If someone else made a FF digital RF?

If someone else made a FF digital RF?

  • Yes, as well as an M9

    Votes: 16 2.8%

  • Yes, instead of an M9

    Votes: 201 35.3%

  • Maybe, depends on the body

    Votes: 248 43.5%

  • Probably not, but possibly

    Votes: 44 7.7%

  • No

    Votes: 45 7.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 16 2.8%
  • Total voters
    570
Two schools of thought... those who think a RF should have a mechanical RF and those who think a rangefinder shaped body without a mechanical rangefinder is still a rangefinder.

I believe this thread was made regarding the former. Mirrorless cameras, despite being great cameras, are not rangefinders. Even a fuji with an OVF and peaking is not a rangefinder. I expect to see this confusion on other sites, but not on the rangefinder forum.
 
jsrockit said:
Even a fuji with an OVF and peaking is not a rangefinder. I expect to see this confusion on other sites, but not on the rangefinder forum.
Click to expand...
Agreed, regarding today's implementation.

jsrockit said:
Two schools of thought... those who think a RF should have a mechanical RF and those who think a rangefinder shaped body without a mechanical rangefinder is still a rangefinder.

I believe this thread was made regarding the former. Mirrorless cameras, despite being great cameras, are not rangefinders.
Click to expand...
Can't agree completely.
What is a "RF" in terms of rangefinder cameras?
In my opinion it is a combination of the following different features and requirements:
a) a technical solution with a triangulation range measurement
b) a second superimposed image is used to focus (manually)
c) the focus point can be set manually

It doesn't matter how the requirement are fulfilled; why has it to be mechanical?
I agree, RF shaped cameras of yesterday are not always real RF, because they lack feature (b) (like Contax G)
And the actual X-Pro1 lacks also (a), using only contrast detection.
(forget all the focus peaking solutions: They don't offer the RF experience mentioned above at all)

But the new X-E2 covers (a) (phase detect sensors) and (b) (split image) and (c).
I don't really like completely electronic VFs. So what if a new X-Pro2 had the same ability like the X-E2 but merged into the optical VF? The features (a)-(c) would be completely covered in an OVF!

But I might miss an important aspect...
 
Opinions, just opinions! Like mine. 😀
Seriously: Thank you for the two latest posts. They shows me once more: What is desiderable for me does not to have to be identical for others.
 
dct said:
Agreed, regarding today's implementation.

Can't agree completely.
What is a "RF" in terms of rangefinder cameras?
In my opinion it is a combination of the following different features and requirements:
a) a technical solution with a triangulation range measurement
b) a second superimposed image is used to focus (manually)
c) the focus point can be set manually

It doesn't matter how the requirement are fulfilled; why has it to be mechanical?
I agree, RF shaped cameras of yesterday are not always real RF, because they lack feature (b) (like Contax G)
And the actual X-Pro1 lacks also (a), using only contrast detection.
(forget all the focus peaking solutions: They don't offer the RF experience mentioned above at all)

But the new X-E2 covers (a) (phase detect sensors) and (b) (split image) and (c).
I don't really like completely electronic VFs. So what if a new X-Pro2 had the same ability like the X-E2 but merged into the optical VF? The features (a)-(c) would be completely covered in an OVF!

But I might miss an important aspect...
Click to expand...

For me the missing important aspect would be support for lens with mechanical manual focus somehow coupled to a RF superimposed image (b).

And on seconds thoughts there are other differences between the current real RFs and all other viewfinders. After trying looking through other camera's VFs its such a huge relief to look through a RF. Just optics and no flashing Christmas trees all year round inside finder 😱. Perhaps there is a camera where you can switch off all information to actually see the scene, but I haven't seen such a beast yet.

Merry Christmas!
 
You are missing two important points about rangefinder focusing.

The RF viewfinder is always sharp and in focus, while allowing you to shift the focus point.

Secondly, you can stop down the lens without impacting your ability to focus quickly.

TTL focusing methods will struggle to provide the above 2.

dct said:
Agreed, regarding today's implementation.

Can't agree completely.
What is a "RF" in terms of rangefinder cameras?
In my opinion it is a combination of the following different features and requirements:
a) a technical solution with a triangulation range measurement
b) a second superimposed image is used to focus (manually)
c) the focus point can be set manually

It doesn't matter how the requirement are fulfilled; why has it to be mechanical?
I agree, RF shaped cameras of yesterday are not always real RF, because they lack feature (b) (like Contax G)
And the actual X-Pro1 lacks also (a), using only contrast detection.
(forget all the focus peaking solutions: They don't offer the RF experience mentioned above at all)

But the new X-E2 covers (a) (phase detect sensors) and (b) (split image) and (c).
I don't really like completely electronic VFs. So what if a new X-Pro2 had the same ability like the X-E2 but merged into the optical VF? The features (a)-(c) would be completely covered in an OVF!

But I might miss an important aspect...
Click to expand...
 
It would also present difficult engineering challenges with regards to overcoming the difference between the lens FOV and the optical viewfinder -- ie: it's not just as simple as sampling the center of the sensor and projecting it somewhere in the optical/hybrid finder, as the magnification would differ based on the lens mounted. Certainly there may be engineering solutions, but it takes a more knowledgable person than I to come up with ones that would be both workable and cost-effective with regards to production realities.

As much as I would love a more RF-esque FF camera........
 
Composing the image with a view outside the actual frame is an import aspect of rangefinders to me.

This is why I do not like LV.

Regards,
Steve
 
If such a camera launched a year ago, I would have said yes. Now... I don't know if I'd buy one.

1. I think that the interest in a reasonably-priced full-frame DRF will always exist.

2. I think the interest wanes as more time passes and as non-RF alternatives come to market.

3. The launch of the A7 series took some of the would-be buyers (including myself) of a reasonably-priced full frame DRF. While not an RF experience, the price point was more reasonable and made available the capability to use adapted M-mount lenses albeit on a non-RF body and a non-RF experience.
 
This is a pretty old thread so lots have changed since the start. Yes, I bought a Sony A7r in June. Not a rangefinder, but it's small enough and light weight and does a great job. I haven't tried my M mount rangefinder lenses on it yet but some have with excellent results. - jim
 
i just recently committed myself to a m240, although if fujifilm made a full frame camera i wouldnt mind it using that instead!

i just want to use my pre-asph 35 lux and 50mm 1.5 sonnar on full frame in digital. (along with my m4 to use those on film)
 
I followed with "yes" until I read it had to have an M mount. It would have been a lot better if it had a mount that could take any lens.

While I agree that a complete mechanical rangefinder is getting less and less probable there could be a way that is less mechanical but not evf. It is possible to measure the position of the cam electronically and then project a "patch" on the viewfinder. What to project would come from the live-view readout of the sensor. Kind of cross-over between the Fuji hybrid finder and real rangefinder.

Far less optical alignment and the whole alignment could even be done electronically while at the same time keeping the direct interaction. I would be even possible to align for different lenses.
 
Leica will probably head that direction anyway, what stops this thing from being made by anyone else other than Leica is more that there just doesn't seem to be much of a market for rangefinders. I can remember back in the film era it was a tiny niche even then when most cameras were manual focus, I actually think this niche will get smaller again with the rise of compact full frame EVF systems like the Sony.
 
For me the "problem" with digital is you need to be able to replace the camera body every 3-4 years with the updates to the sensors that is going on. I still love my GXR w/Leica Mt. module for my M lenses, but I have added a Sony RX-1 for the FF neither is a RF camera. But I felt both were the best for the least amt. of $$, I did find the RX-1 used at a very good price.
I have been using M cameras since 1971 I still have my first M-3 that was used when I bought it, it is still competitive with the newest film but we can't say that about digital bodies. My M film cameras were a investment, if I took care of them they took care of me we can't say the same thing about digital bodies they have a much shorter life span. Sorry for rambling on I really sound like a old fart..... maybe I am.... 🙂
wbill
 
Huss said:
I'd pay $2K for an M mount digital Zeiss Ikon RF with 'full frame' sensor.
Click to expand...
LOL as would many, many, of us 🙂

I broke down and got an M9 in January for 3500, and I love the camera and use it daily.

What would be really nice is a modular M platform where the RF and/or EVF can be added or removed from a very compact and tough body. Perhaps event the LCD should come off, then we don't need a "60" LOL.

Someone could make a really gorgeous piece of kit with this framework and some ergonomic study, so it would feel natural in the hand.

M9 is OK if you have luigi or thumbs up, but naked it's not so great. M6 way better in my hand.
 
agfa100 said:
For me the "problem" with digital is you need to be able to replace the camera body every 3-4 years with the updates to the sensors that is going on. I still love my GXR w/Leica Mt. module for my M lenses, but I have added a Sony RX-1 for the FF neither is a RF camera. But I felt both were the best for the least amt. of $$, I did find the RX-1 used at a very good price.
I have been using M cameras since 1971 I still have my first M-3 that was used when I bought it, it is still competitive with the newest film but we can't say that about digital bodies. My M film cameras were a investment, if I took care of them they took care of me we can't say the same thing about digital bodies they have a much shorter life span. Sorry for rambling on I really sound like a old fart..... maybe I am.... 🙂
wbill
Click to expand...

But let's remember you don't feed the digital camera any film, so if you shoot a lot, then you depreciation is similar to film costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom