What's the point of a digital rangefinder?

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did film exclusively for my personal work and a lot of it was with M4-2 and 35 mn lens. 

Kilometers of self development, bulk loaded film and I realized it is not true film photography until it is on darkroom print.

Once this no compromise conclusion was taken, I have lasted on daily film shooting and weekly printing until my job change to hour and half commute one way and my family getting dog with appetite for outdoors.

I have to quit from darkroom and started to use M-E 220 more often.

But I don't feel it same as film, meterless M.

It is nice as always Leica, but it is not something I'm willing to take to different countries and continents as it was with M4-2.

Yet, I would love to get more robust SL or SL2-S. They seems to be only FF evf cameras without issues with M lenses.  

In my experience film and darkroom prints are the content on itself. With digital you always have to find the content. If it is present, it is almost as good as film photography:)

[pippy]

1 hour ago, gabrielaszalos said:

...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...

Really? In which case I've obviously misunderstood the question as posed in the Thread Title.

I thought the whole purpose of the thread was to discuss "...the point of a digital rangefinder..." and the reasons - if indeed there are any - why a Digital-M might be considered to be just as relevant / useful as shooting with a Film-M.

It seems, however, your aim in starting this thread was to not discuss the point of a digital rangefinder so I'll bow out.

Have fun!

Philip.

[Advertisement]

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

[gabrielaszalos]

1 hour ago, Aryel said:

Have you consider renting an m11?

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

Indeed. But not option where I live. I am going to New York at end of March and will check it out at B&H if I don’t get it by then. Or, I could buy one and return it in 14 days - which I probably won’t Or, I can beg Leica to loan one to me, which they might. 

[charlesphoto99]

I think where you might have gone wrong with the M10-D is in trying to replicate the film shooting experience. IMO, by doing so, you were missing out on what makes digital unique from film, which is the ability to instantly review what it is you are working on. Of course, some purists may say that is a bad thing, but on the other hand a choice of an EVF mirrorless means you are essentially previewing in real time 24/7. So with an M digital you get the best of both worlds - the rangefinder focusing (which in my experience is no different than the film bodies) and the digital experience of knowing where you are going with your images as you take them. I too would feel like the D is only half a camera, stuck between the two worlds of digital and film, which is why I never went there. Have you considered a used M10 or M10-P or M10-R? 

[shinobi2012]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Ko.Fe.:

I did film exclusively for my personal work and a lot of it was with M4-2 and 35 mn lens. 

Kilometers of self development, bulk loaded film and I realized it is not true film photography until it is on darkroom print.

Once this no compromise conclusion was taken, I have lasted on daily film shooting and weekly printing until my job change to hour and half commute one way and my family getting dog with appetite for outdoors.

I have to quit from darkroom and started to use M-E 220 more often.

But I don't feel it same as film, meterless M.

It is nice as always Leica, but it is not something I'm willing to take to different countries and continents as it was with M4-2.

Yet, I would love to get more robust SL or SL2-S. They seems to be only FF evf cameras without issues with M lenses.  

In my experience film and darkroom prints are the content on itself. With digital you always have to find the content. If it is present, it is almost as good as film photography:)

100% agreed.

I remember using the CCD Monochrom, and I had files printed at Harman Labs on their Black&White Fuji Maschine on the same paper using for my DarkroomPrints. Its the best you can get in my opinion when shooting digital monochrom, but...Darkroom Prints are breathing... no matter what people are saying. If you see 1:1  prints, the prints speak for itself.. So I think one has to find out if one is taking pictures or making photographs (I am aware, this is a delicate statement). 

I sold all my Leica digital Bodies and kept my Film bodies.  Also for Color, I would not choose Leica Digital. That's my personal opinion.

[Danner]

1 hour ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Kilometers of self development, bulk loaded film and I realized it is not true film photography until it is on darkroom print. ...

(emphasis added)

Ding-ding-ding!  For me, this is where B&W film stands above, on a silver gelatin print.  Especially one that has been ferrotype plate dried and dry-mounted on museum rag board (with no cover-glass).  Par excellence!

Edited February 9 by Danner

[rtai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been an M film user for 25 years and mainly use the 35mm and then the 50mm. These two focal lengths suit my style as a travel and street photographer. The M cameras are really only practical for 35mm and 50mm. Anything wider and longer are not ideal for a rangefinder or at least inconvenient. If you only going to be shooting 35 or 50 then I agree an EVF has little purpose unless you are using a Noctilux then the EVF focusing aids become the greatest tools invented. Same with longer and wider lenses. It all depends on your personal needs.

Edited February 9 by rtai

[evikne]

My approach to Leica M is probably different from most others here. I didn't start photography until well into the digital age and have never shot with film (apart from some simple point-and-shoot cameras in my youth). But I soon became interested in doing all settings manually, and this led me on to the digital M, which is probably the closest I'll get to an analog feel with a digital camera. I also have no use for a screen, so I regret that I bought the M10 before the M10-D was launched (but I'm excited to see what a future M11-D will be like). I will probably never buy a real film M because it's expensive to use, and I like the convenience of a digital workflow.

I probably took better pictures with my Canon DSLR that I sold some years ago, but I love the feeling of handling and mastering my Leica, and I won't go back.

[johnwolf]

The patch is about the least important feature of an M for me, digital or film. The design, simplicity, small lenses, zone focus capability, and the wonderful experience of window framing and framelines - these are what appeal to me. I find them essentially the same experience on my M6 and M10. 

So to answer the question, "why a digital rangefinder:" all of the above with the benefits of digital. You won't find them all in any other full frame system. 

And BTW, beer without alcohol and "meat" without dead animal is far better for you. 

[plaidshirts]

6 hours 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?

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.

I'm with you. It's why I love my M-D as it's the only digital RF Leica worth having IMHO.

6 hours ago, gabrielaszalos said:

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?

I would posit that the M-D262 and M10-D are similar but very different animals.

The original M-D was so basic, so pure - a film M with a digital back.

M10-D added functions to make it easier for the digital age and strayed from it's original ethos.

To use your analogy, if M-10D is alcohol-free beer, the M-D is perhalps a low-calorie version - it'll still get you drunk but be better for you in the long run.

Edited February 9 by plaidshirts

[dpitt]

19 minutes ago, johnwolf said:

The patch is about the least important feature of an M for me, digital or film. The design, simplicity, small lenses, zone focus capability, and the wonderful experience of window framing and framelines - these are what appeal to me. I find them essentially the same experience on my M6 and M10. 

So to answer the question, "why a digital rangefinder:" all of the above with the benefits of digital. You won't find them all in any other full frame system. 

And BTW, beer without alcohol and "meat" without dead animal is far better for you. 

Well said. The essence of the M for me is the RF and its compactness. The mechanical operation and simplicity is also special in the digital world. Nothing can compete with that. The SL is too bulky and is not an RF even though the results are good.

I have M2, M3 M5 and M8/M9. Convenience and laziness makes me use the digital M's more and more. I get it that you do not feel the same mechanical perfection experience as with the M3, bit in its own way it is close. Nostalgia is never going to go away and a new M6 will never feel like an old one... I have an old IIIF and that feels even more special. It does not make it a better camera though.

Why use the RF if you have an EVF?  My M8/M9 can't do that. I experimented with the M240 when it came out. Using the EVF turns the M in a sort of Mirrorless camera. The RF experience is gone. Compactness is worse and it is not the best experience with EVF either. Use an SL if you like or need that. This is what I will do for macro and tele shoots. I just bought an SL and I will keep using my M8/M9 a while until I can afford an M10 or M11. And even then the SL will be the best for macro and tele.

Edited February 9 by dpitt

[Studienkamera]

10 hours ago, Topsy said:

I very rarely look at my shots on the camera screen, almost never. 

Such posts are common and always popular on this forum. I find them puzzling. If I have the time and the subject is static, I will shortly check the automatic review of the picture I just took. For me that's one of the attractions of digital. Better correct any mistakes (exposure, framing, horizon) while I still can instead of spending more time on post-processing. I don't need to prove to anyone that I can do without a screen, I didn't use one for 30 years. To each his own, I guess.

[Topsy]

8 hours ago, Studienkamera said:

Such posts are common and always popular on this forum. I find them puzzling. If I have the time and the subject is static, I will shortly check the automatic review of the picture I just took. For me that's one of the attractions of digital. Better correct any mistakes (exposure, framing, horizon) while I still can instead of spending more time on post-processing. I don't need to prove to anyone that I can do without a screen, I didn't use one for 30 years. To each his own, I guess.

As you say each to their own, out of curiosity how often do you find yourself re-shooting a shot because of what you saw on the screen? With the M9s the screens are so poor that anything other than wildly out isn't very apparent. If I am in doubt about a lighting situation I will bracket like I used to with slide film and choose the best one back on  the computer.

[colint544]

20 hours ago, cboy said:

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

Love Matt Stuart. He admits that he prefers the look of film, but carries an M10 with him for most of his street work. Shooting film is a luxury for him - as you say because it's unsustainable, prohibitively expensive. 

[Studienkamera]

33 minutes ago, Topsy said:

As you say each to their own, out of curiosity how often do you find yourself re-shooting a shot because of what you saw on the screen? With the M9s the screens are so poor that anything other than wildly out isn't very apparent. If I am in doubt about a lighting situation I will bracket like I used to with slide film and choose the best one back on  the computer.

For me the most frequent reason to re-shoot is a skewed horizon. That's my Achilles heel. Happens (too) often, I am afraid.

[jaapv]

35 minutes ago, Topsy said:

As you say each to their own, out of curiosity how often do you find yourself re-shooting a shot because of what you saw on the screen? With the M9s the screens are so poor that anything other than wildly out isn't very apparent. If I am in doubt about a lighting situation I will bracket like I used to with slide film and choose the best one back on  the computer.

Don't you check framing and composition on important shots? Or zoom in to do a rough focus check? It may be a lot better -at least aesthetically- on a modern screen, but even the screen on my DMR can do that. A screen image is not meant to check exposure. There is the Histogram for that purpose.

[jaapv]

5 minutes ago, Studienkamera said:

For me the most frequent reason to re-shoot is a skewed horizon. That's my Achilles heel. Happens (too) often, I am afraid.

+1. Fortunately I can correct at home  And even more fortunately Content Aware Crop often helps to retain my composition   

[Topsy]

39 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Don't you check framing and composition on important shots? Or zoom in to do a rough focus check? It may be a lot better -at least aesthetically- on a modern screen, but even the screen on my DMR can do that. A screen image is not meant to check exposure. There is the Histogram for that purpose.

Very rarely but I am shooting mostly static subjects and in no rush so I can take my time over composition but will often do 3 or 4 slightly different angles/compositions and choose the best one on the computer. I have other digital cameras that are mirrorless so WYSIWYG with the EVFs but I find I get sloppy because of the convenience of all that feedback especially when hand holding so when I'm out with my M9s I shoot as if I've got a film camera and enjoy it more than the other digitals. I have started to use a Lee SeVen5 filter system that is much more difficult with no live view but again the accuracy of the screen isn't enough to see if the filtration is correct particularly with Grads so I will take multiple shots and check them in computer later. 

I suppose if I was a street shooter I might have to think differently.

[Topsy]

33 minutes ago, Topsy said:

Very rarely but I am shooting mostly static subjects and in no rush so I can take my time over composition but will often do 3 or 4 slightly different angles/compositions and choose the best one on the computer. I have other digital cameras that are mirrorless so WYSIWYG with the EVFs but I find I get sloppy because of the convenience of all that feedback especially when hand holding so when I'm out with my M9s I shoot as if I've got a film camera and enjoy it more than the other digitals. I have started to use a Lee SeVen5 filter system that is much more difficult with no live view but again the accuracy of the screen isn't enough to see if the filtration is correct particularly with Grads so I will take multiple shots and check them in computer later. 

I suppose if I was a street shooter I might have to think differently.

BTW I'm not trying to say everyone should shoot like this nor am I trying to be aloof I just enjoy my time with my M9s and nothing I shoot is for anything but my pleasure and the occasional sharing on here or another Forum I use. The stuff I shoot on my other digital cameras and my Film MF are for more important projects so I do chek on location with the digital (Fuji X-T2s and GFX 50S) and will always shoot 2 frames with my film MF (Bronica SQ-Ais) even though accuracy of framing isn't an issue focus and exposure (slide film) can be so I do my best in the field so that I don't have to go back out and re-shoot.

Edited February 10 by Topsy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jakontil]

Hi mate, an M digital is as close as M analog could be imho, the RF experience is exactly the same, and an M10D was actually all i needed in an M digital back then, simplicity with flexibility, having optional evf and wifi when needed

but each to their own, i found myself not enjoying the SL original, and few bodies of Qs’ didnt make it up too, but yeah everyone has different needs and priorities 

the experience couldnt be better, i focus just fine with RF, that’s the main reason why i got the M digital as well as M analogs