Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Stéphane: OK, maybe you're not so good on the design part. 😛 But with marketing, it doesn't really matter, eh? 😀
Earl
Earl
Manifesto: Time to Kiss the M Mount Goodbye? [long!]
- Thread starter jlw
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 109
- Views 9K
dll927
Well-known
Olympus and Pentax were called "niche" markets above - and Minolta was left out. In the grand realm of comparison, this may have some truth, but no more so than calling RF users a "niche" market.
Also raised is the point of WHY RF's became a "niche" market. I'm old enough to remember when Leica/Contax were the top guns in the 35mm world, and there were any number of lesser lights on the market besides.
There's no doubt about why this all happened. Once they reached the point of developing instant-return mirrors and automatic diaphragms (usually attributed to the Pentax family), the advantages of through-the-lens viewing and closer focusing clearly won the day. I don't think we will go back. But I can remember articles in Popular Photo and elsewhere debating the relative advantages of the two types - RF and SLR. And one only has to have some experience with a classic Exakta (the original viable SLR) to see why the Exakta didn't win the game. They are pretty klutzy by today's standards.
As for the M-mount, it's the old question of why fix something if it isn't broken.
Also raised is the point of WHY RF's became a "niche" market. I'm old enough to remember when Leica/Contax were the top guns in the 35mm world, and there were any number of lesser lights on the market besides.
There's no doubt about why this all happened. Once they reached the point of developing instant-return mirrors and automatic diaphragms (usually attributed to the Pentax family), the advantages of through-the-lens viewing and closer focusing clearly won the day. I don't think we will go back. But I can remember articles in Popular Photo and elsewhere debating the relative advantages of the two types - RF and SLR. And one only has to have some experience with a classic Exakta (the original viable SLR) to see why the Exakta didn't win the game. They are pretty klutzy by today's standards.
As for the M-mount, it's the old question of why fix something if it isn't broken.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
dll927 said:
Guess you missed the funeral. Minolta is dead, bought out by Sony. So far they seem to be doing the old family proud in the DSLR department, but seem an unlikely candidate as an RF revivalist.
My original post devoted a lot of time to explaining exactly why the M mount is broken, at least specifically when it comes to the hope that a major high-volume manufacturer might introduce a viable digital rangefinder camera.
There's nothing at all wrong with the M mount for film cameras, and I really like the fact that every 35mm-size interchangeable-lens RF camera you can buy new today can use any manufacturer's 35mm-format RF lens you can buy new today. (SLR owners may now turn green with envy.)
But as Leica learned the hard way, sticking with the M mount for a digital RF camera introduces unavoidable compromises because of the mount's short flange-to-imager distance and the resultingly steep "chief ray angle" at which rays from the lens strike the imager. Again as Leica learned the hard way, a behind-the-lens IR cutoff filter thick enough to be really effective would cause color fringing because of the steep chief ray angle; thinning down the filter to avoid color fringing results in IR contamination under some subject/lighting conditions. Basically there's no way to get out of this dilemma with a shallow-bodied digital camera, short of the Magic Technology Fairy riding in on her enchanted unicorn and solving the problem with a wave of her wand.
So, the other way to deal with the dilemma is to sidestep it by designing a digital RF camera with a thicker body, as used on DSLRs -- this allows an effective IR-cutoff filter without color-fringing worries. And if you're changing the mount anyway to allow a thicker body, you might as well change it some more to take advantage of the electronic features that DSLR makers already include in their lenses. And that brings us neatly back to the premise of my original post!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
dll927 said:
But wasn't that triangular shape great? It is a shame it got buried under the dust of history.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Nick R. said:
I'd take this approach (especially Olympus if it ever wakes up) over none at all.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
jlw said:
and Olympus is different from this ... how?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
shadowfox said:
They're not. The reason I was mentioning Sigma specifically was that someone else had said, "What about Sigma," and I thought, "Yeah, come to think of it..."
I still think Olympus is a less likely candidate, since they haven't made an interchangeable-lens RF camera since -- what, the '50s? -- so it's not really in their "brand DNA." The thing about Sigma as a candidate for a wild-hare idea such as an advanced-technology DRF is that they don't really have a brand DNA -- if they thought people would buy a 24-megapixel toilet seat, they'd make one!
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
True enough, but Olympus' brand DNA when the OM came out was RFs, (except for the Pen, but you get my point) but they made the jump. The camera world was in transition then, moving from RF and TLR to SLRs. The only reason the Ace was not a success was that it was not a platform to build on was that it was not a Maitani design. He would have designed it around a standard mount.
The camera world is in transition now, so I see no reason why Olympus couldn't make the move. It's really a matter of vision and a business case acceptable to sr. management/board.
The camera world is in transition now, so I see no reason why Olympus couldn't make the move. It's really a matter of vision and a business case acceptable to sr. management/board.
aizan
Veteran
jaapv said:
it still lives on, horrifically, in the r8 and r9.
Riley
Newbie
I think Sigma will have their shot with the DP1. While no-one can be certain, Im not optimistic, as the DP1 seems more like the venerable DMD than a rangefinder option. If Sigma get their fingers burned, they wont be back for more. Its a good call, but I dont think they are going to sell what you are looking for.
But it does say this to me, is the evolution of the rangefinder into digital necessarily going to be like M8? I really dont think so, because it will have to be bolstered by the appeal of a larger audience than the readership of places like this. Add to that there are poignant problems, like
Now there is a triad of interest in some things like rangefinders with the FT (4/3) consortium. Leica for obvious reasons could tie up the market in rangefinder design virtually once and for all. Panasonic might want to revisit the LC1, and this time do it right. Olympus might be interested because ... well theyre Olympus. The obvious format for the consortium then is FT, but why?
The system is inherrantly better for wide angle shooting, having both the quality of glass, and edge definition not accessable to FF in ultra wide. Wide is the angle of choice for rangefinder design. But this further locks in the use of zooms. FT will not share anyother system lenses, while you can use FF or other propriety lenses on a FT camera, it wont work the other way around. Plus at least Oly or Panasonic have the development room in what is already an offbeat lineup for something different. I tend to think that would be like LC1, but with a FT sensor, and interchangeable lenses.
So why not Canon or Nikon, they had some fabulous rangefinders right. Well they are in for a busy year. With the P&S market topping out this year the obvious division for growth is within dSLRs. No surprise then that there are new entrants into dSLR. This clammering for position is important for Canon and Nikon, for they have ultimately the most to lose in the coming battle for market share. R&D wont be wasted by these guys on an alternate camera, Canon/Nikon didnt get where they are by taking risks with the marketing approach. On the other hand FT need all the interesting injections of interest they can get their hands on, if it is a low budget, easy to develop camera, all the better. If it is hard to define where this camera sits within pro/semi-pro, thats almost a badge of courage to Olympus.
In any event, if you thought you could get away with using your 35mm glass, forget it. I think any way you cut it its going to be a crop sensor. Its not for nothing, that Leica went that road given they had access to a FF kodak off the rack sensor, and a client base that would have preferred FF.
Finaly, there are sound reasons to do this, not only the appeal for another badge Leica, but to reach a wider audience that would like more than a P&S can offer, but somehow less than a dSLR burdens you with operationaly. In all a simpler and note: cheaper larger format camera for excellent results that is fun to use. You could even call it retro, which is all the rage in Japan right now.
While cheaper can mean many things, this is a technicly scaled down camera free of menu plugging with last but not least a low ticket price. Is there a gotcha? Yep there is, you would probably be forced to accept an EVF and fly-by-wire focussing. Is that still a rangefinder camera? now is the time to recall my implication that it is hard to define. But 'they' know you will take all you can get if it works.
Riley
But it does say this to me, is the evolution of the rangefinder into digital necessarily going to be like M8? I really dont think so, because it will have to be bolstered by the appeal of a larger audience than the readership of places like this. Add to that there are poignant problems, like
- how do you adequately account for zoom lenses with an OVF?
- What about speed dial and aperture ring control?
- How will you account for focussing in a AF world?
- And how will you incorporate that into a rangefinder OVF?
Now there is a triad of interest in some things like rangefinders with the FT (4/3) consortium. Leica for obvious reasons could tie up the market in rangefinder design virtually once and for all. Panasonic might want to revisit the LC1, and this time do it right. Olympus might be interested because ... well theyre Olympus. The obvious format for the consortium then is FT, but why?
The system is inherrantly better for wide angle shooting, having both the quality of glass, and edge definition not accessable to FF in ultra wide. Wide is the angle of choice for rangefinder design. But this further locks in the use of zooms. FT will not share anyother system lenses, while you can use FF or other propriety lenses on a FT camera, it wont work the other way around. Plus at least Oly or Panasonic have the development room in what is already an offbeat lineup for something different. I tend to think that would be like LC1, but with a FT sensor, and interchangeable lenses.
So why not Canon or Nikon, they had some fabulous rangefinders right. Well they are in for a busy year. With the P&S market topping out this year the obvious division for growth is within dSLRs. No surprise then that there are new entrants into dSLR. This clammering for position is important for Canon and Nikon, for they have ultimately the most to lose in the coming battle for market share. R&D wont be wasted by these guys on an alternate camera, Canon/Nikon didnt get where they are by taking risks with the marketing approach. On the other hand FT need all the interesting injections of interest they can get their hands on, if it is a low budget, easy to develop camera, all the better. If it is hard to define where this camera sits within pro/semi-pro, thats almost a badge of courage to Olympus.
In any event, if you thought you could get away with using your 35mm glass, forget it. I think any way you cut it its going to be a crop sensor. Its not for nothing, that Leica went that road given they had access to a FF kodak off the rack sensor, and a client base that would have preferred FF.
Finaly, there are sound reasons to do this, not only the appeal for another badge Leica, but to reach a wider audience that would like more than a P&S can offer, but somehow less than a dSLR burdens you with operationaly. In all a simpler and note: cheaper larger format camera for excellent results that is fun to use. You could even call it retro, which is all the rage in Japan right now.
While cheaper can mean many things, this is a technicly scaled down camera free of menu plugging with last but not least a low ticket price. Is there a gotcha? Yep there is, you would probably be forced to accept an EVF and fly-by-wire focussing. Is that still a rangefinder camera? now is the time to recall my implication that it is hard to define. But 'they' know you will take all you can get if it works.
Riley
Last edited: