What's the point of a digital rangefinder?

[gabrielaszalos]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been shooting a Leica MP for a few years now. I have two Summilux lenses (the latest ones): 35mm and 50mm. They are my favourite. This is my zen setup, I need no more lenses. However, lately, due to not being able to find a good lab to develop my film and being lazy to do it myself (no lab does it as good as I do - not because I'm spectacularly good, but because labs are generally spectacularly bad), I started to think about digital cameras. I need a camera for studio (which has auto-focus), but also one to kind of continue this beautiful manual, mechanical experience. So I was pondering between SL2-S (and maybe R5) and M11, or both.

I have had an M10-D in the past and returned it. It just didn't stick with me. I like the fact of being able to use the same lenses on a digital body, but the experience is not the same at all. It's not an M-body (like the mechanical film ones). It felt like vegan meat. Beer without alcohol. It felt fake. Why even use the rangefinder, when you could have an EVF? Why go through all that effort to focus using that patch when you will most likely fail at <f/2 at close distances. That is if you are lucky enough for your rangefinder and lenses to be aligned perfectly.

So I decided the SL2-S will serve all purposes: usage with M-lenses, EVF(and focus accuracy with M-lenses due to it), as well as professional use with auto-focus SL lenses.

However, I love my MP so much, and the small package. I kind of wish the digital experience would be the same, so that keeps the M11 in my mind as an option. How do other people here feel? Have you used an SL2(-S) with M lenses? Have you used a digital M? I'm posting in the film forum because I'm interested in the mechanical Leica perspective on digital.

Thanks for reading. I hope my ramblings make some sense!

Edited February 9, 2023 by gabrielaszalos

[vinicio]

I have two SL2, one M10R, one M10 mono and using all of these or in my studio or when traveling based on what I need to achieve.

even if not a teenager since a long time, still prefer to work with RF when have to focus where I want.

SL2 with M lens is an incredible good tool but it “sounds” differently. Good for some purposes, better with it’s own lenses.

my favorite lenses: 35 chron APO and 50 lux FLE

Edited February 9, 2023 by vinicio

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

I decided a while ago that I wanted two cameras:

• One for practical use (when I'm taking photos for other people (the amateur's equivalent of being a professional). This is what my SL2-S is for, with the SL lenses.
• One for fun/pleasure/creativity. This used to be the CL and the TL lenses. To simplify my photographic life I sold it and bought a Q2, which is great, especially for casual/social/travel.

This neat system was upset by covid, when I started experimenting with large format, and that led back to 35mm film cameras (I sold my Pentax MX and Leica M2 in 2011). So now my photographic life is more complicated again. Film is still new enough for me that I enjoy the process of developing B&W at home and scanning the negatives, and here we can get good commercial colour processing.

In your shoes, I would go for the SL2-S for studio and professional work, and keep your film Ms for creativity/enjoyment. Perhaps if you are using them less frequently and for pleasure, you will find processing at home is less of a chore than when you have to do it for a client.

Edited February 9, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[gabrielaszalos]

Thank you two for the nice answers. It's surprising how much experience there is in this forum. I appreciate it. I find it amusing how different we all are. It's really hard to figure out the answer from others, I guess it's different for each of us.

25 minutes ago, vinicio said:

I have two SL2, one M10R, one M10 mono and using all of these or in my studio or when traveling based on what I need to achieve.

even if not a teenager since a long time, still prefer to work with RF when have to focus where I want.

SL2 with M lens is an incredible good tool but it “sounds” differently. Good for some purposes, better with it’s own lenses.

my favorite lenses: 35 chron APO and 50 lux FLE

How are you finding focusing the 50 lux using the patch at close distances and wide apertures? I have failed a lot with the short time I had my M10-D. Initially I blamed myself but I frankly think it's bloody hard to get it right, especially if you recompose after focusing.

Edited February 9, 2023 by gabrielaszalos

[pippy]

53 minutes ago, gabrielaszalos said:

...I have had an M10-D in the past and returned it. It just didn't stick with me. I like the fact of being able to use the same lenses on a digital body, but the experience is not the same at all. It's not an M-body...

Could you explain, exactly, what you mean by the above? Apart from not having to re-load a camera every 24/36 frames in what way was the shooting experience different?

FWIW I use an M2(*) and an M-D Typ-262. Right up until the post-shooting stage using both of these cameras is - IMX - exactly the same. No difference whatsoever other than TTL metering in the M-D.

Philip.

* Which I've had since 1980.

[gabrielaszalos]

11 minutes ago, pippy said:

Could you explain, exactly, what you mean by the above? Apart from not having to re-load a camera every 24/36 frames in what way was the shooting experience different?

I tried. It is the same in the same sense as beer without alcohol is the same as beer. Or vegan meat the same as meat. It's not mechanical. It's a digital camera. And that's fine, but then why bother with the rangefinder patch? Maybe that made sense before mirrorless, but now that all cameras are mirrorless, it's not that special anymore. Why not add an EVF. Like I said, it's mostly the difficulty in focusing that concerns me with the M11 (or M10 etc). It's a 60MP sensor. Razor thin f/1.4 is going to be impossible to get right. Am I wrong?

Edited February 9, 2023 by gabrielaszalos

[cboy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Matt Stuart said recently if you shoot film as he does like a 'crack habit' then it isn't sustainable. YMMV

[pippy]

52 minutes ago, gabrielaszalos said:

...It's not mechanical. It's a digital camera...why bother with the rangefinder patch?...it's mostly the difficulty in focusing that concerns me with the M11 (or M10 etc). It's a 60MP sensor. Razor thin f/1.4 is going to be impossible to get right. Am I wrong?

Yes.

The Digi-M cameras are mechanical in the sense that the photographer has to select, manually, focus; aperture and (in my case) shutter-speed. The shutter is also mechanical. The physical act of focussing with a Digi-M is exactly the same as focussing with a Film-M. Accurate focus at f1.4 at pixel-peeping level might require more precision with a 60Mp Digi-M than with a Film-M due to much-discussed factors; I cannot offer an informed opinion on this as I don't use a 60Mp Digi-M.

I maintain that both the physical and mental acts of using - in my case - the M-D are absolutely identical to using the M2.

If you think I'm wrong could you explain why using an M2 is different to using an M-D Typ-262?

Philip.

Edited February 9, 2023 by pippy

[Mikep996]

 

As far as the difference between the film/digital experience, I have discovered that the picture-taking experience does not have to be totally different.  It's not the actual digital/film that makes the difference.  It's the MENTAL aspect that creates the difference re digital vs film.  With digital it's typical to shoot lots of pictures, review each one immediately after shooting, and figure you can crop to insane levels so no need to worry much about framing.  Oh...yeah, and then bemoan the fact that at the end of the day/session there are hundreds (or more) of (mostly) bad pictures to store on the computer/wherever and never look at them again.  Is it those dang digital camera makers force us to take all those pictures?  If not, why did we take 20 pictures of something when two or three sufficed with film?  Because we CAN, not because we have to.

Not long ago I got back into film after an absence of 20 years, initially with my M6 and more currently with 120 film.  I had kept the M6 when I switched to digital in '02.  After getting back into film, and buying pretty much the same darkroom equipment I sold in '02, 🙄 I went out with my M10R and made a point of using it the same way I used a film camera - acting as if I had a limited number of shots available, not reviewing any pics, and paying more attention to what I was doing.  Interestingly, I found that there really wasn't any difference.  IOW, if I adopted that 'film' mental attitude with the M10R, it was pretty much the same "experience" as using the M6 other than not winding the film.  

However, I must admit I do like the "feel" of advancing the film and the sound of the shutter of the M6.  It also often becomes a topic of conversation when out shooting - "Wow, is that a FILM camera?" comes up quite often.

FWIW, my grab and go digital has become a Q2 rather than my M10 R.  

 

[Topsy]

I have MP, M2 and M4-P as well as 3 M9s, I now very rarely shoot 35mm film as I find the convenience of the digital workflow better for me. Recently I was doing 2 challenges in another Forum so I shot them side by side M9 and MP with Portra 160 I didn't find any real difference in the experience of shooting except not having to re-cock the shutter manually on the M9. What I do like about the digital workflow is if I only do a few shots I can see them as soon as I get home rather than waiting to finish the film and wait for the lab to send me the scans.

Here are 2 shots from those challenges, 1 film 1 digital of the same subjects on the same day, both were shot on a tripod at 1 second shutter speed for the motion effect.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

[Topsy]

Second shot.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

The only difference was how long it was for me to find out if I had achieved the aim with the film shot.

 

[Topsy]

6 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

 

As far as the difference between the film/digital experience, I have discovered that the picture-taking experience does not have to be totally different.  It's not the actual digital/film that makes the difference.  It's the MENTAL aspect that creates the difference re digital vs film.  With digital it's typical to shoot lots of pictures, review each one immediately after shooting, and figure you can crop to insane levels so no need to worry much about framing.  Oh...yeah, and then bemoan the fact that at the end of the day/session there are hundreds (or more) of (mostly) bad pictures to store on the computer/wherever and never look at them again.  Is it those dang digital camera makers force us to take all those pictures?  If not, why did we take 20 pictures of something when two or three sufficed with film?  Because we CAN, not because we have to.

