Digital rangefinder cameras please?

[Ray Kilby]

I have an RD1, and I admit am not particularly technical. However, I have blown images up to 80cm across with no interpolation and they are pretty damned good. The pixel chasing for me seems a bit daft after a point. Much like the way transpareny is still considered better than modern colour neg. It's a bit of an old fashioned view to be honest. I love my RD1 as it is light, easy to use and fast to see where I am at with the very simple dial. At an instant I can see the file size, the colour temp the battery life and the number of frames left. It isn't as frame accurate as my M6, nor as robust, but I can get around those small problems. I am not saying it's the best camera in the world, but I think its pretty fabulous.

As for the 'name' well, I don't give a damn. Its just so stupid to worry about the name. It's what it does is imoprtant for me. I am aware of the commercial advantage of 'a name' but we as photographers ought to know better, to be frank.

I direct film and TV, I also used to direct commercials but got to depressed with three hour meetings about the 'hero banana' I am not a professional photographer, but love taking pictures. I admit I cant tall about one sensor and another, but I do know that the sensor in the RD1 is at it's optimum pixel size for it's dimension so there is no software sorrting out noise. That the sensor is fixed a metal back and therefore has no abberation, so again no corrective software. So what you see is what you get. That coupled with being able to use my lieca primes is wonderful.

I do agree with you that it has many problems, but you are sort of missing the point a bit. For me it was a a very brave idea, and like all ideas that are new, it will probably not be Epson who benefit from it but others who learn from their mistakes. I await the Leica with anticipation while my wife shudders at the cost to our bank balance. I only hope that it doesn't have auto focus.

Welcome to the forum. I like the fact you have me writing a reply!

Ray,

 

[Spyderman]

I really enjoyed all this thread 🙂 except for those PC CPU talks 😉

I have also one idea: how about making a digital module for bottom-loaded leicas ?
Leica produces digital module for their R cameras. Why wouldn't it work with bottom loaded LTM or M cameras? You wouldn't change the back door, but you would insert the sensor from the bottom. And it might even work with Zorkis and FEDs 😀

Or a digital module for Bessa R2a and R3a? Anyone could make such a thing: Kodak, Sony, even Epson!

Hey Doc! I need my pills... 😛

 

[Socke]

Spyderman, you'll need a very thin sensor for this and you risk scratching it.

Have you had a look at Huw Finneys M2aD project?

There's camera porn and then there's camera splatter:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FF9h&tag=
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FWHd&tag=

 

[ywenz]

Not for me, maybe for those with mid-life crises or people smaller than five foot six. 😉 This is more my thing.

For once, I agree with Andy's taste entirely... the Defender 110 is really a man's vehicle

 

[Kev T]

Hi Ray,

Always good to meet a fellow film maker, Unfortunately for me I continue to be engaged with 3 hour meetings on 'Hero Banana', but it does allow me to buy the odd lens, or bid on the used body once in a while... 🙂

I started out in photography the old fashion way too, and got dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age by my clients who also somehow suckered me into directing TVCs, so that's now integral to my work.

Some clients won't bother how you get the shot done, so long as they find something to like about the results, but there will always be those who stare over your shoulders constantly and think they know enough to specifiy they want image files of xx M-bytes per image, so daft as it may sound, I do wish for just that little bit more pixels in the imaging sensor. I'm with you on preferring to shoot with RF cameras if given a choice.

So I would like for someone to make a digital RF camera body with the requisite number of pixels that I could conceiveabily use for projects without apologies to make paying jobs a little more enjoyable.

Besides, my short attention span does require that I get my 'new toy' fix to keep the juice flowing...

Best regards,
Kev

 

[jrong]

For once, I agree with Andy's taste entirely... the Defender 110 is really a man's vehicle

Please define a "man's vehicle".

Is it something with plenty of headroom to accommodate the swollen head? 😉

 

[Kev T]

Digital backs for vintage cameras

Digital backs for vintage cameras

I really enjoyed all this thread 🙂 except for those PC CPU talks 😉
Hi Spyderman, glad you enjoy this thread, sorry i got sidetracked into the OT CPU discussion.

I have also one idea: how about making a digital module for bottom-loaded leicas ?
Leica produces digital module for their R cameras. Why wouldn't it work with bottom loaded LTM or M cameras? You wouldn't change the back door, but you would insert the sensor from the bottom. And it might even work with Zorkis and FEDs 😀
Mamiya's recent woes with the poor sales of their ZD DSLR is a good argument for the point you make about an adaptable digital backs for film cameras with removeable backs. I had suggested this in another forum sometime ago...

You may be closer to the mark than you think too... A close friend of mine who is in the photo equipment trade hints that an heretofore unknown business entity in Germany is working on just such a product, though perhaps not for RF cameras initially... He tells me to hold onto my Nikon FM-2T, but refuse to say more due to NDA with the product developers.

