More Digital RF's Please!

and with a price tag thats affordable…

:-)

Im amazed cosina haven’t followed up the RD1 yet…

I couldn’t agree more. The is a big gap in the market . Sadly I don’t think it will be filled anytime soon. It seems to me that DSLRs like Canon and Nikon are rally cheaper than they should be. The manufacturers know that photographers will buy lenses ( how many lenses do you have?) and there seems that there is always another one that would be great to have…
My point is ( if you are still reading) It probably is possible to make a small, low noise hi sensitivity camera with a say 21mm to 90mm ( 35mm equiv) but no manufacturer would risk losing DSLR and lens sales..

Pentax K10D and K20D, while DSLRs, are more rugged than Leica (and WAAAY more rugged than Voigtlander), more compact than Nikon/Canon, featuring more-brilliant-than-film-SLR finders…

The 21/3.2, 43/1.9, and 70/2.8 are compact (don’t require internal stabalization or motors), manually/grab-focus silently and in an instant as well as Leica (unless you select AF)…readily Leica equal optically. The k20D is 14MP APS … reviews say it equals or beats Nikon D300 in almost all respects. I wish the lenses were a half-stop faster, but Pentax are far better than CV (some of which are faster) mechanically and are 1/3 the price of Leica.

couldn’t agree more here…
as I have turned from a safe daily income, to be a student, I just can’t afford all that film processing all the time.
when I wrap my head around it, I probably couldn’t afford a digital rf either… :P
crap…

Paul, if you’re serious about the old Leica, Rian Dundon has a M4-P for sale. I just saw the thread in yesterday’s posts.

Saw that, Akaky. Thanks. Can’t rake up $800 yet though. Besides, I’d need a lens.

I have a few legacy Nikkors that are gorgeous so switching to another make of DSLR is not something I would consider, John.

I want a rangefinder again for the diminutive size, lack of mirror vibration, and the lack of viewfinder blackout, even though the D200 black out is so, so fast.

An RF is simply less threatening to people and substantially less threatening to my back which is beginning to factor into my decision making.

There are a whole host of reasons now for me wanting to abandon DSLR’s. Cosina, Nikon, Sony, hurry it up. Lets have a competitor for Leica. Please!

i’ve never been all that in love with rf as such – what i really really want is a G9 with aps sensor + 16mm lens.

apart from sigma’s dubious effort, my guess is that olympus are the most likely to come out with such a thing … more in keeping with the 4/3 ‘small is beautiful’ thinking. panasonic would be even better, leica glass …

(i allow myself one gearhead post per month. this is it)

@John: I cant in all good concience agree with two of your statements:
1)…readily Leica equal optically. You pay for what you get and a good quality Leica will blow the pentax optics out of the water is contrast and resolution.
2)I seriously doubt that you could put any D-SLR through the extremes that I have put my own MP through and other even worse extremes that I have seen others been put through and expect them to survive. On some things (Such as water immersion) they just wont survive plain and simple, whereas I have dumped my MP in a fountain and its came out and after an hour of drying its back in service.

Just my 2c, Paul if I was you Id gran a 2nd hand M6, a decent 50 ’cron and process in your bathroom, cheap as chips.

Jay, these fanboy discussions are tempting sometimes :-)

>@John: I cant in all good concience agree with two of
your statements:

No need :-) The topic was DIGITAL RANGEFINDER…Leica’s not a player unless you count M8, a status symbol that’s far inferior to Pentax (the sensor underperforms the lenses).

> 1)… You pay for what
you get and a good quality Leica will blow the pentax
optics out of the water is contrast and resolution.

Are you sure you’ve compared?…FAST Leica lenses undoubtedly do, others don’t. Historically Leica’s on a par with best Japanese SLR primes. Few PJs use film these days anyway, and few have relied on Leica since Vietnam,longer than 90mm.

Leica’s target market is Swiss orthodontists and sheiks in Dubai.

> 2)On some things (Such as water immersion) they
(dslrs) just wont survive plain and simple, whereas I
have dumped my MP in a fountain and its came out and
after an hour of drying its back in service.

I try to keep my cameras out of fountains, but K20D and top lenses are said to have dirt/weather advantages over “prosumer” Canon/Nikon.

I’ve had a pair of Leicas fail from corrosion…dismantled with Buck knife
and rehabilitated in a motel room…mechanical camera of course. Doubt that’s more possible with MP than Pentax.

M6 is notoriously less rugged than earlier Ms. MANY reports of rangefinder QC problems with M8. Leica is Turkish craftsmanship, Pentax is Vietnamese. Take your pick :-)

Want rugged? Canon P.

Pentax IQzooms are designed to be dunked (did mine kayaking)…they have decent short zooms and as-good/bad-as Contax G zoom viewfinders, about like 4/3 DSLR. I’ve not billed using mine, but a friend does regular “outdoor magazine” covers with his.

JK

Paul… Maybe its not the D-200 that annoys you but the size of the zoom lenses. Two or three primes should work out better. Use the D-200 as if it were a manual film camera. Does that make any sense? Keep us posted on your summer departure. We need more LS/NYC beer parties.

G.

It’s only with 24, 35 and 50 primes that I shoot. It’s a fine system for this but the size of the camera is becoming an issue. Acoustics and black out annoy me some too after working with an Hexar. Also, I liked being able to see in the finder a slightly larger area than that which is captured. It allows for enhanced anticipation. These are things that are difficult to define. It’s the entire experience that I would like to return to, but digitally. I will seriously consider an M6 or similar for the time being. Perhaps in July I’ll sort myself out with something.

It’s just that I feel like I’m on the verge of something new and would love to use an RF to fully realize that approaching creative high.

Sure the G9 is a good little thing but I need that purity. It’s the essence I’m after.

The reason for this post was to express some exasperation at the state of the digital rangefinder market and hope that someone who might know something, as regards Nikon rumors or others besides, would chime in.

The Sigma DP1 could be an option, I suppose. If it’s any good, that is.

Fact of the matter is, the minute you have to shoot with stupid glasses on, rangefinders are a real problem. Even the ones with rubber round the peephole. Nowhere near the same problem with glasses and SLR peepholes, don’t ask me why.

I am on the fence about a digital rangefinder. I want an M8 except for all of the issues and the fact that it WILL be replaced in the next 12 months. Someone tonight suggested I get a really good digital point and shoot with manual exposure control. Starting to make a lot of sense….

Hey, maybe the M8 will fall in price in that case.

Time to take another serious look at the G9, me thinks. I tend to shoot for the highlights anyway so some blowout concerns are not a worry. I’ll be shooting raw too so as to pull out all possible details. I also need a nice little video camera and the G9 is regarded as being quite good. Hmmm.

For me, part of the reason that the RF is so great is precisely because its film. That essence you speak of Paul… disappears for me as soon as I start chimping and overshooting, which is a digital inevitability. (Guess Im just built that way)

Keep pure, get the m4-p and be happy.

Ive got a little apartment with a sink, a pop out dark box that folds up like a visor, and a scanner… all this on the road, and couldn’t be happier.

Do I wish that there was a better and affordable digital rf…. sure… i would love to dump my dslr’s (which i unfortunately do own for work) but I would still shoot the m4 for intimate work, and I doubt we are even close to there being a good one for under 5 grand anyways…. as even the faulty m8 costs that much. (Who can afford that anyways? Ill take a year in Bolivia thank you very much)

Theres my 2 cents, or 20 pesos or whatever.

The G9 won’t leave me alone. I think I’ll have to get one. I’ll stick a lensmate on it along with an external finder and grip. That should sort out my street shooting dilemma somewhat. Can’t face the prospect of film processing expenses, frankly.

G9’ers, please chime in. Preston, might post a few more of your G9 snaps? Would love to study them.

Well, the price isnt much of an issue if you shoot b&w and process yourself.

But, i wont lie… im doing a street piece right now and shooting slide on my Leica (absolutely necessary, because the reaction of the indigenous to my big DSLR was to run for the hills)…. and its gonna be a 2 hour busride (each way) plus probably an overnight stay to wait while they process my film in the next major town over… kinda a pain in the ass…

But…. the amazing thing… I dont mind really, because at least I should have some pics…. It was amazing the difference between the DSLR and the RF. With the RF I would usually get my shot or 2 or 3 shots at it, before people would start freaking out on me, with the DSLR, i couldnt even raise the thing before folks were hooting and hollering at me.

Paz

But damn, slide is sweet.

paul, why not get a rd1s? probably has pretty similar file quality to the g9 but you get to use a rf with much nicer lenses.

http://cgi.ebay.com/EPSON-R-D1S-R-D1-S-Rangefinder-Digital-Camera-Mint_W0QQitemZ180230430025QQihZ008QQcategoryZ30020QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262
http://cgi.ebay.com/EPSON-R-D1S-Rangefinder-Digital-Camera-Body-Brand-New_W0QQitemZ180228188726QQihZ008QQcategoryZ30020QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem

brian,

do you have a film scanner down in mexico? i was thinking for fpw i might bring a small scanner with me and perhaps other people could bring some developer and tanks and we could still use film for the digital only workshop.

Fully film mobile down here Sascha….

Ive gota scanner, tanks, chemicals, and a fold up dark box… rock and roll….

Dont worry about bringing chemicals… you can buy in D.F.

Im very much using film for the digital only workshop.

(Sorry for the thread highjack Paul)

paul:

don’t know if you’ve seen these articles before, but I’ll post them anyway. you might get some useful info out of them.

http://lifespy.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/the-g9-as-a-journalist-tool-for-the-pros/

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/G9-Japan.shtml

Ok…. ill admit it… that G9 looks kinda tasty…

But dont tell anybody i said that. ;)

Paul,
Two of my brothers, and a father-in-law of one, all have the G9 and love it. I’m probably getting one later this month. That and my M6 will be my road and around town kit.
I’ve played around with one (my brother’s over Xmas) and love it.
Cheers,
Bill.

I stuck a Voigtlander 35mm finder on the top of my G9 and it’s pretty accurate. I need to add a bt on the bottom to compensate for the different aspect ratio. I’m playing around with the manual focus for street shooting, as shutter lag is a bit of a drag. Also with pre-focusing as I bring the camera up to my eye.

It’s a pretty sharp lens, and image quality is nice. A bit noisy above 200 ISO, but it doesn’t really bother me.

Setting up snap shooting mode on the G9

Stupid, didn’t someone post another G9-dedicted blog link on another topic? I can’t seem to find it.

The one I linked is the only G9 blog I know. Not the smartest idea I ever had but perhaps the one you seek is here? http://lifespy.wordpress.com/g9-resources/

Hey, Paulyman. Here are some G9 snaps:

http://archive.prestonmerchant.com/my/glbs.aspx?msid=0&lid=15490186&e=0&p=0

You know I’m a big fan of the camera, so here are some thoughts:

It won’t replace an SLR or rangefinder. It’s a great supplemental camera, but it’s still a supplemental camera. You can get great results with it, though, as you long as you are reasonable about what you expect. Low light performance is marginal. You have to keep exposure compensation at -1/3 or -2/3, even in dim light, if there are light sources in the frame. Highlights get clipped pretty easily.

On the plus side, it shoots RAW. The files are massive, so if you are not averse to cropping, there are tons of pixels to work with. The white balance is better than that on my 30D. The user interface is excellent, with mostly hard switches, so you don’t get lost in some menu tree trying to change a setting (flash, ISO, and exposure comp are easy to get to). It has a hotshoe for an external flash. It records sound and video of acceptable quality for the web.

All in all, it’s a great little machine, but it is still a point and shoot.

Here is a comparison with a G9 vs 5d
http://lifespy.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/canon-g9-vs-canon-5d/

Can’t wait for the smart comparison to a potato masher.

Time for a reality check here. You say you did your best work with the Hexar, but you use digital equipment because, it would appear, you are satisfied with the relatively mediocre results and you place higher value on the speed, convenience and cheapness of the process - uh, why are you a photographer? If you did your best work via a certain medium, then stick with it. What is a little bit of extra work if the results are proof of superior workmanship and content? Why should it be easy? Why shouldnt you expend more effort in order to achieve the best you can? Instead you want to spend more money on the endless line of crap cameras that all disappoint, that all fail to live up the hype, and all succeed in suckering you into paying big bucks for beta crap. You want to buy a G9: for that same 500 bucks you could get lots of nice film and chemistry. There are ways of making it pay. With a good cheap scanner, some basic chemistry, a bathroom, you are set. You will have the negs, which you can store safely and cleanly, and you will have the scans too. This is how I work, and believe me it is much harder for me down here where no supplies are available whatsoever, but despite the hardships, I prefer the results. Dont get me wrong, I like digital too, but I use each medium according to my needs and wishes.

You make good points Jon. It’s a little more complicated however.

I loved that Hexar but it was nearing its end. I was beginning to have some problems with it. The person who bought it wanted it for parts for his Hexar collection.

I’m shooting with a D200 and old Nikkor primes. The quality is terrific. It’s even better than film in so many ways. I can shoot a lot and grow and develop faster as I can learn on the fly.

I’m also trying to live as “green” a life as possible. I don’t like waste and when I was shooting film there was a lot of waste.

The main issue for me is size. The D200 is big. The Hexar was not. I cannot get the same quality from a camera smaller than the D200 on my budget and so I continue to use it for everything. The G9 is simply not good enough for me to maintain my quality standards and so I will not be getting it or anything like it for shooting stills. I am, however, tempted by the G9 for its video capability. But that not important to me at the moment.

I plan to start charging all my batteries via solar panels soon. On my return to London I will buy a diesel car and convert it to run on grease for those occasions when public transport will not suffice.

So waste is an important issue. Quality is too and it can be had with the digital gear I already have.

I’m still waiting for that Hexar like digital. In the mean time, I will continue to lug my D200 around.

Paul…What about finding a Nikon F (no meter) with one or two manual primes. Built like a tank and much smaller than the D-200.

No more film. I’m done with it.

Besides, the D200 is fairly quiet. Those Nikon F cameras are not.

Studio rent? Astronomical. Camera? A stupid P&S. Point? Dumber than dumb.

http://www.digitalphotoshopretouching.com/video-samples/shoot1/vid1.htm

FIVE HOURS in PS to produce that worthless final image. Unbelievable.

Well then why not look at the Olympus E-420, as Wayne Huang suggested on the Sigma DP1 thread. Frankly it looks like it might satisfy your requirements so long as you are content to work with its unique format. I am considering this one myself. The pancake lens is not wide, but with digital that is not such a problem, nor would it pose any problem for street shooting. It is an attractive option.

Yes, it looks good.

You know, I have had to clear out a lot of stuff recently as we try to sell our apartment ahead of our move back to Europe and I couldn’t bring myself to part with my changing bag and various tanks and bottles.

Hmmm!

Ha, I know how you feel Paul. Well, change is hard but it is good. Anyway, if you look at the camera up there in NYC, drop me a line and let me know your conclusions.

I’ve tried out the Olympus e-510 (i think, or maybe it was the 420) with a 14-42 lens. Goes to the equivalent of 28mm and is still a pretty small package, though the pancake i imagine would be super tiny. Wonder why they don’t make a 17mm pancake.

I won’t be looking at the 420. The four thirds chip is small and noisy. I like to shoot in low light and though the D200 is not brilliant in this regard, it’s noise looks quite grainy and is relatively easy to deal with. Contrast wise it holds up well. Apparently the Olympus suffers here.

edmo uses a d200, i suggest checking his stuff out…and he barely whines when he carries it…a few margaritas help too

Second hand under two grand easy . a Epson RD-1, low light 800iso

Grant…Ed does a great job with his stealthy technique… doesn’t he? A bit of Bruce Gilden with a D-200.

If you place a Eos 400D next to the M8, they are about the same size http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/LeicaM8/Images/sidebyside02.jpg. I have a feeling the 400D or the Nikon 40D is lighter the a M camera. Why not get one of those if weight and size (and you don’t want a 4:3 camera) is your concern. If you want to look cool I say get a DP1, a GRDII or the Epson. But since you have little cash Paul it really doesn’t matter want the camera makers put out.

You are jumping to conclusions vis a vis the four thirds format, Paul. The newer Olympus cameras deliver much better results noise-wise, comparable to Nikon but admittedly still outstripped by Canon’s larger sensor. Nonetheless, the 410 got an excellent review at DP and the 420 by all accounts is even better when it comes to noise reduction. Color and contrast are also superior. Dont write this camera off just yet, it could be, for the present, the perfect little street shooter.

Paul, I think the difference in size between the D200 and, say, the Leica M-8 is not that great, at least to me, from the subject’s perspective. I say that it seems especially so after principally shooting the D3 for the last five months.

And I won’t forget the casual remark made by Ami Vitale (who then was shooting Nikon D2 bodies) at lunch earlier this year when I pulled out my D200 to catch a passing shot…“nice little camera.” (she sold her D200 to Bill Putnam, I recall, when the D2s came out).

“…barely…”?

wtf? only thing to whine about is whiners …and wine, take a nice begium blonde over a merlot any day. put a vodka on the rocks next to it and all is fine, all is real fine.

The new Olympus E3 is a big improvement on the earlier models for noise, and it’s still small. After the E400, I have been greatly impressed with the results.

-Tim

All may well be fine indeed. In just the last hour my life has been turned upside down. An M8 system may be within my grasp in a few months after all.

Paul won the lottery….no more postings about impending doom and bankruptcy from Paul Treacy. Lightstalkers will never be the same. I hope he buys me an M8. or lunch.

No such luck, I’m afraid. Wish I had. My aunt passed away I need to sell her property and payoff her huge mortgage. After that I may have a little something for a camera system upgrade after paying for my relocation costs to Europe. There’s also a son recently released from prison and not provided for very well and two other people that may have a claim. As executor I have a whole list of new headaches but a little financial assistance for my family and me. Possibly.

Finally, things might be a little easier for a while, gear wise.

the m8 sux ass…dont waste ur time and money on it….shit sensor in a half decent body…

stick with what u got, its about the eyes/heart/mind anyway…ive seen great pix from holgas and pinhole cams…its how u use it that counts…(so my wife says)

I’ll hang onto what I’ve got. Some assignments require the Nikon and multiple flash set ups. It’s personal work for which I desire the M8. It’s the immediacy of it and that gorgeous glass.

The research I’ve done suggests the M8, when handled right, produces superb quality.

what research would that be? it sux at high iso, and the gorgeous glass you speak of gets multiplied by 1.3!

a camera that costs 5k, not to mention lenses that are 2k a piece shouldnt have a 50$ sensor in it…

kinda like buying a ferrari and putting square tires on it…

btw, it should always be personal, no matter what your shootin

;-)