Does a digital rangefinder make sense?

[willie_901]

For a rangefinder camera the 1.33X sensor size is the perfect size. There are alot of technical reasons why I say that, but the main reason is:

TATTA......Nobody but CANON makes a full frame sensor and nobody else ever will!! They have the fill frame 35mm market to themselves and they are keeping it.

Canon could produce a full-frame digital rangefinder. In fact perhaps the new Canon Powershot G7 is an indication that Canon is dipping it's toes in the water.

Here is a direct quote from Canon's G7 literature:

"Referencing classic rangefinder cameras, the ergonomic design features analogue inspired controls, a multi-control dial and a customisable shortcut button for faster access to camera settings."

Now the G7 is your just a typical auto-zoom 1/1.8" CCD sensor P&S digital camera with a retro look. There is nothing about the G7 a RF camera lover would enjoy. Like all the other P&S cameras, manual control is buried deep in the menus. This camera is meant to appeal to the mainstream market.

But what about the future? Corporations like Canon are supposed to be thinking ahead 3-5 years. Market share is market share. As the DSLR market becomes saturated Canon will look for new customers. Investors don't care that the DSLR market-growth curve is starting to level off; all they want is growth. I hope the M8 is a success. I hope the Sigma DP1 and Ricoh GR do well too. I hope Canon looks at the dollar value of those markets and decides they can make money by selling a full-frame RF camera with a M mount. All they have to do is price it below the M8. Canon has deep pockets.

Sooner or later the major players in the digital camera market will start to go after the small RF segment.

willie

 

[rvaubel]

Canon could produce a full-frame digital rangefinder. In fact perhaps the new Canon Powershot G7 is an indication that Canon is dipping it's toes in the water

Now the G7 is your just a typical auto-zoom 1/1.8" CCD sensor P&S digital camera with a retro look.

But what about the future? Corporations like Canon are supposed to be thinking ahead 3-5 years.

Sooner or later the major players in the digital camera market will start to go after the small RF segment.

willie

Yes, Canon could produce a rangefinder camera that would knock the socks off any point n' shot in the market. And for about six hundred bucks. But then so could anyone else, if they thought there was a market.

.....but Dream On,,,,, (my fantasy)

* G7 type body

* Canon 1.6X sensor 8 MP (1600 ISO clean)

* Zoom F2.8, 3X, autofocus with manual overide

* Aperture priority with manual overide on lens barrel

* No menus or gimmicks

The sell price would not have to be over $800. I would buy one in a heartbeat. So would almost everyone else on this forum. And thats about it,,,,,, all 500 of us.

Rex

 

[Peter Klein]

It is a simple thing for me. When I got out of college in 1990, I sold all my Leica equipment to pay off debt. . . .Then a funny thing happened about 8 years ago. I started repurchasing my leica gear, one piece at a time. I started taking pictures again. . .

. . . But I work exclusively with available light. . . I like to travel as light as possible. And frankly, I just feel more comfortable using a rangefinder. If I am more comfortable, I feel like I create better images.

Should I be spending $5k on a new Leica M8? Probalby not. And yet every day, I look at this picture of an M8 I have on my desk and I smile.
So from my perspective, a digital rangefinder makes perfect sense.

Hey, I resemble those remarks! Although in my case, college was over in 1975, and I didn't become a reporter.

The reasons I use a rangefinder have to do with optics, focusing accuracy, unobtrusive cameras, and a general way of working in photography. None of that has not been lost in a digital rangefinder. You have to make some allowances. You won't get the absolute resolution of your lenses, though you will get their optical character, and differences between lenses will still show. You'll have to expose as if you are shooting slide film or contrasty B&W.

But apart from that, all the general differences between RFs and SLRs still hold.

(The above is based on shooting a borrowed R-D1 several times. I suspect the M8 will have an even more familiar feel.

--Peter

 

[J. Borger]

It just doen,t fit in the traditional Leica M philosophy.

The cynical thing is that i (and Leica) expect more Canon Full Frame users to embrace the M8 than the traditional Leica M users who drove the company almost into bankruptcy by holding on to their dad's pre-war filmcameras.
Leica is playing the small/ high quality package very clever ....... just wonder why it took them so long to figure out that their current clientele will be just just a minor part of the M8 buyers and the real potential is elsewhre!

 

[ghost]

you're blaming leica users for leica's financial problems?

i doubt that leica "turned its back" on its current clientele. if that were the case, why'd they continue the ridiculous baseplate?

 

[J. Borger]

you're blaming leica users for leica's financial problems?

i doubt that leica "turned its back" on its current clientele. if that were the case, why'd they continue the ridiculous baseplate?

In a sense yes .. a bit exageratig perhaps ..... but the conservatism of a lot of current users is a bit too much for any company to deal with......
The new group of users is very important .... they buy new lenses too you know .. yes and they buy the latest asphericals, no 2nd hand pre-asph lenses .... On top of that most DSLR users want lenses from 21mm to 135mm .... so theay want 3 lenses minimum ....
Just keep in mind that a lot of people got into photography since digital arrived ... with no experience with film .. technofreaks with a lot of money to burn ... these will make the M8 a huge succes ... at least have huge iterest in it~..... without mourning about the cropfactor, the pricetag and how much better film looks!
The group of people who own a Ds II or at least a 5D with all L lenses available to shoot family snapshots and animals in the zoo. They are willing to spent 10-15000$ for a basic set-up.

I do not think Leica turnes it's back to current clientele BTW.... but realised in time this is not the main/ only target-group.

BTW i love that baseplate .. a realy cool feature

 

[jaapv]

In a sense yes .. a bit exageratig perhaps ..... but the conservatism of a lot of current users is a bit too much for any company to deal with......
The new group of users is very important .... they buy new lenses too you know .. yes and they buy the latest asphericals, no 2nd hand pre-asph lenses .... On top of that most DSLR users want lenses from 21mm to 135mm .... so theay want 3 lenses minimum ....
Just keep in mind that a lot of people got into photography since digital arrived ... with no experience with film .. technofreaks with a lot of money to burn ... these will make the M8 a huge succes ... at least have huge iterest in it~..... without mourning about the cropfactor, the pricetag and how much better film looks!
The group of people who own a Ds II or at least a 5D with all L lenses available to shoot family snapshots and animals in the zoo. They are willing to spent 10-15000$ for a basic set-up.

I do not think Leica turnes it's back to current clientele BTW.... but realised in time this is not the main/ only target-group.

BTW i love that baseplate .. a realy cool feature

You are completely right of course, but then this strategy has its risks. There will be a number of auto-everything users that will not be able to get decent results out of the M8 and that will generate a number of >"My wife's Samsung XLS gives much better results than my M8 and Noctilux" and "back focus" issue< type of posts on the internet.
On one hand that will be embarrasing for Leica, on the other hand it will release some virtually unused M8's on e-B@y, which will be fine for those that would like to own the camera but are not prepared to pay quite so much cash for it.
In the end nothing succeeds but succes and if we look at the interest this camera has generated, Leica can be well satisfied.

 

[J. Borger]

On one hand that will be embarrasing for Leica, on the other hand it will release a some virtually unused M8's on e-B@y......

Yes the only criticasters who make a valid point are those afraid about the resell value of the M8 over time ...... but otoh .. Leica never claimed it is meant as an investment
Another downside is the waiting list ... i see a prominent seller now stating "delivery date: before Christmas"

 

[Keith]

One of the things that appeals to me most about a digital rangefinder such as the M8 ... or R-D1 for that matter is the lack of functions that make the DSLR so popular.

No zoom lens, you have to choose a focal length ... and no auto focus capability. Yes I know I could use prime lenses on my D70 and focus it manually if I choose but I generally don't. If I have to focus a camera manually I am automatically going to think more about the composition of the photograph before I press the shutter!

I'm convinced that having to think about these two important aspects of taking each and every photograph will make me more involved in the process and consequently the shutter on a digital rangefinder will have a lot less pointless actions!

 

[AShearer]

This Crop factor BS is getting old. A lot of mis-information. Seeming to be an easy target for pot stirrers who like to fire people up on a forum.

A LOT of pros use Nikon's D2 series with great results. Why? If Canon's FF sensor were such a huge advantage, wouldn't these guys go that way? Sure Canon has a lead over Nikon in sales, but there are still a ton of pros and advanced amateur using Nikon.

Does the M8 make sense? Do the M7/MP make sense at $3500? Does a Nikon D2xs makes sense at over $4,000?

I realize the initial question had not to do with price. However, price is one of the determinants that has now come up in this discussion.

Does a digital rangefinder make sense? A lot of people have come up with some very good reasons why it makes sense for them. One thing seems certain. Had Leica not come up with this, they may be headed for a much reduced role in the photography/camera busines.

 

[thurows]

"It just doen,t fit in the traditional Leica M philosophy."

how so?

Forget the horesless carriages I'd rather ride a horse.

They release a lot of DX lenses because that's what people tend to buy for their range of DX cameras. Wideangle zooms in DX terms (starting at 16-18mm) with good quality FF coverage would be much larger and more expensive than needed. All lenses in other categories (telephoto, macro etc) are still FF.

But a FF Leica with today's sensor technology? I'm afraid you'd might cry at sight of the results..

Nikon will release a full chip camera 30 days after I buy a 12-24 mm. I say 30 days because I won't be able to return the camera.

 

[Artichoke]

digital offers many advantages to an RF

digital offers many advantages to an RF

Why a digital rangefinder? I suppose to use existing M lenses is one reason, but that reason is dilluted a little because of this 1.33 crop factor. I suppose if someone just likes using a rangefinder, that's a sufficient reason.

But it seems to me that many of stengths of a film range finder -- no mirror slap; small and light, ect. -- are thrown out the door in the digital age, where many are smaller and lighter with instant presto change of iso settings and have high opitcal qualities at a fraction of the cost, or sacrifised when with a digital M (e.g., losing the mechanical nature of the Leica M). Just curious.

I was sorely tempted to get the Epson when it was announced, but held off as I suspected either Leica or Zeiss would go digital ...I used a RF only briefly when I was much younger (just a few times really) but I remember the experience as being darn near giddily joyous & I got some good shots off as well, though sadly I don't have any of them ...the RF experience is entirely different from shooting an SLR camera & I will not reiterate what has been written prior in this thread, but these advantages are very real, even from my brief experience shooting RF
digital brings much added advantage to RF photography, I suspect
being able to preview a shot just taking is a big advantage in an RF, because you often push exposure's envelope with an RF and having a histogram to refer to is a huge plus
I plan to use my M8 for nocturnals, for which RF has many advantages beyond the availability of fast and high quality lenses ...a good digital sensor performs much better than any film at high ISO, so this seems a big advantage, at least for what I want to do
I am pleased to see the Leica/Kodak alliance working well ...these grand photography companies deserve a high place in photography & I believe they have produced a camera worthy of their heritage

 

[ZlatkoBatistich]

A digital rangefinder makes great sense for Leica because without a digital rangefinder there might not be an M system at all at some point. I think the M8 was sorely and obviously needed, and so long overdue. The crop factor is important but not decisive. I use Canon dslrs with 1.0, 1.3 and 1.6X crop factors and they all help me achieve beautiful results, if somewhat differently. I suspect there are many 100% digital shooters who would gladly pay $5K for a digital rangefinder at this point but wouldn't even consider buying a film M. If you're entire workflow has gone to digital, then a digital M just fits in while a film M doesn't. (Many people will continue to shoot film for good reasons, and this is meant with no disrespect to them.) I believe that many photographers who've now spent years shooting digitally will conclude that an expensive beautiful film rangefinder has no place in the camera bag, while an expensive beautiful digital rangefinder has a very compelling logic.