Is the G1 a rangefinder?
- Thread starter Fred Burton
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 85
- Views 5K
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
Hmm! I just got a G1. Why? Small, somewhat discreet, able to take M lenses (and Nikon, and Canon, and..) and seems to fit MY concept of a "Poor Man's M8". Go ahead and scream, weep and wail true RFFers, but this camera might be the forerunner of a system that beats the daylights outta the real M8 for the 70-80% of us without Leica-sized wallets! Seems to be just as acceptable as a couple dozen other camera systems allowed into the forums to me! Just my 2 cents; YMMV!
al1966
Feed Your Head
Well its not an RF simple it does not have one but then again its not an slr or a point n shoot. To me its the natural follow on from cams like the Minolta A1, Panasonic fzs etc. I love the concept but cant afford one 🙁 and am hoping that the oly offering will be more reasonably priced.
Merkin
For the Weekend
It took me a full page to realize that this is only half as trolltastic as I thought it was, on my first read-through I thought he was talking about the Contax G1 instead of the Panasonic G1. -1 to Merkin.
Gumby
Veteran
DEFINITELY... a confession! Did you vote in the confession vs group-therapy poll yet? 😉
Merkin
For the Weekend
S
Socke
Guest
Hm, I once used a device they called rangefinder to aim my 100mm guns on D182 and the 127mm guns on D171.
I know, that the M1 Abrams and the Leopard I and II tanks use rangefinders to aim their guns.
So what is a rangefinder? A device to measure distances, isn't it?
Or just try this link for an explanation http://www.rangefinder.com/
Last edited by a moderator:
Lani Kai
Member
I saw the thread title and thought, "how is the Contax G1 NOT a rangefinder?"
bmattock
Veteran
Yes, but that's like saying that a roller skate is a device to travel - so cars are roller skates.
A rangefinder 'finds range' by performing a mechanical triangulation by optical-mechanical means. With regard to a camera, it traditionally means that the photographer manually aligns two visually overlaid images until they merge into one, the act of which also turns the focus mechanism of the camera's lens.
If the triangulation is done by electronic computation and the lens moved by motors instead of being coupled and calculated optical-mechanically, it is not a rangefinder in that sense, although it certainly can measure distance.
That does not mean that other means of achieving focus are not just as good or even better at doing so - it just means it is not a rangefinder in the traditional sense of the word.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
Well, it most obviously has no traditional rangefinder. I guess the real question, posed in a less controversial manner, would be - does the G1 satisfy your needs for a rangefinder?
If you use a rangefinder expressly for its focusing mechanism, then the G1 is yet another digital camera that has nothing to do with rangefinding. If you use a rangefinder because it is smaller, lighter, quieter, and sharper than an SLR, then the G1 is indeed a worthy replacement of, or at least, compliment to a classic rangefinder.
I've only been really using my rangefinder for a couple of months; the focusing mechanism is fun and clever, and I enjoy using it. As far as photographic results go, however, what I see is what I see and what I previsualize is what I previsualize and none of it has anything to do with how sublime the image looks in my rangefinder's viewfinder, split just so.
I think the M8 has more to worry about than classic film rangefinders; film has an appeal all its own, and is specially wedded to rangefinding; you won't ever have a live view LCD on a film rangefinder.
But if your information is all digital to begin with, why not have the most effecient and convenient format available for viewing? And if that format so happens to be a live view LCD, then so be it.
No, the G1 isn't a rangefinder, but yes it has many of the appealing features of a rangefinder.
If you use a rangefinder expressly for its focusing mechanism, then the G1 is yet another digital camera that has nothing to do with rangefinding. If you use a rangefinder because it is smaller, lighter, quieter, and sharper than an SLR, then the G1 is indeed a worthy replacement of, or at least, compliment to a classic rangefinder.
I've only been really using my rangefinder for a couple of months; the focusing mechanism is fun and clever, and I enjoy using it. As far as photographic results go, however, what I see is what I see and what I previsualize is what I previsualize and none of it has anything to do with how sublime the image looks in my rangefinder's viewfinder, split just so.
I think the M8 has more to worry about than classic film rangefinders; film has an appeal all its own, and is specially wedded to rangefinding; you won't ever have a live view LCD on a film rangefinder.
But if your information is all digital to begin with, why not have the most effecient and convenient format available for viewing? And if that format so happens to be a live view LCD, then so be it.
No, the G1 isn't a rangefinder, but yes it has many of the appealing features of a rangefinder.
Debusti Paolo
Well-known
Ops I was thinking about contax g1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!😱
djonesii
Well-known
My contax G1 is not a range finder by the strict definition, nor is my Fuji 645, both of which I found through this forum.
For the very cynical, this forum has been viewed on various other sites as an extension on Camera Quest dot com, For my taste, that is just a bit too tough to swallow, but ..... let us hope that the folks over in CV Land are watching this G1 closely, as with small changes, it gives them a new platform for their wares. Stephen is a strong CV proponent, and as such, he may be listened to, and by extension, this form may hold sway.
While technically, the G1 does not use a mechanical means to triangulate, nor does it super impose images, it does on the other hand offer many of the same advantages, and the appeal of those advantages will cross the needs/wants of the same type of photographer.
Unlike the M8 and RD-1, the G1 allows the ability to develop new methods of focus as the software in the G1 can be modified to allow just about any type of focusing mechanism that a photographer could want.
While no more of a rangefinder than some of the other cameras on this forum, it meets the already established "criteria" in the same spirit as other cameras on the LHS.
Dave
For the very cynical, this forum has been viewed on various other sites as an extension on Camera Quest dot com, For my taste, that is just a bit too tough to swallow, but ..... let us hope that the folks over in CV Land are watching this G1 closely, as with small changes, it gives them a new platform for their wares. Stephen is a strong CV proponent, and as such, he may be listened to, and by extension, this form may hold sway.
While technically, the G1 does not use a mechanical means to triangulate, nor does it super impose images, it does on the other hand offer many of the same advantages, and the appeal of those advantages will cross the needs/wants of the same type of photographer.
Unlike the M8 and RD-1, the G1 allows the ability to develop new methods of focus as the software in the G1 can be modified to allow just about any type of focusing mechanism that a photographer could want.
While no more of a rangefinder than some of the other cameras on this forum, it meets the already established "criteria" in the same spirit as other cameras on the LHS.
Dave
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
it's a rather dumb question,sorry. It is OBVIOUSLY not a rangefinder.
That does not mean that it should be banned from the forum, of course.
But the title of the thread/poll makes no sense.
That does not mean that it should be banned from the forum, of course.
But the title of the thread/poll makes no sense.
Praxis Unitas
Established
It seems that there is no adequate industry acronym to capture this general mechanism (digital live view + manual TTL focusing).
Perhaps I've missed something, but if not, then how about Single-Live-view-reflex (SLiVR, pronounced 'sliver')?"
Any thoughts?
Perhaps I've missed something, but if not, then how about Single-Live-view-reflex (SLiVR, pronounced 'sliver')?"
Any thoughts?
NickTrop
Veteran
First - a question. Is the sensor on this thing large enough to throw the background out of focus? How fast are the lenses. Only zooms this far, it seems. Probably always.
It's not a rangefinder. It doesn't have a RF focusing mechanism. It's not an SLR - it doesn't have a reflex mirror. This is a different animal all together - finally someone built a digital camera that's not an extension of the mechanical (SLR or RF) of the past.
Let's call it an "ILDC" - an "Interchangeable Lens Digital Camera Looks like a pretty neat offering from Panasonic. I wouldn't buy it... but it still looks like they're heading in the right direction.
It's not a rangefinder. It doesn't have a RF focusing mechanism. It's not an SLR - it doesn't have a reflex mirror. This is a different animal all together - finally someone built a digital camera that's not an extension of the mechanical (SLR or RF) of the past.
