Lss
Well-known
Well, there is no such thing as a cheap digital rangefinder. While some fully functional Epson R-D1 units are at least approaching that level in comparison to what many camera buyers are spending, their technology is already decade old as you point out. That may or may not matter for the potential buyers.
mani
Well-known
It's not just you.
Pikapig
Loving Analog
Be it crop, full frame, digital rf or dslr...the one that gets you the winning shot is the one that is good and valuable.
If the image is good, people will ask you what gear did you use to capture that image. No one will be bothered what you use to capture the image if its a lousy image.
People buy Ricoh GR film compact because Daido Moriyama uses it and got tonnes of pretty shot.
And of course you can shoot 100k images to derive that conclusion about full frame is better than crop, but it can also be 100k of lousy images...or you can also use that damn crop camera to take that 1 picture that "wow" everyone. The thing is, its the images that matters.
And not forgetting that camera is a gear, and rightfully the gear should keep up to our expectation, but a lot of people lowered their expectation for the camera which i do not understand why? Despite so much issue with Leica Digital RF and the heavenly price, people are willing to pay a premium to accept a lower expectation of gear. This is as good as paying lots of money for a Mercedes that cannot run faster than a toyota, break down more often than a toyota.
But then again, its the user experience that counts
If the image is good, people will ask you what gear did you use to capture that image. No one will be bothered what you use to capture the image if its a lousy image.
People buy Ricoh GR film compact because Daido Moriyama uses it and got tonnes of pretty shot.
And of course you can shoot 100k images to derive that conclusion about full frame is better than crop, but it can also be 100k of lousy images...or you can also use that damn crop camera to take that 1 picture that "wow" everyone. The thing is, its the images that matters.
And not forgetting that camera is a gear, and rightfully the gear should keep up to our expectation, but a lot of people lowered their expectation for the camera which i do not understand why? Despite so much issue with Leica Digital RF and the heavenly price, people are willing to pay a premium to accept a lower expectation of gear. This is as good as paying lots of money for a Mercedes that cannot run faster than a toyota, break down more often than a toyota.
But then again, its the user experience that counts
MIkhail
Well-known
I am sure it's not just me ;-)
Seriously? Do you compare how a 28 looks with a 50 on the same body? How on earth could you ever choose which to use without comparing them?
I'd contend that of course you do, and you also compare all your platforms, but it's so innate you pass straight to the "being"
Obviously I did not express myself clearly... could be because English is my second language, I suppose.
What I was trying to say was: once I have camera in my hands, I don’t think “I wish I had different sensor, because this one is only giving me a cropped view”. I just walk back and forth to compensate for that. Poor man’s full frame compensation, I guess
Of course I know that 28 mm will give you different field of view than 50 mm Even newbie as myself (not shot 100K images) knows that ;-)
Lss
Well-known
It is other peoples' expectations that are lower than those of the owner's. My M8 has been through a lot over the years and it keeps on capturing great photos.
JPSuisse
Well-known
Well, I wouldn't mind moving up to full-frame, but I think the M8 (my vote) or the RD-1 has got the best value proposition.
In the end FF (assuming you have the needed focal length) does not allow you to take better pictures.
It's possible to get used to the quirks of the M8. That is subjective depending on your mind's flexibility, but I can handle it.
In the end FF (assuming you have the needed focal length) does not allow you to take better pictures.
It's possible to get used to the quirks of the M8. That is subjective depending on your mind's flexibility, but I can handle it.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
If you are committed to both digital and black and white, it's the M Monochrom typ 246. If you are committed to both digital and color, it's the M-P typ 240.
Why??
Think twice, buy once. To hell with settle for cameras and halfway measures; spend your money once and be done with it.
DISCLAIMER
YMMV/JMHO/IANAL/Offer not good in Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa and in Nebraska on Wednesdays.
tennjed
Newbie
I owned, and loved, the M8. After succumbing to the allure of the FF M9, I believe the performance of the M9 does more than justifies the additional shekels. You get the advantage of shooting at actual stated focal length of lenses, image quality that is at least as pleasing as the M8, no need for use of IR filters when shooting color, a camera for which replacements for all components are still available, and (strictly from a monetary value standpoint) a camera that will likely hold its current value for a number of years, going forward.
