Paul T.
Veteran
Oh, I'm impressed with the GR-D. But not the price! The basic mju was around GBP85 for the basic model. The GR-D is GBP300! In a basic digital P&S the choice is extraordinarily limited; everything available has a slow lens, usually a zoom.
Considering the hundreds of film camera designs that featured a fixed 35mm or 40mm lens, at anything from f/1.8 to f/2.8, it's bizarre there is nothing approaching these specs in a digital. Yes, I can understand the need to load up the specs and add a zoom, more megapixels etc for consumer models, but i think a simple, compact digital with a reasonably fast lens (and, I hope a real VF) would become a must have as a back-up camera for huge numbers of photographers.
And yes, I would like a digital Zeiss Ikon too. As well as the digital hexar AF...
Considering the hundreds of film camera designs that featured a fixed 35mm or 40mm lens, at anything from f/1.8 to f/2.8, it's bizarre there is nothing approaching these specs in a digital. Yes, I can understand the need to load up the specs and add a zoom, more megapixels etc for consumer models, but i think a simple, compact digital with a reasonably fast lens (and, I hope a real VF) would become a must have as a back-up camera for huge numbers of photographers.
And yes, I would like a digital Zeiss Ikon too. As well as the digital hexar AF...
pfogle
Well-known
Sadly for me, the GR-D/GX100 are both unusable because of the ridiculously slow file write times for RAW - 10s and 6s respectively 
galavanter
Established
We are getting close
We are getting close
My GX100, at the 35mm setting of the 5 step zoom (makes it 5 RF primes AFAIC), has a max aperture of f/2.9. At 40mm, (you can set camera to ANY focal length in its range of 24-72mm and have the camera remember it when powering on) the max aperture is f/3.2, 28mm is f/2.7, and 24mm is f/2.5. The dioptered EVF is a great innovation that I use over the external VF's I purchased to try on the camera (Russain turret and Walz zoom). I don't want an evf on my R-D1, but for this little digital I prefer it. When price and resolution improvements allow better details to be seen with these things, then better yet. 100 % view and no parallax. But if you prefer a single focal length OVF, and don't miss exposure info (actually EVERYTHING seen on the LCD is seen on the EVF), you can use any external VF. I bought the GX100 over the Pany LX 2 because I too wanted a VF. Zoom vs prime argument in a small digital doesn't interest me. I am enjoying the camera.
Phil I got 5.5 seconds write time with my borrowed R-D1 SD card, a Sandisk Ultra II Plus 1 GB. I now get 4.5 seconds on the GX100 with a fast class 6 ATP ProMax 4GB card. Class 6 users of all makes are reporting same. Still too slow.
We are getting close
My GX100, at the 35mm setting of the 5 step zoom (makes it 5 RF primes AFAIC), has a max aperture of f/2.9. At 40mm, (you can set camera to ANY focal length in its range of 24-72mm and have the camera remember it when powering on) the max aperture is f/3.2, 28mm is f/2.7, and 24mm is f/2.5. The dioptered EVF is a great innovation that I use over the external VF's I purchased to try on the camera (Russain turret and Walz zoom). I don't want an evf on my R-D1, but for this little digital I prefer it. When price and resolution improvements allow better details to be seen with these things, then better yet. 100 % view and no parallax. But if you prefer a single focal length OVF, and don't miss exposure info (actually EVERYTHING seen on the LCD is seen on the EVF), you can use any external VF. I bought the GX100 over the Pany LX 2 because I too wanted a VF. Zoom vs prime argument in a small digital doesn't interest me. I am enjoying the camera.
Phil I got 5.5 seconds write time with my borrowed R-D1 SD card, a Sandisk Ultra II Plus 1 GB. I now get 4.5 seconds on the GX100 with a fast class 6 ATP ProMax 4GB card. Class 6 users of all makes are reporting same. Still too slow.
Paul T. said:
Last edited:
georgef
Well-known
JoeV said:Perhaps you should become a member of this pen forum, and can discuss fountain pens in more earnest detail!
You're right, of course; fountain pens won't replace word processors. But in the context of rangefinders, they are an intriguing and growing niche market.
Personally, I don't want rangefinders or fountain pens to be 'commodified' by becoming mainstream. I don't want a crappy plastic rangefinder built like a Holga. Part of the appeal of rangefinders are their mechanics, which by definition isn't likely to be manufacturable at a price point available to the general photo buying public.
What we are asking for is exclusivity, but affordable exclusivity, affordable enough for me!
Right you are Joe; three things I am a hopeless collecting juckie of (and a divorce reason should my wife ever decide to do so
): cameras, leather bags (don't ask) and writing instruments (fountain pens -hense the quote- , pencils etc.).Point is, whether or not we love them, they do not justify a large manufacturer's numbers for product development.
More to the point IMHO: You have a niche market here, on a niche product. Sure it can be made in the likes of the Epson and Leica M8. but it wil not be inexpensive unless there are sufficient numbers behind it. And I can't see today's new and tech-savvy photo consumers bying into it unless marketing sells it as a culture-icon like the IPOD previously suggested.
I have been keeping my eyes open for such a product since the days of my very first SONY mavica, and its still to come.....I still keep hope though...:bang:
Peace
; so far, I am still able to convince my son books are a better read than laptops george
mn4367
Established
paragon said:
I disagree partly. Most vendors are riding the mega pixel race but the sensors have the same size. So many of those mainstream 10mp P&S produce ugly noise if you go beyond 200 ISO. Mostly better means more features, faster operation and smaller size (if that is really better). But real innovation or significant steps in image quality?
anselwannab
Well-known
I'm still hoping that Canon screwed up the G7 to leave space for an APS-c camera.
Carolyn-IL
Member
I think there would be a market for a more affordable digital rangefinder. It wouldn't sell like the 30D or whatever, but it would sell. Create a little market hysteria like they do over at Canon and have half the stock pre-sold before it is on the market.
There is a resurgence in traditional & rangefinder photography even with the slow death of film, I don't really think anyone could deny that ... which is why the 5D was even created ... more of an artist's camera than the speed of the pro stuff. It seemed about image quality above all else. I cannot imagine it sold like the 20D/30D or the Rebel, but I'm sure it was profitable enough to update and continue with.
A lot of why me and many people have retired the film cameras is the environmental impact of it (chemicals, film, storage, waste and disposal of it) and the huge expense and lack of availability of processing. But I'd still like to slow down and see things more purely and be part of the process more. A digital rangefinder can do that.
I LOVE my 20D and have since I bought it (I think, like 2 years at least now). I use it all the time - some months almost daily. But I'm finding I usually just have a simple prime on there and am frustrated by some of the decisions it makes. I would definitely try a digital rangefinder IF I could afford one. But I can create a lot of what the RD-1 can do in Photoshop, but I cannot re-create the picture taking experience itself.
I'll eventually suck it up and buy a used RD-1 ... but not until I find one for around $1300 or so. I just cannot spend any more.
Anyway, interesting topic. Whether or not there is a market, I hope someone at least tries to find out.
Carolyn
There is a resurgence in traditional & rangefinder photography even with the slow death of film, I don't really think anyone could deny that ... which is why the 5D was even created ... more of an artist's camera than the speed of the pro stuff. It seemed about image quality above all else. I cannot imagine it sold like the 20D/30D or the Rebel, but I'm sure it was profitable enough to update and continue with.
A lot of why me and many people have retired the film cameras is the environmental impact of it (chemicals, film, storage, waste and disposal of it) and the huge expense and lack of availability of processing. But I'd still like to slow down and see things more purely and be part of the process more. A digital rangefinder can do that.
I LOVE my 20D and have since I bought it (I think, like 2 years at least now). I use it all the time - some months almost daily. But I'm finding I usually just have a simple prime on there and am frustrated by some of the decisions it makes. I would definitely try a digital rangefinder IF I could afford one. But I can create a lot of what the RD-1 can do in Photoshop, but I cannot re-create the picture taking experience itself.
I'll eventually suck it up and buy a used RD-1 ... but not until I find one for around $1300 or so. I just cannot spend any more.
Anyway, interesting topic. Whether or not there is a market, I hope someone at least tries to find out.
Carolyn
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Where is the cheap affordable digital RF?
It's in the glovebox of your cheap affordable flying car.
As with flying cars, interchangeable-lens RFs inherently can't be cheap, because of the smallness of the market and the necessary complexity of what they are trying to do. In cases in which interchangeable-lens RFs seemed cheap, it's only because of other factors, such as the Soviets taking advantage of their controlled economy to subsidize production in order to get foreign currency.
It's in the glovebox of your cheap affordable flying car.
As with flying cars, interchangeable-lens RFs inherently can't be cheap, because of the smallness of the market and the necessary complexity of what they are trying to do. In cases in which interchangeable-lens RFs seemed cheap, it's only because of other factors, such as the Soviets taking advantage of their controlled economy to subsidize production in order to get foreign currency.
MartinL
MartinL
OK, I just got an M8. Not cheap/afforable. I figure I paid for a limited, perhaps bizarre, tiny market niche. BTW, are you thinking of something cheaper than the RD1? When did that price point become cheap?
