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.
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.
dct
perpetual amateur
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...
dct
perpetual amateur
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.
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.
Yeah dct, rangefinders are personal. While I love them, I am using Fujis right now... so I'm not too far away from what you believe as well.
flyalf
Well-known
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!
dct
perpetual amateur
First approaches loom. Phigment LM-NEX adapter with RF cam coupling. Just give the inventor a little bit more time.
anerjee
Well-known
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.
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.
Spicy
Well-known
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........
As much as I would love a more RF-esque FF camera........
Steve Ash
Established
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
This is why I do not like LV.
Regards,
Steve
Clark.EE
Well-known
What every one wants then, is a Leica for £1500.00.
I like my AF. But.My XPro is not the answer.
I like my AF. But.My XPro is not the answer.
kxl
Social Documentary
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.
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.
barnwulf
Well-known
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
Huss
Veteran
I'd pay $2K for an M mount digital Zeiss Ikon RF with 'full frame' sensor.
kaiwasoyokaze
Half Frame Goodness
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 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)
Spanik
Well-known
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.
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.
NJH
Member
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.
agfa100
Well-known
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 $$, I did find the RX-1 used at a very good price.
I have been using M cameras since 1971 I still have my first M-3 that was used when I bought it, it is still competitive with the newest film but we can't say that about digital bodies. My M film cameras were a investment, if I took care of them they took care of me we can't say the same thing about digital bodies they have a much shorter life span. Sorry for rambling on I really sound like a old fart..... maybe I am....
wbill
I have been using M cameras since 1971 I still have my first M-3 that was used when I bought it, it is still competitive with the newest film but we can't say that about digital bodies. My M film cameras were a investment, if I took care of them they took care of me we can't say the same thing about digital bodies they have a much shorter life span. Sorry for rambling on I really sound like a old fart..... maybe I am....
wbill
uhoh7
Veteran
LOL as would many, many, of us
I broke down and got an M9 in January for 3500, and I love the camera and use it daily.
What would be really nice is a modular M platform where the RF and/or EVF can be added or removed from a very compact and tough body. Perhaps event the LCD should come off, then we don't need a "60" LOL.
Someone could make a really gorgeous piece of kit with this framework and some ergonomic study, so it would feel natural in the hand.
M9 is OK if you have luigi or thumbs up, but naked it's not so great. M6 way better in my hand.
For me the "problem" with digital is you need to be able to replace the camera body every 3-4 years with the updates to the sensors that is going on. I still love my GXR w/Leica Mt. module for my M lenses, but I have added a Sony RX-1 for the FF neither is a RF camera. But I felt both were the best for the least amt. of $$, 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
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.