View Full Version : Does a digital rangefinder make sense?
Why a digital rangefinder? I suppose to use existing M lenses is one reason, but that reason is dilluted a little because of this 1.33 crop factor. I suppose if someone just likes using a rangefinder, that's a sufficient reason.
But it seems to me that many of stengths of a film range finder -- no mirror slap; small and light, ect. -- are thrown out the door in the digital age, where many are smaller and lighter with instant presto change of iso settings and have high opitcal qualities at a fraction of the cost, or sacrifised when with a digital M (e.g., losing the mechanical nature of the Leica M). Just curious.
Until you hold and use one, it's all just theory, isn't it? I've been holding and using a dRF for well over a year and half now and you know what... it suits me perfectly. It's not just about the pros of a rf camera, it's about using the tool that's right for me. Now that I've found the tool that's right for me, does it really matter whether some dSLR or dP&S is cheaper and has many of the same techy pros as my dRF?
What advantages, if any, does the M8 or R-D1 give over the rest of the digital crowd?
Until you hold and use one, it's all just theory, isn't it? I've been holding and using a dRF for well over a year and half now and you know what... it suits me perfectly. It's not just about the pros of a rf camera, it's about using the tool that's right for me. Now that I've found the tool that's right for me, does it really matter whether some dSLR or dP&S is cheaper and has many of the same techy pros as my dRF?
I agree. Most of us got into rangefinder photography for specific reasons. For me it was the mechanical nature of the beast, the available light aspects, combined with the instantaneous and silent shutter, with Leica's great optics. I'm just wondering whether those original reasons, whatever they are for each person, still apply in a digital world.
Between Leica and Zeiss, some of the finest optics in the world. That is one advantage.
I agree. Most of us got into rangefinder photography for specific reasons. For me it was the mechanical nature of the beast, the available light aspects, combined with the instantaneous and silent shutter, with Leica's great optics. I'm just wondering whether those original reasons, whatever they are for each person, still apply in a digital world.
They do.
But don't take my word for it. Hold one, use one.
Ken Ford
10-07-2006, 09:51
IMO:
1. Direct view - I can see outside the taking frame. Great for my style of shooting.
2. More hand-holdable. Yes, my Nikon DSLRs vibrate less that my older film SLRs, but they're still not reliable to handhold at the speeds an RF can be used.
3. Stealth. I shoot the downtown area of my town pretty frequently, and my M6 *always* attracts less interest on the street than any of my SLRs - even my OM-1n and OM-2n gets more looks. I attribute this to the smaller size, less "professional" appearance and much quieter operation.
4. The glass! I have some damn good Nikkors (both MF and AF), but my Leica stuff puts it all to shame!
I'm definitely a candidate for a DRF, but sadly it probably won't happen for quite some time if ever. I just can't justify the cost of admission, particularly when I need a new DSLR body for the action shooting that comprises 75% of my photography. I don't particularly feel crippled without a DRF, though.
Short answer: to me it does. End of discussion for me.
it makes more sense than wondering whether it makes sense. :confused:
Rashomon
10-07-2006, 11:24
If you don't care about image quality, a pocket P&S like the Fuji F30 does everything the digital M does and better in some areas. :cool:
And since when documentary photography (which is what the M is best at) was about the best optics?
No a digital range finder with a crop factor doesn,t make sense at all !
AndyPiper
10-07-2006, 12:27
Why a digital rangefinder? I suppose to use existing M lenses is one reason, but that reason is dilluted a little because of this 1.33 crop factor.
Actually, if one is going to throw away some portion of a lens's performance via crop factor, it's better to start with the best possible lens in the first place. 75% of 90 lpmm is still better resolution than 75% (or 50%) of 70 lpmm.
I suppose if someone just likes using a rangefinder, that's a sufficient reason.
Yep.
But it seems to me that many of stengths of a film range finder -- no mirror slap; small and light, ect. -- are thrown out the door in the digital age....
Why? Digital SLRs no longer have mirrors and finder blackout?
....where many are smaller and lighter with instant presto change of iso settings
Perhaps point and shoots. Instant change of ISO is pretty useless when the sensor is so small that only the base ISO of 50 or 100 is usable.
...and have high opitcal qualities at a fraction of the cost,
Such as...? Excellent optical quality at f/5.6 is fine, but I want to be able to shoot at f/1, f/1.4, f/2 - and ISO 400/800/1600 (or thereabouts) and still have excellent optical quality.
...or sacrifised when with a digital M (e.g., losing the mechanical nature of the Leica M). Just curious.
The mechanical nature is one attribute of a Leica M - but only one of many. Since digital is by definition electronic, one cannot have both digital and mechanical. Therefore one must make a choice - film and mechanical, or digital and electronic. I do not see any reason why I should give up the OTHER unique attributes of Leica M photography (most of which are far more important than the "mechanics", as any M7 user will testify) simply to do it digitally.
I guess for me it comes down to this: there are many digital SLRs that can shoot at high ISOs with reasonable quality and accept fast prime lenses. A small portion of them allow for crisp split-image manual focusing - but that portion is generally the heavier, more professional cameras (try and put a split-image screen in a DRebel or D50/D80). I guess a Nikon D300 that took SD cards would be worth looking at - at least one can get 3rd-party split-image screens and it would meter to some extent with manual lenses - but it ain't here yet.
There are many light and compact P&S cameras, some with quite good optical quality, but all with f/3.5-f/4.5 fixed zoom lenses, or the occasional f/2.8 fixed focal-length prime lens (Ricoh, e.g.) None can shoot above ISO 400 without producing colored oatmeal(porridge) for an image. And all are AF-centric - if they offer manual focus at all, it is poorly implemented and harder and slower to use thatn AF.
As in the days of film, a high-quality rangefinder is still the only way to get SLR performance (ISO speed, interchangeable lenses of high (>f/2.8) aperture, rigorous and fast split-image focusing) in a definitively smaller, lighter package.
The only SLR (in fact the only other digital camera) that realistically compares to the M8 in build and attributes, IMHO, is the Canon 1D - 1.3x crop, 8 Mpixels, split-image screen available, SD cards available. it weighs 2-3 times as much, depending on lens, and bulks at least 3x the volume. And costs $700 less than the M8 (once one buys the split-image screen). Hardly an enormous savings given the ergonomic difference. Or, of course, the Leica R9/DMR combo, which is much heavier, and MORE expensive by several kilobucks, especially if I have to change lens systems.
There are several reasons why I think it does, but primarily because IMO cameras have taken a turn for the worse over the last decade or two. Let me explain.
For years I hiked, climbed, skiied, etc., with my Nikon FM and two lenses: 24 and 85. I also had crates of bigger, motor-driven Nikon F3s and F4s, but I really connected with that little, manual, bulletproof FM and two excellent lenses. I worked most of the time with the 24. I used the DOF marks for focusing. I metered off my hand or used the rule of f/16 or just plain guessed on exposure and never lost a shot because of exposure.
But new digital cameras are huge and plastic and the UI is based on LCD panels and menus instead of a big ol' dial for shutter speed or aperture. The crop factor wouldn't be a problem if they made lenses I liked. But today's lenses are plastic, feel terrible, are zooms and don't have much in the way of DOF marks.
So how do I get back to what I used for years and loved the most? The closest I can find is the M8. I have mixed feelings about RF vs. SLR, quite frankly, so that isn't really a factor as either would work. For fast work most of the time I suppose I prefer RF. And that IS what I learned with in the late sixties and early seventies. I love my M4-P.
But they're still not where I need them to be. For example, the VF magnification. I need a .58x in order to see 28mm framelines with glasses on. In fact, in my M4-P I even have trouble with 35mm framelines. But with the M7 or MP, at least there's a choice of magnifications where there isn't with the M8. I'd say that's the one biggest thing I'd ask for is a .58 VF.
So for me it doesn't come down to RF vs. SLR and so I don't think there's a need for a digital RF, per se, but there is a need for a rugged, compact, manual digital camera with a traditional user interface and top-quality optics.
There are several reasons why I think it does, but primarily because IMO cameras have taken a turn for the worse over the last decade or two. Let me explain.
