I am back on this again… As I have imagined you asking before, why a rangefinder in this year of our Lord 2024?
I like rangefinders.
It really was that simple. Ever since I owned my first film rangefinder I have owned at least one rangefinder since.
Large.
Small.
Somewhere in between.
Even an icon.
Add in a few dirt cheap Russian knock offs and an odd duck with an odd name and I always keep a rangefinder around.
As you can see there are so many film rangefinder options available. But the modern full frame digital rangefinder game is presently a monopoly. Leica.
Given my fascination with film rangefinders I always knew that I would enjoy having a digital one, but as everyone knows recent copies cost like well worn used cars.
And I will also admit that they did not “make sense”. For all that extra spend on paper what I got was fewer features. The folks at my local camera shop nearly held an intervention when a used copy showed up there one time to keep me from falling down the digital M rabbit hole. All of their points were valid and I had thought the same:
- No AF.
- You can adapt M glass to nearly any other full frame mirrorless camera.
- They cost so much…
But this was far from over. I was delayed, but the desire for a digital rangefinder never went away. I knew from the start that it did not make sense. Being sensible had nothing to do with it. For reasons I could not fully grasp, I still wanted one. A couple of thoughts kept coming to mind.
Perhaps Leica M photos will not look any different than those taken with any other digital camera?
Maybe the draw of the rangefinders I have is that they are film cameras?
That is what I wondered about. But there was only one way to know this. To get one.
So at the moment when an older digital M 240 started to cost less than an older film M6 that I found a relatively rough around the edges Bargain grade copy for less than I have ever seen and did just that.
And as has been documented in this space I like it. A lot. Even though I had not fully wrapped my head and hands around why exactly.
First was the Leica M pixie dust haze that I feared would clear but instead transitioned into an earnest appreciation for what this camera was capable of. That addresses the first question from above.
Perhaps Leica M photos will not look any different than those taken with any other digital camera?
I do see a difference in my output with the M even if I still could not nail down exactly why. I wrote it off as a different tool allowing me to 1) slow down and 2) see things differently. But what of the second question from above.
Maybe the draw of the rangefinders you have is that they are film cameras?
So with this, I was saying that the film made the difference and that a digital M would not produce an image that looked like film.
That is what I thought anyway. But now I am not so sure after yesterday. During a photo walk earlier this week I went back and forth between a favorite medium format camera and the M240. While it was not planned I did end up taking duplicate pics with both.
Sculpture shown to me Anthony is by local artist, Ben Harris:
Some may think, big whoop you took some back to back photos. Understandable. I recently did this comparing two lenses. But I did not do this on purpose. A few of these frames above were taken at different times as we doubled back. So I just naturally framed these photos the same way. To put a finer point on it I used the digital M240 the same way I used a favorite film camera. Nice.
So, the same old question. Do I recommend a digital M?
Not really. I am an odd customer with odd personal preferences.
But if you find yourself using film rangefinders often perhaps an old M will suit you as well.
Happy capturing.
-ELW
Eric L. Woods 