What is the Overall Best Value in Digital Rangefinders?

[wwkw]

Is it true that the M240's frame lines are optimized for 2 meters?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

M60

Its the only one that has some chance of holding any value. Everything else would be worthless soon.

Now, for actually using, I'd say a 240, but then, what do I know!

Michael

When I was in Iraq I loved the 240 that was mounted on my HMMWV. It's an updated M60 anyways. I hated the performance of the M9 in the desert. The sand and dust always caused that thing to jam. The favorite of everyone in my platoon was the "Ma Deuce," the M2HB. It made everyone duck when the "shutter" was actuated. I carried my own M2 and M4, both made by Leica.

As for the list that Stephen posted, I've owned the RD1, M8 and M9. As a working photographer, the thing that matters for me is that the gear works. The only camera out of those three that worked without fault, was the RD1. The camera could be free but if it isn't reliable, it has no value as far as I'm concerned.

Phil Forrest

 

[Kent]

I think the M8 is best value: it has it's limitations, particularly around ISO, but delivers wonderful files and image quality, especially in monochrome. It's so good that I've not found its successors to offer substantive improvements for me so I've stuck with it.

On a simple price/image capability measure it has to provide the best ratio, in my opinion at least.

I'd like to second that. Exactly my thoughts.

 

[Tonkatsu-Dog]

When I was in Iraq I loved the 240 that was mounted on my HMMWV. It's an updated M60 anyways. I hated the performance of the M9 in the desert. The sand and dust always caused that thing to jam. The favorite of everyone in my platoon was the "Ma Deuce," the M2HB. It made everyone duck when the "shutter" was actuated. I carried my own M2 and M4, both made by Leica. As for the list that Stephen posted, I've owned the RD1, M8 and M9. As a working photographer, the thing that matters for me is that the gear works. The only camera out of those three that worked without fault, was the RD1. The camera could be free but if it isn't reliable, it has no value as far as I'm concerned. Phil Forrest

Ha! Took me a while to connect, my 240 jams sometimes and I miss a shot here and there... Luckily it's only a camera..

 

[Out to Lunch]

I spent this summer in Vietnam and made a lot of pictures. I took the Leica M-E and the Epson R-D1x with me. Both cameras produce a signature like output. This said, the Epson provided the more reliable results. The Leica was OK in its own right but was finicky and much harder to handle.

 

[jamin-b]

I'd like to second that. Exactly my thoughts.

I'll third it.

 

[sniki]

Epson RD1; give honour where honour is due: they were the first to conceive this.

 

[raid]

I agree that the M8 is a good deal for what it can deliver in a quality package. I use this camera each week.

 

[Dante_Stella]

The M240 has the most capabilities, the highest resolution, the best high-ISO capability, the only TTL viewing option, the best metering, the best TTL flash system, the best battery life, and the best chance of being around in 10 years. And there are more independent people who can service Leicas than anything.

I don't see how you can even put an RD-1x in the "value for the money" category - it is a 6.1Mp camera with the biggest crop of them all. Even on a price-per-pixel basis, the M240 kills it. Hell, the M8 kills it.

And there can be a big difference between a 1.5 and a 1.33 crop when it comes to fast wides. For example, don't want to be stuck with a 21mm f/4.5 lens (from your 15/4.5), or a 30mm f/4 lens (from your 21/4).

D

 

[jaapv]

What's wrong with a Summilux 21?

 

[jaapv]

Yes, the M8 is indeed lighter, about the same as the film cameras. Here are the measurements according to Leica:

M8: 139x80x37 mm. 545g plus battery 41g= 586g (According to my kitchen scale it is 600 g.)
M240: 139x80x42 mm. 680 g. I don't know if that includes the battery
M7: 138x79.5x38 mm. 610 g.
MP: 138x77x38 mm. 585 g.

The common Internet error. The M240 is exactly the same size as the M8 and M9. Leica foolishly included the thumbrest/wheel into the official figures giving rise to the "fat-camera-myth".

 

[Baby of Macon]

Hands up, I know its not a rangefinder, but hands down the best value in cameras with that form factor is a secondhand X Pro 1 - 300 Euro seems to be the going rate for a mint example. I bought a second body recently at retail for that amount. It offers better IQ and reliability than an M8 which, though great value for money secondhand, is still crippling if you don't already own the glass to go with it.

 

[wpb]

M8/40 Rokkor CLE.

 

[MIkhail]

A cropped sensor represents no value at all, in my opinion.

Would be curious to hear why?
I am actually very curious in general why "cropped" sensor is considered as something inferior to "full frame". Other than usage of 'legacy glass", which is questionable in my simple mind anyway, what else is inferior about it?

 

[MIkhail]

In fact the whole idea to start with is rather asinine. If we want to talk about results, any $200 point and shoot can do 95% of what any Leica M(x) can do in decent light. Let's not kid ourselves here. The soccer mom with a Nikon D3200 has more technical image quality and value in her camera than an M8 or M9, if all we compare things to are the "results," given a constant photographer.

I am one of those that values the experience as much as the results, and sometimes those two things do coincide. To be frank, I have hardly shot my M9. I've shot more with my M6, but have shot 10x more with my Nikon SP. And I prefer shooting 4x5 to any 35mm camera in many situations. What has more value? What I enjoy has more value.

Agree 100%.

Let me also add that, in the past, while fiddling with new gear or shooting questionable film instead of taking sure shots, I lost irreplaceable moments with my kids growing up, more than I can count... I regret this now.

 

[Baby of Macon]

Would be curious to hear why?
I am actually very curious in general why "cropped" sensor is considered as something inferior to "full frame". Other than usage of 'legacy glass", which is questionable in my simple mind anyway, what else is inferior about it?

Depth of field is different on a cropped sensor camera and, ceteris paribus, the photo sites on a cropped sensor will be smaller than an FF for the equivalent number of megapixels with potential, and I stress potential, implications for dynamic range.

But copped sensors can be made to work extremely well and, albeit not on rangefinders, for some applications, the effective increase in focal length of the lenses used can be very helpful e.g sports, wildlife etc.

 

[uhoh7]

Would be curious to hear why?
I am actually very curious in general why "cropped" sensor is considered as something inferior to "full frame"....

Having shot 100,000 + on APS-C and 100,000 + on FF, the reason is pretty obvious: results.

The debate has been fought everywhere, and you can look up all the arguments. For general photography, there is no comparison. FF is of course better, and Medium format is better than full frame, but very expensive and less versatile with the lenses.

If you really want to know for your skeptical self there is only one way: shoot them both alot at the same time. Maybe you won't care about the differences. That's OK.

But you will be the exception among those with the choice. Of course the size and weight factor will trump the quality at times even among the sensible

 

[MIkhail]

Having shot 100,000 + on APS-C and 100,000 + on FF, the reason is pretty obvious: results.

The debate has been fought everywhere, and you can look up all the arguments. For general photography, there is no comparison. FF is of course better, and Medium format is better than full frame, but very expensive and less versatile with the lenses.

If you really want to know for your skeptical self there is only one way: shoot them both alot at the same time. Maybe you won't care about the differences. That's OK.

But you will be the exception among those with the choice. Of course the size and weight factor will trump the quality at times even among the sensible

Have no intentions to fight this debate... not having shot 100,000 pictures ... Just give me 25-30 years and I will get back with you on that

I see each (APS-C, full frame and Medium format) as its own thing, never occurred to me to compare it.
Usually I look thru viewfinder, what I see is what I deal with.
I don’t care how one would call it or what the other lens/camera combo would give me at that moment. But it’s just me.

 

[shawn]

...But copped sensors can be made to work extremely well and, albeit not on rangefinders, for some applications, the effective increase in focal length of the lenses used can be very helpful e.g sports, wildlife etc.

With something like a Speedbooster or Lens Turbo II you don't get the effective increase in focal length but you do get more light gathering ability.

Shawn

 

[uhoh7]

I see each (APS-C, full frame and Medium format) as its own thing, never occurred to me to compare it.

Seriously? Do you compare how a 28 looks with a 50 on the same body? How on earth could you ever choose which to use without comparing them?

I'd contend that of course you do, and you also compare all your platforms, but it's so innate you pass straight to the "being"

Now, all this said, I'm a big fan of the crop M8 which makes fantastic images. And obviously you will see interesting photography from many different platforms, holgas, cellphones, even m43

But day in day out I prefer the M9 and A7 full frames to my former crop cameras, except they are much bigger.


DSC00745 by unoh7, I'd very much like a FF this size, and it could be done.