Rangefinder or DSLR?
May 29, 2009 2:46 AM Subscribe
I keeping coming up with good reasons why I should by a Leica m8 rangefinder camera.
I am fairly competent with a dslr.
Q1: Is a rangefinder camera worth the trouble? compared to dslr?
Q2: Should I wait for other companies (Zeiss etc) to release the digital versions of their rangefinder camera, rather than paying the Leica tax?
I am fairly competent with a dslr.
Q1: Is a rangefinder camera worth the trouble? compared to dslr?
Q2: Should I wait for other companies (Zeiss etc) to release the digital versions of their rangefinder camera, rather than paying the Leica tax?
The disadvantage is that you don't know what is going to be in focus in your picture...you have to know what your f-stop is and how much depth of field you have for the distance you are focusing to.
Really? I mean, you still focus with a rangefinder. I understand what you're saying about the DoF, but it's not as if it's a total crapshoot.
I actually strongly prefer shooting with a rangefinder, mostly because I fell in love with my little Olympus XA in college (in love enough that I'm currently shopping for a new one since my old one broke--I guess film's not dead). There's something about their ease of focusing and use that just feels right for taking pictures. That being said, I wouldn't spend $2,000+ on one, particularly if I'd never before used a rangefinder. If you're really tempted, why not pick up a film RF off of Ebay (something like a canonet or the XA or even one of those Russian Leica rip-offs like a Zorki) for under a hundred bucks, shoot a few rolls, and see how you feel about using a RF? If you're considering spending that much on the digital version, it's worth seeing if you like the focusing system first.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:14 AM on May 29, 2009
Really? I mean, you still focus with a rangefinder. I understand what you're saying about the DoF, but it's not as if it's a total crapshoot.
I actually strongly prefer shooting with a rangefinder, mostly because I fell in love with my little Olympus XA in college (in love enough that I'm currently shopping for a new one since my old one broke--I guess film's not dead). There's something about their ease of focusing and use that just feels right for taking pictures. That being said, I wouldn't spend $2,000+ on one, particularly if I'd never before used a rangefinder. If you're really tempted, why not pick up a film RF off of Ebay (something like a canonet or the XA or even one of those Russian Leica rip-offs like a Zorki) for under a hundred bucks, shoot a few rolls, and see how you feel about using a RF? If you're considering spending that much on the digital version, it's worth seeing if you like the focusing system first.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:14 AM on May 29, 2009
If you're really set on a Leica, I'd strongly recommend going for one of the film models secondhand, or a cheaper clone, and getting used to working that way. It's totally different from using a DSLR. For starters, remember that you have no autofocus, and that you're not looking through the lens, so the actual composition is not as precise as with an SLR. (I'm gonna get hung by the RF crew for that one!)
They are beautifully engineered machines, and the lenses are first rate, but it's one hell of an investment. If, on the other hand, you've really got money to burn, then go for it. Leica sure as hell needs propping up.
I'm also interested to know the reasons you've been giving yourself.
posted by Magnakai at 4:39 AM on May 29, 2009
They are beautifully engineered machines, and the lenses are first rate, but it's one hell of an investment. If, on the other hand, you've really got money to burn, then go for it. Leica sure as hell needs propping up.
I'm also interested to know the reasons you've been giving yourself.
posted by Magnakai at 4:39 AM on May 29, 2009
The m8 is a delicious camera. Absolutely scrumptious. But there is no way I would ever spend the money for one. The Epson R-D1 is also very nice, once again, I am happy with scanning 35mm color and bw negs rather than shooting straight to digital.
I'll agree with what other folks say, and pick up a cheap-ass rangefinder, then decide if the m8 is for you. I have a Yashica Electro 35 GSN, and it's great fun to use. It cost me $10 on ebay. You could buy a new Voigtlander Bessa, which are also sweet.
Buy the Bessa, then send it to me when you decide to trade up to the m8, that's the best choice, yes.
posted by Geckwoistmeinauto at 4:56 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'll agree with what other folks say, and pick up a cheap-ass rangefinder, then decide if the m8 is for you. I have a Yashica Electro 35 GSN, and it's great fun to use. It cost me $10 on ebay. You could buy a new Voigtlander Bessa, which are also sweet.
Buy the Bessa, then send it to me when you decide to trade up to the m8, that's the best choice, yes.
posted by Geckwoistmeinauto at 4:56 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've never used a Leica, although, like you, I often lust after one.
As far the rangefinder vs. DSLR comparison in general: rangefinders are very quiet, using a leaf shutter, so there's no ka-chunk of mirror slap. Like Geckwoistmeinauto, I have a Yashica Electro GSN, and it's great fun to use. If you just want to get the rangefinder experience, I'd get something like that: an old film rangefinder of which there are many models available for practically no money. (Note that the Electro uses aperture priority exposure, and it doesn't even tell you what your shutter speed is, although you do get a "shake warning" if it's too low for hand holding.)
As to the M8 itself, I can only give the same general advice I give my friends when they are debating a splurge: Are you endangering your finances, or making your family sacrifice in order to make your purchase? If not, and you really can afford it, then there is nothing wrong with buying something you want.
posted by The Deej at 5:14 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
As far the rangefinder vs. DSLR comparison in general: rangefinders are very quiet, using a leaf shutter, so there's no ka-chunk of mirror slap. Like Geckwoistmeinauto, I have a Yashica Electro GSN, and it's great fun to use. If you just want to get the rangefinder experience, I'd get something like that: an old film rangefinder of which there are many models available for practically no money. (Note that the Electro uses aperture priority exposure, and it doesn't even tell you what your shutter speed is, although you do get a "shake warning" if it's too low for hand holding.)
As to the M8 itself, I can only give the same general advice I give my friends when they are debating a splurge: Are you endangering your finances, or making your family sacrifice in order to make your purchase? If not, and you really can afford it, then there is nothing wrong with buying something you want.
posted by The Deej at 5:14 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
PhoBWanKenobi - Yep. That's how it works. With a DSLR you are looking through the lens at its wide open aperture. Everything is out of focus except the focal point. So you have to add in what will be in focus as you stop down (the more you stop down, the more will be in focus, relative to how far away from your focal point you are).
With a rangefinder, you are not looking through a lens. You are looking through flat pieces of glass. You focus through the rangefinder system, which triangulates the point of focus for you and lets you know when the lens is in focus. But since you are not looking through the lens, you don't actually see what's in focus and what's not. It's not a crapshoot because if you know your stuff you will know how much distance is in focus. But it is totally different then using a SLR. It has great advantages because you can walk around with the camera to your face and be aware of your surroundings...one of the reasons it works great for street photographers.
posted by sully75 at 5:27 AM on May 29, 2009
With a rangefinder, you are not looking through a lens. You are looking through flat pieces of glass. You focus through the rangefinder system, which triangulates the point of focus for you and lets you know when the lens is in focus. But since you are not looking through the lens, you don't actually see what's in focus and what's not. It's not a crapshoot because if you know your stuff you will know how much distance is in focus. But it is totally different then using a SLR. It has great advantages because you can walk around with the camera to your face and be aware of your surroundings...one of the reasons it works great for street photographers.
posted by sully75 at 5:27 AM on May 29, 2009
Photojournalist Michael Kamber posted an extensive review/pan of the M8. His criticisms have generally been echoed by many owners of the M8. You can read a discussion initiated by Kamber about his review here.
One alternative in a digital rangefinder is Epson's 6MP R-D1, replaced by the R-D1s, and selling (in Japan only, so far) for around $2,000.
If you don't know rangefinders and don't have a compelling reason to use one (and virtually no pros do these days) then I'd hold off.
posted by skywhite at 5:34 AM on May 29, 2009
One alternative in a digital rangefinder is Epson's 6MP R-D1, replaced by the R-D1s, and selling (in Japan only, so far) for around $2,000.
If you don't know rangefinders and don't have a compelling reason to use one (and virtually no pros do these days) then I'd hold off.
posted by skywhite at 5:34 AM on May 29, 2009
sully75, I just felt like what you're saying was a bit of an overstatement, as I was able to guesstimate reliably what would be in focus with both my XA and my dad's ancient Minolta CLE with only basic camera knowledge, though, come to think of it, both were aperture priority and that probably had something to do with it. But saying that you "don't know what's going to be in focus" makes it sound more like a fixed focal length point and shoot or some such--there's definitely going to be more control in an m8 or any rangefinder, even if the image in the viewfinder isn't identical to the final picture.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:46 AM on May 29, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:46 AM on May 29, 2009
PhoBWanKenobi, it's more kind of a photographic fact. In a SLR you are literally looking through the lens at its widest aperture. You definitely know one thing that's going to be in focus. Anything else that's in focus, you have to add in your mind, by your understanding of f-stop and focal distance. Some cameras have a Depth of Field Preview Button, which will stop the lens down while you look through it, so you can see what's in focus at the actual aperture you are shooting at. But this also limits the amount of light coming through the viewfinder, so it's kind of inconvenient to use.
