What Camera Comes Closest That I Can Afford?!

[markpsf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just finished the New Yorker article. It was a reminder of all I love about photography, especially street photography. So the question arises as it may have for others, unable to afford a Leica, having no desire to return to film photography, but envious of those who can shoot with a camera that feels as good as a Leica rangefinder, shoots as quickly and as quietly and effectively, what digital camera comes closest for 25% of the cost? There's no doubt nothing else can match it but what is next best and reachable? I hate being envious! 8-)

 

Mark

[stunsworth]

Ffordes - ffordes photographic : Main Index - have a used Epson RD-1 for sale at £749.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[sandymc]

At risk of being banned from the LUF - - take a look at this thread: M6 feeling with Nikon D40: Leica Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

Sandy

[harrisfoto]

Why not film photography?

 

You get a 22 meg sensor, with self-storage.

Scan with a Nikon Coolscan (available for about $500.)

If cost is an issue, you get the best price/quality ratio with film.

 

All the time that you are shooting film, the digital keeps getting better, and higher quality used equipment becomes available.

 

You can spend money on Leica lenses, and use an M3 while waiting for the prices of used Epson rd-1 or Leica M8 to come down. The lens will still be useful on those cameras as well.

 

A working M3 costs between $500 to $700. A Leica 1.4 50mm M lens about $1,000 to $1,500. And a Grossen Digisix light meter for $150.00.

 

Or, you can get the latest Canon G7, or a Leica D-lux 3. But the image is not the same. The shooting is not the same. You wind up missing, or with mis-timed shots.

 

I got a Canon G1 in 2001, and if I had upgraded everytime, I would have spent over $5,000 by now just keeping up with their latest. Now I am switching back to Ilford film.

[Overgaard]

Leica D-Lux 3 with brown leather bag - that is a lovely set - and it's Leica.

 

Great little camera you can easily bring along in a pocket og bag.

 

As (or if) your interest and activity grow you will want to spend more on cameras and perhaps time (for film cameras and scans).

[Italocam]

Film is not the enemy,don't allow the instant gratification of digital photos mesmerize you.You can always try C41 process films and digitize results quickly at a place like Costco for minimal cost. Italo C

[markpsf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My appreciation of digital photography is hardly related to instant gratification, given the time I send with each of my better photos. I also enjoyed my many years with film. Right now I prefer working with digital.

 

Thanks.

 

Mark

[jlancasterd]

Have you considered a secondhand Digilux 2? I'm not sure about prices in the US but, here in UK, Ffordes have 5 or 6 used D2s available right now at prices between £500 ($1,000) and £700 ($1,400). I used one extensively until I got my DMR - it has an excellent lens and produces very good results in RAW mode - if you can live with its snail-like image recording software, that is.

 

If you switch off the sound it is even quieter than the M8 - completely soundless in fact.

[adan]

I used a Sony R-1 for a year as a place-holder while awaiting the M8 - 10 Mpixels, roughly the same effective focal length range (24-120 - but the Sony zoom is slower at the long end). But I also had 5 years experience shooting film Ms, so I could "think" my way into using the rather lumpy R-1 to make M-like grab shots. It's not, perhaps, a good introduction for someone who wants to experience for the first time the 'candid camera" effects that Anthony Lane described. $500 used - and some new ones still around.

 

The R-D1 is a reasonable introduction to RF digital.

 

Alternatively, something like the Ricoh GR-Digital, where one can stick an accessory glass viewfinder on top, turn off the LCD/ instant review, and just look for things to put the frame around, would be a good way to get a feel for what the M8 does. [for that matter, having looked up the GR to check the name, the GX100 would also probably do nicely - with Cosina-type accesory viewfinders for 24, 35, 50 and 75 field of view - although that many finders would probably cost more than the camera].

 

I guess some of the other window-viewfinder digicams would also serve - Nikon P5000 or Canon G9. The P5000 has an accesory shoe for a bigger brighter finder than the built-in one (but for only one focal length, so you'd have to pick a preferred field of view and set the zoom lens accordingly). Viewfinders run about $150 for Cosina-made, in fields of view for 28, 35, 50 etc.

 

With a little creative imagining as you shoot, you can get the "viewfinder" ethos from these - or most of the others already mentioned.

 

One last thought - what I liked in the Sony R-1 was the 2:3 picture shape, which I find much more dynamic and interesting to work in than the squarer 4:3 shape commonly used for smaller digicams (including the Ricoh, Nikon and Canons mention above). Other than that - I doubt you could do much better than the GR-Digital for a start, (except perhaps the R-D1, but price in a lens as well) and a whole lot worse

[biglouis]

I just finished the New Yorker article. It was a reminder of all I love about photography, especially street photography. So the question arises as it may have for others, unable to afford a Leica, having no desire to return to film photography, but envious of those who can shoot with a camera that feels as good as a Leica rangefinder, shoots as quickly and as quietly and effectively, what digital camera comes closest for 25% of the cost? There's no doubt nothing else can match it but what is next best and reachable? I hate being envious! 8-)

 

Mark

 

 

Without hesitation I can recommend a D-LUX 2 (s/h) or the more recent D-LUX 3 (new).

 

A tiny camera with all the features you could ask for including superb RAW files for results you can print up to A3 and beyond and one of the best lenses, imho, that you can get on a digicam. No, let me amend that, THE best lens you can get on a digicam.

 

If you don't need all the controls, then the C-LUX is even more convenient and I've blown shots up to A4 without any problems.

 

If you visit my website you'll see a mixture of M6, R-D1, D-LUX2 and C-LUX results and frankly you won't be able to tell the difference.

 

LouisB

[mgcd]

I can also recommend the C-Lux 1 (I know you're asking about the C-Lux 2 but I have not tried it...). It is a surprisingly good P&S little camera with nice optical quality and some needed flexibilty especially with slow sync flash.

 

Cheers,

[elansprint72]

Have you considered a secondhand Digilux 2? I'm not sure about prices in the US but, here in UK, Ffordes have 5 or 6 used D2s available right now at prices between £500 ($1,000) and £700 ($1,400). I used one extensively until I got my DMR - it has an excellent lens and produces very good results in RAW mode - if you can live with its snail-like image recording software, that is.

 

If you switch off the sound it is even quieter than the M8 - completely soundless in fact.

 

Totally agree- go for it!

[abrewer]

Having held all of the aforementioned Leica products in hand, I don't see how anyone can compare the "feel" of any of them to an "M".

 

If that's really what you want--that dense, reassuring presence described in the New Yorker--then you've no choice but to ante up for the M8 (given the constraints you've proposed).

 

Or buy a film "M" and have the lab make a CD for you at the same time as they do your prints.

 

Thanks.

 

Allan

[Guest malland]

Mark, if you're interested in street photography I don't think that the medium-format look of the M8 is what you really might want: forget about the gushing and breathless New Yorker article, as, althoug well-written it's pretty shallow in propagating the Leica myth in a great exercise of puffery. Someone seems to have done a job on Anthony Lane, who could have written a much more interesting and true article, given the obvious issues the surround Leica as a company and the M8 as a camera. Indeed, the article could be more factual: the assertion that the D-Lux 3 could not have taken the picture the author discusses at the end of the article is simply untrue: it could if manual pre-focusing was used, which many people do with this camera because of it's huge depth of field.

 

In my view, the camera that Leica would have produced were it an innovative company is the Ricoh GX100. This is a camera that is great for street photography and can loosen up your shooting style, as the earlier Ricoh GR-D did for me. It's substantialy better than the D-Lux 3, which is really a Panasonic — something that the New Yorker article should have mentioned were it better written or edited — for the following reasons:

 

• The "stepped" zoom facility, which allows you to step through from 24 to 28, 35, 50 and 75mm EFOV in discrete steps, makes it feel that it's the equivalent of having a camera with five prime lenses. You're then shooting at the same focal lengths that you get to know if you don't already. It's a brilliant idea and it's surprising that, in all these years of production of zoom lenses, no other manufacturer has thought of this.

 

• The GX100 file quality is better: the D-Lux is virtually unusable at ISO 1600, because even in RAW, there is some in-camera smoothing which results in "smearing"; and at ISO 800 the files from the D-Lux 3 is a hit or miss affair.

 

• The removable electonic viewfinder is quite good — even though some people prefer an optical viewfinder — and is much better than other EVF with which I'm familiar, those of the V-Lux 1 and Digilux 3. Moreover it can be tilted up so that you can look down into it when taking low-angle shots. It displays all the shooting information that is available on the LCD and of course has 100% coverage of the frame. In my view this is also a brilliant solution. The D-Lux 3 has no viewfinder; nor does it have a hotshoe where an external optical viewfinder can be mounted.

 

• The GX100 has better-designed controls than the D-Lux 3, although the latter's are fairly good.

 

I have both the GX100 and the D-Lux 3 right now and will probably sell the latter. On my flickr site, whose url is below my signature you can see pictures with both cameras: the GX100 pictures are on pages 1 and 2; the D-Lux 3 pictures are on pages 8 and 9.

 

Don't get me wrong the The DLux 3 is a good camera; it's just that the GX100 is better.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Confusion Circle]

Panasonic LX2?

[wintersway]

Have you considered a secondhand Digilux 2? I'm not sure about prices in the US but, here in UK, Ffordes have 5 or 6 used D2s available right now at prices between £500 ($1,000) and £700 ($1,400). I used one extensively until I got my DMR - it has an excellent lens and produces very good results in RAW mode - if you can live with its snail-like image recording software, that is.

 

If you switch off the sound it is even quieter than the M8 - completely soundless in fact.

 

I quite agree and in fact what I have just done! After much agonizing I have decided that a used D2 will assuage me until I save the extra funds for the M8! I won a D2 on Ebay and anxiously await it's arrival.

[fotografr]

Have you considered a secondhand Digilux 2? I'm not sure about prices in the US but, here in UK, Ffordes have 5 or 6 used D2s available right now at prices between £500 ($1,000) and £700 ($1,400). I used one extensively until I got my DMR - it has an excellent lens and produces very good results in RAW mode - if you can live with its snail-like image recording software, that is.

 

If you switch off the sound it is even quieter than the M8 - completely soundless in fact.

 

Interesting. I just tried to sell a Digilux 2 by posting it for 2 months on both the classified section here and the Rangefinder forum classified section. Initially, I was asking $1,000, but after 30 days and no inquiries I dropped the price to $800. After another month and no inquiries, I pulled it and gave up. These things apparently have no used market value.

[markpsf]

Thanks Mitch.

 

I actually have that camera and after reading your post decided that I wasn't using it to even half it's potential. So that will be my route for now. It is a terrific camera in some ways and now, with a Voigtlander 28/35 viewfinder attached, I may be able to develop more skill in using it.

 

Again...thanks.

 

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark, if you're interested in street photography I don't think that the medium-format look of the M8 is what you really might want: forget about the gushing and breathless New Yorker article, as, althoug well-written it's pretty shallow in propagating the Leica myth in a great exercise of puffery. Someone seems to have done a job on Anthony Lane, who could have written a much more interesting and true article, given the obvious issues the surround Leica as a company and the M8 as a camera. Indeed, the article could be more factual: the assertion that the D-Lux 3 could not have taken the picture the author discusses at the end of the article is simply untrue: it could if manual pre-focusing was used, which many people do with this camera because of it's huge depth of field.

 

In my view, the camera that Leica would have produced were it an innovative company is the Ricoh GX100. This is a camera that is great for street photography and can loosen up your shooting style, as the earlier Ricoh GR-D did for me. It's substantialy better than the D-Lux 3, which is really a Panasonic — something that the New Yorker article should have mentioned were it better written or edited — for the following reasons:

 

• The "stepped" zoom facility, which allows you to step through from 24 to 28, 35, 50 and 75mm EFOV in discrete steps, makes it feel that it's the equivalent of having a camera with five prime lenses. You're then shooting at the same focal lengths that you get to know if you don't already. It's a brilliant idea and it's surprising that, in all these years of production of zoom lenses, no other manufacturer has thought of this.

 

• The GX100 file quality is better: the D-Lux is virtually unusable at ISO 1600, because even in RAW, there is some in-camera smoothing which results in "smearing"; and at ISO 800 the files from the D-Lux 3 is a hit or miss affair.

 

• The removable electonic viewfinder is quite good — even though some people prefer an optical viewfinder — and is much better than other EVF with which I'm familiar, those of the V-Lux 1 and Digilux 3. Moreover it can be tilted up so that you can look down into it when taking low-angle shots. It displays all the shooting information that is available on the LCD and of course has 100% coverage of the frame. In my view this is also a brilliant solution. The D-Lux 3 has no viewfinder; nor does it have a hotshoe where an external optical viewfinder can be mounted.

 

• The GX100 has better-designed controls than the D-Lux 3, although the latter's are fairly good.

 

I have both the GX100 and the D-Lux 3 right now and will probably sell the latter. On my flickr site, whose url is below my signature you can see pictures with both cameras: the GX100 pictures are on pages 1 and 2; the D-Lux 3 pictures are on pages 8 and 9.

 

Don't get me wrong the The DLux 3 is a good camera; it's just that the GX100 is better.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Peyton Hoge]

I just finished the New Yorker article. It was a reminder of all I love about photography, especially street photography. So the question arises as it may have for others, unable to afford a Leica, having no desire to return to film photography, but envious of those who can shoot with a camera that feels as good as a Leica rangefinder, shoots as quickly and as quietly and effectively, what digital camera comes closest for 25% of the cost? There's no doubt nothing else can match it but what is next best and reachable? I hate being envious! 8-)

 

Mark

There isn't a next best;)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sean_reid]

I just finished the New Yorker article. It was a reminder of all I love about photography, especially street photography. So the question arises as it may have for others, unable to afford a Leica, having no desire to return to film photography, but envious of those who can shoot with a camera that feels as good as a Leica rangefinder, shoots as quickly and as quietly and effectively, what digital camera comes closest for 25% of the cost? There's no doubt nothing else can match it but what is next best and reachable? I hate being envious! 8-)

 

Mark

 

 

By that description: Epson R-D1.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean