Digital rangefinder cameras please?

[Kev T]

Hello All,

I'm new to the RFF. I'm a photographer who sometimes moonlights as a TV commercial director as well. I'd just mailed an old friend and fellow photographer, a message with some crackpot RF camera ideas, which I'd thought I'd share here as my inaugural post, and would certainly love to hear some or your comments:

David,

To 99% of today's photographers, a rangefinder camera is considered archaic, and by default, something of little interest.

The raison d'etre for an RF camera is the ability to focus much faster than non AF SLR cameras, even SLRs with very bright viewfinders of the late 1980s and early 90s... Especially in low light conditions! Focusing through a bright frame RF viewfinder is a joy, hence the many supporters of the Leica M especially amongst photographers with relatively weaker eye-sight... something we're both fast approaching! :-(

Today, we're mainly spoilt by AF technology, but AF even with the most sophisticated electronics works down to about EV 1 with good subject contrast and not even there when subject contrast is flat. By comparison, one can still focus with the coupled RF in near total darkness, so this is something technology hasn't caught up with yet...

Further to this, RF cameras are by nature very compact and much lighter than SLRs... Today's cheap & nasty SLRs (in the D50 / 70 or 350D class) uses penta-mirrors rather than optical glass penta-prisms to save weight, but suffers from being less bright than real penta-prisms, yet if one were to shave off the entire reflex mirror box + penta-mirror assembly, one should still reasonably save between 200 - 300 grams from the camera's overall weight! Considering that such cameras weigh about 800 - 900 grams, that is a lot!

Coming back to the idea of digital RF camera, so we have one example today; the Epson RD-1S, and as we know it has so far been a futile marketing exercise! Is this proof that the digital RF concept doesn't work?

Far from it, I think the Epson RD-1 is a camera born at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and at the wrong price! This is a prime example of Japanese corporate folly. No track record, no camera tradition, no lens, totally wrong corporate image as manufacturers of inkjet printers! So now, a fine product is now left with it's tail between its legs cowering back in its home market and deem by its makers as not profitable enough to be exported... Truly sad, because that is surely the first step to its eventual demise from the production lines.

Imagine, if it wasn't sold as Epson, but as a Voigtlander Bessa Digital instead? Throw out the old 6.1Mp Sony CCD sensor and say drop in the new Sony 10.2Mp CCD, or even the Sony 12.4Mp Cmos instead... A 12.4Mp Voigtlander D Bessa, now we're cooking! Ok. forget about the cheap Cosina platform, and substitute the Nikon S3-2000 RF body instead... The most recent version is Nikon's S3 Anniversary which was announced just after the F6 intro, making it the absolute last film camera they made... The S3 RF body is an all metal precision body with the kind of rich heritage and tradition that is not found in any of Nikon's newest models.

All Nikon has to do is to use the 12.4Mp D2X sensor in the RF body, and voila! Instant very hot classic collector's camera that has the potential to sell by the millions... With a common Leitz M lens-mount, they don't even need to make any new lens for this camera, though of course Nikon being Nikon will insist upon doing so! It doesn't matter whichever lens mount, M or Nikon RF-S mount, I can guarantee they won't be able to make enough to sell.

Ok here's the cruncher... being a new millennium camera, Nikon can even install AF with a defeat switch for those who insist on focusing manually! Nothing new here, I believe its been done with the Contax G2. Another tip for Nikon, being a 'limited' production camera, Nikon can even make it with an all Titanium body. NOW I'M TURNING ON MYSELF! PANT! PANT! PANT!

Half the weight of the cumbersome D2X, hell, if they re-issue the 45mm f2.8 P pancake lens, they even make this a pocketable 12.4Mp digi-RF camera too! I can go on and on about the very sound business proposition for making such a camera... Best of all for Nikon, no competition from Canon.

Zeiss can do the same thing with their Zeiss Ikon rangefinder with a Dalsa or Kodak FF sensor and get as much market excitement as a Nikon RF camera re-issue model.

The Epson RD-1 was simply too early for their own good, but with a Digital M from Leica imminent, the timing now is right for more digital RF cameras... Both Zeiss Ikon and Nikon who kept their S seiries RF camera tooling alive with periodic commenmorative issues are in favorable position to do something about this. Then Cosina can contact Fill Factory to install that $90 9Mp Cmos into their Voigtlander Bessas for very little development investment, taking the lessons they learnt from making RD-1s for Epson, to join in the fun.

Regards,
Kev

 

[Flinor]

Imagine, yeah just imagine if we could equip it with laser autofocus rangfinding and just imagine if we used Leaf 22mp chip instead of the dinky little Sony 10.2. And price it with a digital Rebel, no if we're imagining, price it with a film Rebel. Let your mind run freeeeeee!

 

[RML]

George, I think you're being unreasonable and unfair.

In fact, the suggestions in Kev's post aren't at all too far-fetched. Who wouldn't love to see a Nikon dS3? I know a lot of people might be tempted. Whether there's a market for more than 1-2 digital rf cameras (Leica en R-D1), that I don't know, but to dismiss these ideas out of hand is utterly foolish.

What's even more foolish is stupid remarks like If this isn't a good enough example of why posting should be limited to contributing members, I don't know what else is. Jorge's idea of offering subscriptions wasn't all that bad but it created monsters in some people's heads. There seems to be right such monster in yours too. Oh, perhaps I shpuldn't have written that, seeing that I'm not a paying member.

 

[Honus]

I'm with Remy on this one. This is inflammatory? On the contrary, I think Kev has made some very interesting observations and has raised a number of good points. I hope he is not discouraged from posting again.

What is inflammatory is George's response.

Robert

 

[mac_wt]

Didn't Nikon loose money with every millenium S3 they sold? Imagine what the price point of a dS3 with all those bells and whistles would be...

Wim

 

[Gid]

Kev,

A very warm welcome to RFF. Please don't be put off by someone who posted before fully engaging their brain 🙂

There's absolutely nothing wrong with your post and some interesting points made. It would be nice if some of those cameras could be made, but I don't hold out much hope. However, I would be very pleased to be proved wrong.

best regards

 

[fgianni]

At least on one point I am 100% wirth Kev: simply canging the brand on the RD-1 from Epson to Voitlander and the model name to "Bessa D" would have easily doubled the sales.
About 10 or 12 megapixel I am not convinced, RF users don't usually get too excited about megapixel wars, The RD-1 resolution is good enough for me.

Another thing: I don't think it was wrongly priced (being the only digital RF aavailable a price similar to an M7 looks quite reasonable), but certainly the patchy quality control did not help it.

That said I enjoy mine immensely and it seems the same for all the other RD-1 users in the forum.

 

[jrong]

I thought that making a "classic" digital camera, rangefinder or SLR, with a titanium body and features that will last decades... is against the digital ethos anyway? 😉

What is the point of a beautifully constructed camera body that will last years and years when the technology inside only has a life cycle of a few years at most?

 

[sf]

I won't buy a digicam until the sensors capture more range and resolution than a good 35mm frame. No way.

In my experience, 12MP of good capture is about right. Trouble is getting rid of the noise, color flatness, range narrowness, etc. A 12MP Leica Digital M would be wonderful. . . but price will be prohibitive, and they'll have you wanting the upgrade every year.

Forget that mess.

 

[Kev T]

Thank you Gid, Remy and Robert for the warm welcome... Thanks George for the still warmer welcome!

No, this doesn't discourage me at all, and I did ask for comments. I've been a commercial photographer for over 20 years, so I'm more than thick skinned enough to be accused of being imflammatory... Isn't that the same difference as being heralded for brilliant creative photography?

BTW, I wasn't paid to join this forum, perhaps someone could show me where the money is? I stumbled upon it, and am very glad to have found this site dedicated to rangefinder cameras.

I do most of my professional work with LF, MF cameras with digital backs and also with my own personal Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n... Sometimes when the gods smile on me, I get to do an assignment with my old Fuji GL690 RF with 100mm & 50mm lenses.

I'm awaiting for that Leica dM to complement the Kodak, with great anticipation, and that got me thinking what if more manufacturers made digital RF cameras, so I got to discussing it with my friend David. Don't all consumers always want more choices?

The resultant mail I posted was originally meant for David on the account of our long friendship... I did not choose to abridge or edit it, nor do I see how or why making statements about immaginary cameras could imflame or offend people.

In any case, I'm glad for this RFF site, I hope to contribute more positively in future, and perhaps with lessser controversy if I can help myself! 🙂

Kev

 

[Kev T]

Upgradable sensors

Upgradable sensors

I thought that making a "classic" digital camera, rangefinder or SLR, with a titanium body and features that will last decades... is against the digital ethos anyway? 😉

What is the point of a beautifully constructed camera body that will last years and years when the technology inside only has a life cycle of a few years at most?

Hello, I happen to own the Kodak SLR/n, which was preceded by the Kodak 14n... When Kodak replaced the 14n, they came up with a sensor + electronics upgrade to bring the 14n to 14nx status, which was nearly identical to the SLR/n.

Of course Kodak ended not selling enough new cameras, and had to pull the plug on making DSLRs, but that exercise proved that upgradable sensors on a well-made camera platform (actually not that great in Kodak's case!) is possible, only manufacturers prefer to sell new models.

Kev

 

[JeffGreene]

Welcome to the forum, Kev. I'm awaiting the arrival of my new RD1 as we speak. I agree that digital offerings from Cosina and Zeiss are eagerly anticipated by those of us who appreciate the rangefinder platform. I enjoyed your post and agree with 95% of it. But I also don't think the MP issue is as important as you seem to. In addition, Sean Reid, Phil Fogle and other experienced RD1 users all seem to appreciate the low noise levels of B&W images at ISO 1600. In any case, thank you for the great post, and I look forward to hearing more from you in the future.

 

[ChrisN]

Does someone pay people to register here so they can post this kind of inflammatory stuff?

If this isn't a good enough example of why posting should be limited to contributing members, I don't know what else is.

Let the latest flame wars begin..... 😡

George, your sense of humour is raising hackles again. 😛 We need a sarcasm icon badly! 😀 Now behave yourself. 🙂

 

[Socke]

A warm welcome from me, too.

I'm mostly with your post.

My biggest problem with the R-D1 is the viewfinder and its framelines. The 28mm frames are close to a normal lens and I like 35mm and thus would need 24mm framelines on a APS-C based rangefinder.
And usable with glasses, my eyesight isn't improving as well.

 

[Kev T]

Thanks Jeff

Thanks Jeff

Welcome to the forum, Kev. I'm awaiting the arrival of my new RD1 as we speak. I agree that digital offerings from Cosina and Zeiss are eagerly anticipated by those of us who appreciate the rangefinder platform. I enjoyed your post and agree with 95% of it. But I also don't think the MP issue is as important as you seem to...

Hello Jeff,

Thank you. I note that you're not the first to question my comments about high megapixels sensors for digital RF cameras...

My background is commercial photography, and often this kind of work ends up in full page broadsheet press advertisements, once in a long while even a double spread broadsheet... Murals ads on sides of buildings, etc.

For such type of work, we still shoot large format or 6 x 9cm film of course... but a clean 12Mp raw image is good enough for magazine double spreads easily and beyond up to 24" x 18" print as well.

So from where I'm coming from, I have no choice but to pixel peep, goes with the territory, perhaps after I finally lay my hands on the much awaited Digital M, I'll learn to lighten up about that!

Cordially,
Kev

 

[Andy K]

If this isn't a good enough example of why posting should be limited to contributing members, I don't know what else is.

I find this comment a thousand times more inflammatory and divisive than the OP (which made sound and well reasoned arguments). After some time considering the pros and cons of making a contribution, that comment has made me decide I will NOT contribute money to this site, because I do not want to be part of a two tier I-have-more-say-than-you-because-I-paid site.

 

[iñaki]

Does someone pay people to register here so they can post this kind of inflammatory stuff?

If this isn't a good enough example of why posting should be limited to contributing members, I don't know what else is.

Let the latest flame wars begin..... 😡

Sorry George, but IMO this wont help RFF, I won´t never say to another member (or even think to my self), new member or not, that I´m better because I contributed. Anyway that´s my last comment about it.

 

[iñaki]

Welcome Kev, I found your post very interesting: I don´t know if you are right or not, but I enjoyed reading it (being difficult for me to read in english), I hope you will stay with us.

 

[willie_901]

Commnets for Kev T

Commnets for Kev T

Since Kev T asked for comments on his inaugural post and I will oblige.

First, it is tedious and pointless to attack digital photography. I don't care how people obtain photographs. I do care about how their images affect me. I also care very much about the process I use to record and publish/print photographs.

Premise 1 - digital camera technology provides high quality photographs with great convenience and efficiency.

Premise 2 - with few exceptions, digital camera sensors are incompatible aesthetically with existing 35 mm format lenses. Whether or not technical incompatibilities exist is highly dependent on the lens, the digital sensor and the how the original analog signal (photons) is modified (filtered) by the camera hardware and software during analog-to-digital conversion. In the context of Kev T's post, I choose to assume there are no technical issues when lenses designed for 35 mm film are used with digital cameras.

Premise 3 - the camera Kev T proposes will be unsatisfactory if it is fragile or if the finder is not as good or better than the best RF finders. It must be well-sealed, have high-quality electrical components and connectors and have a superb optical finder. It must be manufactured to higher standards than most consumer-level cameras.



Kev T's proposal is flawed for in two ways. These flaws are exist because his ideas are ahead of their time.

Because a technically competent, affordable 24 x 36 mm sensor is not available, RF photographers are required to change formats in order to enjoy the convenience of digital photography. A different format means requires lenses with different focal lengths. Of course many 35 mm format RF lenses simply take on new roles when mated to a digital body. Still, the transition is problematic and can be expensive. While an expensive, fast 35 mm focal length lens that brings us joy simply becomes an expensive, fast 49, 52, 56 or 70 mm focal length lens on a digital body, low and high focal length applications require adaptation and investment or sacrifice. One's favorite lens can no longer play the same role when composing a photograph. One must find a new favorite lens or change how they compose their photographs. I am more interested in using the lenses I now own and enjoy rather than adopting to a different format. I also recognize I represent a very small percentage of people who spend more than $2,000 per year or more on photography. Most choose convenience and this choice is best for them.

Replacing the reflex finder from a high-quality DSLR with a Leica or Zeiss Icon - like rangefinder would be welcomed by RF photographers, but a this would not make the camera significantly lighter or less expensive. The Nikon D200 body (I am not familiar with other DSLRs) is an example of a digital camera constructed to provide a long productive life span. Adapting Nikon's S3 rangefinder to a D200 platform will not decrease cost. Putting an analog-to-digital converter in a S3 body will not be cheap. Advanced engineering, high quality components and manufacturing excellence is expensive. I think Kev T's statement suggestion that a digital S3 "has the potential to sell by the millions..." is unrealistic.


Digital files are more convenient than film. Auto-focus zoom lenses are more convenient than manual focus prime lenses. Icon based exposure control is more convenient than aperature priority automatic exposure, manual exposure compenstation or full manual exposure. Convenience is the Alpha and Omega of the digital camera market at all levels.

I am not against convenience. The Leica/Panasonic DigiLux 2 is an attractive alternate to a film RF camera. The lens is faster than a typical DSLR kit lens. You never change the lens (no dust or the hard-to-clean sensor). The camera can be used in manual focus and exposure modes. When the next generation sensor/software improves its high-ISO signal-to-noise ratio, the DigiLux concept could capture a significant slice of the DSLR market space. I might even buy such a camera. But I see no point in using the existing sensor technologies (Canon's 24 X 36 mm sensor excluded of course) in a M-type RF camera.

Nikon and Canon (and others) benefit when consumers acquire new lenses for a new format. They reward their shareholders when photographers buy a new camera body every two or three years. At the same time, there are a lot of high quality 35 mm format lenses in the world. A decade from now a 35 mm format analog-to-digital converter will be a practical alternate to film. Someone will sell a RF camera much like Kev T describes because the lenses exist and a profit can be made.

I welcome Kev T to RFF and applaud him for being ahead of the times. Someday light digitization will be completely compatible with the 35 mm lenses we RFFers love. Someday a digital finder will be superior in every way to optical finders. Until then film RF cameras will be be used by those who enjoy them for what they do and how they do it.

 

[erikhaugsby]

Wow, if only the Law of "Easier Said than Done" could be overturned!
Though some of Kev's ideas aren't entirely original, they certiantly are packaged quite nicely.

The thought of a S3d would be magic in the hands of a Nikon fan, and I'm sure that Leica wouldn't ignore the competition in implementation of future MD2+s.

Ok here's the cruncher... being a new millennium camera, Nikon can even install AF with a defeat switch for those who insist on focusing manually! Nothing new here, I believe its been done with the Contax G2.

Question: would the AF be somehow linked to the RF patch? That would be pretty sweet, if we could Auto-Focus, and still see what the camera focuses itself on. Also, how many AF sensors would there be--1 centeral? 2 or three horizontals? More?