The rangefinder is the opposite. When you look through the viewfinder, everything is in focus, because you are looking through flat glass, not a lens. You focus by matching two overlapping images at the point you want to be in focus. You definitely know what the center of your focus is (that's what you focus on). But since everything is in focus, you can't know by looking how much will be out of focus. That's where the knowledge of DOF comes into play.
You might have heard "f8 and forget it". If you are shooting in daylight, F8 is going to give your subject a good amount of focus around it, and possibly give you a little bokeh in the background. So it's going to be a decent aperture in most conditions, SLR or Rangefinder. But in working practice both cameras offer really different ways of seeing things. I'd love to shoot with a rangefinder, but the M8 is way to expensive and flawed, and there's no viable digital alternative.
Oh one other thing with the M8, as far as I know it's a crop sensor camera, meaning the sensor is smaller than a 35mm piece of film. So your old Leica lenses will be effectively more telephoto, which, at least for me, sucks. Other cameras much cheaper than this (Canon and Nikon's full frame offerings) don't have to deal with this.
posted by sully75 at 6:06 AM on May 29, 2009
The rangefinder is the opposite. When you look through the viewfinder, everything is in focus, because you are looking through flat glass, not a lens. You focus by matching two overlapping images at the point you want to be in focus. You definitely know what the center of your focus is (that's what you focus on). But since everything is in focus, you can't know by looking how much will be out of focus. That's where the knowledge of DOF comes into play.
You might have heard "f8 and forget it". If you are shooting in daylight, F8 is going to give your subject a good amount of focus around it, and possibly give you a little bokeh in the background. So it's going to be a decent aperture in most conditions, SLR or Rangefinder. But in working practice both cameras offer really different ways of seeing things. I'd love to shoot with a rangefinder, but the M8 is way to expensive and flawed, and there's no viable digital alternative.
Oh one other thing with the M8, as far as I know it's a crop sensor camera, meaning the sensor is smaller than a 35mm piece of film. So your old Leica lenses will be effectively more telephoto, which, at least for me, sucks. Other cameras much cheaper than this (Canon and Nikon's full frame offerings) don't have to deal with this.
posted by sully75 at 6:06 AM on May 29, 2009
A rangefinder camera is definitely worth the trouble compared to an SLR. It will be smaller, lighter, and quieter than almost any SLR giving you a similar degree of manual control. But it's a different experience entirely, and for this reason I keep both analog and digital SLR bodies as well as rangefinders in my bag.
Having done some research on the subject, my recommendation is to get a less-expensive RF, like a Yashica Electro 35 or a Canonet QL17 to see if it even suits you— you don't mention if you've used RFs before. You'll spend less than $100 and have a compact little camera that won't intimidate anyone but will take nice photographs.
Sensor technology in the Leicas isn't 'there' to the point where it made sense to me to buy an M8. I think it's still a better value to get an M6 TTL or M7 and scan your film. Then, if the digital M9 comes out with a full-frame 36mp sensor (or whatever meets your quality standard), you have a two-body system that shares lenses. You can also do this with Voigtländer or Zeiss Ikon to avoid said "Leica tax" but buying a used M6 TTL from a non-collector isn't that expensive.
posted by a halcyon day at 6:31 AM on May 29, 2009
Having done some research on the subject, my recommendation is to get a less-expensive RF, like a Yashica Electro 35 or a Canonet QL17 to see if it even suits you— you don't mention if you've used RFs before. You'll spend less than $100 and have a compact little camera that won't intimidate anyone but will take nice photographs.
Sensor technology in the Leicas isn't 'there' to the point where it made sense to me to buy an M8. I think it's still a better value to get an M6 TTL or M7 and scan your film. Then, if the digital M9 comes out with a full-frame 36mp sensor (or whatever meets your quality standard), you have a two-body system that shares lenses. You can also do this with Voigtländer or Zeiss Ikon to avoid said "Leica tax" but buying a used M6 TTL from a non-collector isn't that expensive.
posted by a halcyon day at 6:31 AM on May 29, 2009
Response by poster: Regarding why I am considering a rangefinder, its mainly due to its weight compared to a DSLR. I just cannot accept the quality of a point-and-shoot.
I guess a rangefinder is the middle ground between DSLR and those cheap ass digicams
posted by merv at 6:38 AM on May 29, 2009
I guess a rangefinder is the middle ground between DSLR and those cheap ass digicams
posted by merv at 6:38 AM on May 29, 2009
Best answer: Yeah, gonna echo the sentiments made. Rangefinders feel different than SLRs; not only do they change the way you take photos, they change the photos that you do end up taking.
SLRs: high degree of control over framing, composition, focusing and depth of field -- but also more camera shake (due to that swinging mirror), less favorable in low light conditions, noisier shutter sound.
Rangefinder: much less control over composition thanks to parallax, less control over specific focus -- but quiet, smaller, unobtrusive, no mirror = you can get away with a 1/15th shutter speed more than half the time.
So if you're interested in crafting photos, then by all means use an SLR. If you're doing quick, snappy photography where you'd rather capture the 'decisive moment', then get a rangefinder.
Data point: I've been using a rangefinder (the Voigtlander Bessa R) primarily for the past four years, have a few other ones (Canonet G3 QL17, Zorki-4) that I've used, and have borrowed a bunch of other ones (Contax G2, Hexar RF). I can say with certainty that my next camera, when I save up for it, will be an SLR -- either an FM2 or some DSLR.
When ISO speeds can be (reasonably) ramped up in DSLRs to get you up to 1/60th shutter speed, then the advantages of a rangefinder sort of disappear. You're basically using a rangefinder for because it's 1) unobtrusive and 2) cool. Because, yes, rangefinders are sort of adorably antiquated in the era of DSLRs -- the few times I've seen someone slinging a Yashica Electro 35 or something else around I've always stopped to say hi, and so on. But that's really it. Unless you're doing close-up photography in a hospital, where having a giant phallic lens strapped to your eye is unattractive and noisy, there's no real advantage anymore -- people are pretty used to DSLRs anyways.
Last month I borrowed an SLR, and I was struck by how much control I had -- there's no blind faith I have to put in my lens that this image will come out the way I want it to; it's WYSIWYG instead. SLRs enable a composition-based photography, while rangefinders enable a subject-based photography -- it's about that which happens within the frame, action within the image, what you see, not how you see it. I'm all about the how, not the what, so I'll move back to SLRs.
If that's not your case, and you have money to use, then go for the M8. But most photographers, I'll wager, tend to also focus on the way their photos look, perhaps more than 'what' their photos contain. Cartier-Bresson's or Capa's Leicas did what they did in war zones, in photojournalistic settings because they needed to capture the event first and foremost. That's primarily what rangefinders were built for, and that's the kind of photos you'll be advantaged to take.
posted by suedehead at 6:47 AM on May 29, 2009
SLRs: high degree of control over framing, composition, focusing and depth of field -- but also more camera shake (due to that swinging mirror), less favorable in low light conditions, noisier shutter sound.
Rangefinder: much less control over composition thanks to parallax, less control over specific focus -- but quiet, smaller, unobtrusive, no mirror = you can get away with a 1/15th shutter speed more than half the time.
So if you're interested in crafting photos, then by all means use an SLR. If you're doing quick, snappy photography where you'd rather capture the 'decisive moment', then get a rangefinder.
Data point: I've been using a rangefinder (the Voigtlander Bessa R) primarily for the past four years, have a few other ones (Canonet G3 QL17, Zorki-4) that I've used, and have borrowed a bunch of other ones (Contax G2, Hexar RF). I can say with certainty that my next camera, when I save up for it, will be an SLR -- either an FM2 or some DSLR.
When ISO speeds can be (reasonably) ramped up in DSLRs to get you up to 1/60th shutter speed, then the advantages of a rangefinder sort of disappear. You're basically using a rangefinder for because it's 1) unobtrusive and 2) cool. Because, yes, rangefinders are sort of adorably antiquated in the era of DSLRs -- the few times I've seen someone slinging a Yashica Electro 35 or something else around I've always stopped to say hi, and so on. But that's really it. Unless you're doing close-up photography in a hospital, where having a giant phallic lens strapped to your eye is unattractive and noisy, there's no real advantage anymore -- people are pretty used to DSLRs anyways.
