hth
Well-known
Cannon is not capable of making such camera and they have no interest in making it whatsoever. Why make a niche camera for another company's lens system? Would be really stupid.
Nikon on the other hand might be able to, but I doubt they are interested.
Forget about affordable RF cameras, the RD1 is the closest we are going to get, and if Epson actually showed some real genuine interest in standing behind their product, it would be a winner.
Leica is eventually going to get the things right with the M8, and it looks pretty usable as it is. However, it is never going to be cheap (new), but we knew that from the beginning.
The runner up is someone actually starting to think differently than the rest and offers a small fixed lens camera with good low light capability and a bright real viewfinder. Think digital Hexar AF or something in that direction. Such camera would be a lot cheaper than any DRF and would appeal to a lot of people. This market niche is totally wide open today and it is beyond me why no camera company can see it. Pity that we lost Konica, I have a feeling they would have been the one to make it (if they had not bought Minolta and then run away from the market).
Maybe the reason is that no DSLR maker wants to make it, and the rest are just me-too companies. Konica was different. Perhaps Ricoh or Sigma gets their act together at some point. Fuji could do it, but maybe they do not want to, as they have big interest in the film market.
/Håkan
Nikon on the other hand might be able to, but I doubt they are interested.
Forget about affordable RF cameras, the RD1 is the closest we are going to get, and if Epson actually showed some real genuine interest in standing behind their product, it would be a winner.
Leica is eventually going to get the things right with the M8, and it looks pretty usable as it is. However, it is never going to be cheap (new), but we knew that from the beginning.
The runner up is someone actually starting to think differently than the rest and offers a small fixed lens camera with good low light capability and a bright real viewfinder. Think digital Hexar AF or something in that direction. Such camera would be a lot cheaper than any DRF and would appeal to a lot of people. This market niche is totally wide open today and it is beyond me why no camera company can see it. Pity that we lost Konica, I have a feeling they would have been the one to make it (if they had not bought Minolta and then run away from the market).
Maybe the reason is that no DSLR maker wants to make it, and the rest are just me-too companies. Konica was different. Perhaps Ricoh or Sigma gets their act together at some point. Fuji could do it, but maybe they do not want to, as they have big interest in the film market.
/Håkan
kb244
Well-known
Ahh yes the RD1, a Digital rangefinder that uses a body similar to that of a 200-300$ rangefinder body, then the rest of the cost is up in the digital component that is in theory not much different than most of the DSLR we been using for a while now.hth said:
(Don't kill me, I know theres more to it, but I don't think the body of the digitals right now are anything to compare to what they are replicating.)
As film rangefinder users, we are the majority of camera manufactures worse enemy, buying up all the used cameras... whats in it for the manufactures if we can't commit to buying a new camera and set of lens least very 2 years...
kb244
Well-known
Ahh, well least I know what it's called now. I guess there are some people who would 'rumor' a conspiracy that they were taken out by another company...jlw said:
I guess there is no commercial interest to presue the project again now that technology has improved... but then people might go and buy under 200$ SLR bodies and turn em digital isntead of paying a grand or more.
gareth
Established
Those will be plaster board walls then I take it then. Not that a big heavy body is a good sign of real world toughness anyway.
So what do you suggest? Tell all the SLR shooters that they are wrong. Ban the SLR. Force everybody to use the rangefinder, a camera with limited abilities, that perhaps they just don't want to use.
I don't know. My plastic fantastic T90 is still going strong, what is it 21 years old now, never broken down, and never had a service (though I'll admit it needs one, it's a little temperamental these days). How long do you want us to wait before we can declare a modern SLR reliable? How many services and repairs will those delicate cameras you mention have had in that time?
Now I'd guess one of the biggest selling rangefinders in the UK is the Voigtlander Bessa range. Now how many outlets are there for these camera in the UK? As far as I know, it's two.
While I love my Bessa r2a, and enjoy using it, If I need to go out and get the job done, I know which camera I turn to. And it's my 5D. It's much tougher and it's very quick and flexible to work with.
Canon make another rangefinder, and a digital one at that. Absolutely no chance.
At the end of the day it's a nice market, a well covered market and a surprisingly healthy one at that. Who would have thought ten years ago that there would be this much choice in the rangefinder market today.
But some people are never happy.
Last edited:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Wait, I just had a crazy thought!
Wait, I just had a crazy thought!
This was inspired by two things:
1) Seeing the delightfully wacko add-on coupled rangefinder for trittium's Robot II, which he just showed us the other day:
Take a look at this thing: it adds a combined, coupled rangefinder to a non-rangefinder camera, and it works with three different lenses!
2) Taking a few measurements just now with my digital caliper. This thing cost me $19 and is capable of measuring digitally in 0.01mm increments.
Now...
The whole basis of coupled-rangefinder camera design is the translation of lens focusing extension (the amount that the lens has to move outward to focus closer) to angular movement of a mirror that allows you to align the two rangefinder images.
For 35mm-size lenses, the amount of focusing extension is very small (a 50mm lens moves less than 3mm to focus from infinity to 1 meter) so the measurements have to be very accurate and the parts involved have to be made and located very precisely. Add the requirement of working with multiple focal lengths (which will have different focusing extensions) and you've got a very challenging mechanical situation that demands extremely careful manufacturing and calibration; that's why system rangefinder cameras have always been relatively expensive.
But... suppose you could replace all that precision machining and hand-fitting with electronics? You could measure the amount of lens extension with a digital depth gauge, and (as posted in my Canon speculation above) use the information from it to operate a positioning motor to rotate the rangefinder mirror.
This not only would save manufacturing costs, it would (in principle) be adaptable to any lens! As long as the depth gauge's "focus feeler" could touch the part of the lens that moves during focusing, it could compute the distance without need for an expensive, hand-finished coupling cam on each lens. Here's why:
Focusing travel is deterministically related to focal length; if you know the focal length, you can compute the amount of extension required to focus at any distance. Conversely, though, you can use the amount of extension to compute the focal length!
Imagine you've got your new RF JLW-o-Cam and you want to use some wacky strange focal length lens on it. You've already got an adapter that mounts the lens at the correct distance to the body for infinity focus; all you've got to do is couple the rangefinder to it.
You bring up the "Lens Setup" menu on the LCD and choose "New Lens." A prompt appears: "Set focus scale to infinity and press 'Set' button." You do this, and the depth gauge stores a value for the lens' infinity extension. Now another prompt appears: "Set focus scale to 1 meter and press 'Set' button." You do this; the depth gauge measures the amount of extension, calculates the focal length, and stores it. Now, every time you use this lens, you can recall the calibrations settings needed to couple it to the rangefinder. This could be done automatically if the lenses included some way of encoding the focal length.
Okay, this "thought experiment" is a bit wacky if you're thinking of it in terms of a do-it-yourself project -- but what it does show is that if it could be made practical, any DSLR manufacturer could use this principle to produce an RF companion model that would work with its current line of SLR lenses. (And I suspect that such a camera would be more appealing to mainstream SLR makers if they could sell their own lenses to go with it.)
Wait, I just had a crazy thought!
This was inspired by two things:
1) Seeing the delightfully wacko add-on coupled rangefinder for trittium's Robot II, which he just showed us the other day:
Take a look at this thing: it adds a combined, coupled rangefinder to a non-rangefinder camera, and it works with three different lenses!
2) Taking a few measurements just now with my digital caliper. This thing cost me $19 and is capable of measuring digitally in 0.01mm increments.
Now...
The whole basis of coupled-rangefinder camera design is the translation of lens focusing extension (the amount that the lens has to move outward to focus closer) to angular movement of a mirror that allows you to align the two rangefinder images.
For 35mm-size lenses, the amount of focusing extension is very small (a 50mm lens moves less than 3mm to focus from infinity to 1 meter) so the measurements have to be very accurate and the parts involved have to be made and located very precisely. Add the requirement of working with multiple focal lengths (which will have different focusing extensions) and you've got a very challenging mechanical situation that demands extremely careful manufacturing and calibration; that's why system rangefinder cameras have always been relatively expensive.
But... suppose you could replace all that precision machining and hand-fitting with electronics? You could measure the amount of lens extension with a digital depth gauge, and (as posted in my Canon speculation above) use the information from it to operate a positioning motor to rotate the rangefinder mirror.
This not only would save manufacturing costs, it would (in principle) be adaptable to any lens! As long as the depth gauge's "focus feeler" could touch the part of the lens that moves during focusing, it could compute the distance without need for an expensive, hand-finished coupling cam on each lens. Here's why:
Focusing travel is deterministically related to focal length; if you know the focal length, you can compute the amount of extension required to focus at any distance. Conversely, though, you can use the amount of extension to compute the focal length!
