The only reason to shoot a rangefinder is because the rangefinder, as a tool, makes sense for your approach to photography.
Once you've established that a rangefinder is the right tool for you, you do not have to spend $10,000. You can head over to KEH and get a used M3 with a Zeiss 50 f/2 for about $1,600. HP5 is available for $6/roll, and a scanner will run you a couple hundred bucks. Chemistry is less than $100 for everything you need. (And for what it's worth, film M's are still nicer than digital ones.)
Should you want a digital body you'll have to pay more. Used M9's are around $3,000 used right now. M8's are about half that.
Even pixel peepers should be satisfied with the ZM lens lineup by Zeiss, and Voigtlander makes well made, reasonably priced rangefinder lenses. You do not have to spend $4,000 on a 50mm lens to use a rangefinder camera.
Rangefinders are expensive, but they can be an excellent tool if they fit your shooting style. Try one and see if it's worth it.
bigdaddave: Anyone feel like posting a link to a shot that is so amazing it had to be taken on one of these Leicas?
Surely there must be something more special about them than just the old design and absurd price?
No, thought not.
It's a lot simpler than everyone here makes it out to be. The Leica M is currently the only digital rangefinder camera on the market. If you wish to use a rangefinder, it is the only option.
Why would one want to use a rangefinder? It is simply a different method of working, just like using a TLR or a DSLR or any other type of camera. Try it out to see if you like it. You can buy a film M and try it, and if you don't like it you can sell it for almost no financial loss. They're very nice cameras.
peevee1: Huh. 2014 and no built-in WiFi, when every point and shoot has it already?!
And they still continue to play games. 5 fps at 36 mpix means that sensor and processor are able to produce 7.2 (not 6) fps at 1.2x and 11.2 fps (not 7) at DX crop. Artificial limits on a $3200 camera. Huh.
Gonna WiFi some 50 meg files to your iphone?
I can't help but feel that this is completely irrelevant for 99% of still photographers. Things like a 2/3 stop noise advantage at iso 102,400? Come on.
Photography is about light, remember? Who cares how these cameras perform when there is none?
EvokeEmotion: This completes the Canon APS-C Trinity: 10-18, 18-55, 55-250. All with IS and STM.
So much for the conspiracy theory that Canon is about to abandon the APS-C format.
Does the lack of EF-S primes really matter? You can more or less replace any focal length equivalent with the next prime down the ladder. Need a 135? Buy an 85. Need an 85? Buy a 50. Need a 50? Buy a 28 or 35. Need a 35? Buy a 24. Need a 24? Buy a 14.
The conversions aren't exact, but they're close. If you're really particular about an exact focal length it might not work for you, but I would guess that's not most APS-C shooters. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Elan Remford: The 16-35 f/4L IS may be an optically superb more practical alternative to the 2.8 II, but it's not without tradeoffs. Notwithstanding the benefits of IS and its new optical design, it also will limit the precision of many of the most important AF points which are meant for 2.8 lenses and faster.
It's both nice and smart of Canon to round out the L line with a second tier product group that more can afford. But, like anything, there's no free lunch. I'd personally much rather see Canon invest in bringing IS to wide angle zooms that offers tangible benefit before rushing to fill-out its f/4 L line, but it clearly knows what the market happens to be and the products that will benefit its shareholders most.
The only degradation in AF should be the loss of dual-cross-type capability in the center column, similar to what the existing 17-40 users experience. Considering the focal length, maximum aperture and corresponding relatively large depth of field, I would expect no real issues with AF capability on the 5D3/1DX, even in servo mode.
As far as the tangible benefit is concerned, improved optical performance over the 17-40 (itself a very nice lens) and the addition of IS should fit the bill, no?
bluevellet: Cool feature if you already own the camera, but not really worth buying the camera for it. A real interchangeable lens camera is better and most m43/APSC mirrorless cameras are probably smaller with a 35 and 50mm lens attached.
Two words: Leaf Shutter.
vroger1: I cannot understand why 35mm (focal length) has become the new "normal" for street photography. I have had tremendous trouble in adapting. 50mm has always been my normal because I shot that way for most of my life. There is an indication in the article that the author agrees. (PS samples-IQ good but not great). VRR
There certainly is a huge difference between shooting 35 and 50 on the street. 35 is much more difficult to shoot with, in my opinion. In close quarters and while doing documentary type work I prefer 35, but on the street 50 makes more sense.
Wish they'd make an X100 variant with a 50 equivalent and not a big ol' adapter.
The Name is Bond: An 85mm is not for headshots or even head and shoulder shots.
It's for head and half torso at the most.
You need a 135mm equiv minimum for headshots.
If you don't believe me then try it with your consumer zoom. It makes a huge difference.
"for a really great headshot you really should be thinking about 250mm plus."
HeyItsJoel: Hmmm. a $1,000 for an 85mm f/1.8 lens?
Might as well go full frame since it'd cost about the same for that body+lens combo.
