M
marcof
Guest
Epson Launches the World's First Rangefinder Digital Camera
full images, specifications at:
DPReview.com
full images, specifications at:
DPReview.com
Last edited by a moderator:
it's here!
- Thread starter marcof
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 20
- Views: Views 3K
Me too Brian. I still want to see the R3, or whatever the next incarnation of the Bessa will be called.
oftheherd
Veteran
Nice no doubt. How many megapixels? What cost? And why RF in digital? Nobody needs a digital RF, just like nobody needs more than 640k memory.
S
strangedoctor
Guest
Digital Rangefinder
Digital Rangefinder
I think this news is REALLY exciting, and even those luddites should be happy as well. First of all, it means that rangefinders have been given a new lease on life in the digital age. Remember that this type of camera all but died out in the early sixties and later, with point and shoots that went auto-focus, in the eightees and nineties. Now there is a real future and Screw-Mount and M lenses will retain their useability for both film and digital.
While the Epson camera may not be a beauty, it's a significant design in a world where there are huge holes in markets dumbed down for the lowest schlub.They're giving us exactly what we want -- a digital camera that is simple.
You film-fanatics (I too prefer film) should remember when Leicas were being used by many reporters. Be thankful that we may see the press using rangefinders again!
Digital Rangefinder
I think this news is REALLY exciting, and even those luddites should be happy as well. First of all, it means that rangefinders have been given a new lease on life in the digital age. Remember that this type of camera all but died out in the early sixties and later, with point and shoots that went auto-focus, in the eightees and nineties. Now there is a real future and Screw-Mount and M lenses will retain their useability for both film and digital.
While the Epson camera may not be a beauty, it's a significant design in a world where there are huge holes in markets dumbed down for the lowest schlub.They're giving us exactly what we want -- a digital camera that is simple.
You film-fanatics (I too prefer film) should remember when Leicas were being used by many reporters. Be thankful that we may see the press using rangefinders again!
bmattock
Veteran
Strangedoctor,
I agree with you 100%! I too find the news exciting, and I hope that the prices when they hit the street are such that sales justify continued expansion in this area. Cosina, I believe, deserves a huge amount of credit for 'reviving' the film rangefinder camera, and they're now paving the way into digital with full manual controls and the lovely rangefinder patch.
I use just about everything - from digital point-n-shoot to a WWII-era 4x5, and I love it all - all part of photography. This is just another tool, and I welcome it.
In the immortal words of Will Smith in 'Independence Day', "I gots to get me one of these!"
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I agree with you 100%! I too find the news exciting, and I hope that the prices when they hit the street are such that sales justify continued expansion in this area. Cosina, I believe, deserves a huge amount of credit for 'reviving' the film rangefinder camera, and they're now paving the way into digital with full manual controls and the lovely rangefinder patch.
I use just about everything - from digital point-n-shoot to a WWII-era 4x5, and I love it all - all part of photography. This is just another tool, and I welcome it.
In the immortal words of Will Smith in 'Independence Day', "I gots to get me one of these!"
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
S
strangedoctor
Guest
Same here
Same here
A few years ago I inherited several boxes of broken and semi-broken cameras (including a mint Leica IIIc) from a dead friend. I love the glass and metal. Since then I've used just about everything.
Recently I tried using my Canon S50 digital camera (which is great for SOME things) as a street camera. What a dismal experience. Turning it on, waiting, no lens, control...I went back to my M6.
Digital things have features that are inherently bad for creative types, in my view. Lack of limitations, Non-linear controls, absurd complication, etc.
Now this Epson beast reverses some of these negatives and brings universal qualities of simplicity into the 21st century. It's recognition that not all contemporary things have to be awful and badly designed.
Same here
A few years ago I inherited several boxes of broken and semi-broken cameras (including a mint Leica IIIc) from a dead friend. I love the glass and metal. Since then I've used just about everything.
Recently I tried using my Canon S50 digital camera (which is great for SOME things) as a street camera. What a dismal experience. Turning it on, waiting, no lens, control...I went back to my M6.
Digital things have features that are inherently bad for creative types, in my view. Lack of limitations, Non-linear controls, absurd complication, etc.
Now this Epson beast reverses some of these negatives and brings universal qualities of simplicity into the 21st century. It's recognition that not all contemporary things have to be awful and badly designed.
bmattock
Veteran
Some of the downside to digital that you mentioned will no doubt be rectified as time goes on...
For example, the delay in turning it on, the delay in taking a shot. A killer for us - we who want instant results for the opportunity that is fleeting. Not a problem for the family snapshooter who wants a picture of the Grand Canyon, a photo of the grandkids all lined up under the Christmas tree.
Yes, there *are* digital SLRs now that are fast enough for pro sports shooters to use, but they're not the compacts, and they're not cheap.
The bizarre controls - I have to agree. My Olympus D-40 Zoom is a case in point. I have to descend several levels of menus to get it to agree to do B&W. I had to really fight the stupid thing to get it to agree to let me have control of shutter speed and f-stop. And even then, it over-rides me from time to time, for no reason that I can determine. Yes, you stupid little camera, I *know* that from your point of view the image is +3 overexposed. I don't care, that's what I want to do - so DO IT! But it won't. It 'protects' me and thus make it impossible to use in many circumstances.
I suspect that this will get better with time as well - but the market is most concerned with sellings millions of cameras to those happy snappers who do NOT want this level of control, not a few cameras to control-freaks like myself who NEED this level of control. That's another reason to welcome this new camera.
And don't even get me started on battery life! I started down this road to camera collecting/shooting of ancient cameras because I went out to take some photos with my Minolta X-9 SLR and the electronics died - hence, no pictures.
When I press the shutter, I want a 'click'. Instantly, and every time. If I failed to set the shutter speed correctly, the aperture, or load the film, that's on me. If I left the lens cap on, my bad. But I want the camera to do what I tell it to, when I tell it to do it.
Having said all that, I still love the idea of a digital rangefinder and I want to have one!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
For example, the delay in turning it on, the delay in taking a shot. A killer for us - we who want instant results for the opportunity that is fleeting. Not a problem for the family snapshooter who wants a picture of the Grand Canyon, a photo of the grandkids all lined up under the Christmas tree.
Yes, there *are* digital SLRs now that are fast enough for pro sports shooters to use, but they're not the compacts, and they're not cheap.
The bizarre controls - I have to agree. My Olympus D-40 Zoom is a case in point. I have to descend several levels of menus to get it to agree to do B&W. I had to really fight the stupid thing to get it to agree to let me have control of shutter speed and f-stop. And even then, it over-rides me from time to time, for no reason that I can determine. Yes, you stupid little camera, I *know* that from your point of view the image is +3 overexposed. I don't care, that's what I want to do - so DO IT! But it won't. It 'protects' me and thus make it impossible to use in many circumstances.
I suspect that this will get better with time as well - but the market is most concerned with sellings millions of cameras to those happy snappers who do NOT want this level of control, not a few cameras to control-freaks like myself who NEED this level of control. That's another reason to welcome this new camera.
And don't even get me started on battery life! I started down this road to camera collecting/shooting of ancient cameras because I went out to take some photos with my Minolta X-9 SLR and the electronics died - hence, no pictures.
When I press the shutter, I want a 'click'. Instantly, and every time. If I failed to set the shutter speed correctly, the aperture, or load the film, that's on me. If I left the lens cap on, my bad. But I want the camera to do what I tell it to, when I tell it to do it.
Having said all that, I still love the idea of a digital rangefinder and I want to have one!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
GeneW
Veteran
Re: Same here
Re: Same here
Yup, I prefer RF controls too but for the price, a cam like the S45/S50 is pretty amazing... which makes me really drool over the Epson/Bessa dRF...
Gene
Re: Same here
Doc, I'd never claim that a small digital is in the same ballpark as an M6, but I use an almost identical cam (Canon S45) for street work and it's not bad, IF, you do certain things. Like turn off the LCD panel and use the eyepiece (even though it's 80% view), set Manual focus to a good hyperfocal distance (e.g. 10') so the camera doesn't try to AF, which is what most of the lag is about. Used this way it's pretty fast (faster than I would have originally believed). Here's a street shot I took yesterday with the S45.strangedoctor said:
Yup, I prefer RF controls too but for the price, a cam like the S45/S50 is pretty amazing... which makes me really drool over the Epson/Bessa dRF...
Gene
M
mothra
Guest
I want one.
Now.
This is weird -- under "B&W modes"...
• Standard B&W
• Green filter B&W
• Yellow filter B&W
• Orange filter B&W
• Red filter B&W
So you can pretend you have a filter without having a filter? I don't know whether that's ultra-cool, or ultra-useless.
Now.
This is weird -- under "B&W modes"...
• Standard B&W
• Green filter B&W
• Yellow filter B&W
• Orange filter B&W
• Red filter B&W
So you can pretend you have a filter without having a filter? I don't know whether that's ultra-cool, or ultra-useless.
S
strangedoctor
Guest
Canon digital vs. rangefinder
Canon digital vs. rangefinder
Okay, even if the speed thing were not a problem, I also can't stand the ENORMOUS depth of field offered by these tiny lenses. All of life's ugly details are included: every obese guy clutching his cell-phone while exiting from the corner of the frame. (I find this to be such a symptom of the garishness of our time, but that's another topic.) When I used my M6 with 1961 Canon 50mm 1.4 recently, I was amazed at the randomn, beautiful blurred images in the background that made obese guys look like candy clouds.
A digital rangefinder offers a chance for these kinds of images, and for heroic mistakes made when misjudging focus distance and exposure. Haven't you made great photos by simply setting the focus ring to the "wrong" distance, and you get a strange other thing instead? Digital, by contrast, always corrects these human elements. (Why do digital cameras even have auto-focus? Heck, with a 9mm lens everything is in focus anyway! Remember those little Rolleis made you scale focus, and the image came out swell.)
I tried to use a 3-year-old Nikon digital camera recently and could not, for the life of me, remember how to change the aperature, speed OR ANYTHING. Contrast that experience with picking up any camera from the 1920's or earlier and you'll get it to work perfectly in 5 seconds.
Canon digital vs. rangefinder
Okay, even if the speed thing were not a problem, I also can't stand the ENORMOUS depth of field offered by these tiny lenses. All of life's ugly details are included: every obese guy clutching his cell-phone while exiting from the corner of the frame. (I find this to be such a symptom of the garishness of our time, but that's another topic.) When I used my M6 with 1961 Canon 50mm 1.4 recently, I was amazed at the randomn, beautiful blurred images in the background that made obese guys look like candy clouds.
A digital rangefinder offers a chance for these kinds of images, and for heroic mistakes made when misjudging focus distance and exposure. Haven't you made great photos by simply setting the focus ring to the "wrong" distance, and you get a strange other thing instead? Digital, by contrast, always corrects these human elements. (Why do digital cameras even have auto-focus? Heck, with a 9mm lens everything is in focus anyway! Remember those little Rolleis made you scale focus, and the image came out swell.)
I tried to use a 3-year-old Nikon digital camera recently and could not, for the life of me, remember how to change the aperature, speed OR ANYTHING. Contrast that experience with picking up any camera from the 1920's or earlier and you'll get it to work perfectly in 5 seconds.
bmattock
Veteran
Hey, I resemble that remark! I happen to be an obese guy, often clutching a cell phone (well, less now that I'm unemployed). Hehehe...
But you're right about the deep DOF that most digital compacts offer. However, I must also say that when used in macro mode, they offer nice DOF, like any camera would.
I've found a good use for my Olympus D-40 Zoom - I use it on a mini-tripod to take pictures of my 'real' cameras for my web pages. I get nice DOF with it:
http://www.growlery.com/aires_iiil/
But what I've wanted the most with a digital 'compact' is what they don't offer - full manual controls that are easily accessible, that don't try to out-guess or over-ride your decisions, and a bit more speed so that I get a photo when I push the shutter release, not when it agrees with my decision.
Most frustrating!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
But you're right about the deep DOF that most digital compacts offer. However, I must also say that when used in macro mode, they offer nice DOF, like any camera would.
I've found a good use for my Olympus D-40 Zoom - I use it on a mini-tripod to take pictures of my 'real' cameras for my web pages. I get nice DOF with it:
http://www.growlery.com/aires_iiil/
But what I've wanted the most with a digital 'compact' is what they don't offer - full manual controls that are easily accessible, that don't try to out-guess or over-ride your decisions, and a bit more speed so that I get a photo when I push the shutter release, not when it agrees with my decision.