Imagine you've got your new RF JLW-o-Cam and you want to use some wacky strange focal length lens on it. You've already got an adapter that mounts the lens at the correct distance to the body for infinity focus; all you've got to do is couple the rangefinder to it.
You bring up the "Lens Setup" menu on the LCD and choose "New Lens." A prompt appears: "Set focus scale to infinity and press 'Set' button." You do this, and the depth gauge stores a value for the lens' infinity extension. Now another prompt appears: "Set focus scale to 1 meter and press 'Set' button." You do this; the depth gauge measures the amount of extension, calculates the focal length, and stores it. Now, every time you use this lens, you can recall the calibrations settings needed to couple it to the rangefinder. This could be done automatically if the lenses included some way of encoding the focal length.
Okay, this "thought experiment" is a bit wacky if you're thinking of it in terms of a do-it-yourself project -- but what it does show is that if it could be made practical, any DSLR manufacturer could use this principle to produce an RF companion model that would work with its current line of SLR lenses. (And I suspect that such a camera would be more appealing to mainstream SLR makers if they could sell their own lenses to go with it.)
grainhound
Well-known
gareth: “I don't know. My plastic fantastic T90 is still going strong, what is it 21 years old now, never broken down, and never had a service (though I'll admit it needs one, it's a little temperamental these days).” (Sorry, I don't know how to enclose quotes in the cool little box.)
I also have a T90, serviced twice, total cost of service: ~$400. When our shutters die, & they will, we'll have very attractive paper weights.
I also have a T90, serviced twice, total cost of service: ~$400. When our shutters die, & they will, we'll have very attractive paper weights.
gareth
Established
Please read my post with the included quote (it's important to take these things in context), I think you'll find I never suggested banning SLRs.
My dear girl, before you go asking others to re-read posts, perhaps you should try reading what is actually posted yourself. I never suggested, that you suggested, banning the SLR. I was simply wondering what you would suggest.
Ah well I guess my old, but in many respects high tech and plasticy, is yet to pass that reliability test. Or is that those who said then, and still say today that modern cameras won't go the distance are simply talking crap, and won't admit they are wrong.
Oh, BTW, it's a niche market.
Well I'm a little dyslexic Jenni. So I guess that makes you smarter than I, huh?
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
What Joe said..
What Joe said..
I agree. The G7 is as close to a digital rangefinder as you are likely to see. I think the retro style is neat looking.
What Joe said..
back alley said:
I agree. The G7 is as close to a digital rangefinder as you are likely to see. I think the retro style is neat looking.
back alley
IMAGES
Al Patterson said:
clearly a man who knows what he's talking about!!
kb244
Well-known
Al Patterson said:
I think the G7 is a step in the wrong direction from a previous G3 owner, and my co-worker a previous G6 owner, seeing as they removed several features from the G series when they came out with the G7.... kinda bumed.
VinceC
Veteran
>> seeing as they removed several features from the G series ...<<
I thought the same thing. Love my original G1, which is still going strong all these years later. But I didn't like the loss of features on the newest version.
I thought the same thing. Love my original G1, which is still going strong all these years later. But I didn't like the loss of features on the newest version.
back alley
IMAGES
the canon g7, along with all the canon p&s cameras has had raw taken away.
that seems to be the biggest complaint about it. (according to the ll review)
that seems to be the biggest complaint about it. (according to the ll review)
Terao
Kiloran
It could be done as an engineering project. Its increasingly common for Japanese manufacturing companies to reward young engineers with a chance to work on groundbreaking products from the company's past - Nikon, Toyota, and Honda come to mind, and that includes re-manufacturing bespoke parts from original blueprints. They are starting to wake up to their heritage and look back, up until two or three years ago Honda and Toyota for example never showed their historic vehicles outside the museum, now they send iconic bikes and cars all over the world for classic car shows. There was a feeling I think in the past that the products were imperfect and therefore should not be shown in public - remember Japanese manufacturing got to where it is today by innovating and innovating rapidly. That's gone, as seen by the Honda/Toyota projects and of course the S3 and SP from Nikon. Another example would be Nissan buying up old Datsun 240Z sportscars and refreshing them at the factory (imagine how cool it would be if Nikon/Canon did that with their old bodies!)
I think Nikon are the company most likely because they have previous now. More likely though I think to see a digital FM from them - I'd buy an FM3-D that used AI/AI-S lenses in a second for example. With modern CNC milling machines the tooling cost for a bespoke body is very minimal, and Nikon have the optics already from the S3 and SP projects. If either Nikon or Canon did do it though you can guarantee it would be for an SP2005-type price...
I think Nikon are the company most likely because they have previous now. More likely though I think to see a digital FM from them - I'd buy an FM3-D that used AI/AI-S lenses in a second for example. With modern CNC milling machines the tooling cost for a bespoke body is very minimal, and Nikon have the optics already from the S3 and SP projects. If either Nikon or Canon did do it though you can guarantee it would be for an SP2005-type price...
kb244
Well-known
back alley said:
Swivel LCD screen was removed as well, on top of some other little things. Making one wonder why spend more for the G7 when theres a powershot A series just below it that has more of the G series features (other than raw) on it than the G7 itself.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
xayraa33 said:
It would be sweet indeed, but I don't see it happening. At all I have a sense that Olympus, wrt to product development, is now controlled by the corporate types from the medical side. There is some innovative thinking going on (e.g., "live view" in the E-330, even though it seems to be clumsily implemented), but there doesn't seem to be a cohesive vision other than producing stylish and small digi-P&S models at a feverish pace.
jlw said:
Yes. 4/3s ~10MP in an RF (think digital Pen) would be the only possibility, but I don't think it's going to happen.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I know about the missing G features...
I know about the missing G features...
but I still like the look of it. I'm sure it would have been better with RAW and a swivel screen though.
I know about the missing G features...
kb244 said:
but I still like the look of it. I'm sure it would have been better with RAW and a swivel screen though.
gareth
Established
Dear girl?? You are so sweet
Ach ah try ma best to be hen.
I see your original post could be read in two ways - it appears the way I chose to interpret it was not the way it was meant
Hmm me thinks you did'nae read it. But never mind.
I don't doubt it, the ruggedness that is, but that does mean to say such ruggedness automatically means reliability.
As for craftsmanship. Well the camera is my tool. And while I wouldn't say no to an M7, it's still just a camera, a tool. Something to take pictures with.
gareth
Established
And here's me trying to be all concilliatory
Do you mean conciliatory?
Olsen
Well-known
"Rangefinders are a nice market, why would Canon want to get involved?"
Yes. why indeed. To make money!
I think that to make a Canon DRF with a Leica M mount would be an excellent idea.
But Canon would have to solve the same problems and choose between the same choices as Leica has done. Neither Canon can do away with physical laws just because they have a huge product devekopment budget...
1)
A full frame CMOS is out of the question. Vignetting and soft corners will be just awful. It is inherited in the RF design - and the relatively primitive sensors of today - and forseeable future. Canon will have to choose a 1,3 crop. At best. But they do have such a sensor 'on the shelf'....
2)
Canon would have to choose between - strong vignetting/soft corners - or - IR-purple colours.
So, what do you want...?
Yes. why indeed. To make money!
I think that to make a Canon DRF with a Leica M mount would be an excellent idea.
But Canon would have to solve the same problems and choose between the same choices as Leica has done. Neither Canon can do away with physical laws just because they have a huge product devekopment budget...
1)
A full frame CMOS is out of the question. Vignetting and soft corners will be just awful. It is inherited in the RF design - and the relatively primitive sensors of today - and forseeable future. Canon will have to choose a 1,3 crop. At best. But they do have such a sensor 'on the shelf'....
2)
Canon would have to choose between - strong vignetting/soft corners - or - IR-purple colours.
So, what do you want...?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Olsen said:
Dare I speak the unspeakable thought? Maybe it's time to kiss the M mount goodbye. Even Leica wasn't able to make it work in a digital camera without some compromises and inconveniences.
None of the limitations you cite are inherent in the RF design. They're inherent in the shallow-body design.
Give up the M mount, design your DRF with the same body thickness as a DSLR, and the problems go away. You'd give up some compactness, but you'd still retain the key advantages of rangefinder focusing and viewing: bright image, high focusing accuracy even with ultrawide lenses and/or dark filters, ability to see outside the framing area, and no finder blackout during exposure.
Of course, if Manufacturer "X" were to take the plunge and design a first-rate, high-performance, no-compromises digital RF that did not accept M lenses, then... gee, people would have to buy Manufacturer X's own lenses instead of using the M-mount lenses they already own. Of course all of us would see that as a drawback, but Manufacturer X might not...
Last edited: