Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands
Thread started 15 Sep 2017 (Friday) 11:24
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Rangefinder digitals, options?

 
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Sep 24, 2017 15:14 as a reply to post 18459480 |  #136

Like my point above, some might keep good value but Leica lenses are not immune from significantly dropping in price. Not a negative on Leica at all, just an obversion. Do you know of a buying guide or reference on Leica lenses per chance? Be a handy reference to look through.

Three lenses and two bodies, much change from $35K? That is a lot to invest [& tie up] for a very small system for most people. Of course that is buying new, I'm sure the cost would be less if you buy a few years old & don't buy on brand lenses, but the lenses are a big part of that look are they not.

Perhaps a sub $500 X100s is a good option and resale will be great on it also, probably less than $50. So a very inexpensive wetting of the toe and by [almost] all accounts a very capable camera.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2 | 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 10-24/4. AD600BM, TT865F, AL-H198, ThinkTank AS2, Peli1514, Ona Bowery, Matthews Grip
flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Post has been edited 27 days ago by airfrogusmc.
Sep 24, 2017 15:41 |  #137

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18459498 (external link)
Like my point above, some might keep good value but Leica lenses are not immune from significantly dropping in price. Not a negative on Leica at all, just an obversion. Do you know of a buying guide or reference on Leica lenses per chance? Be a handy reference to look through.

Three lenses and two bodies, much change from $35K? That is a lot to invest [& tie up] for a very small system for most people. Of course that is buying new, I'm sure the cost would be less if you buy a few years old & don't buy on brand lenses, but the lenses are a big part of that look are they not.

Perhaps a sub $500 X100s is a good option and resale will be great on it also, probably less than $50. So a very inexpensive wetting of the toe and by [almost] all accounts a very capable camera.

Yes Some Leica Lenses hold better value than others do but many Leica shooters usually doesn't change lenses a lot with Leica glass and historically over the long haul Leica M glass does hold it's value and many of the ones that are rare or have special qualities actually go up. I tend to compare top of the line digital Nicanons to Leica digital M more apples to apples. I am old enough to remember when Leica M was double top of the line Nicanons, now they are maybe with the M 10 even a little less. I, like many others, are FF photographers that shoot a lot of wide angle crop is a deal breaker.

Depends on which 3 lenses. Two M 10s would be $14K. Say a 35 Lux FLE is say 5K Thats 19K a 24 Elmarit 2.8 ASPH is about 2K and you can get a 75 Summarit for about 1800. Thats what $22,800. And that is is one fine kit.




LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Sep 24, 2017 16:36 |  #138

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18459498 (external link)
Perhaps a sub $500 X100s is a good option and resale will be great on it also, probably less than $50. So a very inexpensive wetting of the toe and by [almost] all accounts a very capable camera.

Yes, one certainly does not need a $35k system to create a meaningful photograph. It would be very difficult to convince me that those lenses are any better in a meaningful way than something that costs $500 or less. I find terrestrial lens discussion is mainly all about arguing minutia that doesn't show up outside of a measurement. In astro, have to match resolution to the system to get the scale we want to actually get detail. Today's terrestrial lenses and sensors are beyond overkill to take a picture of a kid. I'm used to buying a sensor based on it's pixel size, not number of pixels, to match a focal-ratio for resolution. Then again this forum uses the term resolution differently than what resolution is in an optical system.

Outside of pixel peeping, unless someone shows EXIF, you can rarely tell the difference between different systems, lenses, etc, especially in black & white, and especially after being processed. But this is a forum full of people that do pixel peep. I'm not one to pixel peep nor care about that. I print and can't tell if it came from a 10D or a 5D at normal viewing distance.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Sep 24, 2017 16:43 |  #139

MalVeauX wrote in post #18459540 (external link)
Yes, one certainly does not need a $35k system to create a meaningful photograph. It would be very difficult to convince me that those lenses are any better in a meaningful way than something that costs $500 or less. I find terrestrial lens discussion is mainly all about arguing minutia that doesn't show up outside of a measurement. In astro, have to match resolution to the system to get the scale we want to actually get detail. Today's terrestrial lenses and sensors are beyond overkill to take a picture of a kid. I'm used to buying a sensor based on it's pixel size, not number of pixels, to match a focal-ratio for resolution. Then again this forum uses the term resolution differently than what resolution is in an optical system.

Outside of pixel peeping, unless someone shows EXIF, you can rarely tell the difference between different systems, lenses, etc, especially in black & white, and especially after being processed. But this is a forum full of people that do pixel peep. I'm not one to pixel peep nor care about that. I print and can't tell if it came from a 10D or a 5D at normal viewing distance.

Very best,

Actually Leica glass is rarely about pixel peeping and more about rendering.




LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Post has been edited 27 days ago by MalVeauX.
Sep 24, 2017 17:04 |  #140

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18459545 (external link)
Actually Leica glass is rarely about pixel peeping and more about rendering.

Pretty broad statement. The same could be said about many lens makers. And how is rendering measured? Or is it entirely subjective?

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Post has been edited 27 days ago by airfrogusmc.
Sep 24, 2017 17:52 |  #141

MalVeauX wrote in post #18459556 (external link)
Pretty broad statement. The same could be said about many lens makers. And how is rendering measured? Or is it entirely subjective?

Very best,


There are some Leica lenses, that if you were able to spend some time with, you would see what i mean. but yeah it is subjective and some people do prefer the looks of say a 35L. I have owned both the 35L and 35 Lux FLE and guess which one i prefer by a lot. I have two really good friends (both full time pros) that I hire to help me with a couple of really big very hi end jobs I shot every year. One shoots Canon and the other shoots Nikon and I process all the files and there is a difference and I prefer by a lot the way my files(Leica cameras and lenses)look over both. There is a difference in the way the lenses render and the way the sensors look. Sure that's subjective and some prefer A some prefer B and some prefer C but there is a difference in the way they render. There is a very unique signature to the way the Leica 50 1.0 nocitlux from the way the .95 noctilux renders. They are both amazing lenses. Some prefer the 1.0. Some the .95 but they both have a very different look form anything anyone else makes. With 35mm Leica lenses some prefer the pre asph 35 Lux and some, including myself prefer the latest version the FLE. Some prefer the way Zeiss renders. But they all render very differently than do anything in the DSLR world.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,483 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Sep 24, 2017 18:47 |  #142

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18459582 (external link)
There are some Leica lenses, that if you were able to spend some time with, you would see what i mean. but yeah it is subjective and some people do prefer the looks of say a 35L. I have owned both the 35L and 35 Lux FLE and guess which one i prefer by a lot. I have two really good friends (both full time pros) that I hire to help me with a couple of really big very hi end jobs I shot every year. One shoots Canon and the other shoots Nikon and I process all the files and there is a difference and I prefer by a lot the way my files(Leica cameras and lenses)look over both. There is a difference in the way the lenses render and the way the sensors look. Sure that's subjective and some prefer A some prefer B and some prefer C but there is a difference in the way they render. There is a very unique signature to the way the Leica 50 1.0 nocitlux from the way the .95 noctilux renders. They are both amazing lenses. Some prefer the 1.0. Some the .95 but they both have a very different look form anything anyone else makes. With 35mm Leica lenses some prefer the pre asph 35 Lux and some, including myself prefer the latest version the FLE. Some prefer the way Zeiss renders. But they all render very differently than do anything in the DSLR world.

I'de say Milvus 35 f1.4 probably gives the best overall rendering of any 35mm ever made.

unfortunately, it's heavier than both my camera and lens combined, no thanks. It can be argued that the Zm 35 f1.4 is the next best 35mm, however, I've read it can partially block the viewfinder a bit, so a deal-breaker for many. Kind of big for rangefinder glass, another turnoff. So that out of the way, the 35 lux does seem to be in good position for most exciting small lens since it doesnt have many competitors. Voigtlander ultron isnt f1.4, and noktons are definitely not on par with modern IQ.


Sony A7r - A7ii - A7rii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CY 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Sep 24, 2017 18:48 |  #143

I get the whole subjective thing. It's why I shoot a 5Dc still. I just like the old Canon sensors. I actually have no interest in current Canon sensors. I'm red-green colorblind and can hardly appreciate the differences in color between the main sensor makers. If I were buying a new camera today for do-all, it likely would be a Sony based on features and adaptability. But, I prefer the character of the old 5Dc files. I'm venturing out of my comfort zone with that by looking at a compact. Fuji seems to have interesting attributes that are subjective too. The only reason I'm drawn to a Leica is for a monochrome large format sensor in a smallish body that compact. I shoot the sky with a monochrome sensor with big 5.86um pixels, usually in a wavelength of exactly 656.28nm, for its greater sensitivity than a color sensor and greater resolution. I'd definitely enjoy a walk around camera with a mono sensor too. Granted, I know I can get a service to de-bayer a sensor.

I know MaxMax does debayer service. I saw some Fuji rangefinders that are monochrome through them for about $2500.

But mono is what really draws me to the Leica along with the sensor size and camera size. I don't care about having a bunch of lenses. Just one small pancake that gives approximately 28mm or 35mm FOV would work for me, around F2.

But, affordable for me as one of many hobbies to be realistic with it. I'd rather spend $1k+ on a new Calcium 393nm filter honestly. And I'd really really love to spend $20k or more on a permanent observatory building on my 5 acre dark site property. But, priorities! Sigh!

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Sep 24, 2017 19:00 |  #144

Charlie wrote in post #18459616 (external link)
I'de say Milvus 35 f1.4 probably gives the best overall rendering of any 35mm ever made.

unfortunately, it's heavier than both my camera and lens combined, no thanks. It can be argued that the Zm 35 f1.4 is the next best 35mm, however, I've read it can partially block the viewfinder a bit, so a deal-breaker for many. Kind of big for rangefinder glass, another turnoff. So that out of the way, the 35 lux does seem to be in good position for most exciting small lens since it doesnt have many competitors. Voigtlander ultron isnt f1.4, and noktons are definitely not on par with modern IQ.

I would take the 35 Lux FLE over it for not only rendering but size and weight and it works with my Ms. I also prefer it over the Zeiss but I can see why some like the Zeiss. The 35 Lux FLE also blocks some of the VF. But more than IQ are the way the images look. Yeah the 35 Lux is sharp wide open but man the way it renders.




LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Post has been edited 27 days ago by airfrogusmc.
Sep 24, 2017 19:07 |  #145

MalVeauX wrote in post #18459617 (external link)
I get the whole subjective thing. It's why I shoot a 5Dc still. I just like the old Canon sensors. I actually have no interest in current Canon sensors. I'm red-green colorblind and can hardly appreciate the differences in color between the main sensor makers. If I were buying a new camera today for do-all, it likely would be a Sony based on features and adaptability. But, I prefer the character of the old 5Dc files. I'm venturing out of my comfort zone with that by looking at a compact. Fuji seems to have interesting attributes that are subjective too. The only reason I'm drawn to a Leica is for a monochrome large format sensor in a smallish body that compact. I shoot the sky with a monochrome sensor with big 5.86um pixels, usually in a wavelength of exactly 656.28nm, for its greater sensitivity than a color sensor and greater resolution. I'd definitely enjoy a walk around camera with a mono sensor too. Granted, I know I can get a service to de-bayer a sensor.

I know MaxMax does debayer service. I saw some Fuji rangefinders that are monochrome through them for about $2500.

But mono is what really draws me to the Leica along with the sensor size and camera size. I don't care about having a bunch of lenses. Just one small pancake that gives approximately 28mm or 35mm FOV would work for me, around F2.

But, affordable for me as one of many hobbies to be realistic with it. I'd rather spend $1k+ on a new Calcium 393nm filter honestly. And I'd really really love to spend $20k or more on a permanent observatory building on my 5 acre dark site property. But, priorities! Sigh!

Very best,

Also because the MM doesn't have RGB an 18MP sensors behaves, concerning sharpness, like a 36MP sensor. But you don't have to spend 20K on a Leica MM and great lens. You can pick up an MM with a replaced sensor (make sure it has bee replaced) for 4 K and a Zeiss 35 1.4 for what 2200 so the would be 6200 but you certainly could pick up a 35mm Zeiss Biogon 2.8 C which is a killer little lens(I have one) for $900 so that would be less that 5K and you get exactly the camera that you want a Leica M Monochrom.
Reviews on B&H for the biogon C
https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com ...f_2_8.html#customer​Review (external link)




LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottboarding
Senior Member
Scottboarding's Avatar
Joined May 2016
Sep 24, 2017 22:39 |  #146

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18459509 (external link)
Depends on which 3 lenses. Two M 10s would be $14K. Say a 35 Lux FLE is say 5K Thats 19K a 24 Elmarit 2.8 ASPH is about 2K and you can get a 75 Summarit for about 1800. Thats what $22,800. And that is is one fine kit.

That's a MASSIVE amount of money for most people though. It doesn't matter if it's a good setup or not, $23,000 is a large amount of money for almost anyone in photography, let alone someone who does it for the joy. From what I understand, your work pays for it, which is great! The rest of us aren't that lucky, and don't have $23,000 we can just spend on a hobby.


Olympus E-M1 - Mitakon 25mm f0.95 - Olympus 25mm f1.8 - Olympus 17mm f1.8
Nikon FM2n - Nikon Ai-s 28mm f2.8 - Nikon Ai 50mm f1.4
Ricoh GRii

LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Sep 24, 2017 22:43 |  #147

Scottboarding wrote in post #18459729 (external link)
That's a MASSIVE amount of money for most people though. It doesn't matter if it's a good setup or not, $23,000 is a large amount of money for almost anyone in photography, let alone someone who does it for the joy. From what I understand, your work pays for it, which is great! The rest of us aren't that lucky, and don't have $23,000 we can just spend on a hobby.

No argument there. But I see some hobbyist not blinking an eye on buying a couple of 1DX whatever they are now, 70-200, 300 2.8, 400 2.8 and a couple of shorter zooms. Do the math and that's even more and that seems to be OK with most that post here.




LOG IN TO REPLY
rantercsr
Goldmember
rantercsr's Avatar
Joined Mar 2014
Post has been last edited 27 days ago by rantercsr. 2 edits done in total.
Sep 24, 2017 22:56 as a reply to airfrogusmc's post |  #148

Most likely the only leica I will ever own (and currently lust over ) or care to own is the M6

but I've had a leica lens before..
oh yeah.. the 15mm 1.7 .. thats the uhh.. ermm.. Panasonic leica 15mm.. it really was my favorite lens for m4/3 .. something about the rendering that made pics seem "special"

seriously tho .. M6! some day, I can afford it , just such specialty camera (being film) and then I gotta get a lens otherwise its just an ornament ...just recently got into film with a pentax k1000 , not so easy to manual focus
anyways don't think people can argue too much with leica being a better investment than most other camera/lenses .. but its still quite a chunk a change to drop


Canon 80D//Rebel T4i//EF50 f1.4 //EFS 24mm F2.8//EFS 18-55//EFS 10-18 //EFS 55-250
Pentax k1000* k50 f2*135 f2.
Fuji XT2 // xf 23mm f2/ xf50 f2 WR
https://www.instagram.​com/shotbypops/ (external link) MYflickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Sep 25, 2017 04:37 |  #149

Yea, definitely not investing in anything here. I certainly don't buy a camera thinking about its investment qualities. And I totally get that yes there are people who drop cash on the latest flagship release from the big camera makers, pick up the latest versions of the standard and telephoto zooms, and possibly grab a big white and they've easily spent $10k in a heart beat. It's their money, so who cares. Doesn't matter if its business or pleasure. We all make choices on what we are willing to spend on. Some of us probably spend more on coffee, etc, than we do camera gear! I do! Well, terrestrial camera gear that is. And cameras are not all that costly if you compare to other things, like boating, cars, bikes, etc, or just good old travel. And I certainly don't feel the need to make a statement to others with what device/brand I'm using for what I'm doing. My daughter doesn't care if it says Canon, Fuji, Leica.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Post has been last edited 26 days ago by airfrogusmc. 3 edits done in total.
Sep 25, 2017 07:23 |  #150

The only reason I keep mentioning Leica is you keep mentioning the M Monochrom and your OP is Rangefinder digitals options and Leica Digital M is the only FF 135 OVF digital rangefinder option. I certainly don't but equipment as investments. To me they are tools but it is nice when you drop the kind of money some some of these cameras cost if you decide to change or need to sell that you can get something back. When I bought my MM IIRC the 1DsMkIII was the big Canon and sold for about the same price as my MM. The 1DsMkIII is now selling for usually around 1500. The MM is about 4K. Actually the original MM has not changed in price for a while now so say you would have bought an MM 6 or 7 months ago you probably would have paid 4K and if you found it not to your liking you could probably get about what you paid.

All of this still is expensive, especially if it is a hobby. Friends always ask me what they should buy and I ask what is you goal? What is it you want to achieve? If its photos of the family then use your iPhone. If you are wanting more stay with one of the less expensive Canon or Nikon DSLRs. I said this before and from your own words you keep talking about a Monochrom so I doubt the money you spend now will satisfy and you will eventually wind up there anyway just having spent a lot more $$$ then if you would have gotten there in the first place.

Rangefinders are not for everyone. They really are not hard to focus but there is a learning curve and many can't just pick them up and get desired results without some time with the camera. Also to an above comment don't ever confuse those Panasonic/Leica lenses with Leica M glass. They really are not the same. The Q with that 28 Lux is not the same Lux as the 28 1.4. Not that the Q lens is bad it's just not the same lens.

Again good luck in your search.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

3,968 views & 82 likes for this thread
Rangefinder digitals, options?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.0021 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is PrestigeWW
968 guests, 399 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016