why rangefinders

[505NJ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am just curious, why are rangefinders so much more than a slr cameras?

 

Are they that much better of a camera??

 

I know Leica is a top brand but when I started looking into digital and I saw the price of the M8, I started wondering whats the difference.

 

I have used a canon eos a2 for about 6 years and I am making the jump to digital.

I have no formal training in photography, have learned on my own.

 

well take care, and i hope this isnt to dumb of a ????

[ddp]

Weclome to the forum...

 

Compare the price of the M8 to other professional level DSLR's...it's equivalent to Nikon's top offering, and less than Canon's. So it's really not so bad.

 

The lenses are where you start seeing major differences in price though.

[jaapv]

Whew! No - they are not better cameras, they are different. Having said that the M8 is not more expensive than Nikon or Canon cameras that offer comparable results. Most posters here will tell you the Leica prints are better, but let's not start that war again and call them different, because of the choices Leica made in sensor design and the undisputed quality of Leica M lenses.

The main difference between (D)SLR and (D)RF is the style and feel of shooting. I can best describe it by saying a DSLR takes photographs from the outside looking in, whilst a RF is a interactive part of the photograph. The best thing you can do if you are on the fence is to buy a used LeicaM film body and lens at a price you can be sure to more or less recover, and just start using it. Then you can decide if it is for you.

 

The price differences are easily understood. A rangefinder mechanism is a far more expensive part than a mirror box, and due to technical considerations, which would take too much bandwidth to explain here, the precision of manufacture of a RF lens must be considerably better than a SLR lens. And it is like any field: the last one percent of quality improvement may increase the price tenfold.

[wattsy]

Am just curious, why are rangefinders so much more than a slr cameras?

 

What rangefinders and what SLRs? The cost of Leica rangefinders (and Leica SLR cameras) reflects the high cost of quality materials, European manufacture and the small manufacturing volumes. Even so, I would argue that Leica rangefinder bodies (in particular the M8) are not especially expensive when compared with the broadly equivalent top pro SLR bodies from Canon and Nikon. It is the lenses that are increasingly being priced into the stratosphere.

[ken_tanaka]

Your question is too broad.

 

The rangefinder style of camera has been around for over 50 years and was largely superseded by the single-lens reflex camera. Today there are very few manufacturers of this type of camera. Leica's M models are priced far beyond its peers, largely a luxury brand strategy rather than true value. You can pick up a very good rangefinder camera for much less than a Leica M.

 

But the M8 is a rather different rangefinder story. It is the only DIGITAL rangefinder camera in production today. Being a relatively small-market product, and rather complex to manufacture, the price of an M8 is rather breathtaking particularly when you consider its lack of automation and rather more limited application range (than an slr).

 

The M8 is an excellent camera. But its appeal will mainly be to those who have used and enjoyed film rangefinder cameras, particularly Ms, and already have a stock of costly M-mount lenses. Leica hopes that the M8 will also broaden the rangefinder market as an alternative to the dslr. Time will tell.

[Guest sirvine]

I'm guessing that if you're self-taught on auto-everything SLR film cameras, you'll have to relearn photography when you switch to a rangefinder. This can be a very rewarding (but challenging) experience. Once I got the hang of the beautiful mechanics of these cameras, everything else seemed a little hokey in comparison.

 

The often cited reasons for adopting an expensive system like Leica M are:

 

1. The small, discreet size of the bodies and lenses;

2. The mind-blowing optics of the lenses;

3. The rugged build quality of lenses and bodies.

 

The big cons, again at a very high level, are:

 

1. No autofocus;

2. Framing is not WYSIWYG;

3. Metering and flash compatibility are less 'idiot proof'.

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The manually focused RF camera (OK – the Leica M) occupies a different niche than that of the SLR. There are two significant advantages to it. First, wide angle lenses are focused far more accurately and faster and in lower light than you can with an SLR – and this goes for those with autofocus too. Second, you can see what is immediately outside of the picture, so that you are more directly cropping out a piece of reality. That's interactive, or can be. Leica cameras were the supreme tools of photojournalists, while this breed still existed (in contradistinction to remotely-controlled camera-carriers).

 

The disadvantage was that specialized forms of photography – long tele work, and macro work – were impossible without slightly Rube Goldbergish/Heath Robinsonian attachments. But a good RF camera is unbeatable for General Photography.

 

It does of course demand a competent, thinking user. You do press the button, but before that you have to do the rest ...

 

The old man from the Age of the Screw Thread

[sean_reid]

The first part of this article might be of interest to you, Steve;

 

Epson R-D1 Review

 

Cheers,

[dhsimmonds]

Steve - the Leica DMR digital back is more than the M8 complete camera and you still need a Leica SLR R8 or R9 plus lenses! So in Leica terms, the M8 is a cheap digital camera!!

