Haanes
Registered User
Hi guys,
As a student of industrial design, I'm currently developing a no-nonsense compact digital rangefinder with manual controls and a fixed 40mm equiv. fast lens. Think Olympus 35 RC, only digital.
I want it to be an all-day, allround modestly priced candid camera, which cuts to the core feature-wise. No smile detection, you-tube function or other sillyness, just a photographic tool which you can take with you everywhere, and always relay on.
To lift this project from an introvert "I'm designing the camera i always wanted"-project, to a strong and believable concept, I really need help and feedback from experienced photographers and enthusiasts on this forum. I would really appreciate if you would check out the concept, named viu, at http://haanes.no/viu. (viu-camera.com is coming in a few days).
As the project is in an early stage (I'm set to be finished primo november) I'm interested in all kind of feedback, preferably at my site, but also here in the forum if you prefer that.
Also, please help spread the word if you like the concept. Maybe camera manufacturers will realize that we need optical viewfinders, good handling and optics, and not more megapixels or nonsense-functions. Thanks!
As a student of industrial design, I'm currently developing a no-nonsense compact digital rangefinder with manual controls and a fixed 40mm equiv. fast lens. Think Olympus 35 RC, only digital.
I want it to be an all-day, allround modestly priced candid camera, which cuts to the core feature-wise. No smile detection, you-tube function or other sillyness, just a photographic tool which you can take with you everywhere, and always relay on.
To lift this project from an introvert "I'm designing the camera i always wanted"-project, to a strong and believable concept, I really need help and feedback from experienced photographers and enthusiasts on this forum. I would really appreciate if you would check out the concept, named viu, at http://haanes.no/viu. (viu-camera.com is coming in a few days).
As the project is in an early stage (I'm set to be finished primo november) I'm interested in all kind of feedback, preferably at my site, but also here in the forum if you prefer that.
Also, please help spread the word if you like the concept. Maybe camera manufacturers will realize that we need optical viewfinders, good handling and optics, and not more megapixels or nonsense-functions. Thanks!
Avotius
Some guy
An interesting concept, kind of like the Panasonic m4/3 concept that a Japanese person did some 3d mock ups of a few weeks ago.
As most people will tell you, bigger aperture good as long as the lens does not become huge. Also dont forget details about weight, a light little camera is nice to have but it can be harder to hold it steady, being able to hold it to your face however will help as its a more stable platform then holding your hands in the air with the camera. For instance I like that my Bessa r2a is light weight, but I much prefer the fact that I can hold my M6 steadier and will live with the trade off of a heavier camera for steadier pictures.
Also look closely at the grip on the back of the bessa r2a, its really nice for holding the camera steady, that with a little bit of a grip on the front is a winning combination.
If you are going to have a 1:1 finder make sure your view finder aperture is huge, many people complain that the 1:1 finder in the r3a has hard to see 40mm lines and the bessa finders are pretty damn good already.
Another thing to keep in mind, many purists think that a digital rangefinder should not have a screen on it. If there is no screen for reviewing images on a digital camera I would not buy it, as a working photog I would never leave it to luck nowadays with digital, its just too fidgety and not as forgiving as film and the need to be able to review images is vital. Dont need a huge screen on the back, two inches or whatever can be used without interfering with the rangefinder functions and such is fine. Also high resolution screens such as those on the new sony alpha 900 and nikon d700 are a miracle for reviewing images and determining fine details. Dont skimp on the screen.
Also I like the idea in that one mock up of the shutter button being on top of the shutter speed control, which raises to button up more and would be more comfortable to use in the field. One of the things about my Ricoh GRD is that the shutter button sometimes feels a little low for me and I have to peck at it to push it and that is not always great...
As most people will tell you, bigger aperture good as long as the lens does not become huge. Also dont forget details about weight, a light little camera is nice to have but it can be harder to hold it steady, being able to hold it to your face however will help as its a more stable platform then holding your hands in the air with the camera. For instance I like that my Bessa r2a is light weight, but I much prefer the fact that I can hold my M6 steadier and will live with the trade off of a heavier camera for steadier pictures.
Also look closely at the grip on the back of the bessa r2a, its really nice for holding the camera steady, that with a little bit of a grip on the front is a winning combination.
