Have I found my Rangefinder?

[jamesbeat]

Warning!
Long and boring story...

When I was a kid, I was interested in photography but had very little disposable income.
I had a hand me down Kodak compact, but I read a lot of photography books and lusted after a rangefinder.
A school friend's parents had had a visit from a family friend, who had left a Voightlander Vitoret behind when they left. The friend told them not to bother sending it back, and to just give it to my friend. He knew I was interested in photography, and a deal was struck up...

Upon getting the camera home and examining it, I was puzzled to see that turning the focusing ring had no effect upon the image in the viewfinder.
Luckily, my dad was a former amateur photographer, and was familiar with the design- it was a scale focus camera, or 'rangeguesser' as I like to call them :D

Looking back, I consider myself lucky that my first proper camera was completely manual, as I learned a lot from it.
I simply used the guide on the inside of the film carton (f numbers translated into symbols for sun, cloud etc) and got some reasonable results.

As I progressed, I started wanting an SLR. I still liked the idea of a rangefinder, but was sold on the versatility of the SLR.
I still had very little money then, but I lucked out on a 'broken' Pentax ME Super.
My semi-pro uncle had several ME Super bodies, and I had a chance to examine and use them from time to time.
One time, I had accidentally put the batteries in upside down, and the mirror locked up.
This does no harm to the camera, but can be confusing for the novice ME Super user as the batteries look upside down when they are the right way up!
I saw one in a store window incredibly cheap, and was advertised 'as is'.
I asked to look at it, and quickly realized that all that was wrong with it was that the batteries were upside down.
I shut my mouth, handed over my money, and walked quickly out of the store :D

I had enormous fun with my ME Super, and learned a great deal about the use of a camera, but I also kept thinking about that rangefinder I never owned.
My SLR was great, but it was also big. I thought that if I had a rangefinder I would have a camera with me more often.

I let my interest in photography wane somewhat for a few years, and then digital happened.
At first it wasn't much more than a novelty, but when the technology started to take off and we got cameras in the megapixel and up range, I paid more attention and got myself a cheap compact.
The ease and speed of digital rekindled my love of photography, and (with more money now) I soon got myself a Nikon D50

I still have the D50 (no point upgrading, it can take better photos than I can) but I never take it anywhere because of its size, and thus I STILL want that rangefinder!

I looked into digital rangefinders, but quickly realised that I would have to sell one of my wife's kidneys to afford one.

Then I did what I suspect many of us old film users did, and looked around for the mystical 'silicon film' that would convert a film camera into a digital one.
I'm pretty sure the technology wouldn't be too difficult, and that if someone made this they'd sell millions of them, but alas nobody has.

So what is the digital camera that is most analogous to the rangefinders of the 60's and 70's?
Well it's certainly not the Leica. Leica got stuck in a technological rut. I mean absolutely no disrespect to Leica, they make beautiful cameras, but they are anachronistic too, a digital version of what is really an outdated design.

So, what would a modern equivalent of the 35mm rangefinder be?
The rangefinder used to be the high end 35mm camera until the SLR was developed, and then became the small camera for those that didn't want to haul an SLR everywhere they went.
If you wanted a versatile professional camera, you bought an SLR. If you wanted a small unobtrusive camera, you bought a rangefinder.

SLR's have gained various levels of automation, auto exposure, autofocus etc.
What about the rangefinder?
Well a rangefinder has a separate viewfinder with a rangefinding mechanism linked to the lens. Automate that, and you have a camera that has autofocus and a separate, non TTL viewfinder.

I bought a Canon G5 the other day. 5MP is enough for me right now, as I'm concentrating on learning how to really use a camera again.
My reasoning is that MP mean nothing if the person behind the camera leaves it set to auto all the time.
I like the body design of the G5 a lot, and it cost very little so I'm not afraid to carry it everywhere with me (which I would be if I had bought the G11, which I very nearly did)

So, I now have a small camera that has full manual controls, to take with me where my DSLR can't or won't go.
It can take better pictures than I can, so I'm the limiting factor (at least for now)
I feel once more that I am a little kid with my Voightlander :)

So, apologies for the long and whimsical post, but does everyone agree that I have at long last found my 'rangefinder'?

[tkbslc]

You tell me, man. Do you like the camera? Is it working well for your needs? If so, you have found your camera.

I think I have a hard time calling it a rangefinder, though, because of its small sensor and the fact it uses a zoom rather than a prime.

[Bob_A]

You tell me, man. Do you like the camera? Is it working well for your needs? If so, you have found your camera.

I think I have a hard time calling it a rangefinder, though, because of its small sensor and the fact it uses a zoom rather than a prime.

Agree. The G-series are great cameras (I have a G9) but they are in no way a rangefinder. To date the Leica M cameras are the only true digital rangefinders that I know of. Beautiful cameras with the only weakness being that they don"t have an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor. And since I need my spare kidney I probably won't be buying one :lol:

[denncald]

Has anyone considered the Sigma DP2/DP1 to fill that mystical role of the pseudo-rangefinder? It's small, like a G series, and you can put an optical viewfinder on the hot shoe.

http://www.rytterfalk.com/2009/04/20/initial-dp2-review-with-full-size-shots/

You pretty much have to run it in manual to make it do what you want in a timely fashion, and it requires you to mostly process only RAW images to get the best out of it. Here's a few suggestions on how to operate them.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARddveJWxIl_ZGZuN3Y0ZG1fMTA1ZmRyOHNkaHE&hl=en_GB

I've been tossing this idea around lately, while I consider the G11/S90 systems.

Dennis

[Kevan]

Bravo! Wonderful story, it got me thinking about my times acquiring and using different cameras. My story started with using my mom's Kodak Brownie that she used during her childhood, and then eventually getting a Kodak Instamatic, and later as a high school student, a Pentax Spotmatic F, and then my last 35mm slr, a Nikon FE. I loved those film days, but I'm enjoying the digital world even more.

With the G9, I've found that the camera is now only part of the entire equation and that now you need to use photo processing software to complete the experience. I've loved my journey with my little camera and I regularly think about stepping up to the big guns. Yet I continue to hem and haw, knowing...just knowing my little camera already does most of what I expect to do in my photography experience.

Still...

[jamesbeat]

Agree. The G-series are great cameras (I have a G9) but they are in no way a rangefinder. To date the Leica M cameras are the only true digital rangefinders that I know of. Beautiful cameras with the only weakness being that they don"t have an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor. And since I need my spare kidney I probably won't be buying one :lol:


You're right in that the Leica (and the discontinued Epson) are the only actual digital rangefinders, but that wasn't really the point I was trying to make.
The digital Leica uses an outdated (but wonderful) focusing system. Replace that with AF, and what you have is an AF camera with a separate viewfinder.
The rangefinder mechanism is no longer necessary because the focusing process has been automated.
Now, the task of moving the focusing ring and watching the images superimpose is replaced by half-pressing the shutter button and looking out for the orange light.

What I am trying to say is that I think the G series is the modern equivalent of the rangefinder of old because it fills the same role.
It's a good second camera or alternative to a DSLR for the same reasons that the rangefinder was a good second camera or alternative to the film SLR.

I'm all for anachronistic devices. I have a Rolex, which is probably the Leica of the watch world. In the 'good old days', the Rolex was a hard working sports watch, valued for its ruggedness.
The modern equivalent would be a Casio G shock or similar. Digital replaced mechanical and plastics replaced well engineered metal.
Rolex didn't go down this route, instead staying with what is really an outdated mechanical design, but beautifully made and expensive.

I wasn't after the camera equivalent of a Rolex, I wanted the modern digital analog of a rangefinder camera, one that filled the same role as the rangefinder did, but with the benefit of technological advances in design.
The 'spiritual successor' to the rangefinder if you like.


I'd still really like 'silicon film' to come to fruition and be able to reuse classic camera bodies though....

[audiosteve]

I see one big problem trying to call the older rangefinders and the G series equivalent. The old rangefinders still used the same sized film as their larger SLR brethern. So the ultimate attainable image quality was not limited by the media. That is not the case with a G series. Although its sensor is larger and better than virtually all other point and shoots cameras, it is still inferior to its DSLR brethern. IMHO the true rangefinder equivalent has yet to be made. Perhaps if something like the Panasonic GF1 had a built in viewfinder then maybe it could be called the modern equivalent of a rangefinder. Having said all that, I have a G11 and absolutely love it.

[jamesbeat]

Yes, that is a good point.
Of course, the other drawback of the small sensor is the short focal length of the lens, which means that shallow depth of field is often difficult or impossible to achieve.
I'm still very happy with my G5 though.
The 5MP sensor makes me think more about the composition of my images, as cropping is limited.
I like to think of high MP sensors as 'composition bracketing' :D

[rogazilla]

^ I am still searching for that rangefinder like camera.

Oly EP-2 and Panasonic's GF1 really had me excited. But I picked up the 7d this year. I am waiting to see if canon or nikon makes an offering or the next generation of them to really improve on LCD on the oly and a built in view finder.

[jamesbeat]

Yes, the micro 4/3 cameras got me pretty excited too, for the same reason.
What's particularly exciting is that the flange focal distance is small enough that many older lenses can be used with an adapter. I've seen some excellent results with C Mount lenses.
I have yet to experience an EVF, but if they are decent, then the Micro 4/3 may well be the holy grail.

Actually, forget that. The holy grail of cameras for me is still the 'vaporware' silicon film.
I imagine that I and many many other people would buy more than one of these devices if someone actually made one.
I doubt the big camera manufacturers would ever do such a thing, as they want to sell new cameras, but if a smaller manufacturer managed to get one into production, I expect they'd make themselves a lot of money.
The Chinese manufacturers seem to be good at that type of thing, maybe one of them will seize the opportunity.

I've thought many times about doing such a thing myself. The main stumbling block (apart from size) is the fact that cameras panic if they don't find the zoom lens during bootup.
There are people that are trying, and hopefully they will meet with success soon, especially as the price of full frame sensors gradually comes down:

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00RmbG

I'm trying not to get too hung up on equipment though, and concentrate instead on becoming a better photographer.
Even if I had the money to spend on a digital Leica, I'd still only be able to take mediocre photos with it...

[denncald]

With the G9, I've found that the camera is now only part of the entire equation and that now you need to use photo processing software to complete the experience. I've loved my journey with my little camera and I regularly think about stepping up to the big guns. Yet I continue to hem and haw, knowing...just knowing my little camera already does most of what I expect to do in my photography experience.

Still...

I still find this blog article on the G9 helpful for making the camera more responsive, and can make it more like a light range finder.

http://lifespy.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/setting-up-snap-shooting-mode-on-the-g9/

And, yes I also rely more on post processing to help me "get there" with the G9. I especially appreciate what I can bring out with RAW, realizing I don't always think to set up the shot perfectly, or perhaps don't have time in the moment.

Dennis

[Bob_A]

^ I am still searching for that rangefinder like camera.

Oly EP-2 and Panasonic's GF1 really had me excited. But I picked up the 7d this year. I am waiting to see if canon or nikon makes an offering or the next generation of them to really improve on LCD on the oly and a built in view finder.

If the Oly's had a nice big and bright optical viewfinder it would have been more rangefinder-like.

The G-series cameras have too small a sensor and an almost unusable optical viewfinder. The shutter lag is good for a point and shoot, but for a rangefinder I'd expect the same responsiveness as a DSLR.

IMO for a "rangefinder" like G-9 the sensor would need to be similar to the 1.6 crop size (or better yet, full frame), the body would probably be at least twice as big, lenses would be much larger (because the sensor size would be much larger) and there would be need to be much more processing power. A Canon version of the M-series with AF ... :)

[rbil]

I see one big problem trying to call the older rangefinders and the G series equivalent. The old rangefinders still used the same sized film as their larger SLR brethern. So the ultimate attainable image quality was not limited by the media. That is not the case with a G series. Although its sensor is larger and better than virtually all other point and shoots cameras, it is still inferior to its DSLR brethern. IMHO the true rangefinder equivalent has yet to be made. Perhaps if something like the Panasonic GF1 had a built in viewfinder then maybe it could be called the modern equivalent of a rangefinder. Having said all that, I have a G11 and absolutely love it.

The latest digital M has a full frame sensor developed especially for it by Kodak. Now if that isn't a true rangefinder, I don't what is. Price ... far beyond what I can afford. Reports ... the best digital out there.

Cheers,
Rene

[jr_senator]

I had read somewhere that Nikon is considering a digital, interchangeable lens rangefinder, if so Canon would have to follow soon. This is something I would really like to see. Something along the lines of the size and weight of the Contax G2 I sold last year.

My health situation is making the continued use of my DSLR system more and more difficult. In fact, I had it up for sale not too long ago.

I looked at the 4/3 systems, but, found it lacking. A good used Leica M8.2 and two, maybe three lenses and a flash would probably do me nicely if I could just get enough money from selling my DSLR gear, but I doubt it.I still enjoy using my G5 very much, in part because it has a hot shoe and records RAW.

I look with interest to see what Nikon and Canon may come up with.

[iancandler]

I have just bought a G11 as it was the nearest thing I could find to a rangefinder that I could afford.
Sadly I cant get out at all these days so had to buy on spec this meant I had no idea that the optical viewfinder was just that.. and nothing more, no focus information, no settings, in fact nothing bar zooming with the lens.
Apart from that it serves my needs for a small light weight camera that I with my health limitations can manage to hold reasonably steadily and use.

I had already thrown out the idea of 4/3rds as, as it stands at present I either had to add an optical viewfinder or put up with something that looked like an ugly mini dslr.

The G11 is currently meeting my needs, especially with the flexible position rear screen.
If I win the lottery I will get an M9 but other than that I'll stick with what I have unless next years model is an improvement over the G11

[denoir]

I still have the D50 (no point upgrading, it can take better photos than I can) but I never take it anywhere because of its size, and thus I STILL want that rangefinder!


You shouldn't be so sure that you are the limiting factor. I used a 350D for years convinced that there was no point in getting a better camera because my photography skills were limiting and not the camera. I had bought it back when I was a poor college student and never bothered upgrading it. A while ago however I rekindled my interest in photography and got a 1Ds MkIII. Boy was I surprised. It was much easier to use than the 350D and after I got some decent glass I was really shocked at the difference in the images I could produced. So the lesson learned was that pro cameras are actually much easier to use - especially when combined with fast optics. You get a much better AF system, superior metering, big viewfinder etc And the image quality is spectacular. In short it's much easier to get great pictures.


Well it's certainly not the Leica. Leica got stuck in a technological rut. I mean absolutely no disrespect to Leica, they make beautiful cameras, but they are anachronistic too, a digital version of what is really an outdated design.


Leica may be anachronistic as far as the exterior goes but in an M9 you still have a first class full frame sensor and the lenses you can get are without equals in the DSLR world. So if you really want a rangefinder, you can't go wrong with a Leica. Obviously, for most people - me included - the price is difficult to justify. Still, had I been primarily into street photography then a Leica M9 (or M8 for that matter) would have been the inevitable choice today. In the future I hope that they will get some competition in the large-sensor-small-body racket. Micro 4/3 is a nice attempt but they are light years behind both Leica rangefinders and DSLR:s when it comes to available glass.

[jr_senator]

Micro 4/3 is a nice attempt but they are light years behind both Leica rangefinders and DSLR:s when it comes to available glass.
Just one of the 4/3 systems shortcomings and maybe the main one.

[Peterm1_Canon]

Maybe you have but I have to say that as much as I like my G11, I cannot think of it quite as a rangefinder substitute. The main reason is shutter lag. I have owned a couple of Leica M bodies one thing that defines them is the amazing fast shutter response. Compared with this the G is distinctly sluggish making it hard to capture moving subjects. Maybe I should turn AF off and zone focus. Perhaps that would work. The is one other thing. At moderately close ranges the Gs viewfinder (the only way I shoot) is not even close to what is actually captured due to parallax error. Having said this I would not change the camera. On other fronts it is lovely to use and produces some of the best looking jpg images I have ever seen straight out of a camera. (I usually shoot RAW.)

Also having said this I have captured some nice street images (here with a little post processing to complement the images.)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2725/4415367386_6b37184e46_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4411358122_556602d065_o.jpg

and some nice "art" shots

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2707/4430532786_868b5652f0_o.jpg

[bohdank]

Curious about the processing on the first 2....

[jamesbeat]

It seems quite a few people share my desire for a rangefinder-type camera that doesn't require a second mortgage.
I guess the G series is the closest we'll get for now.

I have just bought a G7 because, although the G5 is great, I just need that extra cropping ability that I'll get from a higher MP sensor.
I was trying to decide between a G10 and a G11, but then I got a deal on a G7 that I couldn't turn down. I haven't received it yet, but I'm really looking forward to it.

I had a Samsung NV10 compact that had horrific shutter lag. It would often be literally seconds between me pressing the shutter button and the camera taking the photo.

In good light with flash turned off, there was an annoying lag that made me miss shots. In lower light with the flash on, it would be so bad that sometimes the subject would have completely moved out of the frame by the time the camera decided to open the shutter.

I found this so frustrating that I ended up hating the camera and sold it for a lot less than it was worth.

In comparison to the horror of the Samsung, I don't find the shutter lag on the G5 to be too much of a problem, but then I don't do much in the way of action photography.
If I turn off the display and use a half-press to focus in advance, I find that the shutter lag is reduced to where I barely notice it.
I will, however, qualify that statement by pointing out that I am probably not yet experienced enough to be held back by something as subtle as this.

[Tadaaa]

It seems quite a few people share my desire for a rangefinder-type camera that doesn't require a second mortgage.
I guess the G series is the closest we'll get for now.

I have just bought a G7 because, although the G5 is great, I just need that extra cropping ability that I'll get from a higher MP sensor.
I was trying to decide between a G10 and a G11, but then I got a deal on a G7 that I couldn't turn down. I haven't received it yet, but I'm really looking forward to it.

I had a Samsung NV10 compact that had horrific shutter lag. It would often be literally seconds between me pressing the shutter button and the camera taking the photo.

In good light with flash turned off, there was an annoying lag that made me miss shots. In lower light with the flash on, it would be so bad that sometimes the subject would have completely moved out of the frame by the time the camera decided to open the shutter.

I found this so frustrating that I ended up hating the camera and sold it for a lot less than it was worth.

In comparison to the horror of the Samsung, I don't find the shutter lag on the G5 to be too much of a problem, but then I don't do much in the way of action photography.
If I turn off the display and use a half-press to focus in advance, I find that the shutter lag is reduced to where I barely notice it.
I will, however, qualify that statement by pointing out that I am probably not yet experienced enough to be held back by something as subtle as this.

A micro 4/3's is about the closest to an affordable Rangefinder as you can find today. Fairly small with the 25mm pancake lens, decent ISO even up to ISO 3200, a depth of field you can actually limit, etc. Cool little camera.

ISO: 1250 http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/130869.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1275084800&Signature=Cl2mUPyy04uOJGud0GL79jsJHoc%3d

ISO: 3200 http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/130882.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1275085093&Signature=bog2Ka0jr/yHNa920svSgYGWYQs%3d

[audiosteve]

Re the 4/3 camera. I had a GH1 and sent it back. For me the viewfinder and shutter lag were not ideal and for that price there should have been no excuses. The camera was smaller but no lighter or more portable, it seemed, than my SLR. It seemed that I was paying top dollar for a package that did not deliver what a T1i could. So I got the G11 and never looked back. It's not an SLR replacment but also does not pretend to be. It costs less and is more portable than an 4/3 camera. For me it's just what the doctor ordered. And it has a viewfinder. Maybe the smaller 4/3's cameras would be better rangefinder replacements than the GH1 I had, but they still have no built in viewfinder.

[Tadaaa]

Re the 4/3 camera. I had a GH1 and sent it back. For me the viewfinder and shutter lag were not ideal and for that price there should have been no excuses. The camera was smaller but no lighter or more portable, it seemed, than my SLR. It seemed that I was paying top dollar for a package that did not deliver what a T1i could. So I got the G11 and never looked back. It's not an SLR replacment but also does not pretend to be. It costs less and is more portable than an 4/3 camera. For me it's just what the doctor ordered. And it has a viewfinder. Maybe the smaller 4/3's cameras would be better rangefinder replacements than the GH1 I had, but they still have no built in viewfinder.

Yeah, I hear ya... If it were up to me I'd have an old OM-1 with a digital back.

[audiosteve]

There are only two things about the G11 that I wish were different. Shutter lag and inability to get real limited depth of field. But those are small prices to pay for a camera with so many other virtues.

[Tadaaa]

There are only two things about the G11 that I wish were different. Shutter lag and inability to get real limited depth of field. But those are small prices to pay for a camera with so many other virtues.

Agree..... and a usable ISO-800.....

The L-DOF and ISO would be improved with a larger sensor,,, But then the camera grows to the size of a Pen. Catch 22.

[Sparky98]

I am still waiting for Canon to revive the Canonette with either a FF or 1.6 sensor. I got my Canonette 28 out the other day and thought about shooting some film through it but all the seals were gone on the back. I would love to have a simple camera with manual focusing and a simple match needle light meter.

[denncald]

I am still waiting for Canon to revive the Canonette with either a FF or 1.6 sensor. I got my Canonette 28 out the other day and thought about shooting some film through it but all the seals were gone on the back. I would love to have a simple camera with manual focusing and a simple match needle light meter.

You might want to look in to one of these;

http://www.neutralday.com/leica-x1-vs-sigma-dp2-two-photographers-compacts-compared/

Actually, I can use my G9 or G11 in full Manual mode to operate as a simple camera with manual focus and a simple needle match light meter.

Dennis

[JimAskew]

I love my G11 but it is not a rangefinder :(

I started my photography hobby in 1966 with a Yashica 35MM f/1.7 Rangefinder. To this day I still have nothing but fond memories of that camera. The fixed 50MM f/1.7 lens was superb...sharp as a tack and great color saturation. You had to compose with your feet by moving around to frame the perfect shot. I used Fujichrome slide film in various ASA speeds; and, I used a lot of Kodak B&W film as well.

I agree with others that the closest thing to a true rangefinder today is the digital Lecia. Or, I can take my 5D and put my 50MM f/1.4 on it for the same effect.