Canon LTM Is a Canon digital rangefinder possible?

[venchka]

Send some more emails

Send some more emails

We all should send the following:

email to Nikon: Why don't you release the wonderful, new 50/1.4 in LTM mount? Y'all could make a fortune!

email to Kodak: Kodachrome 25. We want it and we want it now! Y'all could make a fortune!

 

[xayraa33]

We all should send the following:

email to Nikon: Why don't you release the wonderful, new 50/1.4 in LTM mount? Y'all could make a fortune!

email to Kodak: Kodachrome 25. We want it and we want it now! Y'all could make a fortune!

how about an email to Zeiss:

please issue the 50.1.5 ZM Sonnar in LTM
you would sell 50% more of these!!

or to KMZ in Russia:

how about a going back to making rangefinder cameras and lenses .
a reissue Zorki 3 in M mount would be nice, and a few Jupiter lenses in M mount too.

 

[kbg32]

I just sent an email off to Canon begging (well not quite), them to consider comming out with a digital rangefinder to compete with the Epson RD-1 & Leica M8. I believe a rangefinder with their full frame CMOS sensor would be awsome, and I believe would be a good seller. Yea I know it's a longshot but stranger things have happend. What do you think? Maybe a QL-17 (D111)😎 😀

Merry Christmas
Greg

Anything is possible, but this will never happen. While they have the technical staff and ability, there is nothing in it for them. With all the non-dslr cameras they make, they pretty much have their markets covered.

 

[Trius]

Wayne: I would sign that email to Kodak, but I would leave out the "Y'all could make a fortune!". K25 was discontinued because of slow sales, nothing more, nothing less. The current CEO knows "a fortune" when he sees it, even though he wouldn't recognize a roll of film if it were stuck up his arse.

 

[40oz]

considering the issues with light fall-off on DSLR sensors and wide angle lenses, it would seem to me that the very concept of a digital rangefinder, while attractive, is ultimately doomed for disappointment. Well, as long as there is a film rangefinder for comparison 🙂

I'm happy using film in my rangefinders. While I own a digital P&S, it marks the end of my dabbling in digital. I certainly am not pining for a digital version of my film cameras. If anything, an instant (a la Polaroid) roll film would be more appreciated.

 

[Trius]

I'm happy using film in my rangefinders. While I own a digital P&S, it marks the end of my dabbling in digital. I certainly am not pining for a digital version of my film cameras. If anything, an instant (a la Polaroid) roll film would be more appreciated.

If scanning and post-processing weren't such a pain in the butt, I wouldn't have any interest in a DRF either. As for Polaroid roll film, that was only marginally more successful than the digital film cassettes ... yeah, those that never came to market.

 

[jlw]

considering the issues with light fall-off on DSLR sensors and wide angle lenses, it would seem to me that the very concept of a digital rangefinder, while attractive, is ultimately doomed for disappointment.

Apologies for repeating something I posted earlier, but these issues are not inherent in a DRF. They're just inherent in a shallow camera body.

Break the chains of the M mount, make your DRF the same body depth as a DSLR, and the problems go away. You'd lose a bit of thinness, but retain all the other advantages of rangefinder focusing and viewing -- which are what attract me to using an RF anyway.

This idea wouldn't be appealing to people who own big collections of M-mount lenses, but the marketplace has already proved those people aren't numerous enough to attract major high-volume camera manufacturers to the RF field. If one of those manufacturers were able to count on lens sales as well as camera sales, the idea of entering the DRF fray might be more appealing -- especially since those lenses could basically be remounts of existing DSLR lenses. (Hey, Mister Manufacturer, here's an opportunity to grow incremental sales volume on those slow-selling, wide-aperture, fixed-focal-length lenses you have to keep in your product line to keep professional users happy.)

Of course it's nice that in the RF world we have free interchangeability of lenses from various manufacturers, but there's already another standard out there for that -- all it would need is an added provision for RF coupling. Four Thirds + RF, anyone?

 

[back alley]

it's the lazy part of me that wants a drf.

there, i said it😉

 

[VinceC]

Four-thirds would be too cool in an interchangeable-lens rangefinder. Small camera with tiny lenses.

 

[summilux]

count it on Cosina/Zeiss, Canon is unlikely to make a digital rangerfinder camera, because it does not have a line of lens for it, and we all know camera company makes more money by selling lens, the body just provides a platform.

the de facto standard in rangefinder platform is M mount, and is pretty crowded, how would canon, if it decides to go into it, position itself?

I think Canon would make more money by selling its sensor to Cosina.

 

[Trius]

Let's all write Olympus.

 

[gb hill]

Here is the reply from Canon.

 

[gb hill]

BTW thanks to whoever changed the a to i...😀

 

[jlw]

Four-thirds would be too cool in an interchangeable-lens rangefinder. Small camera with tiny lenses.

Hey, look! If you squint a bit, you can see the future...

 

[40oz]

As for Polaroid roll film, that was only marginally more successful than the digital film cassettes ... yeah, those that never came to market.

Such a thing actually existed?!? I must be a visionary in reverse! lol Either that, or I haven't caught up to reality. Next I'll be asking for a camera with two lenses - one for composing and one for taking. It would be extra-cool if it had a waist-level viewfinder out of the box!

Imagine if you could capture photographs on a copper plate - how cool would THAT be?

Next I'll be suggesting gunpowder on a stick instead of electronic flashes :/

Wait, wait, how about a tent or something with a tiny hole at one end, kind of like a pinhole camera, only bigger? You could pin up tracing paper on the wall, and make a sketch of what was projected through the hole!

I gotta write these down! lol

 

[Lonely Driver]

I concur with everyone else - Canon makes their money off the lenses and not really the cameras. Considering that Canon does not make any RF lenses anymore and never really had many lenses for their RF system, it would be stupid of them to make it.

 

[jaapv]

Apologies for repeating something I posted earlier, but these issues are not inherent in a DRF. They're just inherent in a shallow camera body.

Break the chains of the M mount, make your DRF the same body depth as a DSLR, and the problems go away. You'd lose a bit of thinness, but retain all the other advantages of rangefinder focusing and viewing -- which are what attract me to using an RF anyway.

This idea wouldn't be appealing to people who own big collections of M-mount lenses, but the marketplace has already proved those people aren't numerous enough to attract major high-volume camera manufacturers to the RF field. If one of those manufacturers were able to count on lens sales as well as camera sales, the idea of entering the DRF fray might be more appealing -- especially since those lenses could basically be remounts of existing DSLR lenses. (Hey, Mister Manufacturer, here's an opportunity to grow incremental sales volume on those slow-selling, wide-aperture, fixed-focal-length lenses you have to keep in your product line to keep professional users happy.)

Of course it's nice that in the RF world we have free interchangeability of lenses from various manufacturers, but there's already another standard out there for that -- all it would need is an added provision for RF coupling. Four Thirds + RF, anyone?

But... Your lenses would have to be considerable larger,just look at the monsters needed for the Digilux3, making it necessary to move the rangefinder up to avoid blocking it making the whole thing as bulky as a DSLR, which loses one of the major advantages of a RF🙁

 

[Riley]

I just found this thread today, and read the whole thing
I think in the main you guys have a good grasp of the issues
and I also think there is room for another digital rangefinder, but that it wont be a Canon. The dSLR market is going to be furious this year, as P&S sales are expected to top out. With Sony wrestling the #3 spot from Olympus, some diversified content is desirable.

The 'more' perfect candidate is Olympus, and the four-thirds sensor and lenses. With respect to Jaap, The D3 lens has IS, and thats why it looks quite large, for at its heart the four thirds system is almost a half frame 35mm system. I believe the E3 which is to be seen shortly, will have the kodak sensor experience brought onboard by the M8 experience. Exceptional resolution, but without many of the issues due to the longer register of FT.

It would be good for Olympus too, because the whole reason they got into four thirds was the performance of lenses, and of those in particular wide lenses. FF while it 'sounds' desirable, just has too many issues to conquer, and for what end.

To achieve this, Oly would have to establish some new prime lens designs to cover the ultra-wide fast lenses I guess we would all desire. Perhaps a 10, 12, and 14mm.

What escapes me, is how the rangefinder window would be configured, because like it or not, we now have a range of zooms that would get respectable employment, and the framing issues get suddenly bigger.

I would expect (dont hate this too much) that this camera wouldnt be so far from a digital point and shoot, with interchangeable lenses, traditional Oly construction, no popup flash, no mode BS, perhaps encompasing the fine idea of fly by wire focussing the Canon gentleman suggested, maybe too thats part of the answer for the rangefinder view, as Olys too have coded lenses. I guess it would have a live view LCD as well, not like how its configured on the dSLRs tho.

This would be a pro quality camera, either a B body for E3 owners, or the prime machine for wedding photographers, reportage, and street shooting.

Riley

 

[jlw]

But Olympus hasn't done an interchangeable-lens rangefinder camera since... what? The Ace? So a Four Thirds DRF camera wouldn't exactly be in their corporate DNA...

 

[Riley]

But Olympus hasn't done an interchangeable-lens rangefinder camera since... what? The Ace? So a Four Thirds DRF camera wouldn't exactly be in their corporate DNA...

quite so
what inspired the choice i made was the analysis of dSLR marketing for the next few years.

My feeling is, Nikon, and Canon will be under pressure from Sony and Pentax. So all of there technical and marketing expertise will be engaged in that front line battle. You could summise that Olympus and Sony are the contestants since they are the ones battling for 3rd place, as you would be aware. While the volumes will move around, the real equations are between the top 2, Canon and Nikon, and the newer pressures brought to bear by Pentax and Sony.

The ones really in danger of losing share are Canon and Nikon, Oly is just in another place really, it just happens to be a dSLR maker in #3 spot by volume. Nikon is in a worse position because one of its competitors now also supplies them with sensors. Strategicly not a good place.

Olympus just cant be thought of as a front line player, would you imagine them being #1 in dSLRs for instance? Yes Olympus usually present a pro model, but I think we could all agree that they have never really cut it on the front row. Thats fine, maybe thats a good place to be, rather than be thought of as an also ran, at least they have some distinguishing position.

And technicly, I have great doubts that FF sensors will ever really cut it in a RF world where wides predominate, so I think a crop such as APS C or four thirds is the way to go. Someone else did mention Olympus Pen 1/2 frame.

I would agree wth the sentiment that herritage matters in the RF world, but as Epson have proved you can either buy it or fake it, and no one will really care, as long as you come up with the goods.


Riley