PKR
Veteran
Hey Bill;
Here's your b+w digital camera. Maybe they well inspire a smaller (cheaper) version.
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Digital-Backs/Achromatic/Achromatic-plus-Info.aspx
Here's your b+w digital camera. Maybe they well inspire a smaller (cheaper) version.
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Digital-Backs/Achromatic/Achromatic-plus-Info.aspx
Lss
Well-known
The small camera crowd -- the rangefinder crowd
The small camera crowd -- the rangefinder crowd
Wow, this has been one popular topic! (No surprise though.)
I'm a fairly recent convert (the first rangefinder I had the opportunity to really use is the Epson R-D1, snapped a picture or two with a Leica years earlier). For me the main reason for using rangefinder cameras is the simplicity of framing and focusing, which is major part of what I call the rangefinder advantage. A brightline viewfinder on a digital can tackle the framing part, but focusing would still be an issue. Oh, you can use AF or zone focus! Eh, sure, but I also want quick and precise (manual) focusing with direct feedback that doesn't distract me from framing and the moment.
The small size is a great bonus that I'm not really willing to give up. But I'm not interested in another camera simply because it's small. The MFT cameras or digital compacts don't work for me, but I believe there will be some interesting developments in the future. For now, the rangefinder concept is what works best for me.
The small camera crowd -- the rangefinder crowd
Wow, this has been one popular topic! (No surprise though.)
The rangefinder cameras and their lenses are of course pretty small. That's one of the main reasons people use them, but there are other reasons.
I'm a fairly recent convert (the first rangefinder I had the opportunity to really use is the Epson R-D1, snapped a picture or two with a Leica years earlier). For me the main reason for using rangefinder cameras is the simplicity of framing and focusing, which is major part of what I call the rangefinder advantage. A brightline viewfinder on a digital can tackle the framing part, but focusing would still be an issue. Oh, you can use AF or zone focus! Eh, sure, but I also want quick and precise (manual) focusing with direct feedback that doesn't distract me from framing and the moment.
The small size is a great bonus that I'm not really willing to give up. But I'm not interested in another camera simply because it's small. The MFT cameras or digital compacts don't work for me, but I believe there will be some interesting developments in the future. For now, the rangefinder concept is what works best for me.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Looking through this thread, I see general satisfaction with film Leicas. I couldn't agree more. And I think that reasonably priced, easily available film, it's chemistry and the paper and chemistry for enlarging images is going to be around for awhile. When the enlarging paper disappears, people will scan their film and digitally print it. My one worry in that department is the lack of top flight 35-mm scanners that are also affordable (like the long discontinued Minolta). Drums are expensive and disappearing. Top of the line Imacon/Hasselblad scanners are between 10 and 20 thousand dollars. I own scanners at both ends of the price line. And guess what? The expensive ones are a lot better. When you start with a high quality negative or transparency, like the Leica can deliver, and make a big print, the difference between scanners is pretty obvious.
The digital Leica? Opinions seem to differ. Nobody particularly cares for a $9000 body sans lenses. Everybody seems to like a good camera with a smaller size than the big DSLR's that the Leica is often competing with. Then the differences begin. Some think the image quality is unsurpassed. I'm one of a group that doesn't believe that. But, for many kinds of photography, the difference in quality is not significant, regardless of which side of the argument you are on.
I think almost everybody seems to be for the relatively simple controls.
The brightline viewfinder is unique and is, in certain situations, can be a more useful finder than the through-the-lens finder.
Many people think the high ISO performance is poor. It is compared to some DSLR's.
I'm one of the stinkers that thinks the meter is not as effective on automatic as as some of the segmented meters in the DLSR's and the rangefinder focusing is often not as accurate as those SLR focusing systems that are customized for each lens or as a magnified Live View when it can be used. But that's not my big objection. My objection does not seem to be shared by the other folks who contributed to this thread.
By creating a digital camera that looks and handles like a film Leica and uses all the lenses made for a film Leica, Leitz saddles themselves with a number of difficult problems in return for not offending folks who are as much collectors and fans as photographers. I think this makes sense from a sales point of view. But it saddens me when I see folks who chose film Leicas because they were one of the best working tools they could have now having to turn elsewhere. I don't care whether a digital Leica looks or handles like a film Leica. I want (1) a small, quiet camera that doesn't attract attention and (2) lets me see and shoot quickly in god-awful light. No one digital camera does that anymore. Little, quiet, small sensor cameras are great in bright light. Big DSLR's are great in awful light. This going to turn into a rant if I don't shut up. So, I will.