My IQ dropped ten points as a result of reading this comment thread.
headofdestiny: Everyone needs to remember that, while this converter will block more of the OVF, the framelines for the converter will be a lot smaller in dimension, so it should still be as usable as some of the larger Leica 50mm lenses on an M body.
p.s. to answer a common question in this thread, aperture is still f2.
This is a good point. Do we know for sure that there will be 50mm lines in the OVF though?
wootpile: 1.4... not enough to make sense
Cudos to Fuji for keeping their systems fresh and alive. But.. the jump from 35 to 50mm is marginal and is certainly something within crop range in edit. (a crop your 16 megapixel image to about 11.5 mpix)
I would have liked it to be a 2.4 instead, offering just over 80mm equiv, and wouldn't mind sacrificing apertures to get there.
I'd have to disagree with the difference being marginal. As someone who shoots a LOT of 35mm and 50mm (probably 90% of my shots) I think there's a huge difference between the two.
The best way to see how dramatic the difference is, in my opinion, is to flip the frame line toggle switch back and forth on an M body. 50 is much tighter than 35, and completely changes the way I frame and how I shoot.
I do understand that one can back up or walk forward a few feet, but this dramatically changes your relationship to many subjects, and the spacial perspective of the different focal lengths is very different as well.
I really like the idea here, but I have two concerns:
The size is a bit cumbersome. Does it block the OVF?
Does the OVF display 50mm frame lines when using this converter?
Seems like it could kill two of the X100's greatest features - its size and it's OVF.
M DeNero: This is a nice camera. However, a score of 84 is absurd.
Can't argue with that kind of logic.
AlexRuiz: Gotta love the whiners.
- But my [ insert brand here] did not get as good of a score- But the [ insert model here] has not been reviewed and came out first- But I read that [insert internet myth here ] so the rating should be lower
If you're so concerned about camera reviews being untainted by corporate cash (dpr "fanboys") you might want to try a site that's not owned by Amazon.
Another attractive lens for m43. Still not sure about the EVF's though.
Valiant Thor: I would have liked to see a digital version of the Hasselblad 501C/M with a large sensor and nice big EVF right on the top like the good old days.
I don't even need them to build a new camera. Just give me a (somewhat) affordable medium format digital back I can slap on a C/M and I'm happy.
Dare to dream...
Provia_fan: I can't understand the complaints about "retro" dials. I think the problem stems from the over simplification of designs over the years and the fact that people just want instant results, instant everything. In the old days you had to learn a given camera not expect the camera "to learn you". External controls are great and give you immediate control over features, instead of having to borrow into menus when you should be concentrating in picture taking. This is one of the reasons why I still love my Minolta 7D so much. Everything you need is one button or one click away, which is so much more logical. You learn the camera, you learn the buttons and you learn how many clicks for your exposure compensation, WB, etc and off you go. Not having to take you eye off the viewfinderto go into menus is a major bonus.
This is true. While I love Fuji's external controls, i.e. aperture rings, there's nothing that can't be changed just as easily on my 5D by pressing the appropriate button on the top plate and moving my index finger. In fact, I can change more on the 5D by a long shot.
That said, the simplicity of aperture ring, shutter speed and exposure comp as found on, say, the X100 is wonderful to work with if you don't need easy access to additional things like metering modes and drive modes. The tactile feedback is nicer than on a DSLR.... just not necessarily any better.
Donnie G: No surprises here. Canon is wisely selling the camera in Japan and Asia only, since those are the only places where mirrorless compact system cameras have had any kind of sales success. Unlike the competition, Canon doesn't have to throw money and resources away panning for gold in an unproven and unreliable revenue stream. If the EOS M cameras ever turn a significant profit for the company, then there will be incentive for major development of that system. Until then, it's just makes sense to stick with what works for the overwhelming majority of camera buyers on the planet, and that's DSLRs.
Yep. And everybody fails to mention that while Canon is "doing nothing" they've updated like half a dozen lenses in the last year or two and developed new tech like we've seen on the 70D.
I'll agree that their sensor tech needs an upgrade, but if anybody thinks they don't have something in the pipeline in that regard they're dreaming. They've still got the best system out there, soup to nuts.
Vizio Virtù: Wake up, folks. They try to sell you this mirrorless / EVF rubbish as innovation for your weightsaving comfort but actually it's only for their cost reducing purposes. Cutting off the OVF is cutting off photographers creativity.
I was in agreement with the OP a couple of years ago. When I bought my X100 I never touched the EVF. Now I barely touch the OVF. The ability to see exactly what the sensor sees is incredibly useful. You can make intuitive exposure adjustments without having to look at the meter, you can toggle histograms on and off within an EVF, and I can compose in black and white. All three of these things are incredibly useful. While I still don't like the lag that you experience with an EVF, the technology is improving every day. The benefits outweigh the costs as far as I'm concerned. I think many others are coming around as I did.