adapter.
Epson R-D1 (around 1300 for the body), and a cheaper lens in the 300-400 dollar category.
Ricoh GXR with Leica mount (my number one choice) with a wide-angle Leica/Voigtlander lens (which one?). Around 1100 for the GXR, and 400-500 for the lens.
Leica M8 is way too expensive
Thank you very much
Ben
I'm a bit of dilemma right now. I'm selling some of my medium format gear, in order to buy a good rangefinder camera (something I can carry around). My budget is about 1900 (with a little bit of flexibility). I need to get the rangefinder that gives me the best image quality and best handling.
So here's my propositions:
Sony NEX-3 body (around 300 dollars), and Leica/Voigtlander lens with an adapter.
Epson R-D1 (around 1300 for the body), and a cheaper lens in the 300-400 dollar category.
Ricoh GXR with Leica mount (my number one choice) with a wide-angle Leica/Voigtlander lens (which one?). Around 1100 for the GXR, and 400-500 for the lens.
Leica M8 is way too expensive
Thank you very much
Ben
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
There is only one rangefinder in your list 
The choice is easy then! Why not get a Bessa R2/R3/R4? Does it have to be digital?
The choice is easy then! Why not get a Bessa R2/R3/R4? Does it have to be digital?
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Leica M2, M3 or M4-P
Zeiss Biogon lens 50 or 35
For digital snapshots: iPhone or any other handy digital P&S
Zeiss Biogon lens 50 or 35
For digital snapshots: iPhone or any other handy digital P&S
gazoo
Newbie
Griffin: I guess you are right haha. But seriously, is R-D1 gonna give me better IQ than the Ricoh GXR with Leica mount?
Don't wanna go with the Bessa or older Leica's. I need a digital camera for once. I'm a fed up with only having film gear.
Don't wanna go with the Bessa or older Leica's. I need a digital camera for once. I'm a fed up with only having film gear.
Araakii
Well-known
Is your "budget" the total free cash you have or just an amount you want to spend on gears?
Many people said the M9 is "expensive" which is only true if you don't have 5K free cash sitting in your bank. If you look at only the depreciation, a X100 depreciates much faster than a M9 despite the M9 being 400% more expensive.
You can buy an M8 now and only "lose" a couple hundreds on your investment a year later. But if you buy the GXR now you might lose more than that.
Many people said the M9 is "expensive" which is only true if you don't have 5K free cash sitting in your bank. If you look at only the depreciation, a X100 depreciates much faster than a M9 despite the M9 being 400% more expensive.
You can buy an M8 now and only "lose" a couple hundreds on your investment a year later. But if you buy the GXR now you might lose more than that.
gazoo
Newbie
Araakii: I see your point. If Leica M8 was only a little more expensive, I would go it. But the thing cost 2300 used for the body alone...forget about the cost of the lenses. I'm already stuck with my super-expensive Hasselblad medium format gear.
As I hear, the Epson R-D1 is half of the cost and has almost identical IQ with the M8. Ricoh GXR with Leica Mount is a brand new product and seems very interesting to me.
But back to my question, is the R-D1 gonna give me better IQ than the Ricoh GXR with Leica mount?
As I hear, the Epson R-D1 is half of the cost and has almost identical IQ with the M8. Ricoh GXR with Leica Mount is a brand new product and seems very interesting to me.
But back to my question, is the R-D1 gonna give me better IQ than the Ricoh GXR with Leica mount?
tenter10
-
If you havent done a lot of photography why not a konica s2 auto,yashica lynx 14 E, OLYMPUS RD OR SP, MINOLTA HIMATIC 9 they do not cost the bank, film is not that expensive and photos last forever,I have photos taken when I was 21, I am 68 now. On the radio recently a pro photographer stated that film will still be good in 20 yrs digital prints may last half that. I know that may upset digital fans,film has proved itself, digital has not.
dct
perpetual amateur
I don't think so. I believe the modern dedicated GXR-M will have better technical IQ. But your post wasn't to the point what you are looking for. I am still lurking around for an affordable digital RF camera and still don't know exactly what I want. If it has to be a real rangefinder, than I have only the choice between a R-D1 and the M8/M9.
Maybe you are looking for a first RF focussing experience? Then go for it. Or give it a cheap try with a fixed lens film RF, as already mentioned.
Or are you more in digital M mount compatibility? Then your choice broaden, still including the three real RF bodies, with all the new m4/3, NEX and GXR-M stuff.
Perhaps we could better help you making an opinion, if you could be a little more concise on these goal variations? Beeing in a similar situation I'm very interested in this discussion.
thegman
Veteran
The GXR has more megapixels, but as you know, that's not everything. I've not used either, but whilst I think MP is not *that* important, 6MP is a tad limited for large prints.
I think out of that lot, I'd get the GXR, as I like the option to print big (though for very big, I'd stick with my 'blad too).
In my opinion, the GXR should have the edge on image quality, simply because there is no real reason it shouldn't.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
If you want a real rangefinder and are ready to spend $1900, then I'd do the best thing you can do when shopping for cameras, which is waiting. Scrape a little extra money together while you're at it. I've seen M8s go for $2000. Do that and get a $25 Jupiter-8 or something to go with it for a lens, until you can afford a 35/f2.5 or an affordable 28.
If you don't absolutely need a rangefinder, the GXR sounds like the best option (but I'm saying this based on second-hand knowledge).
If you don't absolutely need a rangefinder, the GXR sounds like the best option (but I'm saying this based on second-hand knowledge).
Yhbv24
Member
You only have one rangefinder listed, and it's old and outdated, and overpriced for what it is.
Why not go with a m4/3 camera or a NEX? They can both use a wide variety of legacy glass, as well as the most modern M glass as well as their own glass. They'll have the same/better IQ than the RD-1 or M8 anyway.
Why not go with a m4/3 camera or a NEX? They can both use a wide variety of legacy glass, as well as the most modern M glass as well as their own glass. They'll have the same/better IQ than the RD-1 or M8 anyway.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I am coming to the conclusion that the NEX/M43, etc crowd is just too gimicky. Even the Fuji X100 optical VF is too cluttered (I realize I am probably in the minority here) I really like the VF of the Bessa R3/2M, the best.
Left to Right, the red LED readout is -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 +.5 +1 +1.5 + 2
Left to Right, the red LED readout is -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 +.5 +1 +1.5 + 2
gdi
Veteran
I haven't tried all the new small mirror less cameras, but I have owned 2 micro 4/3 cameras. Also, I have had an M8 and 3 R-D1s. I kept selling my R-D1s to search for "better". Every time I was without one, I found myself searching out another. I stopped that now and I don't intend to sell this one.
Yes the R-D1 is old and has less MP, but the files are beautiful and up to most reasonable print sizes (for me, YMMV). I never saw any practical image quality advantages in the m4/3s other than high iso, but the M8 files were usually better. Also, the M8 really needs IR filters on every lens; the R-D1 has IR contamination as well, but much less. (And I know that someone can pull out some review comparisons that show higher whatever on an Nex, X100 or something else, and if your after tech specs, you owe it to yourself to try one of those)
I have to be clear, I would have kept both the M8 and R-D1 if I hadn't bought an M9. But, the only time I miss the m4/3s is when I want video. There are good reasons the R-D1 is still so expensive after all these years - people who want a simple back to basics digital M-mount camera love it. It is worth the high used price.
Yes the R-D1 is old and has less MP, but the files are beautiful and up to most reasonable print sizes (for me, YMMV). I never saw any practical image quality advantages in the m4/3s other than high iso, but the M8 files were usually better. Also, the M8 really needs IR filters on every lens; the R-D1 has IR contamination as well, but much less. (And I know that someone can pull out some review comparisons that show higher whatever on an Nex, X100 or something else, and if your after tech specs, you owe it to yourself to try one of those)
I have to be clear, I would have kept both the M8 and R-D1 if I hadn't bought an M9. But, the only time I miss the m4/3s is when I want video. There are good reasons the R-D1 is still so expensive after all these years - people who want a simple back to basics digital M-mount camera love it. It is worth the high used price.
huntjump
Well-known
Epson R-d1 is the closest digital RF body to a film camera, and also takes all the wonderful glass. I think you want to go the RF route precisely because of the glass
Frontman
Well-known
I've used just about everything there is, and though there are many cameras that I love, I find the simpler the camera is, the more I enjoy it. I dislike every camera on your list but the RD1. All the other cameras are the "here today, gone tomorrow" digi-stuff which is obsolete nearly from the time you open the box.
I also dislike the term "IQ" when applied to gear, because 99% of the IQ in photography should belong to the photographer and not the gear. A $20 Yashica GSN in the hands of a capable photographer will produce better images than a high-dollar M9 in the hands of a garden-variety "he who has the most toys wins" hobbiest.
My first (and nearly the most fun) rangefinder was a $40 Zorki 1. It was a primitive beast compared to the three generations of Nikon pro gear I had been shooting for the last 20 years, but it's drawbacks were challenging, and shooting it renewed my interest in photography. I have enough gear to have learned that it's not what you shoot, but how you shoot it that matters.
I also dislike the term "IQ" when applied to gear, because 99% of the IQ in photography should belong to the photographer and not the gear. A $20 Yashica GSN in the hands of a capable photographer will produce better images than a high-dollar M9 in the hands of a garden-variety "he who has the most toys wins" hobbiest.
My first (and nearly the most fun) rangefinder was a $40 Zorki 1. It was a primitive beast compared to the three generations of Nikon pro gear I had been shooting for the last 20 years, but it's drawbacks were challenging, and shooting it renewed my interest in photography. I have enough gear to have learned that it's not what you shoot, but how you shoot it that matters.
metalrose
Newbie
GXR. It has better IQ than NEX-3/5
R-D1 is too old.
R-D1 is too old.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Get a Fuji X100.
Field
Well-known
My thought too. Best quality you will be able to get period, with a zeiss lens. Will it be your favorite lens? I got no idea, maybe you will hate it.
It appears he wants digital though. My issue with some of the digital cameras is the fact that they take FOREVER to take another shot, way longer than film manual advance, even shooting raw.
Frontman
Well-known
Was it Edward Steichen who said "no photographer is as good as the simplest camera"? Looking at his photographs, taken with simple cameras indeed, reinforces the "less is more" principle. The best camera is probably the one you already have.