PDA

View Full Version : What is the Overall Best Value in Digital Rangefinders?


CameraQuest
01-11-2015, 10:30
Considering all variables

including price, image quality, reliability, availability of future repairs, future resale value etc,

what is your choice for the best value in digital rangefinder cameras?

presspass
01-11-2015, 10:36
A wonderful question. I voted M8 simply because that's the one I have, and have had since it came out. It has the usual quirks, but I've learned to deal with them. Right now it's the best value for me because I don't have to spend anything to get it. Were I to be starting afresh, this might not be my answer.

Darthfeeble
01-11-2015, 10:38
I voted for the Epson RD-1 family because the question was "The best Value" Put a good lens on one and stay within it's limits and the IQ is as good as anything out there for all practical purposes and the price is a tiny fraction of any of the Leicas.

Austerby
01-11-2015, 10:41
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.

Vickko
01-11-2015, 10:42
I have an M9 that I love, but gotta admit, the Pana GF1 is used the most.

Chris Bail
01-11-2015, 11:02
I love my M9, but considering all factors, I have to say the M8 is the best value. My R-D1 was a wonderful camera as well, but availability of parts and service would be a concern.

Corran
01-11-2015, 11:07
A cropped sensor represents no value at all, in my opinion.

Lss
01-11-2015, 11:26
This somewhat depends on one's lens needs, but overall I think it is still the M8. The R-D1 is quite close, but even a bigger victim to "depends on what you need".

Pioneer
01-11-2015, 11:32
In my opinion the Leica M-E is probably the best value in a digital rangefinder. It is still available new, it is full frame, and even though it could be improved there is a worldwide parts and service program in place.

I would certainly have voted for the Epson if it were still out there and available worldwide.

rbelyell
01-11-2015, 11:34
imo, rd1 and m8 are 'equally depends on what you need' cameras as the rd1 delivers better high iso and m8 files are larger. but if you add both price of purchase and price of repair rd1 pulls away by a fair margin.

@Pioneer: the rd1x is available new quite easily, and btw for under $1200. the rd1s and x are still being serviced by epson.

Godfrey
01-11-2015, 11:37
Leica M (typ 240)

Why is it the best value?

- Its sensor produces better results with a wider range of Leica M-mount and threaded-mount lenses than any of the others. It is also eminently useful with the full range of Leica R lenses, which are outstanding quality.

- Both its hardware and firmware is under ongoing development for future products. (While Leica is working on the M9/M9-P/M-E/M Monochrom sensor issue, I don't think there are any new products intended for release based on that series technology. The M (typ 240) is what new products that aren't just a cosmetic treatment will be based on going forward.)

- Its reliability and repair history is better than all prior Leica digital M models as well as the Epson R-D1 models.

- Parts and service for the M (typ 240) will be available for a long time to come; there are limits on both for the Epson and M8 series cameras already.

- The M (typ 240) is more versatile, more sensitive, and more robust than any of the prior models. (Video capture, weather sealing, GPS interface, Live View, etc etc all enhance and expand upon the capabilities of the basic Leica M camera model.)

Sometimes, the best value costs more. :-)

BTW, why not put the correct and proper name for the Leica M (typ 240) in the list as well as all three nicknames? And you missed the Leica M Edition 60 (typ 240) in the list.

G

... When I upgrade from the M9 to the typ 240 series, I'll go with the M-P model because even if it is a bit more expensive than the M, the durability of the LCD cover glass, reinstatement of the frame line selector lever, and improvements in buffering space and speed will be worth the additional money for a long term purchase.

raid
01-11-2015, 12:05
A used M9 is now a bargain. Is it? I was going to vote for the M8, but the M9 offers a higher satisfaction level for me.

rscheffler
01-11-2015, 12:27
M240 bought used or as a Leica demo. I agree with Godfrey's points and only wish the M-P's features would have been included in the original M240 (particularly the buffer).

Having recently transitioned from an M9 to the M240, the M240 improves on the M9 in many factors of usability. It feels and operates faster and is quieter. It has fewer quirks, and those it has, are not significant (at least for me).

But I'd vote the M9 as a close second, primarily because base ISO image quality is on par with the M240 (other than extreme dynamic range situations) and it's significantly less expensive on the used market, therefore an easier entry point into digital RF.

With both you're not dealing with crop factors and getting the 'full effect' from the lens.

fireblade
01-11-2015, 12:35
A cropped sensor represents no value at all, in my opinion.

"no value" ???
i better go delete about 2 terabytes of files. :)

Corran
01-11-2015, 12:49
No value is different than no use.
You have your opinion, I have mine...
I certainly will never bother with such a camera.

f16sunshine
01-11-2015, 13:01
If Value means dollars spent per output delivered. The M8 is at this point in time the easy choice. M8 Prices now being close to RD1 prices.

If value means Dollars spent for user satisfaction... It's totally subjective (I still choose M8).

I had a great run with the M8 and may take another one some day.
The M9 was not enough of an "upgrade" for me to jump with the lenses I was using.
I thought I would like the full frame but, after a 10 day test drive I just could not find the reason at the time to double down financially (2010 prices of M8vs M9).

The M8 around $1200-$1500. Pretty tough to beat it.

jaapv
01-11-2015, 13:27
A cropped sensor represents no value at all, in my opinion.
The size of the sensor is utterly irrelevant in this context.

Corran
01-11-2015, 13:30
Maybe it doesn't to you.
But if one owns and wants to use a set of lenses as they were intended, it does indeed make a difference.

Monochrom
01-11-2015, 13:40
The m9...

Being Full Frame i can use many great and inexpensive 50mm lenses like the J-8....if i use a cropped camera i´ll have to buy more expensive lenses that will try to match FF lenses performance but never will succeed.

So for me the m9 has the best value! it has the best perfomrance but also is the cheaper to use.

Bye!

raid
01-11-2015, 13:43
The M8 remains a great camera. I make use of the 33% crop factor when I use side by side the M8 and M9 on trips. This doubles for me the choices of focal lengths with half the number of lenses.

Keith
01-11-2015, 14:00
It terms of what a camera offers the user I'd go with the Epson purely because it gives an almost analog experience when shooting.