I've had all manner of cameras and I think that one needs to go to medium format to equal 35mm digi. I need my fast Canon zooms for the work I do (3 lenses, 16mm up to 200 @ 2.8 +IS). No RF, regardless of price, can match that. For the pure pleasure of being a photographer, prime (fixed) lenses are most satisfying. Prime on RF, even better. But I don't have to convince anyone here of that. For the simple pleasure of grabbing a shot that will not be archived and/or processed to a print, nothing beats my Canon SureShot S70 (the last P&S they made that captures RAW.) It has a very competent autofocus once you get used to digi auto. And it has a neverending shutter lag, but that's a different issue. IMO, a cheap digi RF would be a. . .well, a cheap digi camera--no better than current state-of-the-art digis.
Martin
This is an empirical question. I don't dispute it, but do you have the data beyond impressions on RFF?Carolyn-IL said:
Don't know that I follow this, but the 5D is very much a pro camera.Carolyn-IL said:
IMO, rather few people have given up film for environmental reasons (they shoud, but that's not the case). Processing is neither a huge expense nor unavailable. I've had some nice cheap and convenient work done by Snapfish.
I've had all manner of cameras and I think that one needs to go to medium format to equal 35mm digi. I need my fast Canon zooms for the work I do (3 lenses, 16mm up to 200 @ 2.8 +IS). No RF, regardless of price, can match that. For the pure pleasure of being a photographer, prime (fixed) lenses are most satisfying. Prime on RF, even better. But I don't have to convince anyone here of that. For the simple pleasure of grabbing a shot that will not be archived and/or processed to a print, nothing beats my Canon SureShot S70 (the last P&S they made that captures RAW.) It has a very competent autofocus once you get used to digi auto. And it has a neverending shutter lag, but that's a different issue. IMO, a cheap digi RF would be a. . .well, a cheap digi camera--no better than current state-of-the-art digis.
Martin
Carolyn-IL
Member
Martin ~
Interesting points and certainly "affordable" is a matter of subjective interpretation. I was thinking the market needed a RF under $2000 basically ... cheap? No, but better. It would be something I could save for, and ultimately buy.
I suppose also it's a matter of who you know and who you hang with ... most of my friends and old photography students (I graduated from the Art Institute of Chicago in '89 for what that is worth) have indeed foregone film for enviro reasons, but I'll accept that the folks I know are the minority ... who really knows. Also, finding good printing/developing around here, if you do not do it yourself IS hard to come by and expensive. I'll check out Snapfish.
Do I have any statistics that with the death of film people are looking for purer photographic alternatives like digital rangefinders? Heck no (maybe the rise in this site could be that), BUT, I know what I see around me. It seems to be what people are into and also, what they are buying.
I believe the 5D was pitched as an artists camera and yes, comes in on the low level of Canon's "pro" line. Still, you can pick one up for $2600 now with the price drop and while again, not cheap ... a far cry from M8's $5000 sticker price.
I agree with you though that the reach of the primes on a good SLR and not something a RF will ever replace, or even strives too. It's different photography. They are both good in their own ways. Even if I get a RF, I'm keeping the 20D and all the lenses ... especially for a safari or something, a RF would be so limited.
Good luck with your M8! Even WITH the price tag, I'd buy one if I could!
Carolyn
Interesting points and certainly "affordable" is a matter of subjective interpretation. I was thinking the market needed a RF under $2000 basically ... cheap? No, but better. It would be something I could save for, and ultimately buy.
I suppose also it's a matter of who you know and who you hang with ... most of my friends and old photography students (I graduated from the Art Institute of Chicago in '89 for what that is worth) have indeed foregone film for enviro reasons, but I'll accept that the folks I know are the minority ... who really knows. Also, finding good printing/developing around here, if you do not do it yourself IS hard to come by and expensive. I'll check out Snapfish.
Do I have any statistics that with the death of film people are looking for purer photographic alternatives like digital rangefinders? Heck no (maybe the rise in this site could be that), BUT, I know what I see around me. It seems to be what people are into and also, what they are buying.
I believe the 5D was pitched as an artists camera and yes, comes in on the low level of Canon's "pro" line. Still, you can pick one up for $2600 now with the price drop and while again, not cheap ... a far cry from M8's $5000 sticker price.
I agree with you though that the reach of the primes on a good SLR and not something a RF will ever replace, or even strives too. It's different photography. They are both good in their own ways. Even if I get a RF, I'm keeping the 20D and all the lenses ... especially for a safari or something, a RF would be so limited.
Good luck with your M8! Even WITH the price tag, I'd buy one if I could!
Carolyn
SteveM(PA)
Poser
If one finds that they are confined to (which is totally apart from "preferring") a film rf these days, it is an experience which still shouldn't be missed. These are sort of the "salad days," where one can pick up even a scary (which I like) Soviet rangefinder, go out for a day, drop off your rolls at the druggist, and have some results that are usually only needing minor dust/scratch ps treatment. Who knows how long we're going to have this convergence of cheap gear/processing access. It's too much fun to miss. How can you not love strapping on a Fed 3b? BTW welcome Carolyn, keep posting, dig your writing style.
BTW welcome Carolyn, keep posting, dig your writing style.Attachments
Iskra 2
Kodachrome Rules!
Carolyn-IL said:
Those words make me nervous.
......... how about reduced demand ..... uneducated consumers .... lazy consumers .... impatient consumers .... indifferent consumers ..... etc. ....... etc. Oh well, as someone else pointed out, film photography for amateurs has reached a zenith (or Zenit if you prefer).
Regards.
Last edited:
MartinP
Veteran
Wow Steve - that left-handed FED3 is extremely rare . . . .
(Sorry, couldn't resist. I have a right-handed one.)
(Sorry, couldn't resist. I have a right-handed one.)
Iskra 2
Kodachrome Rules!
Steve, did you take that pix with a digital?
I couldn't resist either. OK, I apologize.
Regards.:angel:
I couldn't resist either. OK, I apologize.
Regards.:angel:
SteveM(PA)
Poser
aww man... Yeah, but it did stay home today. I took out the Fed and the OM1. Another impetus to use film is to finish up your rolls.
Yeah, but it did stay home today. I took out the Fed and the OM1. Another impetus to use film is to finish up your rolls. georgef
Well-known
...to some (including myself) the switch to digital was actually a concious, educated decision to a different medium my friend, after using film for 15 years or so, not a crutch. This digital VS film argument bears a lot of ressemblance to the manual VS AF argument I remember hearing when I started photography
I
"...the fact that you are holding a pencil does not make you an artist..."
L. Mies Van Der Rohe
peace.
I
"...the fact that you are holding a pencil does not make you an artist..."
L. Mies Van Der Rohe
peace.
Iskra 2 said:Those words make me nervous.
Oh well, as someone else pointed out, film photography for amateurs has reached a zenith (or Zenit if you prefer).
Regards.
Iskra 2
Kodachrome Rules!
georgef said:
.... not an argument George, whatever works, and film still does for alot of people who aren't interested in digital or can't afford it .......... but ....... hmmmm ...... maybe a Fuji Z1 to replace my $2 Minox GL.
I wonder if that Fuji plastic lens can match the 35mm/f2.8 Color Minotar glass? IMHO it will be a long time before a digital rangefinder will compete with old film rangefinders on a cost/quality basis. Convenience/status wins today.
The RD-1 is a step in that direction.
Regards. :angel:
IGMeanwell
Well-known
Lets fire up the rumor mill again
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUST14022720070715
Canon is going to move to put their CMOS sensors in some compact models
rangefinder a possibility?
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUST14022720070715
Canon is going to move to put their CMOS sensors in some compact models
rangefinder a possibility?
Peter55
Leica M5 & Summilux User
Canon DRinder
Canon DRinder
Canon DRangefinder
That would be nice a Canon DRangefinder. I have been saying they will come out with one for a while now and I still believe it. Just think of it as market share expansion. Since the RD-1 is no longer being made and the M8 costs so much the time is ripe for a Canon effort. If they start now they will get in early enough to be in command of this market as well as the DSLR market.
I love my 300D, 350XT, 20D and 1Ds Mark II and all 20 lenses. 10 of which are Canon L lenses.
I also love my Leica M5 and 50 Summilux. I do want a DRangefinder.
Canon DRinder
Canon DRangefinder
That would be nice a Canon DRangefinder. I have been saying they will come out with one for a while now and I still believe it. Just think of it as market share expansion. Since the RD-1 is no longer being made and the M8 costs so much the time is ripe for a Canon effort. If they start now they will get in early enough to be in command of this market as well as the DSLR market.
I love my 300D, 350XT, 20D and 1Ds Mark II and all 20 lenses. 10 of which are Canon L lenses.
I also love my Leica M5 and 50 Summilux. I do want a DRangefinder.
Carolyn-IL
Member
Oh man, I would love for Canon to come out with a DRangefinder in my lifetime! I have a nice selection of Canon lenses, not all L, but a couple ... that would be awesome.