The Future

[Bill Pierce]

I wonder about the future of rangefinder and SLR cameras.

The accuracy of rangefinder focus is adequate for normal and wide angle lenses, but longer focal lengths with large apertures give even well adjusted rangefinders a problem. I say “well adjusted” because the tolerances of lens cams and rangefinder mechanisms is such that level of focusing accuracy can vary with different lens and body combinations. For a lot of us, Norm Goldberg used to zero the tolerances to the degree measurable. I’m told when Norm was passing some of his skills on to his son Don some of my cameras became part of the lesson plan. In any case, having a technician like Don Goldberg check and correct the focusing accuracy of rangefinder lens/body combinations is a wise move, but the rangefinder will always have its limits.

Ditto the SLR because, like the rangefinder, it is not measuring focus at the film or sensor plane. Actually, using live view on a DSLR you are using the sensor to focus. But that is such a stepped and slow method that it isn’t suitable for a lot of photography and few folks use it.

Enter the mirrorless digital. The majority of current mirrorless cameras provide very accurate autofocus of the image on the sensor’s surface or accurate magnified manual focus. And they eliminate the rangefinder and mirror mechanisms, two expensive components that camera manufacturers are probably happy to dispense with.

So, once again, how long will rangefinders and reflexes be around? Face it, the family camera for a lot of folks is their phone. I think I see fewer simple, low priced digital “family” cameras and more versatile, high image quality (and expensive) cameras - cameras that let a company stay profitable even if they sell fewer cameras. And the great, great majority of those cameras are mirrorless.

What do you thing the future is for cameras - but, more important, what cameras do you think you will be using in the future - and why?

 

[Cascadilla]

As long as film is available I will continue to use my 35 mm Contax cameras and lenses because I enjoy the experience and the images I get from them. As for future camera designs, I suspect that you're right--mirrorless cameras will probably drive most others out of the market except where specialized requirements prevent their use, although I can't think what those might be. As we have seen in the digital era, product cycles have gotten shorter and shorter so in 5 years it will probably be difficult to find a new DSLR or RF except for Leicas, which are a market unto themselves.

 

[RichC]

Optical viewfinders and mirrors are clunky, awkward dinosaur technology. A good electronic viewfinder (EVF) has so many advantages it's ridiculous. I will never use a camera with an optical viewfinder again. Another key technology is in-camera image stabilisation, allowing me to ignore my tripod more often - even with my 61 MP camera that shows the slightest flaw in technique. So, that's a mirrorless camera for me (Sony A7R IVa being my current weapon of choice). Also, this camera type allows a huge range of lenses to be used from all makes and eras. They are also much more compact and lighter than digital SLRs. The rangefinder was obsolete and crushed by the convenience and practicality of SLRs decades before digital arrived! And SLRs in turn have now been made obsolete by EVF mirrorless cameras.

So, I think the future lies in mirrorless camera for serious and pro photographers - at least those who consider the image to be the only consideration, with the camera being merely a tool, a means to an end. I include within this category of mirrorless cameras those with a fixed, non-interchangeable lens - not every photographer wants to swap lenses.

As for compact cameras ("point and shoot"), I've no idea why they're still sold. A phone does everything those cameras do way more conveniently - as well as much, much more, including editing and sharing photos. OK, there are a few niches: I've a shockproof underwater compact camera - handy for those places where a typical camera (or a phone) can't or shouldn't go.

And film's now a zombie technology - it's still shuffling around but essentially dead. Affordable digital cameras now produce images that outperform film up to medium format so that there's no practical reason to use film - excepting large format as that's still cheaper than an equivalent digital back.

 

[jsrockit]

I enjoy photography more than cameras, but I enjoy dedicated cameras more than phones. If a camera is shaped like a bar of soap, has a VF on the side, and has controls that are simple and stay out of the way, that is what I will use. Most of the digital cameras on the market are not my thing, but thankfully we have Fuji, Ricoh, Leica etc still.

 

[huddy]

I expect Leica will continue to manufacture rangefinders in small batches as long as there is a profitable market for them to run small batches or perhaps a neutral market for corporate pride.

New DSLR manufacture will end within the next 3-5 years I think unless Nikon releases an excellent D8** successor and wants to make those in small batches like they did with the F6 for a longer time.

My thoughts are that perhaps with advances with 3D printing and other manufacturing in small batches, service life of these bodies will be able to be extended without onerous costs, but that will be a passion project that keeps some of the manual cameras running another 50-100 years. Imagine having an F3 that needs a new viewfinder display in another 40 years? The more electronic a camera is, the less likely it is able to be repaired/maintained. We still have functioning Leica III's at this point.


I expect that if I'm around and can still get film, I'll still try and shoot a Nikon F mount film SLR 30 years from now.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I feel pretty confident black-and-white film will be around for the foreseeable future. I think at least Ilford and some of the other smaller manufacturers have got their production capabilities aligned with demand so that they can economically produce film in quantities that the market can sustain. Hopefully prices will stabilize and black-and-white will remain affordable enough to use regularly and not become just an occasional roll type of thing.

Color film, I'm not so sure. Nothing I see from Fuji or Kodak gives me any confidence. Let me take that back—I think Fuji will continue to market Instax film and cameras for the foreseeable future. Polaroid seems sustainable going forward as well.

I think Leica will continue to produce M-mount cameras, although I have my doubts that those cameras will continue to be rangefinders. I could see them coming out with an EVF version that digitally simulates the rangefinder patch and projected framelines.

I think Canon is basically done with DSLRs and the EF mount. I think Nikon might update the D850 or (getting a bit crazy/optimistic) make some kind of Df2 with a D850-type sensor as a last hurrah for the F-mount. If that doesn't happen within the next 2–3 years, they will simply let the DSLR fade away. I could see Pentax continuing to market DSLRs as the last man standing in that market—their recent marketing emphasizing the shooting experience of an SLR/DSLR makes me think they are looking at how Leica has marketed the M models for the last 20+ years and taking a page from Leica's playbook.

The point-and-shoot camera is dead as fried chicken. Other than the somewhat unique market Ricoh has created for the GR series, I don't think these cameras have a future.

To the extent the camera market and camera manufacturers survive the smartphone onslaught, the future will be mirrorless.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Like anything, there are always trade-offs as one follows conservation of inconvenience. Electronic viewfinder cameras with shutter mechanisms remind me of the Kodak Instamatic Reflex: shutter is open while viewing, closes down, mirror-up, shutter cycles, mirror down to view again. Lots of latency. With the EVF- power drain on the battery, and the sensor is constantly operating which raises temperature and increases noise. Getting high enough resolution on an EVF means high datarate and powerdraw. High enough resolution- 1600x1200, RGB. For now, I'll stick with my RF's and SLR's. Electronics has a ways to go to match performance of an optical viewfinder. Optical computers did lose out to digital computers some 30 years ago, but they were neat.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Graphic techniques such as etching, screen printing and lithography have been around for centuries and are still widely practiced by artists. I think the same will be the case with film (or glass) photography and printing on gelatin silver paper. These techniques have been around for 150 years and are still practiced by many. The "throw away" photography will naturally continue to develop, hand in hand with digital developments.

Erik.

 

[Dogman]

My hope is that rangefinders and SLRs continue to be readily available well past my rapidly fading lifetime. I love the OVF, be it a window in the corner or a mirror and prism arrangement. I'm not an EVF fan although I use them and I can agree they can be useful. While they are more accurate in focusing, I really don't care. My photos don't depend on tack sharp focus and needle point sharpness. As it stands, I use post processing to soften the effects of modern lenses and add a little noise. It's nice that lenses are sharp these days but there's more to photography than clinical technical precision.

 

[Evergreen States]

I don't think film is going anywhere. I don't think DSLRs have a future. Manufacturers will phase them out within 5 years at the latest. But there will still be many excellent and capable specimens on the used market. I imagine within a few years we will see a niche startup that starts manufacturing new 120 format cameras for the enthusiast market. Maybe 135 format automatic compacts too. I imagine such a company would start with a legacy 120 mount due to the capital outlay needed to design and manufacture a new lens lineup from scratch. The market seems to be growing but the supply is finite and prices for reliable old gear are becoming vanishingly expensive while young people have less and less disposable income.

 

[DownUnder]

Another thought-provoking piece from this most excellent writer - I've just now finished commenting on another thread by the late Roger Hicks which has again surfaced, and then found this one, well done sir!!

Like Dogman in the preceding post, I too will go on using my Contaxes for as long as (1) film continues to be manufactured and (2) as I'm alive, whichever comes (or rather, ends) first.

It may or may not matter to some (not that it matters greatly to me) that my Contax kits happen to be the much-maligned G1, which many will insist are not 'true' rangefinders but expensive, overrated, overpriced P&S toys. The quality of what I get with my Zeiss G lenses amazes me, so much so that if the G2, apparently a much improved camera, were not so expensive on today's used gear market, I would happily buy into this model. Again, no matter, I will go on making do with my four G1 bodies and five lenses, for as long as I can.

I used SLRs for many decades and I always disliked the flip-flop mirrors, but they served their purpose and my surviving Nikkormats go on doing this as well as my digital Nikons,D700s and D800. Also a Lumix GF1 I bought as new for a low, low price, the EVF annoys me but the camera does what it does well so I live with its minus-points.

As for the current range of digirangefinders, well, I would happily buy into this - IF I could afford to, which I can't. I all but bankrupted myself in the 1980s to buy a Leica M2 and then an M3, plus bits and pieces (lenses etcetera) at hideous prices, all of which I had to sell when I moved into my own architecture practice in the '90s and our office hit the first economic crisis in Australia, so out they went to pay the office bills. I now own a Leica iiif which I enjoy, but it's limited and my fast-fading eyesight doesn't help any. I still use it as and when I can, and it pleases me that this camera, now 67 years old, will surely survive me.

Sadly, the 'classic' rangefinder cameras are now too old and likely in need of too much (expensive) repair, to be really reliable or for this matter much more than elegant playthings. Many go on producing excellent images with them but for the occasional photography I still do for publication (books and magazines), I would be an NQCC (not quite certifiable case) to go forth and shoot architecture with a 1950s top-range camera (excepting Rollei TLRs which I own and use, but they aren't rangefinders so I will say no more.)

 

[neal3k]

I love shooting my Leica Barnacks and their copies. Their feel, size, history, and abilities are perfect for my shooting. There are still dedicated people around who are capable to repair and rejuvenate them and I hope they stay around. Fortunately, my Barnacks have CLAs so they will long outlast me. My favorite rangefinder shooter is an 88 year old Leica II(D) - I was using it today. And my favorite non-rangefinder is my Leica 1, clocking in at 93 years old. I do have new ones too. They were all made in the early 1950s and are going strong. Once I discovered these, my other rangefinders became sales fodder or shelf queens.

 

[markjwyatt]

I feel pretty confident black-and-white film will be around for the foreseeable future. I think at least Ilford and some of the other smaller manufacturers have got their production capabilities aligned with demand so that they can economically produce film in quantities that the market can sustain. Hopefully prices will stabilize and black-and-white will remain affordable enough to use regularly and not become just an occasional roll type of thing.

Color film, I'm not so sure. ...

I like B&W film. For color, digital works fine for me (though I do like color film also), but still B&W is and has been my favorite for a long time. I am watching as the end of year approaches, and I am seeing a lot of B&W film going out of stock, or to Low Stock. It is a little worrying. Even Kodak and Ilford are doing this (at Freestyle). Thankfully, I saw ACROS II get replenished after going out of stock. I just looked at Freestyle and a lot of Kodak and Fuji color films are out of stock- some new Fujifilm at higher prices coming in.

I think though that if color film goes, B&W follows quickly. Like I asid, B&W is my favorite, but I suspect I am in the minority (certainly outside of forums like this). If there is no color film, there is really no film photography movement of the size needed to sustain itself. Most people want color film, and that drives film photography and makes B&W available. Ilford for instance does not make color film, but if color film goes, and people stop maintaining, repairing film cameras, and the film movement stops, then there may be less impetus to even offer B&W film. Maybe Ilford will. Hopefully so. I could live with only Ilford (and perferably also ADOX). So far color seems to have some life, so let's hope it continues. If Fuji drops it then Kodak becomes really the only game in town.The price hikes (already seen in Fuji) are part of keeping color film profitable, and will hopefully help keep it alive.

If film does die, then digital really becomes the only game in town, and I agree that mirrorless takes over.

To empahsize the need for color film, listen to this angry woman whose significant other only brought B&W film on their vacation:
(lyrics- hit "translate to English" at the bottom if needed)


Du hast den Farbfilm vergessen (you forgot the color film), Nina Hagen

key quote: "Landscape and Nina and everything just black and white"
("Landschaft und Nina und alles nur schwarzweiß")

I have been known to take vacations/trips with only B&W film. In a pinch I have an iPhone (or occasionally my Fujifilm XT-2).

 

[JeffS7444]

I don't see myself buying DSLR or digital rangefinder in the near future, though Canon's 5DS R seems like a heck of a bargain for anyone who has a substantial investment in EF-mount glass, and who doesn't need 4K video: $1500 for 50 megapixels? Can't beat that! As long as it seems worthwhile to do so, I expect Canon and Nikon to continue selling EF- and F-mount products, but probably no major new R&D efforts.

Leica M made a lot of sense to me back when M8 and M9 were the only mirrorless options around. But today, the value seems less obvious.

Will be most interested to see how camera makers make use of increased computing power and faster sensor readout in order to achieve "impossible" results more on par with what mobile devices are doing. But truly game-changing advances aren't too common, and for my own (mirrorless) camera equipment, I am expecting "business as usual" for the next several years. I might not be adverse to sampling a Sony RX0, Sigma FP or Nikon Zfc, but they probably wouldn't represent any larger shift on my part.

Film: I expect to continue shooting it in moderation.

 

[willie_901]

Film and DSLR cameras will always have a niche following. Interest may fade, grow, fade and grow again overtime - but it will always be there.

Mirrorless still cameras (not smart phones) are transitioning to niche products.

Twenty years ago most people used compact, automatic, optical-finder film or small-sensor (1" or 2/3"), pocket digital cameras. Now these platforms are extinct.

The market for high-quality, high-performance still cameras are professional photographers, amateur enthusiasts and artists. This niche is likely to remain stable. People in this market niche are't hat interested in relating the creative process to artificial intelligence algorithms.

A few decades from now I think it is possible AI photography will evolve to fully accommodate personal creativity. People will be able to create their own, propritary AI algorithms fo affect personal creativity.

Another possibility is a cultural rebellion against automated and AI technologies. In this scenario analog and digital still cameras would reimerge as creative tools.

 

[ptpdprinter]

What do you thing the future is for cameras - but, more important, what cameras do you think you will be using in the future - and why?

I will continue to use my film cameras and lenses now and in the future. Most of my film work is black and white, and I am optimistic that black and white film, and photographic paper and chemicals, will remain available for a least the remainder of my life expectancy. I plan to use my digital cameras and lenses for the foreseeable future as well. I don't know what features camera manufacturers could add that would prompt me to replace them. I guess I will succumb to the siren call of more megapixels at some point. Even though image quality is quite good, I don't enjoy making photographs with my phone, and so I generally don't.

 

[robert blu]

...

A few decades from now I think it is possible AI photography will evolve to fully accommodate personal creativity. People will be able to create their own, propritary AI algorithms fo affect personal creativity.

Another possibility is a cultural rebellion against automated and AI technologies. In this scenario analog and digital still cameras would reimerge as creative tools.

I agree 100%. Of course at my age it is an academic thought...

 

[cassel]

The pandemic and lock-downs had me reassessing my gear... as a result, I sold and traded a lot of gear to focus (pun-intended) on Leica LTM gear. I now have FIVE bodies and a host of lenses... the oldest is a 1928 and the newest from 1935. I have a big photo-essay-book project that I'm starting that really goes back 20 years. Should take about five years to complete but I'm not in hurry! About 50% color and 50% B&W film for this project.

My Canon DSLR gear is great but it's just for professional/paid jobs/educational use... not getting used much at all as I don't shoot much professionally these days.

 

[Timmyjoe]

What you say Bill, about the focusing issue, is I think the biggest thing with mirrorless. My SLR's and rangefinders have been collimated as you described (how Norm and Don do it), and every so often I have to recollimate them to make sure everything is spot on. With my Nikon Z6, that is totally not an issue. And my Nikon Z6 can use all my rangefinder glass, be it Leica, Voigtlander, Nikkor or Zeiss/Contax. It can also use all my SLR glass (though the FTZ adapter is big and clunky). And I know all the lenses I use on the Nikon Z6, it the lens is in focus in the viewfinder (with diopter adjustment and zoom focus), I know that lens is in focus on the sensor.

For me, since I no longer cover sports and am doing less and less events (damn Covid), I can't see myself buying a DSLR or digital rangefinder ever again. My D700 got sold and my D4 is getting used less and less, along with the Canon 6D. I use the Nikon Df with my ancient non-AI lenses from the 1960's for personal work because I enjoy shooting with it's manual controls. And my two Leica digitals, M9 & MM really only get brought out so I can make sure they are still working properly.

Best,
-Tim

 

[BillBingham2]

The big folk should stop developing or designing film cameras, no need. Film is for the artistic, nostalgic, well-healed, and the overly hip. While I'm hoping to get back into film at some point, medium or large format only. While I miss my Bessa L and Nikon S2 dearly, my Fuji XE-3 and mostly my iPhone 12 Pro handle everything I do ("Serious" armature). I twill always have a 35mm film camera or three and my father's Crown Graphic, way too many cameras in the bags and closets.

I think there is a space in the market for non-interchangeable lens cameras. Long zoom ranges, hardened for dangerous environments, pocketable with traditional controls (e.g. Ricoh) come to mind. as possible niches. The first niche may have a shrinking market, but coming out with better I should make it reasonable. The second I'm not sure if even big enough to call it a niche. The third niche will be there for probably another 10 or 15 years. By then I am expecting some form of aperture control to come (other than through software).

My guess is that we are two years away from Mirrorless to have surpassing the functionality of highend DSLRs.

B2 (;->