For years I hiked, climbed, skiied, etc., with my Nikon FM and two lenses: 24 and 85. I also had crates of bigger, motor-driven Nikon F3s and F4s, but I really connected with that little, manual, bulletproof FM and two excellent lenses. I worked most of the time with the 24. I used the DOF marks for focusing. I metered off my hand or used the rule of f/16 or just plain guessed on exposure and never lost a shot because of exposure.
But new digital cameras are huge and plastic and the UI is based on LCD panels and menus instead of a big ol' dial for shutter speed or aperture. The crop factor wouldn't be a problem if they made lenses I liked. But today's lenses are plastic, feel terrible, are zooms and don't have much in the way of DOF marks.
So how do I get back to what I used for years and loved the most? The closest I can find is the M8. I have mixed feelings about RF vs. SLR, quite frankly, so that isn't really a factor as either would work. For fast work most of the time I suppose I prefer RF. And that IS what I learned with in the late sixties and early seventies. I love my M4-P.
But they're still not where I need them to be. For example, the VF magnification. I need a .58x in order to see 28mm framelines with glasses on. In fact, in my M4-P I even have trouble with 35mm framelines. But with the M7 or MP, at least there's a choice of magnifications where there isn't with the M8. I'd say that's the one biggest thing I'd ask for is a .58 VF.
So for me it doesn't come down to RF vs. SLR and so I don't think there's a need for a digital RF, per se, but there is a need for a rugged, compact, manual digital camera with a traditional user interface and top-quality optics.
A first post-but worthy of a veteran. Well said -and welcome!
Simply put, Yes. This is a camera I've been waiting for for years. I love toting around less than a shoe box worth of gear and now I can get the pictures out within ten minutes shooting, resounding Yes.
With the M8 those top quality optics are not fully utilized and that is the pain in the a......
tbarker13
10-07-2006, 19:11
It is a simple thing for me. When I got out of college in 1990, I sold all my Leica equipment to pay off debt. Basically stopped doing photography - despite my degree in photojournalism. I became a reporter and just left photography behind.
Then a funny thing happened about 8 years ago. I started repurchasing my leica gear, one piece at a time. I started taking pictures again.
A few years ago, I even built a darkroom behind my house.
Sadly, however, my photography was essentially limited to a couple trips a year - i would shoot 70-80 rolls of film and spend the next 5-6 months processing and printing. So basically, due to time constraints, I was only shooting a few weeks out of the year.
Then last year I purchased an R-D1. And suddenly I am shooting all the time. I feel so free to shoot whenever I want, knowing that I only have to go home and download my images onto a computer.
Could I do that with an SLR? To some degree, yes.
But I work exclusively with available light. I don't even own a flash. I like to travel as light as possible. And frankly, I just feel more comfortable using a rangefinder. If I am more comfortable, I feel like I create better images.
Should I be spending $5k on a new Leica M8? Probalby not. And yet every day, I look at this picture of an M8 I have on my desk and I smile.
So from my perspective, a digital rangefinder makes perfect sense.
The crop factor is a red herring - if a DSLR with a crop factor does not make sense, then neither does a rangefinder with a crop factor. Obviously, the crop factor has not detered folks from buying these products and using them with great success.
Resolution is also a red herring - a lot of really great 35mm photography was done on film with resolving powers less then the optics in front of it as well as at shutter speeds that introduce blur. No one seems to care that these images are not getting the best resolution possible.
The buyer is the only factor that will determine if it makes sense.
The buyer is the only factor that will determine if it makes sense.
Unfortunately that's true !!!!
AShearer
10-08-2006, 04:16
[QUOTE=AndyPiper]Actually, if one is going to throw away some portion of a lens's performance via crop factor, it's better to start with the best possible lens in the first place. 75% of 90 lpmm is still better resolution than 75% (or 50%) of 70 lpmm.
Yep.
Why? Digital SLRs no longer have mirrors and finder blackout?
Perhaps point and shoots. Instant change of ISO is pretty useless when the sensor is so small that only the base ISO of 50 or 100 is usable.
