semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The thread is about whether we would BUY a FF RF from another manufacturer. At the top of every page in the thread is a poll which poses precisely that question.
The answer, for some of us is "no" and the reason is that Fuji and some other manufacturers are making cameras that are close enough.
That is not (NOT) the same thing as confusing these cameras with sensu stricto rangefinders, and it is absolutely germane to the subject of the thread.
Which subject was about a purchasing decision, and not (NOT) about the sensu stricto definition of the word "rangefinder."
I find it funny that some people who claim to care about language don't understand, or choose not to understand, this rather straightforward distinction.
dct
perpetual amateur
As well as the Contax G1/G2? :angel:
Not adding fresh fuel to a quarrel, but you will find similar threads pro/con the Contag G system beeing a RF instance or not spread over our forum.
A few years ago I would have agreed with the strictly "mechanical optical rangefinder with good manual focus" idea. Only a camera applying these technologies may be called a RF. Full stop.
Nowadays, with the emerging new technical approaches, I'm not shure if I should remain stiff on these old arguments. It all started with the Hexar AF/Contax G. The X-100/X-Pro1 are one more step in this direction. Maybe not still enough to argue seriously against old school RF. But perhaps a better X-Pro2 implementation in the future allowing good 100 % optical maual focussing? My mindset is already confused...
Back to the topic: Yes, a FF optical VF RF camera with good MF implementation would be an interesting alternative to the M9. For me, the RF implementation must not necessarily be mechanical.
Why do the Fuji X, Hexar, or G1/G2 have to be rangefinders (as opposed to mirrorless, etc)? It's as if some people want them to be rangefinders so bad...that they get offended when it is pointed out that they are not. Who cares what they are called. Let's just be happy we have choices.
hteasley
Pupil
That answer caused no one any trouble, until people started confusing the X cameras with rangefinders, saying that the meaning of "rangefinder" is changing, etc.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I believe that the last few posts where a bit sarcastic because of the re-definition of the term rangefinder. I'm absolutely strict about the definition so I'm always surprised when in a thread that is about a rangefinder cameras some people discuss NEX, XPro or whatever.
krötenblender
Well-known
LCT
ex-newbie
Are all EVILs considered "close enough" rangefinders or some of them only?
krötenblender
Well-known
I don't consider them at all as RFs, but if I had to, I would say, a X100 is more RF-like than a OM-D (which tries to resemble old SLRs). So, yes, some are closer. But a miss is as good as a mile...
Lss
Well-known
But X100 is not even an EVIL. I guess some may think it is "close enough" to EVIL. 
LCT
ex-newbie
EVILs being "close enough" to DSLRs since one views behind the lens with both. Thus RFs are "close enough" to DSLRs. Where's the error?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Who in this thread is claiming that the Fuji's are RFs?
Several people here keep getting their backs up, getting all pissy about people who are suuposedly confusing the Fuji's with RFs but -- seriously -- who in this thread is doing that?
I think people are arguing with a shadow.
hteasley
Pupil
Someone said that Fuji's success with the X cameras proves there's a market for a cheaper FF digital rangefinder. I said it doesn't, it proves there's a market for mirrorless cameras, and that the difference between rangefinders and mirrorless cameras is important for that discussion. People argued that it wasn't, and that the rangefinder is not important and on and on.
It's a stupid argument.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Now that we've clarified that distinction, I'll say that I disagree.
I did not buy an X-pro because I wanted a "mirrorless camera." I bought it because I wanted a camera with high image quality, high performance in low light, direct-view (viewfinder) framing, interchangeable lenses, and the ability to accept M-mount glass.
My friends who have also bought X-pros and X-100's have done so for similar reasons. Most of these folks also shoot M-mount rangefinders. For example:
20120527.HILL.JO©.290 by irq506, on Flickr
We are not confused about what the X-pro is or what it does.
_DSF9283 by Semilog, on Flickr
What the X-pro shows is that there is a market for a less expensive camera that builds and extends upon key aspects of the M rangefinder UI. As it happens, for many of us the triangulation range-finder is not itself an essential feature of that experience -- but the direct-view finder window with projected, parallax-compensated frame lines is an essential feature of that experience, as is a smallish (low visual profile) form factor and a relatively quiet shutter. The result is that for many users, a camera like the X-pro eliminates the requirement for a sensu stricto digital rangefinder.
The core distinction is whether you're in it for the camera, or whether you're in it for the results. If the latter, one asks not "does it have a coupled rangefinder" but rather "is it going to facilitate the work that I want to do?" There may be more than one solution to the latter problem, and not all such solutions necessarily incorporate a CRF.
So, going back to the thread title, for many the answer will be "no' -- as other, functionally similar solutions already on the market may be sufficient or even superior.
hteasley
Pupil
To be honest, I don't care (for the purposes of this discussion) if you disagree. Your personal reason for buying an XP1 has really very little to do with my assertion that the success of Fuji cameras says nothing about the market for digital rangefinders.
Go back and read the thread. The question is, "would you get a non-Leica FF DRF?" A lot of people said "sure". A lot of people said "no". Someone said, "Fuji's X cameras prove there's a market for them" and that's where I disagreed.
RFs require manual focusing: it's that simple. You, Mr Person, have to focus the camera using the RF. That's why it's there, that's why it's not just a direct view window, it's for you to make focusing (and composition) decisions through. So, do the Fuji X cameras prove there's a market for FF manual focus cameras?
Given that the Fuji cameras aren't FF, and given that they're primarily autofocus cameras, I said that they do not support the assertion that there's a market for a non-Leica FF DRF. If they support anything, they support the growing popularity of the mirrorless camera category.
You say their mirrorless nature wasn't what lured you: awesome. You have apparently chosen to redefine the important aspect of "rangefinder" to be "doesn't find your range, but rather is a window" to then say that the "X-pro eliminates the requirement for a sensu stricto digital rangefinder."
I disagree with your definition of the important aspect of rangefinders. The user interface you seem to regard as essential is "holding the camera up to your eye to compose through a window", and I think that misses the essential nature of the thing.
But that's cool. I've done nothing but positively declare that many non-RF cameras are awesome. My NEX-7 is awesome. I hold it to my face like I hold my M9 to my face, I get nose prints on it in the same relative place, and I press a button in a similar way. But I don't then say that it's an evolved rangefinder, or that the definition of rangefinder needs to expand to include the NEX-7, or that the NEX-7 says something about the market for FF DRFs. The XP1 is closer to the NEX-7 than it is to the M9 in all ways save appearance.
That means its awesome. You're awesome. We're all awesome.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
a
Good heavens. That is precisely the opposite of what I wrote. I wrote that the X-pro is NOT a rangefinder but rather that for many it captures many (but not all) of the salient features of cameras, such as the Leica M, that happen to have rangefinders as ONE of their salient characteristics.
And you DELETED the caveat that the X-pro eliminates the operational requirement for a sensu stricto digital rangefinder FOR MANY PEOPLE, INCLUDING MYSELF.
That's just poor, poor form, sir. Are you really so determined to argue against things that I did not say and did not mean that you must quote me selectively so as to alter the meaning of my sentences?
Really? I mean, seriously. Really? Surely you can do better than that.
Good heavens. That is precisely the opposite of what I wrote. I wrote that the X-pro is NOT a rangefinder but rather that for many it captures many (but not all) of the salient features of cameras, such as the Leica M, that happen to have rangefinders as ONE of their salient characteristics.
And you DELETED the caveat that the X-pro eliminates the operational requirement for a sensu stricto digital rangefinder FOR MANY PEOPLE, INCLUDING MYSELF.
That's just poor, poor form, sir. Are you really so determined to argue against things that I did not say and did not mean that you must quote me selectively so as to alter the meaning of my sentences?
Really? I mean, seriously. Really? Surely you can do better than that.
hteasley
Pupil
semilog said:
If that was your intent, then I'll just say you make your point poorly. I said the distinction between rangefinders and mirrorless cameras is important to the discussion of whether or not there's a market for a FF DRF, and you quoted that when you said you disagree. I don't think it's really productive for us to talk past one another.
It's a dumb argument, and I don't have any real passion for it. Peace, brother.
dct
perpetual amateur
Closing the dispute is a good idea. Let us keep on discussing fairly the starting thread, which was the question:
But maybe we are debating on a dead argument, because we don't know if an M10 will still use exactly this opto-mechanical approach for distance measurement. And that would mean the M9 will remain the last "real" FF RF
Looking at these analog examples for a basic body (Bessa R3, Zeiss Ikon ZM) which could be turned to a digital FF RF, I agree the RF focussing device has still to be an optical one, based on trigonometrical measurement. Yes, it would indeed be my first step into real digital RF cameras, because I cannot afford an M9.
But maybe we are debating on a dead argument, because we don't know if an M10 will still use exactly this opto-mechanical approach for distance measurement. And that would mean the M9 will remain the last "real" FF RF
hteasley
Pupil
But maybe we are debating on a dead argument, because we don't know if an M10 will still use exactly this opto-mechanical approach for distance measurement. And that would mean the M9 will remain the last "real" FF RF
True, we don't know, but I bet it will. It's a niche Leica owns pretty much, and they're making good money with it, so there's no reason to upset their user base. I could see an electronic framelines feature, as something they might get into, but going away from an optical, mechanical, manual-focus rangefinder? It's not an M if they do that...