What is the Overall Best Value in Digital Rangefinders?

[Keith]

It terms of what a camera offers the user I'd go with the Epson purely because it gives an almost analog experience when shooting.

 

[AZPhotog]

Left one important choice off your list

Left one important choice off your list

Fuji X100T. Puts the decades-behind Leica's (with their problems, too) to shame, and in addition the Fuji is so carefully thought out, made mostly of metal including the knobs, user-friendly, yet still light enough for all-day carry use. It is a true "go-to" camera. And the flash is ALWAYS dead on with absolutely perfect exposures when you use it in the auto mode. A few folks will comment on the "nice old camera" -- humorous.

 

[Godfrey]

Fuji X100T. Puts the decades-behind Leica's (with their problems, too) to shame, and in addition the Fuji is so carefully thought out, made mostly of metal including the knobs, user-friendly, yet still light enough for all-day carry use. It is a true "go-to" camera. And the flash is ALWAYS dead on with absolutely perfect exposures when you use it in the auto mode. A few folks will comment on the "nice old camera" -- humorous.

However, it's not a rangefinder camera.

G

 

[Austerby]

Maybe it doesn't to you.
But if one owns and wants to use a set of lenses as they were intended, it does indeed make a difference.

Maybe it does to you, but (to my surprise) the crop factor hasn't bothered me in the slightest of all the M8's "features". I happily work with my full set of lenses and despite years of familiarity with focal lengths for 35mm film use, and concerns beforehand, in practice it's had little relevance (to me).

 

[rscheffler]

The M8 remains a great camera. I make use of the 33% crop factor when I use side by side the M8 and M9 on trips. This doubles for me the choices of focal lengths with half the number of lenses.

I can appreciate where you're coming from with this, since there are times when it's very convenient to be shooting with two cameras. However, from a technical perspective, IIRC, the pixel density of the M8 is identical to the M9. Therefore cropping M9 images with a given lens to M8 pixel dimensions will result in the same end result.

IF the purpose was simply for the crop/reach a higher pixel density sensor could offer, then you might be better off with something like a Sony a6000 and adapter for M lenses. But of course, the user experience would be dramatically different.

 

[raid]

I know that the N8 and the M9 are similar. I did not aim at a crop. I got it with the M8.
RF focusing is what I like, so it has to be a RF camera.

 

[Duane Pandorf]

35mm focal length is my primary lens preference. On the cropped sensor M8 to get the same focal length along with f1.4 I'd need the 24 Lux. A huge lens compared to any of the 35 Luxes. I came up against this same cropped sensor problem when shooting the GXR-M which was a 1.5 ratio.

I have the M-E and exceeds my ability but I too would have to agree with Godfrey that the 240 offers the best overall value and even more, flexibility.

 

[filmtwit]

Over all value?

How about "None of the above."
All of them are tad bit expensive for what they are.

 

[thegman]

I guess it would need to be the R-D1, it's not always the cheapest item which provides the most value (in fact it almost never is, in technology), but as all digital range finders are able to take good pictures, and none of them seem to have any fatal flaws, all are devaluing in price, may as well get the cheapest.

 

[KM-25]

When I consider the best journalism, documentary or other work where unobtrusive is the call of the day, none of the above.

Don't get me wrong, I love my M3 and 50 1.4, I use it near daily, but the camera it shares the bag with just leaves it in the dust in terms of the kind of productivity that Leica and other RF cameras were made famous by, value is also part of that equation.

But what the heck do I know...right?

 

[michaelwj]

M60

Its the only one that has some chance of holding any value. Everything else would be worthless soon.

Now, for actually using, I'd say a 240, but then, what do I know!

Michael

 

[jaapv]

Maybe it doesn't to you.
But if one owns and wants to use a set of lenses as they were intended, it does indeed make a difference.

They were intended to take pictures, weren't they?

I have enough lenses to compensate focal length differences...

 

[LCT]

+1. FF lenses are at their best with crop cams generally. Only problem is fast wides given the price and size of Summilux 21 & 24.

 

[f16sunshine]

+1. FF lenses are at their best with crop cams generally. Only problem is fast wides given the price and size of Summilux 21 & 24.

It's true. The M8 is not as good for wide shooters.
I'm a 50mm users primarily. The CLE M Rokkor f2/40mm was a perfect 50mm equivalent for the M8 (53.2 with 1.33 factor).
Beautiful rendering on that CCD. I seriously would love to get back there some day especially at the going price for M8's.

 

[Merumeni]

Epson seems obsolete and I have never ever seen one in my part of the world.
The rest is a choice between Leica or Leica.
I got my M9 with a faulty sensor: it got replaced (and though I liked the customer service a lot I wondered about Leica's end control). Two years later I send the M9 in for sensor cleaning and learned that my 2nd sensor had cracked and that Leica was going to replace it under warranty. In the meantime I know that Leica with its sensor problems in the M9, Monocrom etc has added a new dimension to the meaning of digital rot.
In summer I will travel between Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. That is during the hot, humid rainy season: my 3rd sensor M9 will be with me, protected as well as I protect all my cameras. But destined to be used.
None of my cameras ever made it into sissy heaven but I start asking my self whether there will be a 4th or 5th sensor waiting for my M9 and how Leica is going to deal with the problem in the next years.

There can be hardly any value without reliability. I do not want to bash Leica at all, and I do know that they can not continue to exchange their faulty sensors for ever, but I start liking my film Ms every day a bit more.

Hence I did not vote.

 

[Mcary]

Paid a little under $1600 for my M8 with 11,000 shots on it since then I've taken about another 3,000 and see getting many more years use out of it before the time comes to update to the M (M240). Since I don't have a lot of history shooting with a Leica M the crop factor/field of view of the lenses isn't something I really notice.
As far as wide angle lens go the wides one I have is a 28mm Elmarit and most of the time when I'm shooting with it composing consist of trying to find an interesting slice/picture with in the overall scene in front of me so a wider lens/field of view isn't normally a priority for me.

 

[Corran]

They were intended to take pictures, weren't they?

I have enough lenses to compensate focal length differences...

We (or others) could go round and round about crop vs. FF forever. But like I said, I find no value in a crop-sensor camera. I want my 50 to be 50, my 21 to be 21. I want the ISO and DOF advantages of FF.

Besides which, the M9 is dated enough, if I wanted poor performance and a crop sensor I would have kept my entry-level Nikon

 

[angelog]

To me, the live view feature makes the M(240) the best value. You have both a digital rangefinder AND a mirror less camera.

 

[airfrogusmc]

The best overall value is the equipment that matches your vision. For me it's the MM and a 35mm FoV...It's what I shoot all of my personal work with.

 

[jaapv]

We (or others) could go round and round about crop vs. FF forever. But like I said, I find no value in a crop-sensor camera. I want my 50 to be 50, my 21 to be 21. I want the ISO and DOF advantages of FF.

Besides which, the M9 is dated enough, if I wanted poor performance and a crop sensor I would have kept my entry-level Nikon

Your 50 will be a 50 and your 21 will be a 21, regardless of the sensor size. No way can you change the focal length of a lens.