Last month I borrowed an SLR, and I was struck by how much control I had -- there's no blind faith I have to put in my lens that this image will come out the way I want it to; it's WYSIWYG instead. SLRs enable a composition-based photography, while rangefinders enable a subject-based photography -- it's about that which happens within the frame, action within the image, what you see, not how you see it. I'm all about the how, not the what, so I'll move back to SLRs.
If that's not your case, and you have money to use, then go for the M8. But most photographers, I'll wager, tend to also focus on the way their photos look, perhaps more than 'what' their photos contain. Cartier-Bresson's or Capa's Leicas did what they did in war zones, in photojournalistic settings because they needed to capture the event first and foremost. That's primarily what rangefinders were built for, and that's the kind of photos you'll be advantaged to take.
posted by suedehead at 6:47 AM on May 29, 2009
Regarding why I am considering a rangefinder, its mainly due to its weight compared to a DSLR. I just cannot accept the quality of a point-and-shoot.
I guess a rangefinder is the middle ground between DSLR and those cheap ass digicams
In that case, you need to be looking at a Canon G10, Sigma DP2, or Panasonic LX3 (aka Leica D-Lux 4), all of which are great cameras with great image quality (and build quality apparently excepting the DP2) that are smaller and lighter than SLRs. Or wait for Micro 4/3.
posted by The Michael The at 6:57 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
I guess a rangefinder is the middle ground between DSLR and those cheap ass digicams
In that case, you need to be looking at a Canon G10, Sigma DP2, or Panasonic LX3 (aka Leica D-Lux 4), all of which are great cameras with great image quality (and build quality apparently excepting the DP2) that are smaller and lighter than SLRs. Or wait for Micro 4/3.
posted by The Michael The at 6:57 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: I think i will try to borrow a film rangefinder and see how if it is really a whole kettle of fish compared to shooting with a DSLR.
Although the thought of dropping a few grand for a m8 is hard to swallow.
Anyway I typically shoot street scenes and people. And I just don't like lugging a large-ish DSLR on the streets (i might get mugged), but then again, an m8 slung around my neck, might still get me mugged by.
So the advantages of a rangefinder (for me) is not hard to see.
Thanks for all the advice. I shall think and rethink.. :)
posted by merv at 7:04 AM on May 29, 2009
Although the thought of dropping a few grand for a m8 is hard to swallow.
Anyway I typically shoot street scenes and people. And I just don't like lugging a large-ish DSLR on the streets (i might get mugged), but then again, an m8 slung around my neck, might still get me mugged by.
So the advantages of a rangefinder (for me) is not hard to see.
Thanks for all the advice. I shall think and rethink.. :)
posted by merv at 7:04 AM on May 29, 2009
The Sigma DP2 has apparently got fantastic image quality, with an APS-C sized sensor and a beautiful lens. It's tiny and it's cheaper than an M8. I'd certainly check one out. It's not a perfect camera for everyone, but it might be perfect for you.
posted by Magnakai at 7:17 AM on May 29, 2009
posted by Magnakai at 7:17 AM on May 29, 2009
Sorry, didn't preview. FWIW, I've been moronically wandering around London with an expensive SLR at all times of night and never had a mite of trouble.
posted by Magnakai at 7:18 AM on May 29, 2009
posted by Magnakai at 7:18 AM on May 29, 2009
OP, if you haven't used a RF at all I would highly recommend giving it a few rolls' worth if possible. Especially if you're still considering an M8, you'll lose value like a new car if you decide it's not for you.
On visibility: Gaff tape goes a long way in hiding those pesky red dots or other logos. And in many cases it feels nice as well. You'll always be more visible with a dslr body mounting any decent zoom lens than an RF and a prime— and you're carrying more weight.
posted by a halcyon day at 7:34 AM on May 29, 2009
On visibility: Gaff tape goes a long way in hiding those pesky red dots or other logos. And in many cases it feels nice as well. You'll always be more visible with a dslr body mounting any decent zoom lens than an RF and a prime— and you're carrying more weight.
posted by a halcyon day at 7:34 AM on May 29, 2009
At the end of the day, there isn't going to be much difference between the abilities of an SLR and a rangefinder for most photographers. I think deciding between film vs digital and which lens to use will be more important in terms of the end result.
If you're happy with film and you want to use Leica lenses, buy a Voigtlander Bessa. Spend what you saved on lenses/film/developing/scanning.
posted by quosimosaur at 7:45 AM on May 29, 2009
If you're happy with film and you want to use Leica lenses, buy a Voigtlander Bessa. Spend what you saved on lenses/film/developing/scanning.
posted by quosimosaur at 7:45 AM on May 29, 2009
"Personally I think buying expensive cameras just to buy them is kind of dumb but some people buy Porshes."
I believe that a Porsche is a far better car than Leica is a camera and I am in the first-hand position to make that comparison.
posted by bz at 8:46 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
I believe that a Porsche is a far better car than Leica is a camera and I am in the first-hand position to make that comparison.
posted by bz at 8:46 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm a former owner of Leica M4-P and M6 film cameras, despite the fact that my working cameras, whether medium format, 35mm or digital have always been SLR designs. I've also had a few lower end rangefinder cameras over the years.
I'd bought both bodies and lenses brand new. Right out of the box, the M4-P's rangefinder was out of vertical alignment, necessitating a Leica USA adjustment. Within six months of ownership, the 35/1.4 lens had loosened up to the point where it nearly separated into two pieces. Mind you, I treated all of my Leica stuff with far more care than my working cameras. During six months of ownership, the M6 body's rangefinder also went out of alignment.
It was about this time (late 1970's and early 1980's) when I realized all too well that Leica quality control was not what it once was. This may have been why the company offered the 3 year "we'll fix it free even if you drop it off a cliff" USA Passport Warranty.
After I got rid of my Leica stuff I remember sitting around with two fairly high profile photojournalists, recounting my story, and literally having them both laugh out loud. One of them finally told me that the key to happiness with Leicas was to buy them brand new with that Passport warranty, literally beat the hell out of them, and sending them in for Passport service repeatedly, and sooner or later I'd have Leica equipment that had essentially been completely hand built and hand calibrated due to having been repaired to many times. Both of them said that's what they'd ended up doing.
As much as I loved the feel, the concept, and the optics of the Leicas, I found them very hard to use compared to any of the SLR cameras. I loved the appeal of the optics of the f/1.4 35 and 50mm Summilux lenses for shooting at or near wide open, and I loved the small physical size of the bodies and lenses as well.
However, especially in the case of moving subjects, it is extremely difficult to optimally focus them with a tiny rangefinder patch, and it is a major rethinking of the way you shoot if you're used to reflex cameras. The advice to buy a cheapie film rangefinder camera and use it for a while is extremely good.
Prior to the introduction of the M8, and despite my general Leica misgivings, I was fully prepared to get an M8 for my own personal shooting.
But from everything I've read, I firmly believe that the M8 is simply a flawed design from the outset, and the M8.2 continues to be flawed design.
I honestly believe that a current (even) bottom of the line DSLR body, at least from Nikon or Canon, with fast prime lenses is a far more capable and usable solution to the small, fast handling, available light, high ISO image quality problem than an M8, and will cost tons less money.
Despite all of this, if Leica or any other company offered a small rangefinder camera without all of the M8 issues and it had even the capabilities of a Nikon D40 I'd have one on my shoulder right now.
Pro quality tools need to be 100% reliable, and the reason you see 90% of the M8's in the worlds in the hands of amateur photographers is because very few professionals are willing to put up wirh their foibles, poor reliability, and general wierdness.
posted by imjustsaying at 9:22 AM on May 29, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'd bought both bodies and lenses brand new. Right out of the box, the M4-P's rangefinder was out of vertical alignment, necessitating a Leica USA adjustment. Within six months of ownership, the 35/1.4 lens had loosened up to the point where it nearly separated into two pieces. Mind you, I treated all of my Leica stuff with far more care than my working cameras. During six months of ownership, the M6 body's rangefinder also went out of alignment.
It was about this time (late 1970's and early 1980's) when I realized all too well that Leica quality control was not what it once was. This may have been why the company offered the 3 year "we'll fix it free even if you drop it off a cliff" USA Passport Warranty.
After I got rid of my Leica stuff I remember sitting around with two fairly high profile photojournalists, recounting my story, and literally having them both laugh out loud. One of them finally told me that the key to happiness with Leicas was to buy them brand new with that Passport warranty, literally beat the hell out of them, and sending them in for Passport service repeatedly, and sooner or later I'd have Leica equipment that had essentially been completely hand built and hand calibrated due to having been repaired to many times. Both of them said that's what they'd ended up doing.
As much as I loved the feel, the concept, and the optics of the Leicas, I found them very hard to use compared to any of the SLR cameras. I loved the appeal of the optics of the f/1.4 35 and 50mm Summilux lenses for shooting at or near wide open, and I loved the small physical size of the bodies and lenses as well.
However, especially in the case of moving subjects, it is extremely difficult to optimally focus them with a tiny rangefinder patch, and it is a major rethinking of the way you shoot if you're used to reflex cameras. The advice to buy a cheapie film rangefinder camera and use it for a while is extremely good.
Prior to the introduction of the M8, and despite my general Leica misgivings, I was fully prepared to get an M8 for my own personal shooting.
But from everything I've read, I firmly believe that the M8 is simply a flawed design from the outset, and the M8.2 continues to be flawed design.
I honestly believe that a current (even) bottom of the line DSLR body, at least from Nikon or Canon, with fast prime lenses is a far more capable and usable solution to the small, fast handling, available light, high ISO image quality problem than an M8, and will cost tons less money.
Despite all of this, if Leica or any other company offered a small rangefinder camera without all of the M8 issues and it had even the capabilities of a Nikon D40 I'd have one on my shoulder right now.
Pro quality tools need to be 100% reliable, and the reason you see 90% of the M8's in the worlds in the hands of amateur photographers is because very few professionals are willing to put up wirh their foibles, poor reliability, and general wierdness.
posted by imjustsaying at 9:22 AM on May 29, 2009 [4 favorites]
I have an M2. A Rangefinder is very different than an SLR. They are certainly smaller, and the lenses themselves are much smaller. That said, an M8 is a shit load of money, and if you look at the pictures it spits out, it's hard to justify paying that much money for what you get. The M8 has particularly bad high ISO performance, isn't that quiet compared to cloth-shutter Leica's of days gone by, and has some wonky controls. More so, the quality control on the M8 seems particularly bad. If you read the threads over at RangeFinder forum there is always someone complaining about this or that. Everyone I know that has an M8 and likes them REALLY wanted an M8, or feels they can't shoot the way they want without one. You are probably better of spending money on an Epson RD1, if you are interested in a digital Rangefinder. I think a better bet is to buy an old M6 and some film.
posted by chunking express at 10:55 AM on May 29, 2009
posted by chunking express at 10:55 AM on May 29, 2009
Michael Kamber, a freelance photojournalist who shot some of the Iraq war for the New York Times, I believe, "field tested" the M8 while on that assignment and wrote an extensive review of it. It's no longer online, but you can find snippets of it (such as the conclusion posted here). In short, he was extremely unimpressed.
I'm not saying YOU'LL be unimpressed. But he certainly was, and he seems to have a lot of experience with the whole photography thing. The comparison pictures that accompanied the original post were quite telling, as well. Too bad it's not still up.
posted by dave*p at 11:44 AM on May 29, 2009
I'm not saying YOU'LL be unimpressed. But he certainly was, and he seems to have a lot of experience with the whole photography thing. The comparison pictures that accompanied the original post were quite telling, as well. Too bad it's not still up.
posted by dave*p at 11:44 AM on May 29, 2009
I like the thought and looks of rangefinders, but they cost way too much for what they are- crippled DSLRs, and too big for a pocketable P&S. But then anyone who's seriously considering the m8 is probably looking for a 3rd camera...
suedehead- with both DSLRs I've owned, you can do mirror lock. And with my current D90, I can take virtually noise-free photos at high ISO, so I'd say current DSLRs have an *advantage* in low light conditions?
posted by rama at 11:45 AM on May 29, 2009
suedehead- with both DSLRs I've owned, you can do mirror lock. And with my current D90, I can take virtually noise-free photos at high ISO, so I'd say current DSLRs have an *advantage* in low light conditions?
posted by rama at 11:45 AM on May 29, 2009
This is sort of related, but also kind of a tangent:
Most people don't notice this consciously, but the image projected by rangefinder lenses with short focal lengths is quite different than that of SLRs. In a rangefinder, the rear element of the lens can come really close to touching the film plane; in SLRs, the mirror box and shutter assembly make this physically impossible. Thus, wide-angle lenses for SLRs are all required to be retrofocus designs, due to the space taken up by the mirror and shutter assemblies in an SLR. There are a couple non-retrofocus lenses available for SLRs, but they all require you to lock the mirror up and out of the way, rendering the viewfinder non-functional.