 

Ken - the Epson R-D1 pre-dated the Leica M8 by a couple of years and is still available in it's second re-vamp the R-D1s, it can use Leica rangefinder lenses too!

[Guest sirvine]

Dave,

 

I believe Ken was careful to say "currently in production". The R-D1s has run its course from Epson/Cosina, as far as I know.

[505NJ]

wow I did not expect such a response, but it all gives me a better understanding of what rangefinders are and do. And like I said before I am making the jump to digital, and am almost certain to purchase the VLux-1. Although I read a article on the DLux-3 last night and will look at it also. As far as the M8,,,,Thats a bit outta my reach.

[Shootist]

What rangefinders and what SLRs? The cost of Leica rangefinders (and Leica SLR cameras) reflects the high cost of quality materials, European manufacture and the small manufacturing volumes. Even so, I would argue that Leica rangefinder bodies (in particular the M8) are not especially expensive when compared with the broadly equivalent top pro SLR bodies from Canon and Nikon. It is the lenses that are increasingly being priced into the stratosphere.

 

Not really into the stratosphere. Back in 1972 I think I paid $1200 for a 28mm summicron and IIRC that was with my employee discount from the camera store I worked in. Given the inflation rate since then to now the current cost of $3200 isn't so bad. I'd even say they have actually gone down in price and gotten better.

[rwfreund]

Why?

Because we like them

L E I C A

[AlanG]

Not really into the stratosphere. Back in 1972 I think I paid $1200 for a 28mm summicron and IIRC that was with my employee discount from the camera store I worked in. Given the inflation rate since then to now the current cost of $3200 isn't so bad. I'd even say they have actually gone down in price and gotten better.

 

OK, we're all a bit older and maybe our memory isn't perfect. I do remember that a Rolls Royce was about $20,800 in 1972. In a previous post, I looked up some euipment prices from 1971. Here they are again. I didn't have the 1971 price for a 28 Summicron but $1200sounds pretty high to me for any Leica lens of that era. I am no historian of cameras but I don't recall that a 28mm Summicron existed in 1972. A Sinar P view camera was about $550 in 1971.

 

Here is the real pricing story for Leica: 1971 prices from my Helix catologue.

 

Leica M4 w 50 f2 dual Range Summicron $519

28 2.8 Elmarit w/hood $237

Optical viewfinder $48

35mm F2 Summicron $195 (for M2 w/o bug eye maginfier)

50mm Summilux F1.4 $255

90mm Summicron F2 $264

 

Nikon Ftn (TTL metering) w 50 1.4 $458

24mm 2.8 $190

35 f2 $190

50 f1.4 $148

85mm f1.8 $195

 

So back in 1971 Leicas and most lenses were just a little more expensive than Nikon.

 

Now: prices from B&H and Unique Photo

 

Leica M7 w 50f2 $4395

24 f 2.8 $2895

28 f2.8 $1495

35 f2 $2195

50 1.4 $2850

90 f2 $2795

 

Nikon F6 w 50 1.4 $2275

24 f2 MF $599

24 2.8 MF $360

24 2.8 AF $295

35 f1.4 MF $699

35 f2 MF $360

35 f2 AF $310

50 1.2 MF $579

50 1.4 AF $275

85 f1.8 AF $375

 

So the prices of the two systems really diverged to the point that Leicas can mostly be justified only by well heeled buyers. What is remarkable to me is how low the price of some of the Nikon lenses are. Those lenses didn't even double in price after 35 years! Nikon must have gotten much more efficient at making them.

 

If you are an average working photographer or a hobbyist who has to seriously budget your expenses then you have to consider the "bang for the buck."

 

Just as with anything expensive, there are usually much less expensive alternatives that will deliver the performance that most people need. (Canon and Nikon have inexpensive DSLRs that provide most of the performance that their pro models deliver - as much as most non-pros need.) It is my opinion that a lot of people buy Leicas and pro model Canons and Nikons because they like them, not because they need them.

 

My good friend recently traded in his 1 1/2 year old Ferrari F430 for a new Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder. Does he need this? When you are making a comfortable living and have substantial financial resources, the price of Leica gear doesn't seem that high. To others it can't be justified.

[Guest Bernd Banken]

Second, you can see what is immediately outside of the picture, so that you are more directly cropping out a piece of reality. That's interactive, or can be. Leica cameras were the supreme tools of photojournalists, while this breed still existed (in contradistinction to remotely-controlled camera-carriers).

 

95% ore more of all DSLRs have zoom lenses in use. It's the same wether I look a bit wider than the framelines of a RF with primes or zoom more into wide angle to see the surrounding of my object with a DSLR, I believe.

 

The biggest disadvantage of a RF is the fact that I can't control visually the DOF with the selected aperture.

 

Bernd