Or a digital module for Bessa R2a and R3a? Anyone could make such a thing: Kodak, Sony, even Epson!
They'd rather prefer you buy their cameras instead of a niche market product like a generic adaptable digital back converter for old film cameras... What they don't understand is that it is an attractive idea from the consumer's point of view, and that is their loss eventually.

Kev

 

[Peter Klein]

Kev and Ray: Re. the three-hour meetings about the "hero banana," here's a quote from a long-time hero of mine:

"It is difficult to produce a television documentary that is both incisive and probing, when every twelve minutes one is interrupted by twelve dancing rabbits singing about toilet paper. "
- Rod Serling


Submitted. . . for your approval, from a dimension not only of time and space, but of mind. To be filed under R for rangefinder in. . . the Twilight Zone.

--Peter

 

[ywenz]

Please define a "man's vehicle".

Is it something with plenty of headroom to accommodate the swollen head? 😉

A tough vehicle, one that isbig and brawney. One that doesn't have a stupid-ass flower vase built into the dashboard. One that doesn't market itself on the rich Connolly leather on its seats. One that any dents or scratches on the body will simply be regarded as "battle scars"

 

[Andy K]

Please define a "man's vehicle".

Anything without a cup holder. Anything that is not classed as 'SUV' or 'people carrier'. 😉

 

[Toby]

Anything without a cup holder. Anything that is not classed as 'SUV' or 'people carrier'. 😉

That would be a reliant robin or a 2CV 😀

 

[Socke]

That would be a reliant robin or a 2CV 😀

Or it's from Lotus 😀

 

[Andy K]

No cup holders in a Defender, and it is not an SUV.

 

[bmattock]

No cup holders in a Defender, and it is not an SUV.

Anybody who actually takes their vehicles offroad knows the value of an automatic transmission for holding on hills without stalling the motor or burning out the clutch throw-out bearing. Both of my "SUVs" (Jeep Cherokee and Kia Sorento) get a workout on and off-road, and as always, it depends a lot less what you call them and a lot more what use you put them too.

A "Defender" is a capable off-road vehicle. Pity more of them aren't used that way, but merely as manhood extensions for those cruelly snubbed by G-d.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[fgianni]

Hmm no cup holders, does it mean that a man's car cannot be used to carry kids?

Got a family to carry around, so I can only afford cars which can accomodate comfortably a few people and a lot of luggage (effectively enught stuff to stock a small mothercare branch everytime we go in holiday) and I need the cup-holders for the kiddies' drinks, I guess it is only girly cars for me.

 

[Andy K]

Anybody who actually takes their vehicles offroad knows the value of an automatic transmission for holding on hills without stalling the motor or burning out the clutch throw-out bearing.

I've been driving manual transmission for nearly 30 years, on and off road. Never seen a burned out clutch yet. Of course, you need to have the driving ability to be able to use manual shift.
I wouldn't give you tuppence for an auto 4x4, thats not an off roader its a soft roader, built for people who can't drive a real transmission.

 

[bmattock]

I've been driving manual transmission for nearly 30 years, on and off road. Never seen a burned out clutch yet. Of course, you need to have the driving ability to be able to use manual shift.
I wouldn't give you tuppence for an auto 4x4, thats not an off roader its a soft roader, built for people who can't drive a real transmission.

My first off-road vehicle was a 1946 Willys CJ2A with a flattie four, PTO and a dash-adjusted throttle in the mountains surrounding Denver, Colorado, so I suspect I have been offroad quite a bit over the years. I prefer the automatic for same reason people in San Francisco don't care for manual shifts at stop signs on the top of Lomard street. You don't burn out the clutch, you burn out the throw-out bearing. But you'd have to know your way around a drivetrain to know that.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[RML]

Do I pick up some manly braggin' vibes and a whif of testosterone? 🙂

 

[bmattock]

Do I pick up some manly braggin' vibes and a whif of testosterone? 🙂

I will pound my chest for you now.

Actually, in my case, I've got a couple of cube-mates who are just on the other side of the wall from me, both arguing over their SUV's prowess offroad. Neither of them has actually taken their mighty monsters off pavement, and Andy's cupholder remarks just kind of added to it.

My little Kia, with cupholders, auto transmission, and air conditioning, does a fine job of lifting my fat rump up and down hills and across creeks in search of photos, and if it doesn't make my kidney's bleed at the end of the day, I don't consider myself to have lost anything vital in the way of my manhood.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ywenz]

A "Defender" is a capable off-road vehicle. Pity more of them aren't used that way, but merely as manhood extensions for those cruelly snubbed by G-d.

Well actually, the Defenders around the world are being used as they are intended... I don't know where you got your info.

I wouldn't give you tuppence for an auto 4x4, thats not an off roader its a soft roader, built for people who can't drive a real transmission.

Tell that to the F1 racers whose clutchless trannys are capable of shifting much faster than their arms can. Is that not a real transmission?