Budget RAW only FF Digital Rangefinder?

[proenca]

It's called film and a scanner.

LOL, nail in the head.

Honestly, this is the answer to your prayers. Here you have your digital rangefinder, cheap, that does full frame. Pick a M5/M6/M7/MP and a film scanner. There you go. Have fun.

But honestly, taking a LCD out of a digital camera ? Its like taking the tyres out of a car to make it cheaper.

Its just doesnt make sense to take out a LCD of a digital camera - its one of the things which makes so usefull, the instant gratification and the ability to correct exposure or composition on the spot.

If you take it out, well.. thats delayed polariod camera 🙂 eheheh

Plus, the most costly part of the camera is the sensor then the shutter system and the eletronics,

LCD is minimal cost and the software / hardware to write alternative to RAW ( JPEG, white balances, etc ) its just software.. its peanuts.

So not much of an idea I'm afraid...

Plus lets not forget that RF user base is a drop in the ocean of the photographic user base - and the user base for your type of camera will be a drop of a drop - meaning that basically its just a handfull, not worth to do it .

 

[Fujitsu]

It's called film and a scanner.

Not exactly. But yes, if you got to have full frame, film is the cheapest option.

 

[downstairs]

...If the potential buyer is a current film Leica user, would the lack of an LCD and instant gratification be such a loss? I think the body would look classier, but that's just me.

Not speaking for anyone else, but I could manage quite well with just a histogram. I never have time on the job to to look at at the LCD pictures and when I do have time, the subject is gone.
Leica gave us back manual focus, like we were used to. That was a break with the trend. Treating the sensor like it was film would be the next logical break away from the trend in functional bloat.
There are only three variable anyway: film speed, time and aperture.
Time an aperture show up in our pictures, so film speed should be subordinate. Automate that, and nothing else.
Post-production does not belong in the sort of camera that I wish for. But that's just me.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I'm not sure how the functionality represents bloat. Get yourself an M9 and put some gaffers tape over the LCD and shoot raw. The features you want removed wouldn't add up to much savings in the total price of the camera.

 

[gho]

My thoughts about it are that Leica right now are the only ones who provide a FF digital RF camera and they are targeting a very specific segment of the market.

But what about average wideangle Joe who is afraid of film going away and who does not want to stick his M or LTM lens on a Micro 4/3 camera just to see, that the focal length is doubled? Should he sell his gear and switch to micro 4/3? I had a micro 4/3 camera but I sold it. Not that it was bad, but I found myself reaching out more for my Bessas.

What about CV lens, if film is going to die? (By the way I don't get it why the death of film is repeated here like a mantra, we will know soon enough if it is dead or not. For now I have no problems getting quality film for a reasonable price). Are CV lens destined to a triste existence on an adapter with half of the goodness cut away? Is the M9 selling good enough that it would pay off for CV to keep producing M mount lens? Or wouldn't Leica customers reach for the Leica lens instead? Questions about questions.

To make it clear. I have nothing against digital. Digital is ok. I use digital myself, but I still do enjoy shooting film. I do not get it why it is an either or. For pros with a tight schedule and the pressure of customer satisfaction: sure, digital.

So maybe we should rather ask: are rangefinder cameras dead?

 

[Pickett Wilson]

"So maybe we shoud rather ask: are rangefinder cameras dead?"

Well, that one is easy. Leica makes two RF's. Cosina makes a few. There is the Zeiss Ikon. While that's not totally dead, options for new RF's are few. I guess Cosina could keep turning out current models with an occasional run as long as they can find something to do with the workers making them between runs. I'd be surprised to see any new models, though.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I have two DSLR's without LCD screens, and use the Nikon E3 for most of my camera projects. It's like using a film camera in the sense that you are not positive about what you get until putting the PCMCIA card into the computer. The LCD is a nice feature, and as others have stated- inexpensive in terms of cost. It does add to the size of the camera, and certainly uses up power that could be used for making more pictures. I turn the LCD monitor off on the D1. I will probably do the same with the M8 when not testing lenses. Again- I want to see if it extends the battery life.


I believe that Leica and Kodak did an incredible job in keeping the M9 to $7,000. I've been in this field for a long time. A lot of photographers, professional and amateur, do not have this level of understanding. There is no reason to be rude to them, and should be taken as a chance to discuss and learn.

 

[gho]

"So maybe we shoud rather ask: are rangefinder cameras dead?"

Leica makes two RF's. Cosina makes a few. There is the Zeiss Ikon. While that's not totally dead, options for new RF's are few.

Right, but the point is, if film is evaporizing tomorrow as sugessted in the Kodak thread, there is only the M9 left. The M9 is too expensive for average Joe, so rangefinder photography would be reserved for just a very specific clientel. Time marches on...

To make it clear: I do not know if the M9 is overpriced, I do not guess so when I hear that its chassis is made out of one block of titanium. But if the specific clientel can't transmit the benefits of RF photography to the next generation, RF photography will be effectively dead, given that film is dead and given the progress in highly portable EV-systems. (Personally I do prefer optical viewfinders). So my thesis is: if film is dead, RF-photography is also dead.

The product I would like to see is something like a digital full frame Bessa T. But this is only wishful thinking as the market for that is probably rather small. So in the long run I will keep shooting film as long as possible while planning a reasonable digital escape route and trying to educate people about why I like shooting RF cameras. Been there, done that, tried the EV systems, not bad at all, but I keep coming back to the optical RF.

