Is the "Rangefinder Renaissance" kicked off by Voigtlander over?

If CV doesn't do it, I'm not sure who will. Epson doesn't seem close to trying again, and the big dogs (Nikon, Canon, etc) aren't jumping into that game. Leica is Leica, they've got the M.

If Mr. K is staunchly against taking things into digital, then I'm afraid I'm not sure what I see for CV in the future other than a shrinking market, and obsolescence. It seems what is already a niche market will just continue to shrink--the people who grew up with film will die off, and the hipsters are cool with Holgas and Impossible film--until there is no real demand anymore.
 
Take the RD-1 and put the NEX 5N sensor in it, and update some of the other dated electronics. The tooling is already there, just some new circuit boards. Done. Makes too much sense, so it won't happen.
 
If they made a FF digital, I might have bought one four years ago, but I sold almost all my Leica gear then, to jump to a system with a better future than even Leica appeared to have at that time. If Leica can be blamed for being late on the digital scene, C/V seems to have missed the boat, entirely. Hey, it worked for Kodak, right! Right?? 🙂
 
I would love to see new productions of some of the discontinued CV lenses. If I had the pockets for it I would love to have more Leica glass, but I can't afford it. CV lenses have allowed me to stay in the rangefinder game, so to speak, and shoot these wonderful classic cameras without having to limit myself to old, beat-up Elmars. The list of new LTM and M mount CV lenses still available on the camerquest website seems to get thinner all the time.
 
anjoca76 said:
I would love to see new productions of some of the discontinued CV lenses. If I had the pockets for it . . .
Click to expand...

One of my disappointments is that the only company that seems to be interested in the Leica nostalgia market has thrown off LTM people, completely. All of the new lenses are M, and it appears all of the LTM stuff is discontinued. Given the number of LTM cameras around, and the fact that an adapter turns an LTM into an M lens, the one place they built their brand seems to be the one place they don't care about anymore.

Don't care about LTM, don't care about digital--they're leaving themselves a smaller and smaller slice of a small market. But hey, it worked for Kodak! 🙂
 
mdarnton said:
One of my disappointments is that the only company that seems to be interested in the Leica nostalgia market has thrown off LTM people, completely. All of the new lenses are M, and it appears all of the LTM stuff is discontinued. Given the number of LTM cameras around, and the fact that an adapter turns an LTM into an M lens, the one place they built their brand seems to be the one place they don't care about anymore.

Don't care about LTM, don't care about digital--they're leaving themselves a smaller and smaller slice of a small market. But hey, it worked for Kodak! 🙂
Click to expand...

Well said, and a very good point. I always, when I can, try to buy the LTM version of any lens so I can use them on my Barnacks if I want to. Obviously for anything other than a 50mm lens it involves adapters and external viewfinders, etc., but I figure why not at least have the option?
 
Why are we holding onto 24X36mm full frame like it is some kind of divinely inspired standard that must transfer over to the digital world.

Sensors can be any dimensions or aspect ratio including square. The size and pixel density of sensors are confined by present technology and price but by little else. So I say what's the big push for a standard formed almost 100 years ago by a guy trying to get the largest area out of the most compact package that could use 35mm double perf cine film.

OK, crank mode off.
 
mdarnton said:
One of my disappointments is that the only company that seems to be interested in the Leica nostalgia market has thrown off LTM people, completely. All of the new lenses are M, and it appears all of the LTM stuff is discontinued. Given the number of LTM cameras around, and the fact that an adapter turns an LTM into an M lens, the one place they built their brand seems to be the one place they don't care about anymore.

Don't care about LTM, don't care about digital--they're leaving themselves a smaller and smaller slice of a small market. But hey, it worked for Kodak! 🙂
Click to expand...

I think CV may have used the LTM initially because the M mount was still protected by a patent.
 
this is drifting again to discussion is full frame needed or not. some keep wanting it, no matter how much others try convince its not necessary.

its been a bit silent from CV (their rangefinder products), nothing new has come up for a while (?). perhaps it has/had todo with difficulties in Japan after quake disaster, but maybe also prioritizing mirrorless and SLR system lenses. if they dont come up with something new for rangefinders, for sure customer enthusiasm is going to wane away. edit: need to acknowledge though that their RF offering is pretty balanced now, covering most used focal lengths, some fast lenses like 50/1.1 and 35/1.2 + their current film cameras of-course. hard to improve but new products never were 🙂

I wasn't interested in any cameras when Cosina started their RF-renaissance, and found probably my way here via first Dpreview after Leica M8 was announced. but whats been written here and elsewhere, it was pretty big deal for many, back 10-years ago.
 
I hope not. Definitely have been wondering what if anything they'll do in M mount in the future. Reissues of stuff that's LTM and discontinued?

They should make an M Mount 21mm f/2 so I stop looking at Olympus SLRs.
 
jsrockit said:
I think CV may have used the LTM initially because the M mount was still protected by a patent.
Click to expand...

I despair of ever being able to find a digital RF camera that I can afford, and I will hang onto my Bessa R that seems to now be worth three times what I paid for it three years ago. But maybe there is a back door- I just bought a tiny little Panasonic GF3, a 4/3 camera that is exceedingly convenient with LTM lenses, as if someone had actually thought of it while it was being designed. While I have the basic 14-42 lens that's designed for it, I expect it will see a lot of time using my $12 LTM adaptor, and my collection of Leitz, Canon, and Russian lenses. I can't affort CV lenses either, so it doesn't bother me too much that LTM ones can't be had anymore..

It's not so great for wiide angles with the small sensor. I'll have to see if I can mount my 20mm Russar without hitting the sensor. I have already tried mounting a Nikkor 8mm fisheye on it. Ridiculous, but fun, which is not a bad metaphor for much of my photography.

Cheers,
Dez
 
Dez said:
It's not so great for wiide angles with the small sensor. I'll have to see if I can mount my 20mm Russar without hitting the sensor. I have already tried mounting a Nikkor 8mm fisheye on it. Ridiculous, but fun, which is not a bad metaphor for much of my photography.

Cheers,
Dez
Click to expand...

haha that's a good attitude to have. it certainly applies to me as well.
 
zuiko85 said:
Why are we holding onto 24X36mm full frame like it is some kind of divinely inspired standard that must transfer over to the digital world.

Sensors can be any dimensions or aspect ratio including square. The size and pixel density of sensors are confined by present technology and price but by little else. So I say what's the big push for a standard formed almost 100 years ago by a guy trying to get the largest area out of the most compact package that could use 35mm double perf cine film.

OK, crank mode off.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a square 36mm format sensor camera.
 
zuiko85 said:
Why are we holding onto 24X36mm full frame like it is some kind of divinely inspired standard that must transfer over to the digital world.

Sensors can be any dimensions or aspect ratio including square. The size and pixel density of sensors are confined by present technology and price but by little else. So I say what's the big push for a standard formed almost 100 years ago by a guy trying to get the largest area out of the most compact package that could use 35mm double perf cine film.

OK, crank mode off.
Click to expand...

I think you're right, but if you want to use lenses designed for 35mm, then a sensor that size makes sense. If you're buying "native" lenses, then of course it does not matter, and it's matter of opinion what is a "crop" anyway.

Another problem is that if you like metal lenses, with real focus and aperture rings, optimized for manual focus, not auto, then there is precious little for APS-C or m43.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom