Mirrorless cameras as the new rangefinder era

[quicoalvarez]

<p>In the film era, my basic gear was a rangefinder camera with 35, 24 and 90 mm. lenses. Most of my job was made with this camera and lenses set. I had too a SLR with long telephoto and normal lenses for sports and other press needs. Digital cameras are different, and the more important issues are their short life (technology changes so quickly) and their high price to get "state of the art" quality.</p>

<p>I've been using a micro four thirds camera during the last three years. I mounted to it, with adapters, as normal my ultra wide rangefinder lenses, as telephoto my rangefinder and manual SLR normal, portrait and telephoto, and I had to buy a (low quality in comparison) wideangle zoom for the mount. Now I am sure that I get the right system: I don't need to carry two cameras and only had to buy one lens.</p>

<p>Now I am thinking in upgrade my digital camera (I still use film, only with my rangefinder camera, no SLR), and I thought in a new mirrorless one, but with higher sensor. I need an EVF, so my options are Samsung NX11 or Sony Nex-7 (or a Nex-5N with the accesory EVF, but I don't like it so much). I won't use the camera with propietary mount lenses, at least in the range from wideangle to 135 mm. (200 mm. equivalent in an APS sensor). I think with this I will get the camera that full my needs, without buying lenses or an expensive DSLR that will be obsolete in five years. ¿What do you think?.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>The main advantage of the classic rangefinder camera, other than size and quiet, was always the fact that you could see outside the frame, and you were seeing what would happen before it happened in a sense (anticipate what was about the get into the frame). You don't get that with mirrorless cameras. You don't even actually see anything other than a video feed of the scene before you, with a slight delay. How can that possibly be like a rangefinder? It's more like a miniature press camera.</p>

[quicoalvarez]

<p>Yes, Pierre:</p>

<p>What I need is a little, "carryable" camera system, as I have with the Contax G-2 (which can not show more than the image that is going to appear into the frame) and the Leica M4. I am used, since my second camera at job was a reflex, to get my left eye opened to see around what I want to include into image, so I can manage with it. It could be a good thing if the sensor were bigger than the frame to record, and the EVF showed the frame and "some" around the frame, marked with a line, like in the Leica viewfinder-rangefinder.</p>

<p>For me, the advantage of these cameras (I am thinking in the NEX-7) is that you can have the rangefinder-like use, and the reflex use, adapting high-end AF telephoto, with the same camera. As well, for me again, the main advantage of RF cameras is the optical quality of the lenses (thinking in Leica-M and Zeiss-ZM and -G) unbeated by any SLR lens in the range between short telephoto (90 mm.) and wideangle. I have got these lenses, and they can be used in these cameras. This is what I am trying to discuss.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>The mirrorless system is closer to an SLR system than RF. Your viewing, focusing is still thru the lens. You don't have the disadvantages nor the advantages of the RF camera with a mirrorless camera. </p>

[bill_tuthill]

The NEX-7 promises to be an excellent camera, but are you satisfied with the E lens lineup? Currently Samsung NX has a better range of lenses, although Sony has many introductions coming up. It will be a while before tests appear. The 16/2.8 was quite bad as I recall, and not cheap.

 

I feel telephoto via LCD really sux. This is based on my F550EXR, which is 360mm (crop equivalent) at the long end. So your attitude toward the detachable EVF is the crux issue.

 

One thing I noticed with film, and continue to notice with digital, is that mirrorless cameras produce sharper pictures overall because they eliminate mirror slap.

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Maybe I'm just adaptable. I find reflex viewing via OVF or EVF or rear LCD viewing or RF all are doable without much after thought. I just don't get the I must have an OVF or I must see outside frameline RF crowd.</p>

[quicoalvarez]

<p>Well, I think this discussion is going on.</p>

<p><strong>BeBu</strong>, I think that I can make some parallelisms between mirrorless and rangefinder cameras: light, discreet and silent, can use the <strong>same</strong> top of the line lenses with DOF and hyperfocal techniques to get <em>decisive moment</em> pictures. <strong>And</strong>, with hi-tech gadgets as the Sony's LA-EA2 (other brands or third party firms - like here: http://www.birger.com/ - will soon find their own), get the autofocus accuracy and electronic iris control with, say, a 70-200/2.8. The advantage is that you can use it <strong>too</strong> as a DSLR.</p>

<p><strong>Bill</strong>, I do not care about the NEX lenses, my aim is to use RF lenses. For telephoto, see above what I answer to <strong>BeBu</strong> about it.</p>

<p><strong>Leslie</strong>, I agree, I must be adaptable too, because I can work with the EVF in the Panasonic G1, although I must use the LCD when I shoot in low light, like a concert in a little club or so. I've been using this camera from three years ago or so and, except for the little sensor issues (lack of high quality wideangles and too noisy pictures over 400 ISO), it is great, more than I thought when I bought it. Now I use it for the most of my pro digital jobs.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>But why not true RF digital? They don't have to be high end like the Leica M8, M9 and the old Epson RD-1? Just a simple fixed lens camera like the Fuji X100, X10 but with a coupled rangefinder instead of EVF?</p>

[ilkka]

<p>Do consider either the new Panasonic GX or Olympus EP-3 with add on EVF and possibly one or two optical viewfinders for your most used lens(es). Set of three lenses 2/12 Olympus (24 equivalent, or the 2.5/14 Panasonic), 1.7/20 Panasonic (40) and 1.8/45 Olympus (90 equivalent). Small and light with equally small and light but yet excellent lenses. Size and weight difference to NEX7 is huge. Separate finder is a bit of a drag, but only a bit. Good optical viewfinder gives a very nice bright and large image and can still show a bit outside the frame.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>The Panasonic m43 GH2 and G3 have built in EVF. You can clip on a EVF onto the Panasonic GF3. A clip on EVF can be used on all Olympus m43 camers except for the discontinued E-P1. </p>

[quicoalvarez]

<p>Yes, <strong>BeBu</strong>, these cameras are good, but my point of view is different. New mirrorles with good EVF, can admit any lens, but RF cameras are limited to a number of focals and, outside these, must use external viewfinders. I look for a new type of camera that can be used as an "old" rangefinder but <strong>too</strong> as a reflex when it is needed.</p>

<p><strong>Ikka</strong> and <strong>Steven</strong>, I have got a Panasonic G1, and I am happy with it. I just want to go further. Micro 4/3 are good cameras, but I don't like their sensor. It is so little that I can't find wideangles. The shorter I could try is the Voigtländer 12 mm. <em>f:</em> 5.6 (too slow) and the new slr magic is 1.6 but 12 mm. too, this means 24mm. equivalent to 35 mm. There are no quality wideangles. I've tried the 8-14 mm. from Panasonic and it is expensive and not good enough for my needs. As well, the size of the sensor brings another issues. I don't like either the plastic, "toyish" finish of the micro 4/3 cameras, nor an external EVF that won't let me use a flash. I look for a solid camera, despite it must be light and little. Finally, I just can't get used to the 4/3 aspect ratio, when I work with film I feel myself more comfortable, and I want to compose the same way in digital (I know this is a personal issue).</p>