I also own and MM1; and, if I were secure in my belief that B&W is, in all cases, the best way to shoot, I would consider that camera as the leader in value...the high ISO rendering is very liberating. However, since obtaining the M9, I find that its color rendering, with the 35 Summilux V2, has me gaining a stronger fascination with color images. The M9 is now my choice about 75% of the time.
I also own and MM1; and, if I were secure in my belief that B&W is, in all cases, the best way to shoot, I would consider that camera as the leader in value...the high ISO rendering is very liberating. However, since obtaining the M9, I find that its color rendering, with the 35 Summilux V2, has me gaining a stronger fascination with color images. The M9 is now my choice about 75% of the time.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Best value
Best value
A film rangefinder, perhaps a Leica M4 or Nikon SP, and a very good scanner.
Phil Forrest
Best value
A film rangefinder, perhaps a Leica M4 or Nikon SP, and a very good scanner.
Phil Forrest
Ronald M
Mentor
Keeping my M9, back up is M8. 10% chance will get a M10 50% chance will upgrade D800 or D800E if Nikon has something better.
GAS is gone for lenses. Mostly recovered for bodies.
GAS is gone for lenses. Mostly recovered for bodies.
narsuitus
Well-known
I am still shooting with a Leica M6. I do not yet shoot with a digital rangefinder because I have not found one that meets my needs nor have I found one that I consider a great value. However, the M10 may be the first digital rangefinder that meets my needs.
larmarv916
Well-known
Ok...I wanted to ask Why the X100 and the X-Pro Bodies not included? Is that because they are hybrid viewfinders ? Thanks.
because they aren't rangefinder cameras. We are talking about digital cameras with mechanical rangefinders.
robert blu
quiet photographer
M7 user here, I skipped the M8 because I didn't like it, I was not convinced about the M9, I had doubts when the M240/262 generation hit the market...but after I played a little with the M10 in Wetzlar Leica Shop I was convinced...that is my digital M...
robert
robert
ajramirez
Established
I would be inclined to agree with you if a very good scanner could be had at a reasonable cost. I am not aware that such a thing is even available at this point (and by that I mean scanners in current production).
Cheers,
Antonio
Huss
Mentor
If you just care about a digital RF, then a used M240 is an incredible deal at about $3000.
RichC
Well-known
My brain says M9. My heart says Epson R-D1.
Unfortunately, I can't use either. My commercial clients require 50 MP files, so I even have to resize my 36 MP Nikon D800E images, and some of my fine art prints are over a metre wide...!
Unfortunately, I can't use either. My commercial clients require 50 MP files, so I even have to resize my 36 MP Nikon D800E images, and some of my fine art prints are over a metre wide...!
d_c
Established
If buying new then IMHO the M262 has the best bang for buck among Leica's current range of digital cameras. As others have observed however the M240 goes for less secondhand.
Burkey
Well-known
I haven't been around RFF for quite some time. Dropped by this morning, saw this poll and thread and thought I'd join in.
For me I'd have to say the R-D1. I own one I bought for around $1,400. that is in exceptional condition except it came with the rangefinder patch way out of alignment. Thanks to Stephen Gandy and Co. it now is in very good condition and makes some very fine images.
I also own an M-E and it too is in fine shape and continues to make great pictures so I'd say the M9/M-E follows with a close second for "bang for your buck" in digital rangefinder-land. I share a bunch of CV and Zeiss lenses with both bodies acknowledging the crop factor and effective field of view. All good. 'Just my thoughts.
. . . David, Burkey
For me I'd have to say the R-D1. I own one I bought for around $1,400. that is in exceptional condition except it came with the rangefinder patch way out of alignment. Thanks to Stephen Gandy and Co. it now is in very good condition and makes some very fine images.
I also own an M-E and it too is in fine shape and continues to make great pictures so I'd say the M9/M-E follows with a close second for "bang for your buck" in digital rangefinder-land. I share a bunch of CV and Zeiss lenses with both bodies acknowledging the crop factor and effective field of view. All good. 'Just my thoughts.
. . . David, Burkey
raid
Dad Photographer
"I still haven't found what I am looking for" ......