Digital rangefinder cameras please?

[Kev T]

Digital RF & shutters

Digital RF & shutters

Live preview will not be part of the digital M. It will be a camera with a shutter....

Granted from what little we know of the first generation dM, it does come with a new shutter similar to that found in the ZI... If I'm not mistaken.

But as sensor technologies improve with respect global shuttering built-into Interline type CCD or Cmos sensors, the camera manufacturers can now contemplate on the redundancy of actual physical shutter units... Once upon a time, only frame tranfer CCDs were considered good enough for professional results, and those require a shutter unit, but today alternative sensor technologies appears to have caught up with FT CCDs.

Personally I don't see the downside, no more shutter noise, vibration or bounce anymore. Less mechanical failures to worry about... etc.

Kev

 

[JeffGreene]

Kev,

I've been following this thread with great interest. Not being a technical guy, nor a professional photog, could you explain what a non-mechanical shutter might look like. Bill M. shared some information a few months ago about adjustable LCD-like lenses. Is this what you are talking about? If I have misstated things, I apologize in advance.

By the way, you've really livened up the discussion about digital rangefinders. I'm enjoying it immensely.

 

[bmattock]

Granted from what little we know of the first generation dM, it does come with a new shutter similar to that found in the ZI... If I'm not mistaken.

But as sensor technologies improve with respect global shuttering built-into Interline type CCD or Cmos sensors, the camera manufacturers can now contemplate on the redundancy of actual physical shutter units... Once upon a time, only frame tranfer CCDs were considered good enough for professional results, and those require a shutter unit, but today alternative sensor technologies appears to have caught up with FT CCDs.

Personally I don't see the downside, no more shutter noise, vibration or bounce anymore. Less mechanical failures to worry about... etc.

Kev

Exactly - if we embrace the advantages that digital brings us in terms of camera design and utility, and work to eliminate the downside that currently makes digital imaging a poor second to film quality, then all kinds of things are possible. With new anti-shake technology combined with no mirror bounce, we should be able to hand-hold to levels not previously possible. ISO keeps going up - there is no reason it should not eventually surpass film's capability in that arena - true low-light without super-fast-but-blurry lenses (unless you want that quality for artistic purposes, of course), and so on.

I like the future of photography. It rocks.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Kev T]

For Jeff - Digital shutters

For Jeff - Digital shutters

Kev,

I've been following this thread with great interest. Not being a technical guy, nor a professional photog, could you explain what a non-mechanical shutter might look like. Bill M. shared some information a few months ago about adjustable LCD-like lenses. Is this what you are talking about? If I have misstated things, I apologize in advance.

By the way, you've really livened up the discussion about digital rangefinders. I'm enjoying it immensely.

Hello Jeff,

No apologies required, and in fact I'm sorry I don't explain myself very well when I talk about tech stuff! 😛

I did not read Bill M's post, but I assume that it was about dual layers of polarising filters within the LCD panel that shuts out transmission of light when activated...

That wasn't what I was talking about... What I was describing is certain types of imaging sensors with built-in shuttering effects which camera designers can capitalize upon to provide a non mechanical shutter.

In effect when the sensor is turned on, the shutter is opened and when it is switched off the shutter closes. This is the case for low cost consumer grade digital cameras currently, where the advantage is cost saving from not having an actual physical shutter amongst other.

In DSLRs and other high-end digital cameras, the traditional type of CCD imaging sensor employed, is the 'Frame transfer' or FT CCD because their intrinsic pixel architecture allow them to capture more photons than comparative sensor types, hence higher quantum efficiency and dynamic range. However FT CCDs require a physical shutter unit out front, or they will 'bloom' the digital image from light saturation.

Today, Cmos imaging sensors have caught-up with the performance of FT CCDs... The Cmos sensor's architecture can be easily configured with the global shutter feature, as is also possible with another type of CCD sensor known as the Interline CCD.

Thus, a camera fitted with either Cmos or Interline CCD sensors can actually get away with not having the taditional electro-mechanical shutter unit.

To do so does require that the sensor is well made, with near 100% fill factor to prevent light leakage. Cmos sensor production lines are now able to acheive this.

I've mentioned some of the practical advantages along with Bill, such as no noise, or vibrations. Yet other advantages is the weight saving, cost savings 😀 , etc. Most importantly, a digital shutter (for want of an better name!) no longer has shutter speed limitation with flash synchronization! Theorically, we can shoot a with flash sync at 1/2000th sec or even higher without shutter sync alignment problems!

Warmly'
Kev

 

[rvaubel]

Dream Camera: I already have the prototype!!

Dream Camera: I already have the prototype!!

I find the idea of an M mount camera with EVF to be wrong, indepentantly of the quality of the EVF.
The only reason to build an M mont cam is to use the M mount lenses on it.
It'd be very disturbing to adjust the aperture shot by shot for exapmple on an Elmar...and the others are not easier neither. I think that the concept of the RD1 is correct. Perhaps a longer EBL...

Regards,

nemjo

Nemjo, Sychan
Gee Whiz, I forget about those darn diaphrams!!
There's only one trouble with your anylisis. As I type, I am holding up a specialized Canon SLR that supports live viewing, with mirror lockup, at any apeture I chose. I am viewing a live shot of my kitchen at F8! REALLY, I'm not kidding.
You know the lights a little dim over there. Maybe I,ll increase the ASA from 400 to 800. Thats better. The readout says its F8 but what does it look like looking thru the front end of the lens? Yep, I see those diaphram blades closed to about the size of a pea, looks like about F8 to me.
Well folks, the camera that I am holding is a specialized model of the 20D that Canon made for the astrophotography lunatic fringe. Its called the 20Da, and it cost $2300 body only, no discounts. The purpose of the live view is to achieve critical focus thru a telescope without autofocus. Actually, the image is magnified by around 10x or 20x (user choice). It works with regular canon lenses also, although that was not the intent. In fact, canon warns the users not to view live in daylight as you might blow the sensor. Everything is under manual control so you have to be careful in bright light.
I have to go since my wife informs me we have to pick up her Volvo at the dealership. How Berkeley can you get.
More later.
Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus
Rex

 

[nemjo]

Nemjo, Sychan
Gee Whiz, I forget about those darn diaphrams!!
There's only one trouble with your anylisis. As I type, I am holding up a specialized Canon SLR that supports live viewing, with mirror lockup, at any apeture I chose. I am viewing a live shot of my kitchen at F8! REALLY, I'm not kidding.
You know the lights a little dim over there. Maybe I,ll increase the ASA from 400 to 800. Thats better. The readout says its F8 but what does it look like looking thru the front end of the lens? Yep, I see those diaphram blades closed to about the size of a pea, looks like about F8 to me.
Well folks, the camera that I am holding is a specialized model of the 20D that Canon made for the astrophotography lunatic fringe. Its called the 20Da, and it cost $2300 body only, no discounts. The purpose of the live view is to achieve critical focus thru a telescope without autofocus. Actually, the image is magnified by around 10x or 20x (user choice). It works with regular canon lenses also, although that was not the intent. In fact, canon warns the users not to view live in daylight as you might blow the sensor. Everything is under manual control so you have to be careful in bright light.
I have to go since my wife informs me we have to pick up her Volvo at the dealership. How Berkeley can you get.
More later.
Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus
Rex

This is very interesting, but what is the meaning of that all on a digital RF?

nemjo

 

[sychan]

I have to go since my wife informs me we have to pick up her Volvo at the dealership. How Berkeley can you get.

Uhhh, you need to pick up your VW biodiesel conversion so that you can get some (expensive) organic produce for your Tibetan yoga group's raw foods potluck? 🙂

Actually, I'm quite happy with my Epson R-D1 despite all the speculation about new, dream cameras. It does pretty much everything I need when I don't want to lug around the DSLR. Sadly, the shutter is awfully twangy (maybe the right case can muffle it?). Based on the specs, the Leica Digital M should be an excellent camera that gives a Leica shooter all that they could want in a M style digital camera (but at a price that only a pentagon procurement officer could love).

 

[fgianni]

Actually, I'm quite happy with my Epson R-D1 despite all the speculation about new, dream cameras. It does pretty much everything I need.

For me it does almost everything I need, but with the new firmware the almost will be removed, hystogram accessibility and RAW preview zoom limitation are my only gripes with the camera and the new firmware will solve both.

Ok there is another problem and that is the shutter noise, makes my 20D seem silent, and the 20D is not the quietest SLR around, I suppose no firmware can sort this out 🙄

 

[rvaubel]

This is very interesting, but what is the meaning of that all on a digital RF?

nemjo

Good point. I got a little carried away.
The point is to get a digital camera with a rangefinder form that takes M mount lenses and has a thru the lens live EVF. The issue I was trying to address is the apparent problem of not having an automatic diaphram on a M lens. What I discovered with my 20Da is that more than enough photons can be delivered to a LCD thru a lens that has been stopped down, to work even with very low levels of ambient light. I had my 20Da working like a point n' shoot but @ F8 in very dim light. The image on the LCD was brighter than real life. I'm pretty sure I could get it to work @ F16.
If I'm right we could have a digital thru the lens camera (not reflex, no mirror) that could look and handle like a rangefinder. Also, since it has a EVF whose signal comes directly from the sensor, we can eleminate all that optical nonsense (prisms, framelines, baselines, ad nasuum) that is intrinsic in a conventional rangefinder.
In other words, for all intensive purposes, it would look like a rangefinder but act like a mirrorless, prismless, SLR. Could also be shutterless, have autofocus if you want and accept any manual non retrofocus lenses (or SLR lenses) or whatever. By whatever, I miean pinhole lenses, microscopes, telescopes, kalidascopes, Holgas, Wegiboards, etc.
The possibility of a rangefinderlike, non-analog, EVF camera is not going to be very politically correct on this forum but I like my rangefinders, both film and digital, for what they do . I love the feel of a metal bodied, finely crafted, camera with elderly manually lens of German origin as much as the next guy but hey, maybe we can get the best of both worlds.
Well, I'm going out to my darkroom and make some fiber based 11x14's on my Durst 606.
God, I love the smell of fixer in the morning
Rex

 

[nemjo]

In other words, for all intensive purposes, it would look like a rangefinder but act like a mirrorless, prismless, SLR. Could also be shutterless, have autofocus if you want and accept any manual non retrofocus lenses (or SLR lenses) or whatever. By whatever, I miean pinhole lenses, microscopes, telescopes, kalidascopes, Holgas, Wegiboards, etc.
/QUOTE]

I'm affraid when something is too much usually means too few.
However adapters can serve well, at least AF is forgettable. Even the manual focus could work well only with an effectiv focus aid. Your experiences with Canon show possibilities in the range near infinity. Try it at 2m.
What you describe is a definitely new concept - but wihout the old glasses.
BTW a shutterless camera built for interchangeable lenses brings up a lot of problems ie. how to protect the sensor etc.



nemjo

 

[rvaubel]

Nemjo
Your right, the diaphram would have to be opened up in order to reduce depth of field for focusing. I keep trying to hold on to those manual lenses. Oh well.
Still, I think the concept works with modern auto lenses.
Rex

 

[Kev T]

Nemjo
Your right, the diaphram would have to be opened up in order to reduce depth of field for focusing. I keep trying to hold on to those manual lenses. Oh well.
Still, I think the concept works with modern auto lenses.
Rex

Hi,

An imaging sensor designed to provide 'Live view' as found in P&S consumer grade cameras points to the fact stopped down aperture settings is not a barrier at all.

Direct view focusing with the camera's LCD panel is tedious because current LCD preview/review monitors lacks sufficient resolution for critical work... Pressing buttons and toggling switches for screen magnification is not he answer either.

First point of consideration; Screen size. If we were to go by film camera ground glass convention, the smallest practical size is that of the 6cm x 4.5cm 120 film format camera (Anybody ever tried to focus their Nikon F2 / 3 without the penta-prism or any magnifiers?). That works out to a LCD panel with a diagonal of 70mm (2 3/4") across... somewhat to the limit of what we can fit onto the back of a Leica M sized chassis.

With my background of working on large format camera ground glass, (as well as my 45 year old eyesight 🙁 ) screen diagonals of 3" - 4" are even better, but camera dimensions and power consumption becomes issues.

Next, we come back to screen resolution, to be able to focus critically, IMHO the screen resolution needs to be at least 1.3 - 2Mp... Current LCD panels carries no more than 0.3Mp, and thats still a ways off.

Once manufacturers can supply such hi res LCDs, the concept of the direct view electronic focusing screen becomes viable.

Kev

 

[sychan]

With my background of working on large format camera ground glass, (as well as my 45 year old eyesight 🙁 ) screen diagonals of 3" - 4" are even better, but camera dimensions and power consumption becomes issues.

Next, we come back to screen resolution, to be able to focus critically, IMHO the screen resolution needs to be at least 1.3 - 2Mp... Current LCD panels carries no more than 0.3Mp, and thats still a ways off.

I keep looking at those JVC microdisplays - could you imagine looking at a viewfinder with a 1.3" diagonal, 3MP display (the QXGA display)? That is basically the size of the ground glass screen for a 35mm SLR. These displays are designed for digital cinema, so their refresh rates should be at least as good as a TV set.

It would sure be fun to be Mr. Kobayashi, with a bunch of camera tinkerers around (I wonder if he has any of the necessary hardware/software guys around), and be able to say: "Go get this JVC LCD display, and either Sony or Panasonic sensor and see if you can prototype an m-mount camera that has live view and a big, bright 3 megapixel EVF."

Huy Finney could do it. 🙂

 

[Kev T]

Camera LCD Preview screens

Camera LCD Preview screens

I keep looking at those JVC microdisplays - could you imagine looking at a viewfinder with a 1.3" diagonal, 3MP display (the QXGA display)? That is basically the size of the ground glass screen for a 35mm SLR. These displays are designed for digital cinema, so their refresh rates should be at least as good as a TV set.

I like the 3Mp resolution, but 1.3" is way too small... The 36mm x 24mm 35 format has a diagonal of 43mm (1 2/3") and even that is marginal to focus on without some form of magnification eye-piece.

It would sure be fun to be Mr. Kobayashi, with a bunch of camera tinkerers around (I wonder if he has any of the necessary hardware/software guys around), and be able to say: "Go get this JVC LCD display, and either Sony or Panasonic sensor and see if you can prototype an m-mount camera that has live view and a big, bright 3 megapixel EVF."

Kobayashi san is a traditionist, which is why his company is the only one in Japan, and one of three in the world still actively making RF cameras... (I wouldn't call the Fuji TX series production line active, and sorry if I'm missing others.) I'm sure his bean-counters are begging him every day to go digital!

Huy Finney could do it. 🙂

I'm not familiar with the name, kindly enlighten please?

Regards,
Kev

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Ok- maybe I'm missing something (it is 3:39 AM here)

Why have live view when you have a range finder?

 

[rvaubel]

Well, while I dont think having a live view on the back of the camera would hurt(especially if it could be pivoted for TLR-like use), my thought was the primary live view would be thru a very hi-res OLED viewfinder. Actually, others on this thread have a better idea of which type of device would be the best choice. But whatever the choice, having a EVF being feed it's signal directly from the lens with no intervening mirror/pentaprism box, would make it possible to use compact, non-retrofocus "M" type optics. Lets face it, one of the charms of the rangefinder design is its efficient, compact design. SLR's suffer from bulbous affections both on the body(pentaprisms) and overlylarge lens size(retrofocus) dictated by the natural of the reflex viewing system.
So the concept is really no more than an advanced grade Point n' Shoot, "M" mounted with a very high resolution EVF. Other features are optional. Seems simple too me. What am I missing?
Rex

 

[Kev T]

Ok- maybe I'm missing something (it is 3:39 AM here)

Why have live view when you have a range finder?

Hi,

I know the idea of a live view LCD on aRF seem rather anti-thesis (is that poor language?) Anyways if you think about it, its something good to combine the two...

A RF camera with an alternate TTL viewing, why not at all?

With a moderate wide lens (28mm) set to hyperfocus at f8 or so... Framing and composing is way faster than squinting thru the RF itself for unparalled street candid shooting!

With any digital camera, RF or otherwise, the LCD display is there already for shots review... If it is somehow possible to use it for live view as well, I'll take it.

Cordially,
Kev

 

[JeffGreene]

Careful Kev, you're close preaching heresy to the anointed. ;<). Just kidding, and to answer your earlier question, Mr. Kobayashi is Cosina AKA Voightlander and the designer and producer of the R3A, R2A, L and T modern rangefinder cameras, much beloved on the forum.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

To me it seems like such a camera would end up being painfully similar to an Olympus E-330 or the soon to be released Panasonic Lumix DMC L1. Both are SLRs with live view added. I think a rangefinder with all those features would not give you any functional or ergonomic advantage over the two cameras mentioned.

Additionally you could purchase a range of adapters for the 4/3 mount used by these cameras to gain access to a lot of fantastic historical lenses. And, have the advantage of a swivel screen.

I'd much prefer a bare bones camera with a very nice fixed lens (35 or 40mm) with rangefinder focus. Somethincg like the Nikon ti35, but still no auto focus. Lose the screen and you have what might be a much nicer and possibly lower cost camera.

 

[Dougg]

One problem with the EVF or other live preview is that the shutter would have to be open... or deleted in favor of capturing some chosen instant of sensor output. But while that's done with the tiny p&s sensors, is it practical with a larger APS-size sensor?