What's the point of a digital rangefinder?

[Huss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Anbaric said:

One of the best descriptions I've seen of the traditional advantages of using a Leica rangefinder is in this piece by Bill Pierce:

https://digitaljournalist.org/issue9801/nutsandbolts9801.htm

Today you could make much the same case for (say) a Fuji X100 or X-Pro, where you also have the options of autofocus and an EVF. The reasons digital Leica Ms exist today are largely historical. It's not a design you would come up with from scratch in 2023, though of course it still suits many photographers. But beyond a certain level of quality that's easily achieved with any mainstream camera system sold today, it's not primarily about the gear, and for the sort of photography the Leica is typically used for, the best type of viewfinder / focusing system is more about personal preference and previous experience than anything else (though some are more conducive to certain styles of photography than others). As always, it's mostly about what you are pointing the camera at, and when you press the shutter.

One reason I sold my Fuji Xpro3 was because it was not a rangefinder camera.  Great using it as an AF camera.  The moment you try to focus it manually, you have to use the EVF which makes you realize it is not an RF camera, just another very good digital camera.  That mimics the look of a Leica RF.

[Anbaric]

1 hour ago, Huss said:

One reason I sold my Fuji Xpro3 was because it was not a rangefinder camera.  Great using it as an AF camera.  The moment you try to focus it manually, you have to use the EVF which makes you realize it is not an RF camera, just another very good digital camera.  That mimics the look of a Leica RF.

For me, the thing that's most Leica-like about the X100 and X-Pro series is your ability to see outside the frame in OVF mode with everything sharp, which is rare with digital cameras. That's the main thing that Bill Pierce is talking about above, rather than the mechanics of focusing. In practice, I use AF in both EVF mode and OVF mode on my X100T, and I know when I'm in focus in OVF mode when the focus frame box lights up green, which is hardly less definite feedback than seeing images coincide in an RF patch. And having two viewfinder modes means I essentially have both the styles of shooting Bill describes supported by one camera (though I mostly use EVF these days). There's rarely any reason for me to use manual focus in either VF mode, except perhaps in poor lighting where both AF and rangefinders would struggle, and the Fuji AF generally finds focus faster than I could with a Leica. Continuous AF is pretty rubbish, though. I can't use it for fast action with moving targets the way I'd use an AF SLR, though that's also true of the Leica. And there's that super-irritating switching between the EVF and the rear LCD that involves cycling between various pointless combinations of eye sensor and active display to get back where you started, when a simple EVF/LCD toggle would be much easier (anything more complicated should be an optional menu setting, and I could do without the eye sensor altogether).

[Huss]

3 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

For me, the thing that's most Leica-like about the X100 and X-Pro series is your ability to see outside the frame in OVF mode with everything sharp, which is rare with digital cameras. .

I did really like that.  But did not enjoy that the AF in OVF mode was not as accurate as in EVF mode - because you couldn't not make the patch as small as you could in EVF mode.

[lmans]

10 hours ago, Steve Ricoh said:

Yes, if you don’t mind compromising control of depth of field.

I believe f8 and be there was partly misunderstood. It is said that Capa meant to get close in the sense of understanding the subject, to interact etc. 

It really does depend on what you are shooting, yes.... For me, F8 with Street photography works well as I know I will usually be okay with exposure and focus, for what I want to be in focus etc.... I can see other instances (what you are shooting) where F8 won't cut it..... jim

[hdmesa]

On 2/9/2023 at 4:18 AM, gabrielaszalos said:

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!

If the digital M felt like only a shadow of the film M to you, how did you not feel let down in the same way by the experience of the SL2-S? By your logic, is not the SL2-S just a shadow of an SLR film camera?

 

[charlesphoto99]

1 hour ago, lmans said:

It really does depend on what you are shooting, yes.... For me, F8 with Street photography works well as I know I will usually be okay with exposure and focus, for what I want to be in focus etc.... I can see other instances (what you are shooting) where F8 won't cut it..... jim

"F/8 and be there..." F/8 represent camera and lens, not an actual f-stop, and be there represents the photographer. No need to read into it literally. It's an analogy. 