In my experience, wide-angle rangefinder lenses tend to be more rectilinear and produce less barrel distortion. The effect is subtle, but I personally find the images more natural looking and pleasing to the eye. Again, this is a subtlety and definitely not a reason in itself to ditch your SLR and get a rangefinder.
posted by strangecargo at 12:18 PM on May 29, 2009
Most people don't notice this consciously, but the image projected by rangefinder lenses with short focal lengths is quite different than that of SLRs. In a rangefinder, the rear element of the lens can come really close to touching the film plane; in SLRs, the mirror box and shutter assembly make this physically impossible. Thus, wide-angle lenses for SLRs are all required to be retrofocus designs, due to the space taken up by the mirror and shutter assemblies in an SLR. There are a couple non-retrofocus lenses available for SLRs, but they all require you to lock the mirror up and out of the way, rendering the viewfinder non-functional.
In my experience, wide-angle rangefinder lenses tend to be more rectilinear and produce less barrel distortion. The effect is subtle, but I personally find the images more natural looking and pleasing to the eye. Again, this is a subtlety and definitely not a reason in itself to ditch your SLR and get a rangefinder.
posted by strangecargo at 12:18 PM on May 29, 2009
suedehead- with both DSLRs I've owned, you can do mirror lock. And with my current D90, I can take virtually noise-free photos at high ISO, so I'd say current DSLRs have an *advantage* in low light conditions?
Yeah, I sort of mentioned that in the third-to-last paragraph. Although you just gave me a really fun idea -- it could be possible to go into 'rangefinder mode' with DSLRs by locking the mirror and using an external viewfinder on the hot shoe, as long as you rely on autofocus. All of the advantages, none of the disadvantages...
posted by suedehead at 11:36 PM on May 29, 2009
Yeah, I sort of mentioned that in the third-to-last paragraph. Although you just gave me a really fun idea -- it could be possible to go into 'rangefinder mode' with DSLRs by locking the mirror and using an external viewfinder on the hot shoe, as long as you rely on autofocus. All of the advantages, none of the disadvantages...
posted by suedehead at 11:36 PM on May 29, 2009
Hey you might like this:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html
Note: that's all about using a film camera. Not an M8. Also check out the following 2 posts.
posted by sully75 at 8:11 AM on May 30, 2009
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html
Note: that's all about using a film camera. Not an M8. Also check out the following 2 posts.
posted by sully75 at 8:11 AM on May 30, 2009
« Older What would it mean if Obama's birth certificate is... | Is there a sane way to batch-convert a year of... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Competent with a DSLR is not a good enough reason for me. Image quality, affordability, versatility are all going to be better with a DSLR.
There have been a number of issues with the Leica. Have you researched them?
It's a great camera if you're a millionaire, if you don't actually take a lot of pictures and want a trophy, if you have another camera so you don't need versatility, or if you really know why people use rangefinders and that's why you want it.
Personally I think buying expensive cameras just to buy them is kind of dumb but some people buy Porshes.
A range finder is not more "trouble". It's got distinct advantages to a DSLR. The main one being that you are looking through a finder, not through the lens. This means that the world is in focus the same way it would be in real life, and you do not have to selectively pick your focus as you look at things (the way you have to focus things in a DSLR). The disadvantage is that you don't know what is going to be in focus in your picture...you have to know what your f-stop is and how much depth of field you have for the distance you are focusing to.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have that camera. But it's a crapload of money. There are plenty of other interesting cameras coming out now that are, all in all, better cameras. Panasonic and Olympus are coming out with really innovative cameras, in particular.
The other thing is that, eventually that thing is either going to break or be totally obsolete. And Leica is always seemingly on the brink of bankruptcy (I believe, anyway). So you might end up with a $5k paperweight with no support.
posted by sully75 at 4:02 AM on May 29, 2009