I'm dreaming of an affordable digital rangefinder

[photogdave]

Don't you mean coolpix *grins*

He's talking about his film scanner. My digital RF's chip is stuck is stuck in a Minolta Scan Multi!

 

[kb244]

He's talking about his film scanner. My digital RF's chip is stuck is stuck in a Minolta Scan Multi!

You seemed to have missed the boat with my sarcasm (ie: *grin*).

 

[nrb]

The digital rangefinder of the future must also have a fixed lens in order to avoid dust in the sensor as in the M8.

 

[JNewell]

The digital rangefinder of the future must also have a fixed lens in order to avoid dust in the sensor as in the M8.

Dust is a risk even in a non-interchangeable lens camera. There is almost no camera that is so well sealed that dust is not going to get inside at some point, and this is especially true with a camera built for an "affordable" price point.

 

[Olsen]

Having been a very sceptical customer I am now about to come to terms with the M8 which I use alongside with my 1Ds II - but far more frequent. Generally speaking they produce similar quality of RAW files, although the 1Ds II ones are a bit larger. If I remember right, it took me about half a year to get used to the 1Ds II after my 1Ds. So, the M8 is a quantum leap in file quality compared to the RD-1s. Look up all the vignetting that was common on the RD-1. That is gone on the M8. The M8 is close to the best camera that is possible to make for a rangefinder camera with today's sensor technology.

Rumours go that Nikon (or Cosina?) is about to launch digital rangefinders. It is not at all certain that neither of them will launch such a camera. Because they would have to face the same two 'technical/economical' obstacals as Leica; that 1)the sensors of today and into forseeable future do not really fit the rangefinder system with a full frame and 2) that RF volumes are so low compared to D-SLR that the economy of scale is in a totally different league. The only thing they might find tempting is the high price that players - that is Epson/Cosina and Leica - can get for their cameras.

If you already are a Leica user, have a range of lenses for the M-system, - it really does not matter which, Voigtländer, Zeiss or Leica, you already have 'the ticket' for entry into buyng a M8. You will enter a facinating world with some of the best optics for any digital camera system. If you don't already have M-lenses, go for something cheaper.

 

[JNewell]

..........

 

[kb244]

Dust is a risk even in a non-interchangeable lens camera. There is almost no camera that is so well sealed that dust is not going to get inside at some point, and this is especially true with a camera built for an "affordable" price point.

You mean a waterproof Pentax W20 (or whatever the current underwater P&S model they have) for 200$-300$ isn't "so well sealed"?

 

[alternatve]

You mean a waterproof Pentax W20 (or whatever the current underwater P&S model they have) for 200$-300$ isn't "so well sealed"?

Given enough time, dust will get into the camera. However, I don't think you would want to take pictures with your digi pns in 10 or 20 years, or even 5 years time, so for all intents and purposes, it is dust resistant.

Also, my opinion on the subject.

I don't think an affordable digital rangefinder is impossible. In fact, seeing how technology improves, I believe we will have one in at least 5 years time. It might not be as cheap as a PnS, but it would, I believe, be around the price of a entry level DSLR.

However, I came into using film rangefinders, eschewing DSLRs for it simply because I like the tone of film. If not rangefinders, I would be happy with a SLR, TLR or any other form of a film camera (with the exception of a PnS). I just prefer the rangefinder way of taking photos. That means even though I can mount my rangefinder lenses on a DRF, I would not want to. This is not saying that digital (cameras, photos, lenses) are bad. On the contary, I have a few photos taken when I was still in posession of a DSLR that I like a lot. I'm just saying that for long term usage and for the look of the picture, I wish to stay on the film side. I just prefer the rangefinder way of seeing things, and I just prefer my pictures to come out on film.

Thus, I don't see the point of a DRF. If I want to take digital photos, I would use the latest DSLR with all it's gadgets and knobs to my fullest advantage, not limit myself to a camera that does not give me 1/2 of that at 2 times the price. I don't know how many of you agree with me, or whether I am a lone horse in this. Just my two cents.

No offense to the thread starter and to all DRF users.

Samuel

 

[kb244]

...However, I don't think you would want to take pictures with your digi pns in 10 or 20 years, or even 5 years time, so for all intents and purposes, it is dust resistant.
...

This always seems to be the argument of a strict film shooter (typically), course those in digital are often so used to upgrading, it'll be easily 2-3 years before they buy another one. (Devil's Advocate... in 10 years you gona be able to get film? --- Scale of Manufacturing)

...
Thus, I don't see the point of a DRF. If I want to take digital photos, I would use the latest DSLR with all it's gadgets and knobs to my fullest advantage, not limit myself to a camera that does not give me 1/2 of that at 2 times the price. I don't know how many of you agree with me, or whether I am a lone horse in this. Just my two cents.

No offense to the thread starter and to all DRF users.

Samuel

I can somewhat agree with this, considering that most of the benefits of a rangefinder, minus of course interchangible lens are usually outweighed by offerings of PnS digitals, typically varying between size and capacity. Course biggest factor as to the rest, would simply be personal preference (I may prefer a digital version of a M-mount RF over one of the newest PnS digitals)

 

[JNewell]

Thus, I don't see the point of a DRF. If I want to take digital photos, I would use the latest DSLR with all it's gadgets and knobs to my fullest advantage, not limit myself to a camera that does not give me 1/2 of that at 2 times the price. I don't know how many of you agree with me, or whether I am a lone horse in this. Just my two cents.

No offense to the thread starter and to all DRF users.

It's a purely individual thing - but I think that an RF camera is still a different way to seeing things, a different way of interacting with things, than an SLR, and I don't think a change in the capture medium (film / sensor) affects those attributes. YMMV!

 

[alternatve]

It's a purely individual thing - but I think that an RF camera is still a different way to seeing things, a different way of interacting with things, than an SLR, and I don't think a change in the capture medium (film / sensor) affects those attributes. YMMV!

They don't, but ultimately, your photo comes out differently. If that is in line with your way of seeing things, great. To me, I don't quite fancy it.

Samuel

 

[patrickhh]

The digital rangefinder of the future must also have a fixed lens in order to avoid dust in the sensor as in the M8.

I beg to differ. DSLR users have learned to deal with dust on the sensor. There are tools to blow off dust every now and then, and a real "wet" cleaning is only seldom necessary (once in a few months).

Is the dust problem so much worse in the M8? I would be surprised.

EDIT: Usually, sensor dust can only be seen at apertures like f/11 or higher, anyway.
For people like me, who are usually shooting wide open, seldom at f/8, virtually never at f/11, this is not really dramatic.