Most frustrating!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
L
lars
Guest
If I could afford it, I'd certainly buy this camera. Sure, the crop factor is a nuisance, as is the increased DoF, but it would be a pretty nice camera to have, nonetheless. I don't enjoy darkroom work as much as you guys because my darkroom isn't in my house, so I can only get to it once a week or less. I also need to clean the dust out of the lens (how does one do this, anyway??).
I would really like to be freed up from film costs and, even more importantly, be able to shoot colour under ambient light, without fretting over what kind of film I have loaded in the camera.
Give 'em another 2-5 years and you'll have a full-size sensor, too. Then you'll have your shallow DoF back.
...lars
I would really like to be freed up from film costs and, even more importantly, be able to shoot colour under ambient light, without fretting over what kind of film I have loaded in the camera.
Give 'em another 2-5 years and you'll have a full-size sensor, too. Then you'll have your shallow DoF back.
...lars
GeneW
Veteran
I'm firmly in the camp of 'Shoot Colour' and 'Shoot RAW' and process later. Why give away anything without reviewing the results first? Fortunately this interesting camera has a RAW mode (said to be based on the Sony sensor that Pentax and Nikon use). All those filter effects are easily achieved in Photoshop.mothra said:
Now here's what I'd consider a sweet kit:
L-lenses and a pair of camera bodies -- a Bessa R2 and an Epson Bessa digital. What a combo that would make! Main controls in all the same places, and your choice shooting B&W film or digital Col.
This is going to be an interesting camera to watch. I hope it is released at a reasonable price (relative to digital cameras)
L
lars
Guest
Gene said:
Exactly! With a digital, I'd always shoot in colour and then convert to b/w later on. It might not be the SAME as b/w film but if it's a good shot, it will look good in its own fashion.
I hope so, too, but given the small production numbers (10,000), I think it will be in the range of a mid-range DSLR (ie: USD$1500-2000). For that much, I will be buying a DSLR, first.
In the short-term, I am considering buying a prosumer digicam that will keep me happy for a couple of years. Hopefully by then, the price of the Epson RF and Minolta DSLR will be more affordable AND the bugs will have been worked out.
...lars
M
marcof
Guest
I read that the list price will be about 300,000 yen aka $2700 ... woah!
Others sites state $1000-2000 as list price... we'll soon see.
This baby will be mine, of course .. hehehe
Others sites state $1000-2000 as list price... we'll soon see.
This baby will be mine, of course .. hehehe
W
wilso26941
Guest
I'm pretty excited about this as well.
But go back and look at the photo of it.
Anyone else notice a Film Advance Lever?
What's up with that?
But go back and look at the photo of it.
Anyone else notice a Film Advance Lever?
What's up with that?
M
marcof
Guest
yep, check the links on the dpreview site. one of them has an in-depth japanese link where all stuff is explained.. babelfish can make a crude translation for you..
I love the meters on this body.. those analogue gauges are really nice..
I love the meters on this body.. those analogue gauges are really nice..
JohnL
Very confused
Re: Re: Same here
Re: Re: Same here
Interesting. Can you really use MF on the S45 with the LCD off? I do much the same thing with my G5, but I have to leave the display on or it flops into AF. I use the viewfinder for this type of shot, even though the LCD is on.
John
Re: Re: Same here
Gene said:
Interesting. Can you really use MF on the S45 with the LCD off? I do much the same thing with my G5, but I have to leave the display on or it flops into AF. I use the viewfinder for this type of shot, even though the LCD is on.
John
GeneW
Veteran
Re: Re: Re: Same here
Re: Re: Re: Same here
Your technique sounds good to me, and it's a sure thing.
Gene
Re: Re: Re: Same here
John, you may be right. I just did some testing but it's inconclusive. MF certainly is gone when I turn the LCD back on, but I can't tell if it's on or not when I turn the LCD off. I'm not hearing an AF noises, but I might be fooling myself on this one, and DOF is so great on the small lens that it's hard to tell from the images. The S45 doesn't have a secondary display of settings like the G5 has on top of the cam so I can't check it there, but if your G5 turns off MF, I'll bet the S45 does too.JohnL said:
Your technique sounds good to me, and it's a sure thing.
Gene
M