Such as...? Excellent optical quality at f/5.6 is fine, but I want to be able to shoot at f/1, f/1.4, f/2 - and ISO 400/800/1600 (or thereabouts) and still have excellent optical quality.
The mechanical nature is one attribute of a Leica M - but only one of many. Since digital is by definition electronic, one cannot have both digital and mechanical. Therefore one must make a choice - film and mechanical, or digital and electronic. I do not see any reason why I should give up the OTHER unique attributes of Leica M photography (most of which are far more important than the "mechanics", as any M7 user will testify) simply to do it digitally. EDITED TO SAVE SPACE.
Well Said! Most of the points I was going to make (However less eloquently my writing would have been) before I saw this response.
With the M8 those top quality optics are not fully utilized and that is the pain in the a......
I wonder what you are doing on a digital forum. Apart from interjecting trollish remarks, that is....
but there is a need for a rugged, compact, manual digital camera with a traditional user interface and top-quality optics.
Maybe the new Sigma DP1 could fit the bill?
johnastovall
10-08-2006, 05:15
Why a digital rangefinder? I suppose to use existing M lenses is one reason, but that reason is dilluted a little because of this 1.33 crop factor. I suppose if someone just likes using a rangefinder, that's a sufficient reason.
But it seems to me that many of stengths of a film range finder -- no mirror slap; small and light, ect. -- are thrown out the door in the digital age, where many are smaller and lighter with instant presto change of iso settings and have high opitcal qualities at a fraction of the cost, or sacrifised when with a digital M (e.g., losing the mechanical nature of the Leica M). Just curious.
The best reason in the world using Leica M glass on a quality digital camera.
Maybe the new Sigma DP1 could fit the bill?
You didn't include any smilies of any kind, so I can't tell if you are joking or not. Besides, I've already ordered an M8.
With the Leica M, I am looking through a simple pane of glass, not only at the area of interest inside the viewfinder frame, but also at all the additional information around the area of the intended photo. This is like a head's up display in a fighter jet. This capability helps the photographer be more selective in capturing the desired photo but still be aware of other (perhaps) esential elements in his/her environment.
Then there's all the advantages of smaller size, quieter shutter (no mirror slap) and the beauty of a much simpler design.
SLRs have a role to play (usually in macro or telephoto work) but for me, less is more.
-g
The mechanical nature is one attribute of a Leica M - but only one of many. Since digital is by definition electronic, one cannot have both digital and mechanical. Therefore one must make a choice - film and mechanical, or digital and electronic. I do not see any reason why I should give up the OTHER unique attributes of Leica M photography (most of which are far more important than the "mechanics", as any M7 user will testify) simply to do it digitally.
I guess for me it comes down to this: there are many digital SLRs that can shoot at high ISOs with reasonable quality and accept fast prime lenses. A small portion of them allow for crisp split-image manual focusing - but that portion is generally the heavier, more professional cameras (try and put a split-image screen in a DRebel or D50/D80). I guess a Nikon D300 that took SD cards would be worth looking at - at least one can get 3rd-party split-image screens and it would meter to some extent with manual lenses - but it ain't here yet.
There are many light and compact P&S cameras, some with quite good optical quality, but all with f/3.5-f/4.5 fixed zoom lenses, or the occasional f/2.8 fixed focal-length prime lens (Ricoh, e.g.) None can shoot above ISO 400 without producing colored oatmeal(porridge) for an image. And all are AF-centric - if they offer manual focus at all, it is poorly implemented and harder and slower to use thatn AF.
As in the days of film, a high-quality rangefinder is still the only way to get SLR performance (ISO speed, interchangeable lenses of high (>f/2.8) aperture, rigorous and fast split-image focusing) in a definitively smaller, lighter package.
The only SLR (in fact the only other digital camera) that realistically compares to the M8 in build and attributes, IMHO, is the Canon 1D - 1.3x crop, 8 Mpixels, split-image screen available, SD cards available. it weighs 2-3 times as much, depending on lens, and bulks at least 3x the volume. And costs $700 less than the M8 (once one buys the split-image screen). Hardly an enormous savings given the ergonomic difference. Or, of course, the Leica R9/DMR combo, which is much heavier, and MORE expensive by several kilobucks, especially if I have to change lens systems.
Very well put Andy, you wrote what I was thinking.
I wonder what you are doing on a digital forum. Apart from interjecting trollish remarks, that is....
OOh I,m sorry I didn,t know this forum was only intended to praise the M8 I,am so sorry
I love that small sensor in the M8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ay ay ay. what's so god-awful about a 1.3x sensor?
ay ay ay. what's so god-awful about a 1.3x sensor?
If you're happy with that sensor then go for it.
I (yes I, NOT EVRYONE) would expect more from a camera in the Leica M family tree. In my opinion this is not a Leica M camera that Oscar Barnack would have had in mind. It just doen,t fit in the traditional Leica M philosophy.
This Leica M is the wrong way to go digital in my opinion just my opion.
I live in a country were everyone can have his own opinion and I,m very happy with it
No a digital range finder with a crop factor doesn,t make sense at all !
If you consider, 620, 120, 220, MF LF etc vis-a-vis 135 format (better known as 35mm) the extra crop factor of these digital systems is tiny by comparison.
So, a 35mm is 45mm with 1.33. Those who have 45mm MF lenses that behave like 28mm should be pointing the finger (it means your 28mm FULL FRAME 135 lens is about the FOV of a 6x6 45mm)! A 28mm MF lens, why 35mm people have to buy a n 18mm lens for the same view
So one can easily claim that 35mm people have lived with cropping all along.
RF, and SLRs have lived in a cropped world for over 50 years. Damning a system over crop factors is what seems to make little sense!
"It just doen,t fit in the traditional Leica M philosophy."
how so?
For a rangefinder camera the 1.33X sensor size is the perfect size. There are alot of technical reasons why I say that, but the main reason is:
TATTA......Nobody but CANON makes a full frame sensor and nobody else ever will!! They have the fill frame 35mm market to themselves and they are keeping it.
Well, never say never but...
Nikon aint gonna do it. They don't even release any FF lenses anymore. Nikon is the only other player that would have a significant impact on creating a full frame market
So get use to it.
Rex
grrr... :bang:
It just doen,t fit in the traditional Leica M philosophy.
Leica seems to think differently. But I guess you know better what the Leica philosophy is than Leica does.
TATTA......Nobody but CANON makes a full frame sensor and nobody else ever will!! They have the fill frame 35mm market to themselves and they are keeping it.
Rex
grrr... :bang:
That's a very good reason :eek:
sheepdog
10-08-2006, 12:25
TATTA......Nobody but CANON makes a full frame sensor and nobody else ever will!! They have the fill frame 35mm market to themselves and they are keeping it.
Kodak used to.. I would not be surprised to see Sony and Nikon joining Canon by Christmas of 2008, but rumors are never easy to judge.
Nikon aint gonna do it. They don't even release any FF lenses anymore. Nikon is the only other player that would have a significant impact on creating a full frame market.
They release a lot of DX lenses because that's what people tend to buy for their range of DX cameras. Wideangle zooms in DX terms (starting at 16-18mm) with good quality FF coverage would be much larger and more expensive than needed. All lenses in other categories (telephoto, macro etc) are still FF.
But a FF Leica with today's sensor technology? I'm afraid you'd might cry at sight of the results..
You didn't include any smilies of any kind, so I can't tell if you are joking or not. Besides, I've already ordered an M8.
Google the camera, look at the specs, then you decide if the camera is a joke or not.
Personally I can't wait to get my hand on one, APS sized foveon sensor in a camera as big as the leica D-Lux-2, with fixed focal 28mm (equivalent) lens, I could consider retiring my TC-1
doitashimash1te
10-08-2006, 12:49
Google the camera, look at the specs, then you decide if the camera is a joke or not.
Personally I can't wait to get my hand on one, APS sized foveon sensor in a camera as big as the leica D-Lux-2, with fixed focal 28mm (equivalent) lens
I second on that.
Short answer-Yes
Long Answer-
I think the error is in the question. For those who enjoy rangefinder photgraphy, it certainly makes sense. There is no absolute answer. In a perfect world, I prefer the look of film.These days I don't have the luxury of time. I just bought an R-D1. I simply love that camera. With the different filters and the Leica lens I have, I get very close to the look of film. This camera saves me money and time!! (had a DSLR, just didn't enjoy shooting with it) There must be a special quality to rangefinders otherwise there wouldn't be a site like this....
I've used my R-D1s every day since it arrived a couple of weeks ago. So yes, it makes sense.
Ian
willie_901
10-08-2006, 18:03
For a rangefinder camera the 1.33X sensor size is the perfect size. There are alot of technical reasons why I say that, but the main reason is:
TATTA......Nobody but CANON makes a full frame sensor and nobody else ever will!! They have the fill frame 35mm market to themselves and they are keeping it.
Canon could produce a full-frame digital rangefinder. In fact perhaps the new Canon Powershot G7 is an indication that Canon is dipping it's toes in the water.
Here is a direct quote from Canon's G7 literature:
"Referencing classic rangefinder cameras, the ergonomic design features analogue inspired controls, a multi-control dial and a customisable shortcut button for faster access to camera settings."
Now the G7 is your just a typical auto-zoom 1/1.8" CCD sensor P&S digital camera with a retro look. There is nothing about the G7 a RF camera lover would enjoy. Like all the other P&S cameras, manual control is buried deep in the menus. This camera is meant to appeal to the mainstream market.
But what about the future? Corporations like Canon are supposed to be thinking ahead 3-5 years. Market share is market share. As the DSLR market becomes saturated Canon will look for new customers. Investors don't care that the DSLR market-growth curve is starting to level off; all they want is growth. I hope the M8 is a success. I hope the Sigma DP1 and Ricoh GR do well too. I hope Canon looks at the dollar value of those markets and decides they can make money by selling a full-frame RF camera with a M mount. All they have to do is price it below the M8. Canon has deep pockets.
Sooner or later the major players in the digital camera market will start to go after the small RF segment.
willie
Canon could produce a full-frame digital rangefinder. In fact perhaps the new Canon Powershot G7 is an indication that Canon is dipping it's toes in the water
Now the G7 is your just a typical auto-zoom 1/1.8" CCD sensor P&S digital camera with a retro look.
But what about the future? Corporations like Canon are supposed to be thinking ahead 3-5 years.
Sooner or later the major players in the digital camera market will start to go after the small RF segment.
willie
Yes, Canon could produce a rangefinder camera that would knock the socks off any point n' shot in the market. And for about six hundred bucks. But then so could anyone else, if they thought there was a market.
.....but Dream On,,,,, (my fantasy)
* G7 type body
* Canon 1.6X sensor 8 MP (1600 ISO clean)
* Zoom F2.8, 3X, autofocus with manual overide
* Aperture priority with manual overide on lens barrel
* No menus or gimmicks
The sell price would not have to be over $800. I would buy one in a heartbeat. So would almost everyone else on this forum. And thats about it,,,,,, all 500 of us.:mad:
Rex
Peter Klein
10-08-2006, 19:46
It is a simple thing for me. When I got out of college in 1990, I sold all my Leica equipment to pay off debt. . . .Then a funny thing happened about 8 years ago. I started repurchasing my leica gear, one piece at a time. I started taking pictures again. . .
. . . But I work exclusively with available light. . . I like to travel as light as possible. And frankly, I just feel more comfortable using a rangefinder. If I am more comfortable, I feel like I create better images.
Should I be spending $5k on a new Leica M8? Probalby not. And yet every day, I look at this picture of an M8 I have on my desk and I smile.
So from my perspective, a digital rangefinder makes perfect sense.
Hey, I resemble those remarks! Although in my case, college was over in 1975, and I didn't become a reporter.
The reasons I use a rangefinder have to do with optics, focusing accuracy, unobtrusive cameras, and a general way of working in photography. None of that has not been lost in a digital rangefinder. You have to make some allowances. You won't get the absolute resolution of your lenses, though you will get their optical character, and differences between lenses will still show. You'll have to expose as if you are shooting slide film or contrasty B&W.
But apart from that, all the general differences between RFs and SLRs still hold.