The digital Leica? Opinions seem to differ. Nobody particularly cares for a $9000 body sans lenses. Everybody seems to like a good camera with a smaller size than the big DSLR's that the Leica is often competing with. Then the differences begin. Some think the image quality is unsurpassed. I'm one of a group that doesn't believe that. But, for many kinds of photography, the difference in quality is not significant, regardless of which side of the argument you are on.
I think almost everybody seems to be for the relatively simple controls.
The brightline viewfinder is unique and is, in certain situations, can be a more useful finder than the through-the-lens finder.
Many people think the high ISO performance is poor. It is compared to some DSLR's.
I'm one of the stinkers that thinks the meter is not as effective on automatic as as some of the segmented meters in the DLSR's and the rangefinder focusing is often not as accurate as those SLR focusing systems that are customized for each lens or as a magnified Live View when it can be used. But that's not my big objection. My objection does not seem to be shared by the other folks who contributed to this thread.
By creating a digital camera that looks and handles like a film Leica and uses all the lenses made for a film Leica, Leitz saddles themselves with a number of difficult problems in return for not offending folks who are as much collectors and fans as photographers. I think this makes sense from a sales point of view. But it saddens me when I see folks who chose film Leicas because they were one of the best working tools they could have now having to turn elsewhere. I don't care whether a digital Leica looks or handles like a film Leica. I want (1) a small, quiet camera that doesn't attract attention and (2) lets me see and shoot quickly in god-awful light. No one digital camera does that anymore. Little, quiet, small sensor cameras are great in bright light. Big DSLR's are great in awful light. This going to turn into a rant if I don't shut up. So, I will.
wgerrard
Veteran
Economies of scale won't drive down scanner prices, but I wonder if anything is going on in other digital tech areas that might be applied to scanners to improve quality and draw down costs.
Sam Kanga
Established
Response to Bill Pierce's post in "Is this really an RF forum?"
Response to Bill Pierce's post in "Is this really an RF forum?"
"...But it saddens me when I see folks who chose film Leicas because they were one of the best working tools they could have now having to turn elsewhere. I don't care whether a digital Leica looks or handles like a film Leica. I want (1) a small, quiet camera that doesn't attract attention and (2) lets me see and shoot quickly in god-awful light. No one digital camera does that anymore. Little, quiet, small sensor cameras are great in bright light. Big DSLR's are great in awful light. This going to turn into a rant if I don't shut up. So, I will. "
Hi Bill and RFF readers,
I'm with you on this, - I just posted to the thread you had started a while back "New G11 & S90: will future Cartier-Bressons et al use compact digitals..." So I won't repeat myself.
Suffice to say I agree with the beginnings of your rant "...small quiet that doesn't attract attention..." & "...shoot quickly in god awful light..."
Sounds a bit like my rant, which If I'm not careful can become a wish list (...all I want is a camera that does this and I don't need that etc. and invariably ends with and if only it didn't cost $8000 too...) - but that's between me and my analyst! - (insert smiley-winky face here)
Thanks
Sam
Response to Bill Pierce's post in "Is this really an RF forum?"
"...But it saddens me when I see folks who chose film Leicas because they were one of the best working tools they could have now having to turn elsewhere. I don't care whether a digital Leica looks or handles like a film Leica. I want (1) a small, quiet camera that doesn't attract attention and (2) lets me see and shoot quickly in god-awful light. No one digital camera does that anymore. Little, quiet, small sensor cameras are great in bright light. Big DSLR's are great in awful light. This going to turn into a rant if I don't shut up. So, I will. "
Hi Bill and RFF readers,
I'm with you on this, - I just posted to the thread you had started a while back "New G11 & S90: will future Cartier-Bressons et al use compact digitals..." So I won't repeat myself.
Suffice to say I agree with the beginnings of your rant "...small quiet that doesn't attract attention..." & "...shoot quickly in god awful light..."