Let's call it an "ILDC" - an "Interchangeable Lens Digital Camera Looks like a pretty neat offering from Panasonic. I wouldn't buy it... but it still looks like they're heading in the right direction.
Eric T
Well-known
The question is not whether the G1 is a rangefinder. It is not. The question is whether the G1 illustrates the direction that Leica should have taken into the 21st century (albeit with higher image quality than the G1 provides).
Taken from that perspective, the G1 is worthy of discussion here.
Taken from that perspective, the G1 is worthy of discussion here.
S
Socke
Guest
Hm, a rangefinder camera is a camera with a rangefinder and rollers skates are skates with wheels.
With my syntactical analysis 🙂 a rangefinder is not a camera and a roller is not a skate. Neither is a lowtech gasguzzling V8 engine a car.:angel:
Here in germany the Leica M was called a "Messsucherkamera", a camera with a measuring viewfinder, i.E. the combinded view- and rangefinder made the difference. The Barnaks where cameras with a seperate view- and rangefinder, both available built in or seperate.
Then there where no other means to measure distance than optical triangulation. Electronic viewfinders and phase detection focusing wasn't even SciFi then 🙂
Today cameras like the Contax G and Leica M are often referred to as Systemcameras here, i.E cameras around which one can build a system with a choice of optional components like flashes and lenses.
Within the Theroy of Sets, I have a set of cameras containing everything with which I can take a picture, a subset of Messsucherkameras with a non TTL viewfinder showing measurments like distance and exposure and what will be photographed, a subset of Systemcameras with exchangeable components, a subset of SLRs and so on.
Most of the subsets overlap at some point or other.
With this said, the Micro 4/3rds are certainly Systemcameras, they are not Messsucherkameras because the viewfinder is TTL and not seperate, but then they are compact cameras. They are not Reflex Cameras, neither in the single nor in the twin lens sense.
So they overlap with what is called a rangefinder here in the compact camera and the system camera sets. They don't overlap with the opto-mechanical seperate or integrated viewfinder clothshutter sub-sub-subset.
delft
Established
I've seen it referred to as an E.V.I.L. camera (Electronic Viewfinder with Interchangeable Lenses). I Like that acronym.
Dirk
bmattock
Veteran
It all depends upon where one draws the parenthesis to create verbal sets. Certainly both are cameras, certainly both take photos, certainly both have lenses, blah, blah, blah. The one characteristic that rangefinders possess that the Lumix G1 does not is - a manually-operated, optical-mechanical coupled, ranging finder.
No amount of gerrymandering of the description of 'rangefinder' can make a Lumix G1 into a rangefinder camera in the traditional and accepted use of the term 'rangefinder'.
That does not make it a less capable camera. It makes it not a rangefinder, in the same sense that a baseball and a football are both balls used for sports, but a baseball is not a football and vice-versa.
The Micro 4/3 forum is here at RFF because via adapters Micro 4/3 SLRs offer an inexpensive way to use rangefinder lenses on digital cameras. Not everyone wants to spend $6500 for a Leica M8.2, $4500 for a Leica M8, or even $1600 for a used Epson RD1 in order to use their Leica lenses on a digital body. Using Leica M or screw mount lenses on a relatively inexpensive digital body is a big deal. Personally I'm hopeful we will eventually see a relatively inexpensive Micro 4/3 rangfinder Leica M mount camera. Time will tell.
Also take note this is the FIRST time a SLR camera (even if a EVIL Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens camera) can use standard Leica M lenses and still focus to infinity. In SLR terms, the adaptability of the Micro 4/3 cameras is also a big deal.
Stephen
Also take note this is the FIRST time a SLR camera (even if a EVIL Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens camera) can use standard Leica M lenses and still focus to infinity. In SLR terms, the adaptability of the Micro 4/3 cameras is also a big deal.
Stephen