If you are going to have a 1:1 finder make sure your view finder aperture is huge, many people complain that the 1:1 finder in the r3a has hard to see 40mm lines and the bessa finders are pretty damn good already.
Another thing to keep in mind, many purists think that a digital rangefinder should not have a screen on it. If there is no screen for reviewing images on a digital camera I would not buy it, as a working photog I would never leave it to luck nowadays with digital, its just too fidgety and not as forgiving as film and the need to be able to review images is vital. Dont need a huge screen on the back, two inches or whatever can be used without interfering with the rangefinder functions and such is fine. Also high resolution screens such as those on the new sony alpha 900 and nikon d700 are a miracle for reviewing images and determining fine details. Dont skimp on the screen.
Also I like the idea in that one mock up of the shutter button being on top of the shutter speed control, which raises to button up more and would be more comfortable to use in the field. One of the things about my Ricoh GRD is that the shutter button sometimes feels a little low for me and I have to peck at it to push it and that is not always great...
Nh3
Well-known
Fixed lens is not what you should aim for. If you can get the rights to make the mount compatible with M mount then your camera really has a future.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I have done a bit of research on this topic, lots if hours with a pad of paper and would be happy to share all of my work with you. My focus has been more on the marketing side, a bit of features as they drive the product and I would love to sync up with you. I have even developed a contact at a US company that is into digital photography and if we can pull together a full package we can present it to them.
Send me an PM (Private Message) with your email address and we can start to sync up.
Your idea is dead on with one of the two approaches I think are very doable.
Let's go change the world!
B2 (;->
Send me an PM (Private Message) with your email address and we can start to sync up.
Your idea is dead on with one of the two approaches I think are very doable.
Let's go change the world!
B2 (;->
Avotius
Some guy
I have to agree that a fixed lens might be a little limiting in the market long run, but as a first time concept with a idea more towards no nonsense use it might be fine keeping in mind though that the recent micro 4/3 concepts are also very interesting because they can interchange lenses, but then the viewfinder would have to be significantly more complex....all things to think about, but my advice is start with your current concept and see where it takes you.
Tin
Well-known
Very interesting concept. Just a few of comments:
1. I'd prefer a 35mm equiv. lens. But that's just me. I think many other photographers would prefer a 40 mm.
2. Wouldn't it be a bit cheaper to manufacture a lens with an f/2.5 aperture rather than a f/1.7? That would result in a smaller lens too. Again, that is only me---most users likely prefer a fast lens.
3. I'd like to see an articulated screen, just like the one on the Sony DSC-R1. Of course this one had to be sitting on the back of the camera rather than on top (in the Sony). That type of screen will allow for waist level shooting, and will make this compact camera unique.
4. And yes, I like your idea of using dials instead of buttons for controls, if you can find adequate space on the camera for those.
Tin
1. I'd prefer a 35mm equiv. lens. But that's just me. I think many other photographers would prefer a 40 mm.
2. Wouldn't it be a bit cheaper to manufacture a lens with an f/2.5 aperture rather than a f/1.7? That would result in a smaller lens too. Again, that is only me---most users likely prefer a fast lens.
3. I'd like to see an articulated screen, just like the one on the Sony DSC-R1. Of course this one had to be sitting on the back of the camera rather than on top (in the Sony). That type of screen will allow for waist level shooting, and will make this compact camera unique.
4. And yes, I like your idea of using dials instead of buttons for controls, if you can find adequate space on the camera for those.
Tin
Sparrow
Veteran
Just make it look cool, retro style it in black vulcanite and satin chrome, like the photographic equivalent of the Mini Copper, and it’ll sell in the millions.
Jo public looks no further than style and fashion, ergonomics and performance are secondary to the majority of people
Jo public looks no further than style and fashion, ergonomics and performance are secondary to the majority of people
ferider
Veteran
Fixed lens is OK, IMO, if it has a great fast 35mm lens, accurate, fast and over-ridable AF with variable framelines, and allows you to get quite close. Think Hexar AF, not Olympus RC (not a bad camera, of course). I for one would buy one ....
Best,
Roland.
Best,
Roland.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Fun project.
Your current designs bear similarity to the Hexar AF (apart from the autofocus of course)
Your current designs bear similarity to the Hexar AF (apart from the autofocus of course)
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Just curious, why APS-sized sensor?
By the time your design made it into a prototype, a full-frame (or bigger) sensors should be more common than today.
By the time your design made it into a prototype, a full-frame (or bigger) sensors should be more common than today.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Haanes,
Check out my recent thread that touches on digital range finder design.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64266
There are others here on RFF with the same interests, so I expect you can find a lot of ideas here with a few searches of earlier threads.
Also here's an idea for communicating our interests to the big camera manufacturers:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64273
And you might want to stay in touch with the developments by Olympus of their micro four thirds camera here:
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/olympus_micro_four_thirds_camera/
Check out my recent thread that touches on digital range finder design.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64266
There are others here on RFF with the same interests, so I expect you can find a lot of ideas here with a few searches of earlier threads.
Also here's an idea for communicating our interests to the big camera manufacturers:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64273
And you might want to stay in touch with the developments by Olympus of their micro four thirds camera here:
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/olympus_micro_four_thirds_camera/
Haanes
Registered User
I'm overwhelmed by all the great feedback here. Big thanks to all of you! I'll try to answer some of the questions raised, although I might accidently skip some. First of all I have to point out that there's no plans of trying to get the camera into production. It's only a concept, which I hope can maybe inspire some camera manufacturers to think in new (or actually old) ways, forgetting about megapixels and distracting functions for a minute, and offer us decent cameras with optical viewfinders. That's also the main reason for the fixed lens. As Avotius points out, he fixed lens further segment the concept as purist and no-nonsense. And of course – no need for overprized sensor cleaning equipment. 
Why APS-sensor – The smaller the sensor, the smaller the lens. Also, I think it's a good format, allowing a narrow enough DOF with a fast lens, while getting good DOF at smaller apertures. There's also the prize factor.
1) Screen.
I'm going to have a screen, although I'm not sure about the size or resolution yet. It might be small and subtle, maybe even with the ability to hide some way, but it might also be bright and large. The downside is of course battery drain, prize and the real estate it uses. I actually think a review-display is an excellent feature of a manual focus rangefinder, since you can't see the dof or accurate framing in the finder like on an SLR. Rangefinders gained in my opinion more from the digital revolution than did SLRs (albeit there's only two in the market …)
Sparrow: The mini cooper is actually partly an inspiration for this project. But I don't agree entirely on the ergonomics, as in my experience how a camera feels in ones hands is an important deciding factor (although often unconscious) when buying a camera in a store. This is especially true for my target audience, namely enthusiasts with high standards. Besides, this is a non-profit conceptual project, and I want it to be as good as possible.
Tin: I'm not planning on having live view on the camera, as I don't think that's currently possible with a rangefinder. Correct me if I'm wrong.
B2: As I'm actually doing this project in a course on branding, it would be very interesting to exchange ideas. You can mail me at viu (at) haanes.no.
Thanks again, guys, really appreciate it.
Cheers,
Henrik
Why APS-sensor – The smaller the sensor, the smaller the lens. Also, I think it's a good format, allowing a narrow enough DOF with a fast lens, while getting good DOF at smaller apertures. There's also the prize factor.
1) Screen.
I'm going to have a screen, although I'm not sure about the size or resolution yet. It might be small and subtle, maybe even with the ability to hide some way, but it might also be bright and large. The downside is of course battery drain, prize and the real estate it uses. I actually think a review-display is an excellent feature of a manual focus rangefinder, since you can't see the dof or accurate framing in the finder like on an SLR. Rangefinders gained in my opinion more from the digital revolution than did SLRs (albeit there's only two in the market …)
Sparrow: The mini cooper is actually partly an inspiration for this project. But I don't agree entirely on the ergonomics, as in my experience how a camera feels in ones hands is an important deciding factor (although often unconscious) when buying a camera in a store. This is especially true for my target audience, namely enthusiasts with high standards. Besides, this is a non-profit conceptual project, and I want it to be as good as possible.
Tin: I'm not planning on having live view on the camera, as I don't think that's currently possible with a rangefinder. Correct me if I'm wrong.
B2: As I'm actually doing this project in a course on branding, it would be very interesting to exchange ideas. You can mail me at viu (at) haanes.no.
Thanks again, guys, really appreciate it.
Cheers,
Henrik
Haanes
Registered User
Jamie,
thanks for the heads up on great recources. I'm following the micro 4/3-project close, and that olympus mockup is a step in the right direction in my opinion. But where's the optical viewfinder? I don't wanna see the world on a small digital display, I wanna see it through a window. One of the advantages of a viewfinder (not slr's) is that you can actually focus your lens on a subject, while focusing your eyes on another. That way, you decide what the camera sees, the camera doesn't decides where you see.
By the way, love the Ikon. Congratulations!
thanks for the heads up on great recources. I'm following the micro 4/3-project close, and that olympus mockup is a step in the right direction in my opinion. But where's the optical viewfinder? I don't wanna see the world on a small digital display, I wanna see it through a window. One of the advantages of a viewfinder (not slr's) is that you can actually focus your lens on a subject, while focusing your eyes on another. That way, you decide what the camera sees, the camera doesn't decides where you see.
By the way, love the Ikon. Congratulations!
I'm already deep into a project with a manufacturer in China. This camera will take C-mount lenses, which are available in the millions. The Olympus looks like MY camera, designed about 18 months ago.
This could be bumped up to M-mount if a sensor becomes available. Right now, it takes a small sensor for C-mount lenses. Interchangeable of course. Plenty on eBay. Focus confirm, electronic.
Looking for a $599 price if possible to hold it down.
This could be bumped up to M-mount if a sensor becomes available. Right now, it takes a small sensor for C-mount lenses. Interchangeable of course. Plenty on eBay. Focus confirm, electronic.
Looking for a $599 price if possible to hold it down.
Last edited:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Nasby, that is genius. There is some nice glass out there that would suddenly become useful again--I'm thinking of Schneider in particular. Wow. Do you have prototypes yet?
And the viu looks great as well. I'm very impressed with these projects.
And the viu looks great as well. I'm very impressed with these projects.
Haanes
Registered User
That's a cool little camera, Petroleum. It's funny, I actually considered «haptic» as a name for my camera concept, and made several logo sketches, but as I wanted to emphasize the viewfinder I went for viu (view). I'll be following your project with interest.
Kinoptik, Zeiss, Angenieux, Bausch & Lomb, Ektars.....endless C mount lenses, and all you need is a small sensor.
Loads of fun to experiment with. The best lenses ever made for a few dollars.
We have a cobbled together prototype working, the problem is making less than a container load. It's coming along. These Chinese factories don't want to gear up for a thousand cameras, not even ten thousand cameras. They want to make millions.
If you haven't seen these industrial complexes, you can't imagine their immensity. When you get back to filthy, falling apart JFK airport, and are rudely greeted by government officials, it's like, welcome to the third world, chumps, nobody wants your paper. Nothing like 'em in USA.
The trick will be finding enough prefab components so that it basically just has to be slapped together out of a few parts. Maybe a box with good sensor from some other camera, and some nice cosmetics. They are building phenomenal "no name" cameras in China already.
.
Loads of fun to experiment with. The best lenses ever made for a few dollars.
We have a cobbled together prototype working, the problem is making less than a container load. It's coming along. These Chinese factories don't want to gear up for a thousand cameras, not even ten thousand cameras. They want to make millions.
If you haven't seen these industrial complexes, you can't imagine their immensity. When you get back to filthy, falling apart JFK airport, and are rudely greeted by government officials, it's like, welcome to the third world, chumps, nobody wants your paper. Nothing like 'em in USA.
The trick will be finding enough prefab components so that it basically just has to be slapped together out of a few parts. Maybe a box with good sensor from some other camera, and some nice cosmetics. They are building phenomenal "no name" cameras in China already.
.
Last edited:
Optical viewfinder is out. Too fragile, way too expensive and complicated to produce.
Simple electronic viewfinder sees what lens see, confirms focus. You set lens aperture, camera sets shutter speed, boosts viewfinder brightness as much a possible.
Simple electronic viewfinder sees what lens see, confirms focus. You set lens aperture, camera sets shutter speed, boosts viewfinder brightness as much a possible.
Haanes
Registered User
I beg to differ. I just think photographing without one is a different experience, which affects your photos, for good or for worse.
That being said, I'm not bashing cameras without optical viewfinders. For a lot of applications, you don't need one. When shooting from the hip, for macro work etc. There should be room for both.
But according to my philosophy of photography the viewfinder is essential. And I want it back.
That may well be true, but as a small manufacturer, you're going to find it VERY difficult and prohibitively expensive to make one.