Sounds a bit like my rant, which If I'm not careful can become a wish list (...all I want is a camera that does this and I don't need that etc. and invariably ends with and if only it didn't cost $8000 too...) - but that's between me and my analyst! - (insert smiley-winky face here)
Thanks
Sam
PKR
Veteran
Well, in response to Bill’s “rant”, and with the folks on this thread, (a number of us who work with these “tools”) why don’t we design a camera?
I’ll begin. Add or remove features or ideas as you wish..
This is a digital rangefinder with interchangeable lenses. M mount and or other(s).
The build quality must be up to Pro. Standards; sealed from dust and moisture.
The battery time must be good enough that, two batteries to take me through a busy work day.
I want the battery to be as common a battery as possible. Maybe a popular Camera Battery shared by other manufactures, that won’t be difficult to find, 2 years after the camera was purchased.
The minimal features for taking pictures must be quickly accessable. All enhanced features (if any) must be defeatable, in order to minimize “pilot error” when working.
All the most used controls for manual operation must be non-menu, on the camera controls.
I don’t need a big LCD screen; I need a small one with an inexpensively replaceable protective cover.
I need a Leica quality optical finder. It had better be very good, as it will be used for framing and focusing.
If the camera supports AF lenses, It must also support legacy, MF M mount lenses too.
If this camera is to be Leica M9 expensive, I want a camera that will allow the sensor and other electronics to be up-gradable, like the RedCam. I don’t want to have to pay for more than a sensor and a firmware (maybe image processor) install. My $5k Kodak 14N became a 14NX for a $1500 sensor up-grade. If the camera was built to easily allow this, it’s value, and working life could be amortizable over a “film camera’s” lifetime.
http://www.red.com/cameras/
I want a mini USB port so I can up-load the camera’s files to the 16GB in my phone or a thumb drive if I run out of memory.
I don’t need:
Video
Audio
GPS
WiFi
Social Network stuff
If the camera has these features, I want to be able to remove (hide) them, so I don’t have to scroll through them when trying to find something needed quickly. This is a firmware issue, and easily done.
This camera could be made by anyone in the camera/electronics business. They don't have to be a lens maker.
I did this quickly. Please add, subtract or correct..
I’ll begin. Add or remove features or ideas as you wish..
This is a digital rangefinder with interchangeable lenses. M mount and or other(s).
The build quality must be up to Pro. Standards; sealed from dust and moisture.
The battery time must be good enough that, two batteries to take me through a busy work day.
I want the battery to be as common a battery as possible. Maybe a popular Camera Battery shared by other manufactures, that won’t be difficult to find, 2 years after the camera was purchased.
The minimal features for taking pictures must be quickly accessable. All enhanced features (if any) must be defeatable, in order to minimize “pilot error” when working.
All the most used controls for manual operation must be non-menu, on the camera controls.
I don’t need a big LCD screen; I need a small one with an inexpensively replaceable protective cover.
I need a Leica quality optical finder. It had better be very good, as it will be used for framing and focusing.
If the camera supports AF lenses, It must also support legacy, MF M mount lenses too.
If this camera is to be Leica M9 expensive, I want a camera that will allow the sensor and other electronics to be up-gradable, like the RedCam. I don’t want to have to pay for more than a sensor and a firmware (maybe image processor) install. My $5k Kodak 14N became a 14NX for a $1500 sensor up-grade. If the camera was built to easily allow this, it’s value, and working life could be amortizable over a “film camera’s” lifetime.
http://www.red.com/cameras/
I want a mini USB port so I can up-load the camera’s files to the 16GB in my phone or a thumb drive if I run out of memory.
I don’t need:
Video
Audio
GPS
WiFi
Social Network stuff
If the camera has these features, I want to be able to remove (hide) them, so I don’t have to scroll through them when trying to find something needed quickly. This is a firmware issue, and easily done.
This camera could be made by anyone in the camera/electronics business. They don't have to be a lens maker.
I did this quickly. Please add, subtract or correct..
Last edited:
goffer
Well-known
True, I could sell the D700 and glass to get an M8 with a 50 1.1, but my true vision of a digital M is the M9... I could sell all my gear and still not afford one.Uhm, if I could afford it says the man with the following:
35mm: Voigtlander Bessa R4A : CV Color Skopar 20mm f4 : CV Nokton 40mm f1.4
MF: Pentax 645 : 35mm-A f3.5
Digital: D700 with fast AIS glass : NEX-5 with M & F Adapters
kevin m
Veteran
Well said. When I started shooting digital I wanted so much to keep shooting with my M's, but once sentiment was removed from the equation it didn't really make any sense to do so.
Sam Kanga
Established
The upgrade of the Kodak CCD for the 14n was with a sensor with lower noise figures. The resolution, sensor geometry, drive electronics, etc was identical to the original CMOS sensor. It was a more akin to getting the sensors replaced in the early M8 bodies that had problems.
Replacing the sensor and all electronics with new technology could be done, but might require the camera to be larger. Noise isolation is the problem that I've dealt with in the past. It requires the internal layout to be different when upgrading things like clock rate and such. It could be done- but the "forward engineering" required might call for bigger margins on space within the chassis.
Replacing the sensor and all electronics with new technology could be done, but might require the camera to be larger. Noise isolation is the problem that I've dealt with in the past. It requires the internal layout to be different when upgrading things like clock rate and such. It could be done- but the "forward engineering" required might call for bigger margins on space within the chassis.
PKR
Veteran
The big problem was the "magenta dot". The new sensor in the NX, SLR N, solved the problem. Nikon would have fixed the problem under warranty. This is another reason Kodak lost it's customer base in Pro digital.
Maybe the up-gradable elements are built as "modules". I don't know how RED does it, but it was a design element, and a huge selling point. The RED is becoming very popular. The owner (oakley) wasn't in the camera business. He thought about the camera from a "fresh" POV.. asking users what they wanted.
Last edited:
Magenta Dot- did they put a Hot Mirror filter on the CMOS Sensor? Kodak did that with DCS series through the 400 series. Nikon had a number of Sensor issues, magenta cast to skin tones, IR leakage, etc. They were not fixed under warranty.
kevin m
Veteran
One big advantage to not having the albatross of tradition hanging from your neck.
MikeL
Go Fish
Gosh Kevin, so rational all the time. You need to get in touch with your sentimental side.
But didn't you like using the rangefinder? For me, that's the only reason I like Leicas (and Nikons). My photos aren't any better, but I like using the camera more.
kevin m
Veteran
Gosh Kevin, so rational all the time. You need to get in touch with your sentimental side.
But didn't you like using the rangefinder? For me, that's the only reason I like Leicas (and Nikons). My photos aren't any better, but I like using the camera more.
I do like shooting rangefinders! If I start shooting solely for my own pleasure, that's what I'll use again. For now, though, still shooting a few weddings a year, it's hard to argue against the utility of the 5D.
Heck, once the price of used M8's drops to the $1,500 range, I'm in. That's my budget limit for indulging my own sentiment.
MikeL
Go Fish
Heck, once the price of used M8's drops to the $1,500 range, I'm in. That's my budget limit for indulging my own sentiment.
Yup, that price is the same threshold for me. But for an M9.
Hope the wedding stuff is going well.
PKR
Veteran
If you look at the "list of acceptable lenses", those were Nikon lenses that had firmware written for them to avoid the "magenta dot" centered square in the frame. It was a flaw in the first sensors (14N) and kodak tried to hide the problem with firmware. Any non listed lens, often the latest Nikkors, would reveal the DOT. Once the problem became evident to many users, kodak said they would address the problem with a sensor up grade. All of the cameras were under warranty, but kodak said it wasn't a warranty issue and wanted $1,500 to fix the problem. Rather than ditch a 3 month old $5K camera, most bit the bullet and paid kodak. That was the end of their pro-digital master plan. Their sensors are still used in much SOTA gear. Phase One, Scitex-Creo.. I'm so mad about this that, even today I will buy Fuji or Ilford before I give my money to kodak. I owned 2 14n, NX cameras. Many felt the same way about this problem, and it wasn't the first time I saw kodak treat customers this way. I have the same issue with IBM, not a story for RFF.
PKR
Veteran
ederek
Well-known
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I have to agree with Bob. After a flurry of activity for 40 or so years, I seem to be winding down, with only a Nikon D300 with a 35/1.8 lens left in my possession. Yet this rig is small enough, the low light performance good enough and the autofocus far, far better than any rangefinder. I don't mourn my Leicas (too much).
But I sure enjoy my participation here, whatever I use or whatever you use.