jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
PART 1 of 2
Author's note: I've floated this idea before in a couple of unrelated threads, but it didn't get the response I had hoped. I had intended to plumb my computer to the ductwork and use the responses to reduce my heating bill this winter! So in the interest of greater combustion, I'm posting it in its own thread. Let the flames begin!
I'm here to propose a simple but radical thesis: If we want rangefinder cameras, and thus rangefinder photography, to continue to advance in the digital age, we need to say good-bye to the venerable M lensmount. It has served film cameras well since its debut in 1954 -- but now, more than half a century later, it's a roadblock in the path to further progress.
I know many people (especially those with big, expensive collections of M lenses) are desperately going to want NOT to believe this -- so I'm going to lay out my case in a somewhat formal argument. I'll begin with several initial assumptions:
So, these assumptions are my starting point. I'm not going to claim that they're indisputable, only that I'm going to base what follows on the assumption that they're true, and I ask you to do the same. (In other words, this is no place for another "digital stinks" thread.)
Some photographers seem to think that cameras simply snap together like Legos -- "Why can't you just take the sensor from the Canon 5D and the rangefinder from the Zeiss Ikon, slap them into a Cosina chassis, and there you are?" But the fact remains that even if that could be done, nobody IS doing it -- so the "Lego approach" isn't going to increase the range of DRF choices available in the market.
In my view, ONLY the major camera-industry manufacturers are going to have everything it takes to expand the DRF market:
So, who ARE the major manufacturers? Well, with all due respect to Leica, I'd categorize them as "important" rather than "major" -- they make some great products, but their volume is miniscule, and the M8's startup problems show that their engineering resources are already stretched thin. And although they're considerably bigger, I'd argue that Pentax (just absorbed by Hoya) and Olympus lack sufficient clout as well.
In short: The only two players that would count in this game are Canon and Nikon, the 500-pound gorilla and 300-pound orangutan of the camera industry. Dispute that if you like, but consider this: If, say, Pentax or Olympus were to bring out a DRF camera, the industry press would consider it an interesting new entry in a niche market. If either Canon or Nikon brought out a DRF camera, the whole DRF category would abruptly move from "niche" to "mainstream." Nobody else has the clout to do that. And having either of these players successfully enter the DRF market would be a "tipping point" that almost undoubtedly would bring in the other, and probably the second-tier manufacturers as well -- a development that would provide even more diversity and secure the future of the DRF marketplace for many years to come.
Don't believe me? In Part 2 we'll try phrasing some of the alternative answers in the form of objections, and see how they stack up.
Author's note: I've floated this idea before in a couple of unrelated threads, but it didn't get the response I had hoped. I had intended to plumb my computer to the ductwork and use the responses to reduce my heating bill this winter! So in the interest of greater combustion, I'm posting it in its own thread. Let the flames begin!
I'm here to propose a simple but radical thesis: If we want rangefinder cameras, and thus rangefinder photography, to continue to advance in the digital age, we need to say good-bye to the venerable M lensmount. It has served film cameras well since its debut in 1954 -- but now, more than half a century later, it's a roadblock in the path to further progress.
I know many people (especially those with big, expensive collections of M lenses) are desperately going to want NOT to believe this -- so I'm going to lay out my case in a somewhat formal argument. I'll begin with several initial assumptions:
--Rangefinder cameras -- those aimed and focused by a dedicated optical viewfinder and rangefinder -- promote a simplicity and directness of vision -- a "rangefinder aesthetic" -- that is of inherent value in photography and deserves to be preserved. If you don't agree with this, why are you reading RFF at all?
--The rangefinder aesthetic has just as much value in a digital camera as in a film camera. I know, you love film and so do I. But a rangefinder/viewfinder is simply a means of aiming and focusing the camera; that is, of controlling the content of what will be in the picture. This is completely separate from the issue of how that content will be recorded, so there's no reason to confuse the two.
--Photographers who want to use digital rangefinder cameras would benefit by having more choices in the marketplace than there are now. To see why, ask yourself this question: Suppose you're a photographer who works digitally and who thinks your work might benefit by using a rangefinder camera. You can't afford a Leica M8, or don't want to deal with its "issues," and you don't want to take a chance on the capable but spottily-supported Epson R-D 1. What do you buy instead? As of right now, there isn't anything else.
--The rangefinder aesthetic has just as much value in a digital camera as in a film camera. I know, you love film and so do I. But a rangefinder/viewfinder is simply a means of aiming and focusing the camera; that is, of controlling the content of what will be in the picture. This is completely separate from the issue of how that content will be recorded, so there's no reason to confuse the two.
--Photographers who want to use digital rangefinder cameras would benefit by having more choices in the marketplace than there are now. To see why, ask yourself this question: Suppose you're a photographer who works digitally and who thinks your work might benefit by using a rangefinder camera. You can't afford a Leica M8, or don't want to deal with its "issues," and you don't want to take a chance on the capable but spottily-supported Epson R-D 1. What do you buy instead? As of right now, there isn't anything else.
So, these assumptions are my starting point. I'm not going to claim that they're indisputable, only that I'm going to base what follows on the assumption that they're true, and I ask you to do the same. (In other words, this is no place for another "digital stinks" thread.)
With initial assumptions in place, the question becomes: What would it take to get a wider range of choices in the digital rangefinder (DRF) marketplace?
And in my view, the answer to that question is simple: More major-manufacturer participation.
And in my view, the answer to that question is simple: More major-manufacturer participation.
Some photographers seem to think that cameras simply snap together like Legos -- "Why can't you just take the sensor from the Canon 5D and the rangefinder from the Zeiss Ikon, slap them into a Cosina chassis, and there you are?" But the fact remains that even if that could be done, nobody IS doing it -- so the "Lego approach" isn't going to increase the range of DRF choices available in the market.
In my view, ONLY the major camera-industry manufacturers are going to have everything it takes to expand the DRF market:
-- The engineering know-how to design a usable camera (or range of cameras) that photographers will want to buy.
-- The manufacturing capability to build it at a price the target market can afford.
-- The worldwide infrastructure to provide it with distribution and after-sales support.
-- The marketing clout to promote, merchandise, and advertise it effectively.
-- The manufacturing capability to build it at a price the target market can afford.
-- The worldwide infrastructure to provide it with distribution and after-sales support.
-- The marketing clout to promote, merchandise, and advertise it effectively.
So, who ARE the major manufacturers? Well, with all due respect to Leica, I'd categorize them as "important" rather than "major" -- they make some great products, but their volume is miniscule, and the M8's startup problems show that their engineering resources are already stretched thin. And although they're considerably bigger, I'd argue that Pentax (just absorbed by Hoya) and Olympus lack sufficient clout as well.
In short: The only two players that would count in this game are Canon and Nikon, the 500-pound gorilla and 300-pound orangutan of the camera industry. Dispute that if you like, but consider this: If, say, Pentax or Olympus were to bring out a DRF camera, the industry press would consider it an interesting new entry in a niche market. If either Canon or Nikon brought out a DRF camera, the whole DRF category would abruptly move from "niche" to "mainstream." Nobody else has the clout to do that. And having either of these players successfully enter the DRF market would be a "tipping point" that almost undoubtedly would bring in the other, and probably the second-tier manufacturers as well -- a development that would provide even more diversity and secure the future of the DRF marketplace for many years to come.
So, this chain of argument has brought us to this key question: What would it take to get either Canon or Nikon to enter the DRF marketplace?
And I think the answer is: Dump the M lensmount, so they could use the same lens and sensor technologies they're already using successfully in their DSLRs.
And I think the answer is: Dump the M lensmount, so they could use the same lens and sensor technologies they're already using successfully in their DSLRs.
Don't believe me? In Part 2 we'll try phrasing some of the alternative answers in the form of objections, and see how they stack up.
Last edited:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Manifesto: Time to Kiss the M Mount Goodbye? [part 2]
Manifesto: Time to Kiss the M Mount Goodbye? [part 2]
In Part 1, above, I laid out my reasons why I feel that the DRF camera market won't advance unless Canon or Nikon can be induced to participate in it -- and why they'd never do that unless we ditch the M mount "standard."
Some people might reasonably argue that there are OTHER reasons why the major manufacturers might want to avoid the DRF marketplace. I've formulated some of those objections, and provide responses to them here:
It may be possible to invent more objections, but I think I've demonstrated my main thesis: Technology exists to build a wide range of capable, cost-effective DRF cameras based on DSLR designs, if we give up the M-mount "standard."
By now I think there's only one unanswered question, which might well be phrased as follows: Okay, wise guy, if DSLR-based DRF cameras are such a great idea, why aren't Canon and Nikon making them already?
And I'm afraid the answer is this: Because of us, the RF-camera constituency. Our love of tradition and our admiration of backward-compatible technology (yes, it's cool that you can still use Grandpa's 75-year-old Elmar on your M8, but is it necessary?) lead most of the mainstream camera industry to dismiss us as a tiny cult-camera lunatic fringe that will never let go of the past. And if we wouldn't buy a truly modern, high-performance DRF camera, how can they expect anyone else to?
I think we need to start signalling to the photo world that RF camera users aren't just equipment-fondlers stuck in a bygone romantic era. It's important for us to emphasize every chance we get that we use RF cameras because the RF aesthetic provides a way of working that helps us make the pictures we want to make. And we need to make it clear that if a manufacturer were to offer us a modern solution that supports that way of working, we'd happily retire our 1930s-technology equipment and embrace that solution.
Come on, it'd only hurt for a moment. Think about it: If you could buy a new camera that combined a bright, clear range/viewfinder with the features and imaging performance of a Canon 5D or Nikon D200 -- plus a well-chosen range of fast, sharp, electronically-coupled lenses that you could also use freely on your Canon or Nikon DSLR -- wouldn't you at least want to consider it?
Personally, I'd be all over it. Sure, I enjoy my old-technology sports car -- but I don't want to drive it every day, or on serious trips where I have to arrive on time. For that I've got a modern, high-tech, high-economy car. I'd love to be able to treat my RF cameras on the same principle!
Manifesto: Time to Kiss the M Mount Goodbye? [part 2]
In Part 1, above, I laid out my reasons why I feel that the DRF camera market won't advance unless Canon or Nikon can be induced to participate in it -- and why they'd never do that unless we ditch the M mount "standard."
Some people might reasonably argue that there are OTHER reasons why the major manufacturers might want to avoid the DRF marketplace. I've formulated some of those objections, and provide responses to them here:
Objection: "Canon and Nikon are SLR companies; they wouldn't be interested in building RF cameras."
Response: Oh, yes they would! They're in the business of selling, period -- they'd be interested in any potential product line that could build incremental sales volume for them. Building sales volume is particularly hard in the high-end professional/serious-amateur segment: a professional isn't going to go out and replace his year-old, $5,000 DSLR just because you've brought out a new model with a 2.5-inch LCD instead of a 2-inch. Now, suppose you could say to that buyer, "Here's a different kind of camera you can add to your current system -- one that fits in with what you already use, that's reasonably priced, but has special capabilities that give you a competitive edge." Would serious Canon or Nikon users be interested in adding that camera to their systems? You bet they would! And if they'd be interested in buying, the manufacturers would be interested in selling.
Objection: "DRF cameras are always going to be harder to design than DSLRs, because the rays from wide-angle lenses hit the sensor at such a steep angle, causing vignetting, color fringing, and other problems."
Response: True -- but ONLY if you restrict yourself to the thin body depth required by the M mount! Use a larger body depth, as on DSLRs, and all those problems go away. Existing DSLR designs produce images that are considered fully suitable even for serious professional use, without such complications as external IR-cut filters. Ditch the M mount, make the body thicker, and you can apply the same successful technologies to a DRF camera. Yes, you sacrifice a bit of compactness, but you gain hugely in performance and usability.
Objection: "An optical range/viewfinder is too complicated and requires too much hand assembly and calibration to be profitable for a high-volume manufacturer."
Response: A traditional Leica-type range/viewfinder, yes. But in a completely fresh design, most of that precision hand-craftsmanship could be replaced with technology, as has happened in most other areas of camera manufacture. To couple a camera lens to a rangefinder, you need a way to measure the position of the focusing mount and transfer it to a rotating mirror or prism. Traditionally that's been done by cams and levers, which require precise manufacturing because the motions involved are so small. But today, distance encoders capable of 0.01-mm resolution are commonplace in inexpensive measuring instruments; highly accurate servomotors are used to position tiny parts precisely in computer disk drives and other consumer equipment. Replace your hand-finished coupling cams and levers with these technologies, and you've got the makings of a range/viewfinder module that could be assembled robotically, calibrated electronically, and "dropped onto" existing DSLR designs with very little alteration, creating the potential of a whole range of cost-effective DRF camera models.
Objection: "Autofocus is such a standard feature nowadays that a camera without it would never succeed in the mainstream."
Response: Maybe it could -- but still, who says we couldn't have a DRF camera with autofocus? The non-TTL autofocus system in the Contax G2 worked really well: it was fast in any kind of light, precise, and had the same level of accuracy regardless of what kind of lens or filter you had on the camera (unlike SLR autofocus systems, which can be tripped up by slow lenses or dense filters.) The only real problem with the G2's system was that there was no visual confirmation that the camera had focused on the correct point. But the electronically-coupled optical rangefinder described above would solve that problem -- you could check focus accuracy via the rangefinder patch, and adjust it if necessary just by turning the lens focusing ring (as you can with most modern DSLR lenses.)
Response: Oh, yes they would! They're in the business of selling, period -- they'd be interested in any potential product line that could build incremental sales volume for them. Building sales volume is particularly hard in the high-end professional/serious-amateur segment: a professional isn't going to go out and replace his year-old, $5,000 DSLR just because you've brought out a new model with a 2.5-inch LCD instead of a 2-inch. Now, suppose you could say to that buyer, "Here's a different kind of camera you can add to your current system -- one that fits in with what you already use, that's reasonably priced, but has special capabilities that give you a competitive edge." Would serious Canon or Nikon users be interested in adding that camera to their systems? You bet they would! And if they'd be interested in buying, the manufacturers would be interested in selling.
Objection: "DRF cameras are always going to be harder to design than DSLRs, because the rays from wide-angle lenses hit the sensor at such a steep angle, causing vignetting, color fringing, and other problems."
Response: True -- but ONLY if you restrict yourself to the thin body depth required by the M mount! Use a larger body depth, as on DSLRs, and all those problems go away. Existing DSLR designs produce images that are considered fully suitable even for serious professional use, without such complications as external IR-cut filters. Ditch the M mount, make the body thicker, and you can apply the same successful technologies to a DRF camera. Yes, you sacrifice a bit of compactness, but you gain hugely in performance and usability.
Objection: "An optical range/viewfinder is too complicated and requires too much hand assembly and calibration to be profitable for a high-volume manufacturer."
Response: A traditional Leica-type range/viewfinder, yes. But in a completely fresh design, most of that precision hand-craftsmanship could be replaced with technology, as has happened in most other areas of camera manufacture. To couple a camera lens to a rangefinder, you need a way to measure the position of the focusing mount and transfer it to a rotating mirror or prism. Traditionally that's been done by cams and levers, which require precise manufacturing because the motions involved are so small. But today, distance encoders capable of 0.01-mm resolution are commonplace in inexpensive measuring instruments; highly accurate servomotors are used to position tiny parts precisely in computer disk drives and other consumer equipment. Replace your hand-finished coupling cams and levers with these technologies, and you've got the makings of a range/viewfinder module that could be assembled robotically, calibrated electronically, and "dropped onto" existing DSLR designs with very little alteration, creating the potential of a whole range of cost-effective DRF camera models.
Objection: "Autofocus is such a standard feature nowadays that a camera without it would never succeed in the mainstream."
Response: Maybe it could -- but still, who says we couldn't have a DRF camera with autofocus? The non-TTL autofocus system in the Contax G2 worked really well: it was fast in any kind of light, precise, and had the same level of accuracy regardless of what kind of lens or filter you had on the camera (unlike SLR autofocus systems, which can be tripped up by slow lenses or dense filters.) The only real problem with the G2's system was that there was no visual confirmation that the camera had focused on the correct point. But the electronically-coupled optical rangefinder described above would solve that problem -- you could check focus accuracy via the rangefinder patch, and adjust it if necessary just by turning the lens focusing ring (as you can with most modern DSLR lenses.)
It may be possible to invent more objections, but I think I've demonstrated my main thesis: Technology exists to build a wide range of capable, cost-effective DRF cameras based on DSLR designs, if we give up the M-mount "standard."
By now I think there's only one unanswered question, which might well be phrased as follows: Okay, wise guy, if DSLR-based DRF cameras are such a great idea, why aren't Canon and Nikon making them already?
And I'm afraid the answer is this: Because of us, the RF-camera constituency. Our love of tradition and our admiration of backward-compatible technology (yes, it's cool that you can still use Grandpa's 75-year-old Elmar on your M8, but is it necessary?) lead most of the mainstream camera industry to dismiss us as a tiny cult-camera lunatic fringe that will never let go of the past. And if we wouldn't buy a truly modern, high-performance DRF camera, how can they expect anyone else to?
I think we need to start signalling to the photo world that RF camera users aren't just equipment-fondlers stuck in a bygone romantic era. It's important for us to emphasize every chance we get that we use RF cameras because the RF aesthetic provides a way of working that helps us make the pictures we want to make. And we need to make it clear that if a manufacturer were to offer us a modern solution that supports that way of working, we'd happily retire our 1930s-technology equipment and embrace that solution.
Come on, it'd only hurt for a moment. Think about it: If you could buy a new camera that combined a bright, clear range/viewfinder with the features and imaging performance of a Canon 5D or Nikon D200 -- plus a well-chosen range of fast, sharp, electronically-coupled lenses that you could also use freely on your Canon or Nikon DSLR -- wouldn't you at least want to consider it?
Personally, I'd be all over it. Sure, I enjoy my old-technology sports car -- but I don't want to drive it every day, or on serious trips where I have to arrive on time. For that I've got a modern, high-tech, high-economy car. I'd love to be able to treat my RF cameras on the same principle!
Last edited:
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
I agree with a lot of your points.
But in the end, if dumping the M-mount and moving to a new greater depth mount results in a larger RF body, then one might ask what was the point in the first place? I might as well just shoot with a DSLR.
The only reason I still use RFs is for the size and speed. With DSLRs, the speed is no longer an issue. So the only advantage left is size. If non-M-mount DRFs result in a bigger size, then RFs have lost the last advantage for me.
just a subjective opinion
But in the end, if dumping the M-mount and moving to a new greater depth mount results in a larger RF body, then one might ask what was the point in the first place? I might as well just shoot with a DSLR.
The only reason I still use RFs is for the size and speed. With DSLRs, the speed is no longer an issue. So the only advantage left is size. If non-M-mount DRFs result in a bigger size, then RFs have lost the last advantage for me.
just a subjective opinion
V
varjag
Guest
Great post, but first we need to remember why camera industry, professionals and amateur users have dumped the rangefinders in first place.
Rafael
Mandlerian
Very interesting post. Thanks for taking the time to write and share it. I have a few reactions to it:
My thoughts exactly.
Also, I am not exactly clear on how a group so small that we can be dismissed as a "tiny cult-camera lunatic fringe" could sway Nikon or Canon to develop this new system that you have in mind by abandoning the m-mount. And your argument, in fact, suggests that it would not be us who would ultimately have that effect.
Flyfisher Tom said:
My thoughts exactly.
Also, I am not exactly clear on how a group so small that we can be dismissed as a "tiny cult-camera lunatic fringe" could sway Nikon or Canon to develop this new system that you have in mind by abandoning the m-mount. And your argument, in fact, suggests that it would not be us who would ultimately have that effect.
jlw said:
peter_n
Veteran
I'm doing fine with the current "state-of-the-art". I don't like the look of digital but rather the look of film, and I have a good film scanner. So I'm digital and yet very happy with my M-mount film camera - the best of both worlds.jlw said:
furcafe
Veteran
You make many good points & I agree w/you re: the technology. However, I don't think the conservatism of the "RF-camera constituency" is the primary reason Nikon, Canon, et al. haven't bothered to make a dRF. IMHO, the market for any non-SLR pro/serious amateur camera is simply too small for any of the major manufacturers to bother with. Moreover, as much as I prefer RFs, the marginal practical advantages of an RF over a modern SLR are too few to matter to all except a few select photographers. Nowadays, the only real advantages of an RF over an SLR is the lack of mirror blackout & slightly smaller size (yes, slightly, as anyone who's ever handled an Olympus OM, Pentax ME, or other compact SLR knows). After all, there's a reason why the vast majority of photojournalists & professional photographers, folks who depend on cameras to make a living, switched to SLRs as their primary tools long ago. So while the charms of RFs may matter to some of us, there aren't enough of us for the big players to cater to, unless they decide to do it for prestige/heritage purposes . . .
saxshooter
Well-known
Thanks for the thoughtful post. But size would be the issue. Aside from enjoying the positive focusing and bright viewfinder windows of RF photography, I also love RF photography because of its diminuative size relative to a DSLR.
Also, to design a digital DRF which would use the current stable of Canon and Nikon SLR lenses, you would have a problem with being able to engage a mechanical rangefinder focus mechanism (I'm sure many want to focus manually and see RF images fuse together in the VF even though AF would probably be easier), since all the canon lenses have internal focus motors and most of the Nikon lenses have internal focus motors too. So a faux-mechanical manual focus RF mechanism that would engage these internal focus motors would have to be designed.
And besides, Canon and Nikon go through great lengths to promote their autofocus technology. I can't see them dedicating R&D to make a manually focusing mechanism built on electronics to focus their current stable of glass on a VF/RF digital body. It would open up a can of worms by a group of consumers who would possibly be getting out of focus pictures (more likely due to operator error) using Canon/Nikon AF glass on the hypothetical camera.
Also, to design a digital DRF which would use the current stable of Canon and Nikon SLR lenses, you would have a problem with being able to engage a mechanical rangefinder focus mechanism (I'm sure many want to focus manually and see RF images fuse together in the VF even though AF would probably be easier), since all the canon lenses have internal focus motors and most of the Nikon lenses have internal focus motors too. So a faux-mechanical manual focus RF mechanism that would engage these internal focus motors would have to be designed.
And besides, Canon and Nikon go through great lengths to promote their autofocus technology. I can't see them dedicating R&D to make a manually focusing mechanism built on electronics to focus their current stable of glass on a VF/RF digital body. It would open up a can of worms by a group of consumers who would possibly be getting out of focus pictures (more likely due to operator error) using Canon/Nikon AF glass on the hypothetical camera.
Last edited:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Flyfisher Tom said:
Well, the point is to gain the viewing, focusing and composition advantages of an optical range/viewfinder vs. an SLR.
Those advantages include:
-- Focusing accuracy is constant, not varying with focal length.
-- With all but the widest lenses, you can see what's going on outside the framelines, making it easier to anticipate and monitor dynamic picture-taking situations.
-- You can see the subject just as well through the viewfinder even if you're using a very wide lens, a very slow lens, a very dark filter, etc.
-- The finder image doesn't black out at the moment of exposure, making it easier to follow fast-changing or fast-action situations. (In other words, we avoid the SLR action photographer's curse: "If you see it in the finder, you did NOT get it in the shot!")
Those advantages are relevant to me regardless of camera size.
If size is the issue: Well, RF cameras and (especially) lenses do tend to be somewhat more compact that equivalent SLRs (although anybody who's ever horsed around a Fuji GX690 knows not every RF camera is tiny!)
But there are plenty of ways to make a camera compact, and if our message to manufacturers is "I just want a small camera, I don't care how you view through it" then their message to us is likely to be, "Here, try this Four Thirds camera with an electronic viewfinder." Maybe you'd be fine with that, but it's not what I want...
Oh Two
Established
It seems that there is a tropical depression in the teapot.
N
Nick R.
Guest
Because RF users themselves are a niche market, only a minor player like Pentax or Oly or Sigma would bother to try and establish themselves with such a camera. And they'd do it not for RF sales, which would be practically non-existent in the overall scheme of things, but they'd do it to establish themselves as serious players in the more high-end RF user community. They'd then use this reputation as a basis to sell DSLR's and P&S's--where the real money is.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
saxshooter said:
I think that actually would be the easiest part! In part 2, I described a high-tech RF system (based on widely-used current technology) in which the RF images are moved not by a system of cams and levers, but by a servomotor, which would be controlled by electronic signals from the lens. (Many Canon and Nikon lenses already send distance information to the camera, to help with flash control; this would work the same way, just with a higher level of precision.)
So, suppose your lens' focus distance had been set to 5.063 meters, as measured by the distance encoder in the lens. The lens would send this distance to the RF module; the module's servomotor would rotate the RF prism to the appropriate angle. You'd check through the finder; if the RF images had merged, you'd know you were in focus and ready to take pictures.
If they hadn't, you'd turn the manual focus ring to "touch up" the focus (as you can already do with Canon and Nikon DSLR lenses with internal focus motors.) As you turned the ring, the distance encoder would continue to read out the distance and the servomotor would continue to rotate the RF prism. It would be just like using an RF camera now, only coupled digitally rather than via levers and cams.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Oh Two said:
And your point in adding that contribution to the discussion is...?
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
for me, size matters
I am patient enough to wait for technology to catch up to the M-mount, rather than ditch it for a larger camera size. And the current M8/RD-1 technology, though lacking in comparison to Nikon/Canon DSLR, still serves its purposes for its primary consituency.
The visceral experience of shooting with a compact M camera versus dragging a 5D on the street is enough of a difference for me. And for my sherpa's back ... namely mine.
But more importantly, there is not enough of a market to motivate these large players.
I am patient enough to wait for technology to catch up to the M-mount, rather than ditch it for a larger camera size. And the current M8/RD-1 technology, though lacking in comparison to Nikon/Canon DSLR, still serves its purposes for its primary consituency.
The visceral experience of shooting with a compact M camera versus dragging a 5D on the street is enough of a difference for me. And for my sherpa's back ... namely mine.
But more importantly, there is not enough of a market to motivate these large players.
furcafe
Veteran
I agree w/you here. The same goes for manual exposure controls. If there was still a large enough market for manual SLRs, Canon, or especially Nikon, could easily produce them, e.g., a "dFMn" w/the sensor from a D200.
saxshooter said:
MikeL
Go Fish
peter_n said:I'm doing fine with the current "state-of-the-art". I don't like the look of digital but rather the look of film, and I have a good film scanner. So I'm digital and yet very happy with my M-mount film camera - the best of both worlds.
Same boat here. Couldn't agree more. I just had this vision of a Venn diagram with a computer in one circle, film Leica in the other, and where they overlap is just right(thanks to Coolscan). And no, I'm not taking drugs at the moment.
Spyderman
Well-known
Don't forget that SLR wide-angle lenses need to be retrofocal and are sooo complicated to design, where RF wide angles can be symetric designs - simpler to design and better performing. The difference is the mirror in SLR. RF has no mirror - the lens can be closer to film. This was once thought of as an advantage of RF cameras.
Just an example: Imagine a Sigma 15mm lens. It's such a huge beast... Now imagine a CV 15/4.5. Tiny, isn't it. That's the difference between a retro-focal and symetric designs...
Just my 2 cents. I could add many more but I'm tired and sleepy. Good night.
Just an example: Imagine a Sigma 15mm lens. It's such a huge beast... Now imagine a CV 15/4.5. Tiny, isn't it. That's the difference between a retro-focal and symetric designs...
Just my 2 cents. I could add many more but I'm tired and sleepy. Good night.
Last edited:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Nick R. said:
That's kind of my whole point -- we've got to move this thing beyond the niche market of "RF users," and establish it with people who might want to use an RF camera for part of their photography because of its practical photographic advantages. That's what would drive incremental unit sales for the manufacturer, which is what would bring them into the segment.
But if the whole RF user community is a niche market, of which the "high-end" segment could only be a "niche of a niche", how many DSLRs and P&Ses are they going to buy?
PS --- Hmmm, I hadn't thought of Sigma... they're a bit of a maverick, they've got their own lens mount, and they're not afraid to go where the other manufacturers ain't...
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Flyfisher Tom said:
And if the technology never catches up...?
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
jlw said:
Need I remind you that the Red Sox won the World Series ???
Miracles happen my friend
And it can happen for the M-mount too.