(The above is based on shooting a borrowed R-D1 several times. I suspect the M8 will have an even more familiar feel.
--Peter
J. Borger
10-08-2006, 21:20
It just doen,t fit in the traditional Leica M philosophy.
The cynical thing is that i (and Leica) expect more Canon Full Frame users to embrace the M8 than the traditional Leica M users who drove the company almost into bankruptcy by holding on to their dad's pre-war filmcameras.
Leica is playing the small/ high quality package very clever ....... just wonder why it took them so long to figure out that their current clientele will be just just a minor part of the M8 buyers and the real potential is elsewhre!
you're blaming leica users for leica's financial problems?
i doubt that leica "turned its back" on its current clientele. if that were the case, why'd they continue the ridiculous baseplate?
J. Borger
10-08-2006, 23:06
you're blaming leica users for leica's financial problems?
i doubt that leica "turned its back" on its current clientele. if that were the case, why'd they continue the ridiculous baseplate?
In a sense yes .. a bit exageratig perhaps ..... but the conservatism of a lot of current users is a bit too much for any company to deal with......
The new group of users is very important .... they buy new lenses too you know .. yes and they buy the latest asphericals, no 2nd hand pre-asph lenses .... On top of that most DSLR users want lenses from 21mm to 135mm .... so theay want 3 lenses minimum ....
Just keep in mind that a lot of people got into photography since digital arrived ... with no experience with film .. technofreaks with a lot of money to burn ... these will make the M8 a huge succes ... at least have huge iterest in it~..... without mourning about the cropfactor, the pricetag and how much better film looks!
The group of people who own a Ds II or at least a 5D with all L lenses available to shoot family snapshots and animals in the zoo. They are willing to spent 10-15000$ for a basic set-up.
I do not think Leica turnes it's back to current clientele BTW.... but realised in time this is not the main/ only target-group.
BTW i love that baseplate .. a realy cool feature:cool:
In a sense yes .. a bit exageratig perhaps ..... but the conservatism of a lot of current users is a bit too much for any company to deal with......
The new group of users is very important .... they buy new lenses too you know .. yes and they buy the latest asphericals, no 2nd hand pre-asph lenses .... On top of that most DSLR users want lenses from 21mm to 135mm .... so theay want 3 lenses minimum ....
Just keep in mind that a lot of people got into photography since digital arrived ... with no experience with film .. technofreaks with a lot of money to burn ... these will make the M8 a huge succes ... at least have huge iterest in it~..... without mourning about the cropfactor, the pricetag and how much better film looks!
The group of people who own a Ds II or at least a 5D with all L lenses available to shoot family snapshots and animals in the zoo. They are willing to spent 10-15000$ for a basic set-up.
I do not think Leica turnes it's back to current clientele BTW.... but realised in time this is not the main/ only target-group.
BTW i love that baseplate .. a realy cool feature:cool:
You are completely right of course, but then this strategy has its risks. There will be a number of auto-everything users that will not be able to get decent results out of the M8 and that will generate a number of >"My wife's Samsung XLS gives much better results than my M8 and Noctilux" and "back focus" issue< type of posts on the internet.
On one hand that will be embarrasing for Leica, on the other hand it will release some virtually unused M8's on e-B@y, which will be fine for those that would like to own the camera but are not prepared to pay quite so much cash for it.
In the end nothing succeeds but succes and if we look at the interest this camera has generated, Leica can be well satisfied.
J. Borger
10-08-2006, 23:44
On one hand that will be embarrasing for Leica, on the other hand it will release a some virtually unused M8's on e-B@y......
Yes the only criticasters who make a valid point are those afraid about the resell value of the M8 over time ...... but otoh .. Leica never claimed it is meant as an investment;)
Another downside is the waiting list ... i see a prominent seller now stating "delivery date: before Christmas"
One of the things that appeals to me most about a digital rangefinder such as the M8 ... or R-D1 for that matter is the lack of functions that make the DSLR so popular.
No zoom lens, you have to choose a focal length ... and no auto focus capability. Yes I know I could use prime lenses on my D70 and focus it manually if I choose but I generally don't. If I have to focus a camera manually I am automatically going to think more about the composition of the photograph before I press the shutter!
I'm convinced that having to think about these two important aspects of taking each and every photograph will make me more involved in the process and consequently the shutter on a digital rangefinder will have a lot less pointless actions!
:)
AShearer
10-09-2006, 03:39
This Crop factor BS is getting old. A lot of mis-information. Seeming to be an easy target for pot stirrers who like to fire people up on a forum.
A LOT of pros use Nikon's D2 series with great results. Why? If Canon's FF sensor were such a huge advantage, wouldn't these guys go that way? Sure Canon has a lead over Nikon in sales, but there are still a ton of pros and advanced amateur using Nikon.
Does the M8 make sense? Do the M7/MP make sense at $3500? Does a Nikon D2xs makes sense at over $4,000?
I realize the initial question had not to do with price. However, price is one of the determinants that has now come up in this discussion.
Does a digital rangefinder make sense? A lot of people have come up with some very good reasons why it makes sense for them. One thing seems certain. Had Leica not come up with this, they may be headed for a much reduced role in the photography/camera busines.
"It just doen,t fit in the traditional Leica M philosophy."
how so?
Forget the horesless carriages I'd rather ride a horse.:rolleyes:
They release a lot of DX lenses because that's what people tend to buy for their range of DX cameras. Wideangle zooms in DX terms (starting at 16-18mm) with good quality FF coverage would be much larger and more expensive than needed. All lenses in other categories (telephoto, macro etc) are still FF.
But a FF Leica with today's sensor technology? I'm afraid you'd might cry at sight of the results..
Nikon will release a full chip camera 30 days after I buy a 12-24 mm. I say 30 days because I won't be able to return the camera.:D
Artichoke
10-20-2006, 22:07
Why a digital rangefinder? I suppose to use existing M lenses is one reason, but that reason is dilluted a little because of this 1.33 crop factor. I suppose if someone just likes using a rangefinder, that's a sufficient reason.
But it seems to me that many of stengths of a film range finder -- no mirror slap; small and light, ect. -- are thrown out the door in the digital age, where many are smaller and lighter with instant presto change of iso settings and have high opitcal qualities at a fraction of the cost, or sacrifised when with a digital M (e.g., losing the mechanical nature of the Leica M). Just curious.
I was sorely tempted to get the Epson when it was announced, but held off as I suspected either Leica or Zeiss would go digital ...I used a RF only briefly when I was much younger (just a few times really) but I remember the experience as being darn near giddily joyous & I got some good shots off as well, though sadly I don't have any of them ...the RF experience is entirely different from shooting an SLR camera & I will not reiterate what has been written prior in this thread, but these advantages are very real, even from my brief experience shooting RF
digital brings much added advantage to RF photography, I suspect
being able to preview a shot just taking is a big advantage in an RF, because you often push exposure's envelope with an RF and having a histogram to refer to is a huge plus
I plan to use my M8 for nocturnals, for which RF has many advantages beyond the availability of fast and high quality lenses ...a good digital sensor performs much better than any film at high ISO, so this seems a big advantage, at least for what I want to do
I am pleased to see the Leica/Kodak alliance working well ...these grand photography companies deserve a high place in photography & I believe they have produced a camera worthy of their heritage
ZlatkoBatistich
10-23-2006, 17:31
A digital rangefinder makes great sense for Leica because without a digital rangefinder there might not be an M system at all at some point. I think the M8 was sorely and obviously needed, and so long overdue. The crop factor is important but not decisive. I use Canon dslrs with 1.0, 1.3 and 1.6X crop factors and they all help me achieve beautiful results, if somewhat differently. I suspect there are many 100% digital shooters who would gladly pay $5K for a digital rangefinder at this point but wouldn't even consider buying a film M. If you're entire workflow has gone to digital, then a digital M just fits in while a film M doesn't. (Many people will continue to shoot film for good reasons, and this is meant with no disrespect to them.) I believe that many photographers who've now spent years shooting digitally will conclude that an expensive beautiful film rangefinder has no place in the camera bag, while an expensive beautiful digital rangefinder has a very compelling logic.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.