Not long ago I got back into film after an absence of 20 years, initially with my M6 and more currently with 120 film.  I had kept the M6 when I switched to digital in '02.  After getting back into film, and buying pretty much the same darkroom equipment I sold in '02, 🙄 I went out with my M10R and made a point of using it the same way I used a film camera - acting as if I had a limited number of shots available, not reviewing any pics, and paying more attention to what I was doing.  Interestingly, I found that there really wasn't any difference.  IOW, if I adopted that 'film' mental attitude with the M10R, it was pretty much the same "experience" as using the M6 other than not winding the film.  

However, I must admit I do like the "feel" of advancing the film and the sound of the shutter of the M6.  It also often becomes a topic of conversation when out shooting - "Wow, is that a FILM camera?" comes up quite often.

FWIW, my grab and go digital has become a Q2 rather than my M10 R.  

 

I very rarely look at my shots on the camera screen, almost never. I would have one of the Digital Ms without a screen but they are rarer than Hens Teeth to find.

[pippy]

36 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

...I went out with my M10R and made a point of using it the same way I used a film camera - acting as if I had a limited number of shots available, not reviewing any pics, and paying more attention to what I was doing.  Interestingly, I found that there really wasn't any difference.  IOW, if I adopted that 'film' mental attitude with the M10R, it was pretty much the same "experience" as using the M6 other than not winding the film...

This is exactly the same approach I adopt and I find it works for me very well indeed.

Philip.

[Jewl]

For me the difference is in running costs, safety, flexibility and overall capabilities in severe lighting situations! 

I love to combine both depending on the scenario. Would never completely replace my digital M with a analog one (I am coming from an digital rangefinder).

[pippy]

40 minutes ago, Topsy said:

...I now very rarely shoot 35mm film as I find the convenience of the digital workflow better for me...

Me too.

Not having a darkroom to make my own enlargements is one of the things in photography I do miss very much but, even so, although I was a pretty decent B'n'W printer(*) I still find that the Digi-Workflow suits my current situation better.

Philip.

* I used to print professionally for some London-based photographers.

[archive_all]

3 minutes ago, pippy said:

This is exactly the same approach I adopt and I find it works for me very well indeed.

Philip.

Same here. I don't limit my shots but I only shoot manually as I would with film because it's what I'm used to and AEL and recompose isn't a great metering method for me. The experience is very close with the exception of being able to review on the screen which I'm guilty of.

[archive_all]

I'd just add that for some of us the EVF and manual focus experience isn't ideal. I personally don't like to zoom from critical focus and much prefer the rangefinder. Also, close focus at f2 isn't an issue. I'd say the vast majority of my shots nail focus. I've only used rangefinders for pushing a decade now. I think if I were to go with an EVF camera then I'd prefer to just use AF lenses.

[gabrielaszalos]

Thank you all for your answers. Quite insightful and helpful. I was not expecting so many wonderful responses

1 hour ago, pippy said:

[...]

I maintain that both the physical and mental acts of using - in my case - the M-D are absolutely identical to using the M2.

If you think I'm wrong could you explain why using an M2 is different to using an M-D Typ-262?

Philip.

I don't think you are wrong. I just think we have two different opinions, and that is fine. I don't wish to turn this thread into debating it. We are all entitled to feel differently on it. And I think both points are valid. You can perhaps try to understand mine even if you don't agree with it, and try to judge from that perspective. I feel like I've placed enough effort into explaining it and I don't want to side track this thread into that discussion (as is the danger of most threads), so let's leave it at that.

53 minutes ago, archive_all said:

I'd just add that for some of us the EVF and manual focus experience isn't ideal. I personally don't like to zoom from critical focus and much prefer the rangefinder. Also, close focus at f2 isn't an issue. I'd say the vast majority of my shots nail focus. I've only used rangefinders for pushing a decade now. I think if I were to go with an EVF camera then I'd prefer to just use AF lenses.

That's very encouraging and insightful, and I may reconsider getting the M11 because of this response. I might eventually need the SL2-S as well, for (amateur) studio work. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by gabrielaszalos

[Aryel]

Have you consider renting an m11?

At the end of the day, nothing can compare with trying out... 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Aryel

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sinjun]

2 hours ago, gabrielaszalos said:

How are you finding focusing the 50 lux using the patch at close distances and wide apertures? I have failed a lot with the short time I had my M10-D.

I find the rangefinder fine for fast lenses including the 50mm Summilux asph at short distances as long as the camera / lens calibration is good. Focus and recompose is always going to be more difficult, with some lenses more than others, because of field curvature. My problem is that a number of my lenses are not perfectly calibrated. I try to compensate manually with these and it can be a bit hit and miss.