AZPhotog
01-11-2015, 14:29
Fuji X100T. Puts the decades-behind Leica's (with their problems, too) to shame, and in addition the Fuji is so carefully thought out, made mostly of metal including the knobs, user-friendly, yet still light enough for all-day carry use. It is a true "go-to" camera. And the flash is ALWAYS dead on with absolutely perfect exposures when you use it in the auto mode. A few folks will comment on the "nice old camera" -- humorous.

Godfrey
01-11-2015, 14:30
Fuji X100T. Puts the decades-behind Leica's (with their problems, too) to shame, and in addition the Fuji is so carefully thought out, made mostly of metal including the knobs, user-friendly, yet still light enough for all-day carry use. It is a true "go-to" camera. And the flash is ALWAYS dead on with absolutely perfect exposures when you use it in the auto mode. A few folks will comment on the "nice old camera" -- humorous.

However, it's not a rangefinder camera.

G

Austerby
01-11-2015, 14:36
Maybe it doesn't to you.
But if one owns and wants to use a set of lenses as they were intended, it does indeed make a difference.

Maybe it does to you, but (to my surprise) the crop factor hasn't bothered me in the slightest of all the M8's "features". I happily work with my full set of lenses and despite years of familiarity with focal lengths for 35mm film use, and concerns beforehand, in practice it's had little relevance (to me).

rscheffler
01-11-2015, 15:54
The M8 remains a great camera. I make use of the 33% crop factor when I use side by side the M8 and M9 on trips. This doubles for me the choices of focal lengths with half the number of lenses.

I can appreciate where you're coming from with this, since there are times when it's very convenient to be shooting with two cameras. However, from a technical perspective, IIRC, the pixel density of the M8 is identical to the M9. Therefore cropping M9 images with a given lens to M8 pixel dimensions will result in the same end result.

IF the purpose was simply for the crop/reach a higher pixel density sensor could offer, then you might be better off with something like a Sony a6000 and adapter for M lenses. But of course, the user experience would be dramatically different.

raid
01-11-2015, 15:57
I know that the N8 and the M9 are similar. I did not aim at a crop. I got it with the M8.
RF focusing is what I like, so it has to be a RF camera.

Duane Pandorf
01-11-2015, 15:59
35mm focal length is my primary lens preference. On the cropped sensor M8 to get the same focal length along with f1.4 I'd need the 24 Lux. A huge lens compared to any of the 35 Luxes. I came up against this same cropped sensor problem when shooting the GXR-M which was a 1.5 ratio.

I have the M-E and exceeds my ability but I too would have to agree with Godfrey that the 240 offers the best overall value and even more, flexibility.

filmtwit
01-11-2015, 20:14
Over all value?

How about "None of the above."
All of them are tad bit expensive for what they are.

thegman
01-11-2015, 20:36
I guess it would need to be the R-D1, it's not always the cheapest item which provides the most value (in fact it almost never is, in technology), but as all digital range finders are able to take good pictures, and none of them seem to have any fatal flaws, all are devaluing in price, may as well get the cheapest.

KM-25
01-11-2015, 20:44
When I consider the best journalism, documentary or other work where unobtrusive is the call of the day, none of the above.

Don't get me wrong, I love my M3 and 50 1.4, I use it near daily, but the camera it shares the bag with just leaves it in the dust in terms of the kind of productivity that Leica and other RF cameras were made famous by, value is also part of that equation.

But what the heck do I know...right?

michaelwj
01-11-2015, 20:53
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

jaapv
01-12-2015, 01:49
Maybe it doesn't to you.
But if one owns and wants to use a set of lenses as they were intended, it does indeed make a difference.
They were intended to take pictures, weren't they?:p

I have enough lenses to compensate focal length differences...

LCT
01-12-2015, 02:41
+1. FF lenses are at their best with crop cams generally. Only problem is fast wides given the price and size of Summilux 21 & 24.

f16sunshine
01-12-2015, 02:47
+1. FF lenses are at their best with crop cams generally. Only problem is fast wides given the price and size of Summilux 21 & 24.

It's true. The M8 is not as good for wide shooters.
I'm a 50mm users primarily. The CLE M Rokkor f2/40mm was a perfect 50mm equivalent for the M8 (53.2 with 1.33 factor).
Beautiful rendering on that CCD. I seriously would love to get back there some day especially at the going price for M8's. :)

Merumeni
01-12-2015, 03:59
Epson seems obsolete and I have never ever seen one in my part of the world.
The rest is a choice between Leica or Leica.
I got my M9 with a faulty sensor: it got replaced (and though I liked the customer service a lot I wondered about Leica's end control). Two years later I send the M9 in for sensor cleaning and learned that my 2nd sensor had cracked and that Leica was going to replace it under warranty. In the meantime I know that Leica with its sensor problems in the M9, Monocrom etc has added a new dimension to the meaning of digital rot.
In summer I will travel between Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. That is during the hot, humid rainy season: my 3rd sensor M9 will be with me, protected as well as I protect all my cameras. But destined to be used.
None of my cameras ever made it into sissy heaven but I start asking my self whether there will be a 4th or 5th sensor waiting for my M9 and how Leica is going to deal with the problem in the next years.

There can be hardly any value without reliability. I do not want to bash Leica at all, and I do know that they can not continue to exchange their faulty sensors for ever, but I start liking my film Ms every day a bit more.

Hence I did not vote.

Mcary
01-12-2015, 04:16
Paid a little under $1600 for my M8 with 11,000 shots on it since then I've taken about another 3,000 and see getting many more years use out of it before the time comes to update to the M (M240). Since I don't have a lot of history shooting with a Leica M the crop factor/field of view of the lenses isn't something I really notice.
As far as wide angle lens go the wides one I have is a 28mm Elmarit and most of the time when I'm shooting with it composing consist of trying to find an interesting slice/picture with in the overall scene in front of me so a wider lens/field of view isn't normally a priority for me.

Corran
01-12-2015, 05:39
They were intended to take pictures, weren't they?:p

I have enough lenses to compensate focal length differences...