[lmans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not really....I use F8 all the time.....in most cases (unless bright sunlight) and using BW film....that is just where I need to be doing street photography. So in my case, yes...F8 fits

[shinobi2012]

Am 9.2.2023 um 17:50 schrieb rtai:

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.

This is very true. And even than, I nowadays use more my Canon EOS 30 than my M. The lenses are more bulky, yes, but the 35/50 L lenses are as good as the Summilux ASPH lenses, actually I nail focus wide open more leisurely ...guess my eyes getting older...

[shinobi2012]

Am 13.2.2023 um 13:07 schrieb Mikep996:

I always just thought it meant that the most important thing is to BE there WITH a camera at the proper moment.  The "moment" could refer to action, or lighting, or some other variable that makes the difference between a throw-away picture and a keeper.  It implies that the type of camera or its settings are of no importance compared to being at the right place at the right time.  The follow-on, somewhat related saying is "the best camera is the one you have with you."  Nowadays, that's probably a smart phone.  

 

 

 

Yes, you are thinking correctly.

[shinobi2012]

Am 9.2.2023 um 19:04 schrieb 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.

Well, a Leica Digital does not feel like a film M...of course they look alike and have the same rangefinder (more less)...but its the mindset, what makes the difference. And sooner or later, when the eyes are aging, we might need to make adjustments and reevaluate the Idea of an M System. 

[rossawilson1]

Oh man I've been going through this a lot recently only I have an M6 not an MP. In my study I currently have a new SL2-S reporter and a used like new M10r. 

The plan was to get both and keep one. Im not even sure I'll keep one.

The SL2-S is one of the nicest cameras I've ever held, but it's obviously a fair bit chunkier and heavier than an M6. I got the SL2s first and just found I wasn't even bothering to take it out of the house, it's too big a camera to take out casually, for me. I did a test once taking M6 images along side it and then making the SL images look like it. They still didn't have the depth of film but colour wise were really close. I just thought why not just use film?

The M10r experience was more recent. I had an M8 and M9 back when I was shooting a lot more digital but they were a bit beyond my financial reach so had to sell them. Since then I've been using mainly just he M6 and in that time my photography has gotten more serious and much better.

The immediate thing about the M10r was, as with all digital, you take more, so I was taking a photograph then re-framing slightly and getting another and then another and another. Which felt compulsive and indecisive and weird. I might 'work the scene' with film but not from such a slightly different angle. I noticed how during that trip I was always 'on it' looking and seeking and shooting, I guess because I could. That was an odd feeling. With film I would have shot a roll maybe, been far more discerning but importantly I would have come back to me 'being' as in just soaking up the vibe of the place in-between. With digital is like modern life, you're always on the go so to speak. 

I was enamoured by the instantaneous nature and flexibility, but that's not what we're out there for is it? Looking at the photos later was odd because I really didn't know what to think, I couldn't tell if they were good, I needed more time. Also you get lulled into a false sense of security with the screen, everything looks better on a tiny screen but unless you start zooming in etc then you can't really tell. This happened on the SL too, I got really excited at first on my first outing but then I got back and realised a lot of the photos weren't as good as I thought they were on the screen. With film you'd have to be sure and really think,.

After using the M10r I got back I picked up my M6 and the difference was huge in feeling alone which I sort of convinced myself it wasn't before I left, I think it's when you touch glass you automatically think 'fragile'. But I'm sure it's emotional, but then so? Life is about emotions. Go with them. But life's emotions also sometimes make you want things too. Like digital Leicas. And the marketing people know that. 

At this stage I still don't know what or if I'll keep either of them, and that's with being able to comfortably keep either or even both, I just hate cameras sitting around not getting used and distracting me, making decisions more difficult. It may be that Leica doesn't have a digital camera right for me. I might sell one and buy another brand, something smaller, with AF like my old Oly OMD EM1. It might be something about the medium and the camera type. So maybe film and M6 works together for me well, but digital needs to be something faster, more throw away. Saying that last time I looked through the EVF of my OMD I nearly had a seizure with all the info on the screen. Of course I turned it all off but not really knowing what the camera was doing half the time even in A mode was pretty off putting. 