 

[Keith]

Personally I wouldn't touch a digital camera without an LCD screen and I believe that any company that released a camera without one would be greeted with howls of laughter from the majority of serious digital users.

I don't chimp a lot with my M8 but I do generally when shooting in difficult conditions where exposures can be a bit hit or miss due to quickly changing light or unexpected movement of people/subjects.

I'd expect Leica to go the other way actually and give us live view on the digital M and I'll be surprised if we don't get it in the next incarnation!

This theory about how a digital camera can be improved by removing one of it's major advantages/features comes up often and I'm amazed how many people seem to embrace such a hairbrain idea. 😀

 

[filmfan]

With less money than this body would cost, one can purchase a film scanner...

 

[Roger Hicks]

It would come down to whether there was much of a reduction in price. A stripped down M9 at $6,500 isn't going to sell. I just have little idea of what the components cost. There is a lot of data that Leica marketers (or Japanese camera marketers) get to look at that we don't.

Right now, film users must take a roll, and then develop it before seeing results. A camera without LCD or processing would not provide the instant gratification that digital LCD screen, but it would be quicker than film. If the potential buyer is a current film Leica user, would the lack of an LCD and instant gratification be such a loss? I think the body would look classier, but that's just me.

Dear Chris,

Exactly.

The expensive components (rangefinder, sensor, shutter, CNC-milled body) are still there. Labour for assembly is still there. A saving of $500 or even $1000 is not going to get many more people on board, especially the ones with the $2000-for-a-full-frame fantasy.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

"So maybe we shoud rather ask: are rangefinder cameras dead?"

Well, that one is easy. Leica makes two RF's. Cosina makes a few. There is the Zeiss Ikon. While that's not totally dead, options for new RF's are few.

There are more 35mm manual focus rangefinders being made now than 20 years ago.

 

[xxloverxx]

I'd take it, assuming there was an ISO setting.

Also, we'd need some sort of indicator to show battery life and frames remaining…

 

[Thebes]

What percentage of total cost is the LCD screen, controls, license for post processing software, plus larger battery and other items required to support that?

If Leica can sell its O series, with lens, for $1000, I can't imagine the body and shutter being that expensive. The only other major cost would be for the full frame digital sensor.

Would demand suffer tremedously without the LCD screen regardless of price? If say Leica could sell the FF budget DRF for $2500, wouldn't there be a market?

My understanding is that the sensor is the expensive bit. Especially for the M9, which has a new and unique sensor in terms of the angle of light it can accept.

I doubt that the jpeg conversion adds more than a few dollars a camera, the lcd probably adds a few hundred since good lcd's are expensive in small quantities. I could see it having excellent battery life though, with no lcd and no live view eating the batteries with heat-filled glee.

At 2500 I would indeed start saving up for it, and I am not a big fan of miniature formats (35mm, APS-C, 110, 4/3 etc). Maybe in a decade the tech could reach this price-point, but by then the extra tooling to make a stripped down one might make it no cheaper than the full version.

For now, cheap full frame means film. I paid 80 bucks for my 7SII and the scanner I am using (not optimal but ok) cost another 120... I could shoot a whole lot of film and travel the world making pictures for the cost of a M9.... that camera is so expensive I couldn't afford the risk of traveling with it, I see it as being for only true professionals and the rich.

 

[Pablito]

Personally I wouldn't touch a digital camera without an LCD screen and I believe that any company that released a camera without one would be greeted with howls of laughter from the majority of serious digital users.

yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

 

[gavinlg]

I don't understand the insistance of people on this forum of not wanting an LCD on a digital camera.... If I didn't have the LCD on my 5d, a lot of the shots I take would be totally under or overexposed. Just a quick glimpse at the histogram lets me know I'm on the right track, every few shots or so. Metering is not reliable enough to know that you nailed the shot without a histogram.

 

[Keith]

I don't understand the insistance of people on this forum of not wanting an LCD on a digital camera.... If I didn't have the LCD on my 5d, a lot of the shots I take would be totally under or overexposed. Just a quick glimpse at the histogram lets me know I'm on the right track, every few shots or so. Metering is not reliable enough to know that you nailed the shot without a histogram.

I supect that a lot of the people who don't want an LCD on their digicams think a histogram is a device for playing old vinyl records! 😱

 

[payasam]

I have no objection to LCDs, or to JPEG conversion circuitry, or even to a "Puppies and Kittens" mode: but certainly I would prefer a camera that did not have them if it cost less and became affordable. Most photographers who have been around for a while do not need to see an exposure on a screen to know that it is what they were after. Some bracket when things get difficult, others do not even bother to do that. There's no denying that a raw-mode-only camera without an LCD will appeal only to a small market: but that market does exist, and we should not forget that even the market for film RF cameras is now a relatively small one. I am not equipped to predict whether any manufacturer will see an acceptable profit in a small market.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

It's amazing what folks would be willing to sacrifice to afford to focus a digital camera with a rangefinder. People who complain constantly about having to spend too much time in front of a computer to use a digital camera now seem willing to add to that workflow everything current cameras do internally. The reality of actually using such a camera would likely deter all but the most ardent masochist. 😉

 

[jmarcus]

I would certainly like a MP or R-D1 like version of the M9. But I don't think the things you mentioned are really going to reduce the cost that much. The R&D for the camera processing, LCD, etc have already been done, its a sunk cost. Those parts aren't the expensive ones.
I think Leica needs to send the M8 off to a low cost manufacturer in Asia and sell it for $2500.00.

Again, I would like an R-D1 version of the M9.