We (or others) could go round and round about crop vs. FF forever. But like I said, I find no value in a crop-sensor camera. I want my 50 to be 50, my 21 to be 21. I want the ISO and DOF advantages of FF.

Besides which, the M9 is dated enough, if I wanted poor performance and a crop sensor I would have kept my entry-level Nikon :eek:

angelog
01-12-2015, 05:54
To me, the live view feature makes the M(240) the best value. You have both a digital rangefinder AND a mirror less camera.

airfrogusmc
01-12-2015, 06:49
The best overall value is the equipment that matches your vision. For me it's the MM and a 35mm FoV...It's what I shoot all of my personal work with.

jaapv
01-12-2015, 06:50
We (or others) could go round and round about crop vs. FF forever. But like I said, I find no value in a crop-sensor camera. I want my 50 to be 50, my 21 to be 21. I want the ISO and DOF advantages of FF.

Besides which, the M9 is dated enough, if I wanted poor performance and a crop sensor I would have kept my entry-level Nikon :eek:
Your 50 will be a 50 and your 21 will be a 21, regardless of the sensor size. No way can you change the focal length of a lens.

Corran
01-12-2015, 07:00
Your 50 will be a 50 and your 21 will be a 21, regardless of the sensor size. No way can you change the focal length of a lens.

Yeah yeah you know what I meant. Field of View.

jaapv
01-12-2015, 07:35
In this case angle of view ;) You have not defined a subject distance.

As for DOF, a 1.33 sensor like the M8 will not make a huge difference. The change in DOF will be less than one stop, which one will be hard put to see in print and if you change your position to equalize the field of view difference (which will change the perspective, though) it will be even less noticeable. A jittery finger on one of the contrast-driven tools in PS or LR will negate it completely.
An APS-C like the RD1 will have a bit more pronounced deeper DOF though, but still well within the bounds of creativity.

Ben Z
01-12-2015, 08:20
This question depends entirely on one's definition of value.

Right now a Leica-warrantied "pre owned" for <$5000 would fit my definition...it is the "latest" generation with the best balance of price and repair-cost risk.

An M8 would be a distant second. It is the oldest and least-expensive Leica M digital, and thus will have the lowest depreciation. Downside is if anything goes wrong, even if the parts are still available it is likely the cost would be disproportionate to the camera's worth. That said, a complete write-off of an M8 would be about what that used M240 will depreciate in the next year or two.

At this point I would not consider any of the M9-based cameras good values. Right now there is no permanent solution to the sensor corrosion problem, which appears both inevitable and ubiquitous. Even if Leica continues to replace them free ad infinitum, it would be a real PITA if one had to keep sending it back again and again and be without it for a month or three. If the M9 derivatives were selling at fire-sale prices (<$2000) I would say it might be worth the risk to bet on long-shot odds Leica will re-source new sensors that won't delaminate. I'm really glad I'm rid of my M9, much as I liked it (and never had sensor problems with it).

Corran
01-12-2015, 08:30
In this case angle of view ;) You have not defined a subject distance.

Come on now, let's not be pedantic.

The simple fact is I don't care to deal with a crop sensor. I have a set of lenses that work on my Nikon SP, Leica M6, and Leica M9.

It seems that some people can't understand the idea of personal preference. I will never buy a crop sensor digital camera for photography. It's a pointless endeavor in my eyes. If I were to ever buy a digital medium format camera I would want a 6x7 sensor to go with my 6x7 lenses, not some weird crop. That's just my preference.

jaapv
01-12-2015, 09:06
Nobody is denying your right to have a preference. Let's face it, if it were not so we would all be using cell-phones.
However, my - and anybody's preference is not an universal truth.

jaapv
01-12-2015, 09:08
This question depends entirely on one's definition of value.

Right now a Leica-warrantied "pre owned" for <$5000 would fit my definition...it is the "latest" generation with the best balance of price and repair-cost risk.

An M8 would be a distant second. It is the oldest and least-expensive Leica M digital, and thus will have the lowest depreciation. Downside is if anything goes wrong, even if the parts are still available it is likely the cost would be disproportionate to the camera's worth. That said, a complete write-off of an M8 would be about what that used M240 will depreciate in the next year or two.

At this point I would not consider any of the M9-based cameras good values. Right now there is no permanent solution to the sensor corrosion problem, which appears both inevitable and ubiquitous. Even if Leica continues to replace them free ad infinitum, it would be a real PITA if one had to keep sending it back again and again and be without it for a month or three. If the M9 derivatives were selling at fire-sale prices (<$2000) I would say it might be worth the risk to bet on long-shot odds Leica will re-source new sensors that won't delaminate. I'm really glad I'm rid of my M9, much as I liked it (and never had sensor problems with it).
I am sure it won't be another sensor - just another IR filter.

aeturnum
01-12-2015, 09:40
I voted for the M9. To me, the 'crop' rangefinders lose a lot of value because my 35mm lens(es) aren't 35mm anymore and I must go get a 23mm or 26mm lens (an impossible task in m-mount as far as I know).

That said, if you don't care about focal length and just want a RF, the Epson wins hands down. Can be had for a steal.

Ben Z
01-12-2015, 10:53
I am sure it won't be another sensor - just another IR filter.

That's what I would figure too. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. In my mind it made sense to call it a "new sensor" because it comes from the manufacturer as a pre-assembled unit. I can see where that was confusing.

jsrockit
01-12-2015, 11:53
To me, none of them are a great value... unless you absolutely want a digital camera with a mechanical rangefinder. M9 issues aside...I would say M9 based on usefulness, price, and convenience. Best value doesn't mean cheapest.

CameraQuest
01-12-2015, 12:01
I voted for the M9. To me, the 'crop' rangefinders lose a lot of value because my 35mm lens(es) aren't 35mm anymore and I must go get a 23mm or 26mm lens (an impossible task in m-mount as far as I know).

That said, if you don't care about focal length and just want a RF, the Epson wins hands down. Can be had for a steal.

Cropped sensors bothered me too, until I shot the RD1 and 8.2. Real world I found it was something I quickly adjusted to.
Sometimes it was to my advantage, like turning a 50/1.4 into a fast portrait lens.