 

[pop]

1 hour ago, rossawilson1 said:

Oh man I've been going through this a lot recently only I have an M6 not an MP. In my study I currently have a new SL2-S reporter and a used like new M10r. 

The plan was to get both and keep one. Im not even sure I'll keep one.

The SL2-S is one of the nicest cameras I've ever held, but it's obviously a fair bit chunkier and heavier than an M6. I got the SL2s first and just found I wasn't even bothering to take it out of the house, it's too big a camera to take out casually, for me. I did a test once taking M6 images along side it and then making the SL images look like it. They still didn't have the depth of film but colour wise were really close. I just thought why not just use film?

The M10r experience was more recent. I had an M8 and M9 back when I was shooting a lot more digital but they were a bit beyond my financial reach so had to sell them. Since then I've been using mainly just he M6 and in that time my photography has gotten more serious and much better.

The immediate thing about the M10r was, as with all digital, you take more, so I was taking a photograph then re-framing slightly and getting another and then another and another. Which felt compulsive and indecisive and weird. I might 'work the scene' with film but not from such a slightly different angle. I noticed how during that trip I was always 'on it' looking and seeking and shooting, I guess because I could. That was an odd feeling. With film I would have shot a roll maybe, been far more discerning but importantly I would have come back to me 'being' as in just soaking up the vibe of the place in-between. With digital is like modern life, you're always on the go so to speak. 

I was enamoured by the instantaneous nature and flexibility, but that's not what we're out there for is it? Looking at the photos later was odd because I really didn't know what to think, I couldn't tell if they were good, I needed more time. Also you get lulled into a false sense of security with the screen, everything looks better on a tiny screen but unless you start zooming in etc then you can't really tell. This happened on the SL too, I got really excited at first on my first outing but then I got back and realised a lot of the photos weren't as good as I thought they were on the screen. With film you'd have to be sure and really think,.

After using the M10r I got back I picked up my M6 and the difference was huge in feeling alone which I sort of convinced myself it wasn't before I left, I think it's when you touch glass you automatically think 'fragile'. But I'm sure it's emotional, but then so? Life is about emotions. Go with them. But life's emotions also sometimes make you want things too. Like digital Leicas. And the marketing people know that. 

At this stage I still don't know what or if I'll keep either of them, and that's with being able to comfortably keep either or even both, I just hate cameras sitting around not getting used and distracting me, making decisions more difficult. It may be that Leica doesn't have a digital camera right for me. I might sell one and buy another brand, something smaller, with AF like my old Oly OMD EM1. It might be something about the medium and the camera type. So maybe film and M6 works together for me well, but digital needs to be something faster, more throw away. Saying that last time I looked through the EVF of my OMD I nearly had a seizure with all the info on the screen. Of course I turned it all off but not really knowing what the camera was doing half the time even in A mode was pretty off putting. 

 

You might wish to consider one of those digital cameras that have neither EVF nor display. They come much closer to 'actually' taking photographs.

[JoshuaR]

12 hours ago, rossawilson1 said:

Oh man I've been going through this a lot recently only I have an M6 not an MP. In my study I currently have a new SL2-S reporter and a used like new M10r. 

The plan was to get both and keep one. Im not even sure I'll keep one.

The SL2-S is one of the nicest cameras I've ever held, but it's obviously a fair bit chunkier and heavier than an M6. I got the SL2s first and just found I wasn't even bothering to take it out of the house, it's too big a camera to take out casually, for me. I did a test once taking M6 images along side it and then making the SL images look like it. They still didn't have the depth of film but colour wise were really close. I just thought why not just use film?

The M10r experience was more recent. I had an M8 and M9 back when I was shooting a lot more digital but they were a bit beyond my financial reach so had to sell them. Since then I've been using mainly just he M6 and in that time my photography has gotten more serious and much better.

The immediate thing about the M10r was, as with all digital, you take more, so I was taking a photograph then re-framing slightly and getting another and then another and another. Which felt compulsive and indecisive and weird. I might 'work the scene' with film but not from such a slightly different angle. I noticed how during that trip I was always 'on it' looking and seeking and shooting, I guess because I could. That was an odd feeling. With film I would have shot a roll maybe, been far more discerning but importantly I would have come back to me 'being' as in just soaking up the vibe of the place in-between. With digital is like modern life, you're always on the go so to speak. 

I was enamoured by the instantaneous nature and flexibility, but that's not what we're out there for is it? Looking at the photos later was odd because I really didn't know what to think, I couldn't tell if they were good, I needed more time. Also you get lulled into a false sense of security with the screen, everything looks better on a tiny screen but unless you start zooming in etc then you can't really tell. This happened on the SL too, I got really excited at first on my first outing but then I got back and realised a lot of the photos weren't as good as I thought they were on the screen. With film you'd have to be sure and really think,.

After using the M10r I got back I picked up my M6 and the difference was huge in feeling alone which I sort of convinced myself it wasn't before I left, I think it's when you touch glass you automatically think 'fragile'. But I'm sure it's emotional, but then so? Life is about emotions. Go with them. But life's emotions also sometimes make you want things too. Like digital Leicas. And the marketing people know that. 

At this stage I still don't know what or if I'll keep either of them, and that's with being able to comfortably keep either or even both, I just hate cameras sitting around not getting used and distracting me, making decisions more difficult. It may be that Leica doesn't have a digital camera right for me. I might sell one and buy another brand, something smaller, with AF like my old Oly OMD EM1. It might be something about the medium and the camera type. So maybe film and M6 works together for me well, but digital needs to be something faster, more throw away. Saying that last time I looked through the EVF of my OMD I nearly had a seizure with all the info on the screen. Of course I turned it all off but not really knowing what the camera was doing half the time even in A mode was pretty off putting. 

 

I've been through a really similar process. My feelings are less strong: I really liked my M10, and shot some all-time-favorite photos with it. But in the end I decided that I'd let it go to go film-only with the M system, at least for now.

I now have an M4-P and a Q2. The M4-P gives me the considered, hand-made rangefinder feel that I like so much. The Q2 gives me the extreme versatility and adaptability that I want from digital photography. 

If I strike it rich, I may very well buy another digital M. But so far I'm liking the combination of an über-capable digital camera and a film rangefinder.

[rossawilson1]

On 2/24/2023 at 8:18 PM, JoshuaRothman said:

I've been through a really similar process. My feelings are less strong: I really liked my M10, and shot some all-time-favorite photos with it. But in the end I decided that I'd let it go to go film-only with the M system, at least for now.

I now have an M4-P and a Q2. The M4-P gives me the considered, hand-made rangefinder feel that I like so much. The Q2 gives me the extreme versatility and adaptability that I want from digital photography. 

If I strike it rich, I may very well buy another digital M. But so far I'm liking the combination of an über-capable digital camera and a film rangefinder.

I had a Q once and thought it was a stunning camera and produced amazing pictures. I also had a battered Ricoh GRII which I'd done entire projects on and caught amazing stuff with. In the end I sold the Q because the Ricoh was doing a lot of what the Q was in about 1/3 the size. That said I was only hip shooting with the GR. I've recently thought about the Q again. Trouble is I'm finding more and more that I don't have that need for digital at all if I'm honest with myself so I'm eying the 28mm F2 Summicron. 

[JoshuaR]

7 hours ago, rossawilson1 said:

I had a Q once and thought it was a stunning camera and produced amazing pictures. I also had a battered Ricoh GRII which I'd done entire projects on and caught amazing stuff with. In the end I sold the Q because the Ricoh was doing a lot of what the Q was in about 1/3 the size. That said I was only hip shooting with the GR. I've recently thought about the Q again. Trouble is I'm finding more and more that I don't have that need for digital at all if I'm honest with myself so I'm eying the 28mm F2 Summicron. 

My ideas have changed since I made my original post. I'm now finding that, as awesome as the Q2 is, I just miss the feeling of my digital M and the hand-crafted feel of the images I could make with it. I think I'm going to be selling the Q2 and going back to a digital M!