Once you become used to the crop factor, which is likely to take no more than a couple of days at most, its no problem at all.

Stephen

raid
01-12-2015, 12:26
I use the M8 with 50mm lenses as portrait lenses, and I use it with a 17mm lens as a great 22mm lens without vignetting or color problems. It is not a problem at all.

emayoh
01-12-2015, 14:51
if you change your position to equalize the field of view difference (which will change the perspective, though) it will be even less noticeable..

So you're saying no need for any different focal length in lenses at all? 50mm for everyone. Just change your position if you want to see more or less in the frame. I guess that is well within the "bounds of creativity."

But, in seriousness I would say that the vast majority of my wide angle shooting has not afforded me a lot of leeway in "changing my position." If I have a 15mm lens on my FF camera, I have it there for an actual reason. If I wanted a 20mm lens on my FF camera I would put it on my camera. For me it makes a difference that is important to me. To say that there is "no noticeable difference" is frankly not very friendly.

aeturnum
01-12-2015, 15:02
Cropped sensors bothered me too, until I shot the RD1 and 8.2. Real world I found it was something I quickly adjusted to.
Sometimes it was to my advantage, like turning a 50/1.4 into a fast portrait lens.

Once you become used to the crop factor, which is likely to take no more than a couple of days at most, its no problem at all.

Stephen

It's more about bag and kit space for me. I used cropped sensors for years when I started out (Canon DSLRs) and it was great. However, once I got into film cameras as well and started getting lenses, it really bothered me (and my wallet!) that I needed to buy two parallel lens catalogs to work at the same distances.

I should amend my previous answer to read that if you don't mind lenses changing focal length, crop is great and cheap. If you do mind, then a crop sensor RF won't be good value.

f16sunshine
01-12-2015, 15:19
It's more about bag and kit space for me. I used cropped sensors for years when I started out (Canon DSLRs) and it was great. However, once I got into film cameras as well and started getting lenses, it really bothered me (and my wallet!) that I needed to buy two parallel lens catalogs to work at the same distances.

I should amend my previous answer to read that if you don't mind lenses changing focal length, crop is great and cheap. If you do mind, then a crop sensor RF won't be good value.


I think of it ths way.
One only needs to add one lens on the wide end to your existing kit.

For example:
If 21mm is your widest with FF add a 15mm to become 21-ish with a aps-c or aps-h size sensor.

Considering traditional focal lengths for 35mm rangefinder photography , the crop factor just has us skipping down one FL to get to the FOV you might have with full frame.
How big is a single RF lens really?

Just choose your wides and skip down one length.
12,15/18,21,24,28,35,50,75,90,135

With the above way of thinking. Only a 12mm shooter would be left without that lens. Which does not perfrom well on the FF bodies anyway :p M9/ME/MM/M240

I'm not advocating away from FF. I just don't see it as a big deal at all to have a crop with a rangefinder (or Mirrorless EVF cameras).

I want Full Frame with DSLR bodies where smaller sensor means smaller mirror and viewfinder. Here crop suck and FF is huge! :)

Ben Z
01-12-2015, 17:26
Once you become used to the crop factor, which is likely to take no more than a couple of days at most, its no problem at all.

Stephen

The only reason the M8's crop didn't bother me was because Voitlander made the 15mm that gave me back the FOV of a 21mm which is one of my most-used lenses on full frame, without having to spend thousands on a WATE just to get the one focal length I wanted.

uhoh7
01-12-2015, 19:18
A cropped sensor represents no value at all, in my opinion.
here are some recent shots in Nepal, not by me, from that "no value" camera, the M8.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/920070/1112#12794251

In my opinion, the M8 is the most underrated camera today. The thinnest filter stack ever over the sensor, and very modest 1.3x crop, I have seen so many jaw dropping images from that machine.....

No, I don't own one, and like you I covet FF, but I would never discount the M8 myself. At 1500 or so, it is a fantastic value, if results trump specs on paper, or romantic thoughts of what was meant to be. :)

Pablito
01-12-2015, 20:46
What Godfrey said in post #11, so long as we're not taking "value" to mean price.

Corran
01-12-2015, 21:08
here are some recent shots in Nepal, not by me, from that "no value" camera, the M8.

I'm not sure why some can't separate "value" from "results."

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.

Frankly I should never have even bothered, because it's clear I hit a nerve and no one is getting anything out of this conversation. I'm going to shut up and go make images. Well not right now it's 12am but you know what I mean.

jaapv
01-13-2015, 01:19
I think of it ths way.
One only needs to add one lens on the wide end to your existing kit.

For example:
If 21mm is your widest with FF add a 15mm to become 21-ish with a aps-c or aps-h size sensor.

Considering traditional focal lengths for 35mm rangefinder photography , the crop factor just has us skipping down one FL to get to the FOV you might have with full frame.
How big is a single RF lens really?

Just choose your wides and skip down one length.
12,15/18,21,24,28,35,50,75,90,135

With the above way of thinking. Only a 12mm shooter would be left without that lens. Which does not perfrom well on the FF bodies anyway :p M9/ME/MM/M240

I'm not advocating away from FF. I just don't see it as a big deal at all to have a crop with a rangefinder (or Mirrorless EVF cameras).

I want Full Frame with DSLR bodies where smaller sensor means smaller mirror and viewfinder. Here crop suck and FF is huge! :)

I actually have a 9,5 mm 1.8 lens :D

Here it is on the M8:
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/tegea.jpg

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/IMG_1589.jpg

Sparrow
01-13-2015, 04:17
... well it looks like Epson got it right with the very first Digital RF ever made, even all these years later Leica are struggling to make one we think is of equal value ... imagine if Cosina and Epson were to take what we've learned in the meantime and add a modern sensor in a new version of the RD1

Kwesi
01-13-2015, 04:38
... well it looks like Epson got it right with the very first Digital RF ever made, even all these years later Leica are struggling to make one we think is of equal value ... imagine if Cosina and Epson were to take what we've learned in the meantime and add a modern sensor in a new version of the RD1

Nah! We RFFers are just a bunch of old fogies who like old cameras :)

airfrogusmc
01-13-2015, 04:39
Like I said earlier the best overall value is the equipment that matches your vision and the way you work.

Kwesi
01-13-2015, 04:49
Like I said earlier the best overall value is the equipment that matches your vision and the way you work.

Agreed! For me that's the M240.
your work with the Monochrom always strikes a chord within me.

Sparrow
01-13-2015, 04:58
Nah! We RFFers are just a bunch of old fogies who like old cameras :)

... it's its fogieness that makes the RD1 such a marvel

rbelyell
01-13-2015, 05:06
lots of votes as of this post and my measley 6mp rd1 is running even with the m9. guess i made a decent choice...had enough money left over to buy a 21 elmarit, 75 summarit, the tiny leica type 112 and a few nice dinners. love my rd1. i find myself reaching for it more and more and leaving the excellent rx1 behind. more to photography than mp's, no?

uhoh7
01-13-2015, 15:41
I'm not sure why some can't separate "value" from "results."
or see the connection


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.

Right. You don't really like digital RFs at all. Oh well. :)

Corran
01-13-2015, 19:12
Way to totally misunderstand and misrepresent everything I said. Reading comprehension, try it.

uhoh7
01-13-2015, 19:56
Way to totally misunderstand and misrepresent everything I said. Reading comprehension, try it.
well, we know you have no respect for the M8, and:

To be frank, I have hardly shot my M9.

So...there is some other digi rangefinder you like enough to use?

hey, you are not the only one, lot's of people don't like them LOL

Corran
01-13-2015, 20:17
Apparently you still don't get it. Whatever...

f16sunshine
01-13-2015, 20:26
If you two wish to get a room out of view... go for it
Otherwise, please quit arguing within the thread. Thanks

Cyriljay
01-17-2015, 01:39
The M8 remains a great camera. I make use of the 33% crop factor when I use side by side the M8 and M9 on trips. This doubles for me the choices of focal lengths with half the number of lenses.

Exactly as raid Says....

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.

Only the limitation in M8 the crop factor sucks sometimes....
:bang:

ramosa
03-04-2015, 17:45
Despite the plummeting price of the M240, that can't be the right answer. I'll go with the M9 ...

nightfly
03-26-2015, 11:14
Best value? The one that gets you the images you want so you stop thinking about the camera and equipment and take more photos.

I experienced this when I stopped messing around with various "poor man's Leica" fixed lens RFs and smallish SLRs and just got an M4-P. Would have spent less money buying the right tool to start with particularly if I figured in the time spent researching "alternatives".

Similar experience with the M9. it just works and I love the quality of the images out of the camera, which seem curiously absent from this discussion. Don't need a lot of post to get me where I want to be. Nothing to learn. Bought used no manual, put on lens, started shooting. First few times my thumb went for the rewind lever.

Less time dicking around in Lightroom = more value to me.

Ronald M
03-26-2015, 14:34
There are no value digital RF cameras. M8 is crop sensor and may develop the screen problem. Leica will offer an upgrade for a price you will not want to pay.

M9 has sensor corrosion which appears mostly in hi humidity conditions. So far they are willing to repair free. Future ??

M is expensive and best long term solution.

Epson may or may not be good and repair is a big question.

ME is same as M9

You need to pay a lot of $ to get in the game. Digital Leicas all will have longish term repairability/parts problems. Their solution will be for you to pay for an upgrade.

Budget digital is Nikon D3300, D5500, D7200, D610. All these will take very good photos with much less investment but are not RF cameras.

There is no reason to buy Leica unless you already have lenses and they are modern and coded so they focus properly. Old lenses may need to be recalibrate.

Lss
03-26-2015, 14:57
There is no reason to buy Leica unless you already have lenses and they are modern and coded so they focus properly.
What works for you is a much more important consideration than owning some lenses and buying something to stick them onto.

jchfriis
03-28-2015, 02:47
There are no value digital RF cameras. M8 is crop sensor and may develop the screen problem. Leica will offer an upgrade for a price you will not want to pay.

M9 has sensor corrosion which appears mostly in hi humidity conditions. So far they are willing to repair free. Future ??

M is expensive and best long term solution.

Epson may or may not be good and repair is a big question.

ME is same as M9

You need to pay a lot of $ to get in the game. Digital Leicas all will have longish term repairability/parts problems. Their solution will be for you to pay for an upgrade.

Budget digital is Nikon D3300, D5500, D7200, D610. All these will take very good photos with much less investment but are not RF cameras.

There is no reason to buy Leica unless you already have lenses and they are modern and coded so they focus properly. Old lenses may need to be recalibrate.

I had a couple of Leica lenses from my film days and bought a M8 when that came out. Never had a problem with it and it is still my favorite camera. In a burst of GAS I wanted full frame and bought a M-E. The improvement for me was so little that I sold that and kept the M8. As the price for a M8 is relatively low today, I would say that is the best value if you like rangefinders.

And by the way, coding the lenses or not has nothing to do with focusing.

seakayaker1
03-28-2015, 09:30
I loved my M8.2 and at times I wish I kept it. The M9 is a camera I intended to keep until it died a natural death. Unfortunately the sensor issue had my camera in the repair show in 2013 and again in 2015.

I made the decision to go for the Leica M-P since Leica offered a $4200.00 credit for the used M9. So for me I find that the Leica M-P digital rangefinder offered the best value since I received a credit value of about 67 percent of the original price I paid for the four plus year old M9.

Gabriel M.A.
03-28-2015, 11:11
Considering "all variables" for a totally absolute answer for Infinity and Beyond, I think the only answer is "none of the above. ever." Nikon included.

I know: mortal sin ever.

Gabriel M.A.
03-28-2015, 11:21
... well it looks like Epson got it right with the very first Digital RF ever made, even all these years later Leica are struggling to make one we think is of equal value ... imagine if Cosina and Epson were to take what we've learned in the meantime and add a modern sensor in a new version of the RD1

The problem with Epson as a brand is that they are the antonym of Reliability --Customer Service included.

I think that Cosina is smart to stick to the lens-churning business rather than floating a new camera that is never going to please 100% of the market.

It's a perpetual game of "what have you done for me lately" and "you missed this spot on the corner, ffs". Did I type "game"? Exercise in futility, meants I.

If you specialize, the people on the outside will ridicule you for not being everything, or at least 99% of everything --"everything" meaning, of course, a specific set of subjective criteria.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, long rant short, that it's impossible to be Goldilocks' artisanal porridge to all Papa Bears and Mama Bears that are happy with microwaveable ramen soup.

Lss
03-30-2015, 22:02
I think that Cosina is smart to stick to the lens-churning business rather than floating a new camera that is never going to please 100% of the market.
Their lenses do not please 100% of the market.

Frontman
03-31-2015, 07:29
Not on your list, but I just got a Fuji X100T. It doesn't have a true optical rangefinder, but I was surprised that it has a digital split-image focusing aid. I have had it only for a couple days, and can't put it down.

In regards to the cameras on your list, the Epson RD1 is the best value in regards to cost/performance, and even more so in regards to reliability.

rbelyell
05-24-2015, 12:27
yes, epson is by far the best value. its by far the easiest to operate in every conceivable way one wants to measure that category. its by far the most reliable. its by far the easiest to DIY adjust. its by far the cheapest to fix. and ump-teen years later it still performes better at iso 1600 than its competitors. theres no miore, no color shift, no corner shift nor focus shift. i'm not knocking the m8/9 and the images they produce, but if you go category by category, and then divide by price, its hard to see a way to a different conclusion. i will run mine into the ground and then buy another one. just for the 1:1 vf and the user-set frame lines alone, i honestly would not consider any of the alternatives, even if 'value' were not the criterion we're discussing.

jsrockit
06-03-2015, 06:13
I'd say the M9.

Godfrey
06-14-2015, 08:40
Reviewing this thread, my response from the beginning of the year seems right on. My M9 needed a sensor replacement and I opted for the M-P upgrade. I could not be happier than I am with the M-P: to me, this is the digital Leica M finally fully realized and modernized with excellent capabilities that extend its versatility and quality, a camera on par with my film Ms of the past and present.

I expect to be shooting with it for years to come.

G


Leica M (typ 240)

Why is it the best value?

- Its sensor produces better results with a wider range of Leica M-mount and threaded-mount lenses than any of the others. It is also eminently useful with the full range of Leica R lenses, which are outstanding quality.

- Both its hardware and firmware is under ongoing development for future products. (While Leica is working on the M9/M9-P/M-E/M Monochrom sensor issue, I don't think there are any new products intended for release based on that series technology. The M (typ 240) is what new products that aren't just a cosmetic treatment will be based on going forward.)

- Its reliability and repair history is better than all prior Leica digital M models as well as the Epson R-D1 models.

- Parts and service for the M (typ 240) will be available for a long time to come; there are limits on both for the Epson and M8 series cameras already.

- The M (typ 240) is more versatile, more sensitive, and more robust than any of the prior models. (Video capture, weather sealing, GPS interface, Live View, etc etc all enhance and expand upon the capabilities of the basic Leica M camera model.)

Sometimes, the best value costs more. :-)

BTW, why not put the correct and proper name for the Leica M (typ 240) in the list as well as all three nicknames? And you missed the Leica M Edition 60 (typ 240) in the list.

G

... When I upgrade from the M9 to the typ 240 series, I'll go with the M-P model because even if it is a bit more expensive than the M, the durability of the LCD cover glass, reinstatement of the frame line selector lever, and improvements in buffering space and speed will be worth the additional money for a long term purchase.

MCTuomey
06-14-2015, 08:51
Most imaging potential for the money I'd say M8/8u/8.2.

Most value in use for the money I'd say a used M240.

And the M9/MM cameras are somewhere in the middle.

And now there's the Q which may change the entire M value proposition.

swatch
07-13-2015, 05:58
1st full frame sensor rangefinder camera M9

market price of digital camera always go down ( c/p ratio goes up ) but being 1st is valuable in history

Canyongazer
07-16-2015, 15:19
I have an M9 that I love, but gotta admit, the Pana GF1 is used the most.

While not a real RF, I've gotta agree, Vick.

The GF1 or GX1 w/ the 20mm 1.7 is one heck of a good---and cheap---image machine.
It's best to keep the ISO below 800 but, OTOH, it performs quite well at f2 and there is little or no need to stop down past f4.

OK, upon further reflection, really good and really cheap.

small and light, too, :-)

jarski
07-17-2015, 00:08
voted M9, especially now when Leica has worked solution for the sensor issues they had earlier this year.

but seen couple appealing offers on M8.2 lately, prices are finally coming down a bit? a Sony effect perhaps, used A7's with appealing prices available (obviously no RF, but large sensor for M-lenses).

jamin-b
07-23-2015, 06:31
here are some recent shots in Nepal, not by me, from that "no value" camera, the M8.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/920070/1112#12794251

In my opinion, the M8 is the most underrated camera today. The thinnest filter stack ever over the sensor, and very modest 1.3x crop, I have seen so many jaw dropping images from that machine.....

No, I don't own one, and like you I covet FF, but I would never discount the M8 myself. At 1500 or so, it is a fantastic value, if results trump specs on paper, or romantic thoughts of what was meant to be. :)

I own an M8, and totally agree. Bought mine 2nd hand for $1300 a few years back and have never had any issues (besides the ocassional ugly purple "black" clothing :). It's been great enough to allow me to withstand the lures of GAS (at least with respect to newer Leica digital RFs :) )

ray*j*gun
07-24-2015, 03:55
I have an M8u and its been excellent. Any image improvement from the FF Rf's is not worth trading up IMO.

froyd
07-24-2015, 07:51
Is the M8 lighter than the M240? I had a chance to handle one lately and boy, what a beast that is! Sure, smaller and lighter than many other FF alternatives, but a bit of a heifer for an M-system camera.

jchfriis
07-26-2015, 23:43
Is the M8 lighter than the M240? I had a chance to handle one lately and boy, what a beast that is! Sure, smaller and lighter than many other FF alternatives, but a bit of a heifer for an M-system camera.

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.

uhoh7
08-29-2015, 13:13
Is the M8 lighter than the M240? I had a chance to handle one lately and boy, what a beast that is! Sure, smaller and lighter than many other FF alternatives, but a bit of a heifer for an M-system camera.

No kidding. But there are users who claim they like it that way :bang:

Unconditional love for the 240 I guess :)

Godfrey
08-29-2015, 15:11
This thread is making me re think my Leica wants, and instead get an R-D1.
Do what suits you, but having had R-D1, M9, and M-P, I'd never pick the Epson over any of the Leicas.

G

astro8
08-30-2015, 05:14
Thinking the R-D1 would be a cheap way in until I can get a decent Leica.

Yes and why not? I don't see much of a downside. You may find like I and many others do, that the R-D1 is a good fit.

raid
09-07-2015, 05:56
I find the M 4/3 cameras overall a great bargain. I use the (older) Olympus E-P2 and E-PL1 12MP cameras with IS and 10X magnified focusing aid. I am going to look for the habitat of some local crabs at Pensacola Beach today. I need some photos of crabs in their habitat for my daughter's science project. We received some tips from a Professor where to find them, and she told us that we would need sneakers and shorts and that we may have to wade ... etc. I will not take my M8 or M9 there. My iPhone is useful then, and my two M 4/3 will provide me with a 15mm and a 400mm view as specialized cameras for today's walk. The E-PL1 cost me $150 new and with warranty from Tamarkin. This is a great deal.

rbelyell
09-07-2015, 12:57
Thinking the R-D1 would be a cheap way in until I can get a decent Leica.

well, since youve been given permission to 'do what suits you', may as well give this god-awful idea a try. but be careful, you may end up like alot of us idiots who actually enjoy the rd1 better than the leica alternatives.

Alberti
10-12-2015, 02:56
For simplicity M8. It is a lovely camera, maybe ought to buy one again for my wife - - -
- I just bought an secondhand MM for all the reasons mentioned. And I expect its value to remain high.

However, it's [X100] not a rangefinder camera.
G

You are right. Though in some aspects the X100 is nice, it always under-delivers in quality and my wife still has trouble with her "automatic focus X100" - even though the viewer is nice & bright - her main reason to buy it.

Phil_F_NM
10-14-2015, 22:01
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
10-15-2015, 01:20
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
10-15-2015, 01:25
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
11-01-2015, 09:20
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
11-01-2015, 10:06
I'd like to second that. Exactly my thoughts.

I'll third it.

sniki
12-29-2015, 11:19
Epson RD1; give honour where honour is due: they were the first to conceive this.

raid
01-18-2016, 08:26
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
01-18-2016, 10:17
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
01-18-2016, 16:49
What's wrong with a Summilux 21?:confused:

jaapv
01-18-2016, 16:54
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
03-02-2016, 07:01
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
03-02-2016, 07:03
M8/40 Rokkor CLE.

MIkhail
03-02-2016, 07:17
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
03-02-2016, 07:26
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
03-02-2016, 10:20
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
03-02-2016, 10:57
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
03-02-2016, 12:35
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
03-02-2016, 15:51
...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
03-02-2016, 17:17
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.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5100/5428836636_f321ffd406.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/9gJcZE)
DSC00745 (https://flic.kr/p/9gJcZE) by unoh7 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/), I'd very much like a FF this size, and it could be done.

Lss
03-02-2016, 22:54
There are no ‘value for the money’ examples in digital rangefinders.
Well, there is no such thing as a cheap digital rangefinder. While some fully functional Epson R-D1 units are at least approaching that level in comparison to what many camera buyers are spending, their technology is already decade old as you point out. That may or may not matter for the potential buyers.

mani
03-03-2016, 01:10
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.

It's not just you.

Pikapig
03-03-2016, 02:34
Be it crop, full frame, digital rf or dslr...the one that gets you the winning shot is the one that is good and valuable.
If the image is good, people will ask you what gear did you use to capture that image. No one will be bothered what you use to capture the image if its a lousy image.
People buy Ricoh GR film compact because Daido Moriyama uses it and got tonnes of pretty shot.

And of course you can shoot 100k images to derive that conclusion about full frame is better than crop, but it can also be 100k of lousy images...or you can also use that damn crop camera to take that 1 picture that "wow" everyone. The thing is, its the images that matters.

And not forgetting that camera is a gear, and rightfully the gear should keep up to our expectation, but a lot of people lowered their expectation for the camera which i do not understand why? Despite so much issue with Leica Digital RF and the heavenly price, people are willing to pay a premium to accept a lower expectation of gear. This is as good as paying lots of money for a Mercedes that cannot run faster than a toyota, break down more often than a toyota.

But then again, its the user experience that counts :)

MIkhail
03-03-2016, 08:06
It's not just you.

I am sure it's not just me ;-)


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" :)



Obviously I did not express myself clearly... could be because English is my second language, I suppose.
What I was trying to say was: once I have camera in my hands, I don’t think “I wish I had different sensor, because this one is only giving me a cropped view”. I just walk back and forth to compensate for that. Poor man’s full frame compensation, I guess 
Of course I know that 28 mm will give you different field of view than 50 mm Even newbie as myself (not shot 100K images) knows that ;-)

Lss
03-03-2016, 11:07
And not forgetting that camera is a gear, and rightfully the gear should keep up to our expectation, but a lot of people lowered their expectation for the camera which i do not understand why? Despite so much issue with Leica Digital RF and the heavenly price, people are willing to pay a premium to accept a lower expectation of gear.
It is other peoples' expectations that are lower than those of the owner's. My M8 has been through a lot over the years and it keeps on capturing great photos.

JPSuisse
06-29-2016, 14:25
Well, I wouldn't mind moving up to full-frame, but I think the M8 (my vote) or the RD-1 has got the best value proposition.

In the end FF (assuming you have the needed focal length) does not allow you to take better pictures.

It's possible to get used to the quirks of the M8. That is subjective depending on your mind's flexibility, but I can handle it.

noisycheese
07-22-2016, 17:21
What is the Overall Best Value in Digital Rangefinders? If you are committed to both digital and black and white, it's the M Monochrom typ 246. If you are committed to both digital and color, it's the M-P typ 240.

Why??

Think twice, buy once. To hell with settle for cameras and halfway measures; spend your money once and be done with it.

DISCLAIMER
YMMV/JMHO/IANAL/Offer not good in Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa and in Nebraska on Wednesdays. :D

tennjed
09-10-2016, 20:09
I owned, and loved, the M8. After succumbing to the allure of the FF M9, I believe the performance of the M9 does more than justifies the additional shekels. You get the advantage of shooting at actual stated focal length of lenses, image quality that is at least as pleasing as the M8, no need for use of IR filters when shooting color, a camera for which replacements for all components are still available, and (strictly from a monetary value standpoint) a camera that will likely hold its current value for a number of years, going forward.

I also own and MM1; and, if I were secure in my belief that B&W is, in all cases, the best way to shoot, I would consider that camera as the leader in value...the high ISO rendering is very liberating. However, since obtaining the M9, I find that its color rendering, with the 35 Summilux V2, has me gaining a stronger fascination with color images. The M9 is now my choice about 75% of the time.

Phil_F_NM
09-20-2016, 20:45
A film rangefinder, perhaps a Leica M4 or Nikon SP, and a very good scanner.

Phil Forrest

Ronald M
02-04-2017, 11:25
Keeping my M9, back up is M8. 10% chance will get a M10 50% chance will upgrade D800 or D800E if Nikon has something better.

GAS is gone for lenses. Mostly recovered for bodies.

narsuitus
02-04-2017, 12:52
I am still shooting with a Leica M6. I do not yet shoot with a digital rangefinder because I have not found one that meets my needs nor have I found one that I consider a great value. However, the M10 may be the first digital rangefinder that meets my needs.

larmarv916
02-04-2017, 13:21
Ok...I wanted to ask Why the X100 and the X-Pro Bodies not included? Is that because they are hybrid viewfinders ? Thanks.

jsrockit
02-06-2017, 08:38
Ok...I wanted to ask Why the X100 and the X-Pro Bodies not included? Is that because they are hybrid viewfinders ? Thanks.

because they aren't rangefinder cameras. We are talking about digital cameras with mechanical rangefinders.

robert blu
03-24-2017, 04:21
M7 user here, I skipped the M8 because I didn't like it, I was not convinced about the M9, I had doubts when the M240/262 generation hit the market...but after I played a little with the M10 in Wetzlar Leica Shop I was convinced...that is my digital M...
robert

ajramirez
03-24-2017, 05:44
A film rangefinder, perhaps a Leica M4 or Nikon SP, and a very good scanner.

Phil Forrest

I would be inclined to agree with you if a very good scanner could be had at a reasonable cost. I am not aware that such a thing is even available at this point (and by that I mean scanners in current production).

Cheers,

Antonio

Huss
09-17-2017, 22:50
If you just care about a digital RF, then a used M240 is an incredible deal at about $3000.

RichC
09-18-2017, 00:31
My brain says M9. My heart says Epson R-D1.

Unfortunately, I can't use either. My commercial clients require 50 MP files, so I even have to resize my 36 MP Nikon D800E images, and some of my fine art prints are over a metre wide...!

d_c
12-31-2017, 06:35
If buying new then IMHO the M262 has the best bang for buck among Leica's current range of digital cameras. As others have observed however the M240 goes for less secondhand.

Burkey
12-31-2017, 09:16
I haven't been around RFF for quite some time. Dropped by this morning, saw this poll and thread and thought I'd join in.
For me I'd have to say the R-D1. I own one I bought for around $1,400. that is in exceptional condition except it came with the rangefinder patch way out of alignment. Thanks to Stephen Gandy and Co. it now is in very good condition and makes some very fine images.
I also own an M-E and it too is in fine shape and continues to make great pictures so I'd say the M9/M-E follows with a close second for "bang for your buck" in digital rangefinder-land. I share a bunch of CV and Zeiss lenses with both bodies acknowledging the crop factor and effective field of view. All good. 'Just my thoughts.
. . . David, Burkey

raid
01-02-2018, 10:21
"I still haven't found what I am looking for" ......

Ko.Fe.
01-02-2018, 10:34
Any digital RF you could afford is good value for its current market price.
As long as you actually need rangefinder and digital. Crop, ISO doesn't matter, the rangefinder is.

But I see people buying M10 without even knowing what RF is or people using SLR lenses on M240 and still happy. :)

trix4ever
06-13-2018, 00:54
Well I recently bought a used M240 for under US$3000, use it alongside my M6 and M4-P which I use for black and white only.
I thought I would only use the M240 for mono, with the option of colour, but fell in love with its colour output (raw only, hate the jpegs), at 59 I'm thinking of doing a serious colour project, the first in my life, totally inspired by the M240. Now I'll have to start a digital colour website! (always used digi Nikons for commercial work until I semi-retired, but they bored me to death).
So for me it was terrific value and the first digital Leica that seemed grown up and I wouldn't need to make excuses for it. In particular I love the shutter sound which I loathed in the M8/9's that I tried.

http://filmisadelight.com

Huss
06-13-2018, 10:15
Well I recently bought a used M240 for under US$3000, use it alongside my M6 and M4-P which I use for black and white only.
I thought I would only use the M240 for mono, with the option of colour, but fell in love with its colour output (raw only, hate the jpegs), at 59 I'm thinking of doing a serious colour project, the first in my life, totally inspired by the M240. Now I'll have to start a digital colour website! (always used digi Nikons for commercial work until I semi-retired, but they bored me to death).
So for me it was terrific value and the first digital Leica that seemed grown up and I wouldn't need to make excuses for it. In particular I love the shutter sound which I loathed in the M8/9's that I tried.

http://filmisadelight.com

Yeah, I hated the shutter feel and sound on the M9. There was no crispness to the action, and the sound was weird/'cheap'. The LCD screen on the back was also almost useless.
The M240, used, really is the best deal out there.

ktmrider
06-21-2018, 14:08
Agree. I owned an M9 but never really bonded. I bought a used MP240 in January and it is worth the money even if it has features I seldom use.