Manifesto: Time to Kiss the M Mount Goodbye? [long!]

[jaapv]

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.

Excuse me? Most modern RF wideangle designs are retrofocus for correction reasons. That is why Leica and Zeiss lenses are larger than CV....

 

[jaapv]

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?

Not really - at the size of a 5D there would not be any significant reason to do so.

 

[telenous]

Thanks for your thoughtful post, there are many interesting points in it.

I will agree with the following rangefinder advantages

-- 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!")

but the weak point of the argument, as already pointed out, is this:

Those advantages are relevant to me regardless of camera size.

The compact nature of rangefinders is simply a desideratum to so many RF photographers that it cannot be dismissed out of hand. To me, your list of RF advantages, together with the compactness you profess not to care about, are jointly sufficient and individually necessary properties for a digital rangefinder camera. The M8 and the RD-1s are cameras I am potentially interested in for this very reason. I will agree that even with these considerations the M-mount is not a prerequisite, although it is quite handy if you have already invested in it.

 

[jlw]

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

Pfft! Ze film, eet is for ze WIMPS! Eet is all silly high-tech humbug, no? Ze REAL photographeur, ze true artiste, for us it is only bitumen of Judea on plates of cast iron that will do! Film? Pfui!

-- Joseph Nicephor Niepce
-- from beyond the grave

 

[charjohncarter]

I like it. Just for the fun of it I put a Leica to M42 adapter on my IIIf, then I screw in a 9.5mm Pentax extension tube (which gives me the exact Pentax SLR mount to film depth), and then I use my Pentax 28mm screw mount lens. I works great, even though it is a little corny, and I have to estimate focus. Wide angles could be adapted to a thin RF digital camera.

 

[jlw]

So, summarizing the results thus far...

So, summarizing the results thus far...

-- "No thanks, I only use rangefinder cameras because they're compact."

Here you go, then:

-- "No thanks, I'm content to wait until the Magic Technology Fairy rides in on her magenta unicorn and solves the M mount's problems with a wave of her wand."

Fair enough. We'll leave a light on for you.

-- "Digital bad! Booooo! Film good! Yay!"

I thought I asked you people to stay outside, you're dripping those yak entrails all over the carpet...


-- "SLRs displaced RFs for good reasons, and those reasons haven't changed."

Good point. But I put it to you that one of those key reasons HAS changed. SLRs displaced RFs in part because the SLR design lent itself to automated high-volume manufacturing better than old-technology RF design did. But with today's technology it should be possible to put RF production on an equal footing again. In other words, the rangefinder concept never lost its validity, it just needed for manufacturing innovation to catch up.

Side point: Personal income has risen since then, too. When SLRs took over in the early '60s, cameras were still very expensive; it was unusual for even serious photographers to own more than one camera. Now, many people own several, chosen for various purposes. It's plausible that some could be persuaded to choose an RF camera for its specific strengths, as long as the sacrifices weren't too great.

-- "There aren't enough of us to make a major manufacturer take interest, no matter how good the arguments might be."

Probably true, but it's worth trying! Besides, the hottest concepts in marketing today -- "viral marketing," the "tipping point", the "long tail" -- all hinge on the idea that small numbers of people can have very significant business effects. We might as well try to surf that wave, no?

-- "The chances would be better of interesting a second-tier manufacturer, who could benefit more from the enhanced prestige, than a first-tier manufacturer."

I don't disagree with that, but I think it would help the segment more if one of the two biggies could be interested...


It's a cold night, people. I need more flames!

 

[jlw]

The compact nature of rangefinders is simply a desideratum to so many RF photographers that it cannot be dismissed out of hand. To me, your list of RF advantages, together with the compactness you profess not to care about, are jointly sufficient and individually necessary properties for a digital rangefinder camera. The M8 and the RD-1s are cameras I am potentially interested in for this very reason. I will agree that even with these considerations the M-mount is not a prerequisite, although it is quite handy if you have already invested in it.

I'll concede that I've probably undervalued the importance of compactness to many existing RF users. (Probably comes from my long-time habit of lugging around a Canon 7s with 50/0.95 and 100/2 lenses! Compared to those beasts, most of my SLR gear was somewhat smaller and considerably lighter...)

Two points, though:

-- Suppose it were possible to engineer a DRF body similar in size to current ones except in the lensmount area, which would project farther from the body to provide lens clearance -- kind of like a compact SLR body but with no pentaprism hump. (And some of the latest Canon and Nikon DSLR bodies are pretty darn compact!) Do you think most users could live with that?

-- We might place a high value on the compactness of RF gear, but what about photographers who do NOT now use an RF camera? Obviously, compactness is not enough of an attraction to them to overcome the perceived limitations of RF cameras, and just as obviously, we'd need to attract some of them to the fold in order to make a big enough potential customer pool.

The key question becomes: Does the DRF concept have enough other benefits than compactness to attract the multiple-camera owner? Continuous image visibility, low shutter lag, positive focusing regardless of lens, and all the rest might appeal to these consumers enough to induce them to add a DRF body, but I admit it's a debatable point...

 

[telenous]

Do these little Contaxes come with the lady?

No flames from me jlw, not tonight. I hope your wish is granted and that there is a digital rangefinder like the one you describe somewhere down the line. Rangefinderdom is a big zoo, there should be some room for a big beast like the one you dream.

As for me, I 'll keep dreaming of something slightly smaller, something perhaps reminiscent to what you want to kiss good-bye.

Who knows, may be next Xmas...

EDIT: Sorry, we 've crossposted, I am just reading your post above.

 

[rvaubel]

Excuse me? Most modern RF wideangle designs are retrofocus for correction reasons. That is why Leica and Zeiss lenses are larger than CV....

I like the M mount because of its short backfocus, thus its compactness. It's really the lens, not the body, of a rangefinder that make the kit as compact as it is. Carrying a body and 5 lenses in small bag is the reall essense of what I want.

I have also been heartened by the success that the M8 has had with the vignetting issues. This was thought to be an intractable issue with regards to wide angle lenses. If somehow, the cyan vignetting and purple/black issues can be solved without the use of filters, then I would like forword to a range of semi-symetrical lens designs that would take advantage of the design to produce lenses similar to the tiny VC range such as the 12,15,21,24 and 26mm. Remember, these are lenses that performed poorly because of vignetting on the RD1 but are working well on the M8.

In fact, because of Leica's microlensing vignetting solution, I have been collecting more of the older, symetricall designed lenses in anticipation of getting my M8. These lenses are just about as small as a lens could be and weigh in at about 3 or 4 oz each. There is a viseral attraction to these little jewels that could never be matched by a larger long back focus, electronically coupled lens.

Size is the prime reason that I prefer the rangefinder over a DSLR. I can;t see how any new mount design could be any more compact than the M mount. When size and weight isn't pauramont then I will use my DSLR.

Rex

 

[charjohncarter]

-- "SLRs displaced RFs for good reasons, and those reasons haven't changed."
I agree with JLW, one other caveat. JLW mentioned the 500lb. and 300lb. manufacturers, but he didn't mention how horrible it is to carrying one of their cameras that feel like 550lb. after fifteen minutes.

 

[FrankS]

jlw, the style of writing in your post reminds me of sections of the book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance.

 

[telenous]

I'll concede that I've probably undervalued the importance of compactness to many existing RF users. (Probably comes from my long-time habit of lugging around a Canon 7s with 50/0.95 and 100/2 lenses! Compared to those beasts, most of my SLR gear was somewhat smaller and considerably lighter...)

Two points, though:

-- Suppose it were possible to engineer a DRF body similar in size to current ones except in the lensmount area, which would project farther from the body to provide lens clearance -- kind of like a compact SLR body but with no pentaprism hump. (And some of the latest Canon and Nikon DSLR bodies are pretty darn compact!) Do you think most users could live with that?

-- We might place a high value on the compactness of RF gear, but what about photographers who do NOT now use an RF camera? Obviously, compactness is not enough of an attraction to them to overcome the perceived limitations of RF cameras, and just as obviously, we'd need to attract some of them to the fold in order to make a big enough potential customer pool.

The key question becomes: Does the DRF concept have enough other benefits than compactness to attract the multiple-camera owner? Continuous image visibility, low shutter lag, positive focusing regardless of lens, and all the rest might appeal to these consumers enough to induce them to add a DRF body, but I admit it's a debatable point...

With these two points in place, I am prepared to agree with you.

 

[charjohncarter]

You preempted me. Fine. You said it better

 

[jlw]

jlw, the style of writing in your post reminds me of sections of the book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance.

Hmm, not sure what to make of that... I had to suffer through that book as required reading in college (hey, it was the '70s, after all) and while I thought the motorcycle-maintenance parts were pretty good (I still occasionally quote the story about the guy who thought shims were very elegant until he learned that you cut them out of a beer can) I found the Zen part fairly tedious.

I will therefor preen myself on the notion that my writing resembles the motorcycle-maintenance parts...

However, the shim story reminds me (in a very convoluted way) of what I've been finding the most interesting about this discussion:

What appeals to me about RF cameras is that the optical VF/RF is a very elegant solution (like a shim) to the problems of aiming and focusing a camera.

But I'm surprised how many RF-camera users don't really put much value on the RF aspect at all (as if it were simply something cut from a beer can.) What they like about using RF stuff is simply the compactness of the camera body and lenses.


This is showing me that our camp really includes two completely different constituencies, whose interests currently overlap only because current RF camera systems coincidentally happen to be rather compact.

As the digital camera market evolves, I can see some of us migrating toward other types of systems which are compact but aren't RF-based -- while others would prefer to move in the direction of more advanced systems that are RF-based even if not as compact.

As it stands, the industry has more product to sell to the first group (Four Thirds cameras, fixed-zoom "prosumer"cameras with EVFs, etc.) while leaving those of us in the second group pretty much out in the magenta-hued darkness with only the M8 for company.

Needless to say, I'd like to see some more product land on my side of the fence -- but if the RF "niche" market really consists of two half-niches, we can't expect a lot of action!

 

[SDK]

Isn't the 4/3 standard a lot like your ideal camera multisystem?

 

[Trius]

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.

And the majority of RF shooters wouldn't buy it because it would feel so radically different than a mechanical RF mechanism.

And do you expect Canon or Nikon to build an all or mostly metal chassis rather than a plastic fantastic? Yes, I know the Bessa R has a high plastic content and is accepted by the RF crowd, but that was still seen as a drawback.

As much as RF photography is about lens quality, focus method and immediacy, it is also about the craftsmanship of the camera maker. Just count the number of posts that talk about the feel of a body or a lens. In this respect, I would only expect Nikon to come to the party.

I do accept (at least provisionally) your premise that the M mount stands in the way of developing a DRF that is not compromised in the way the current M8 and Epson are. But I also believe that Leica, Zeiss, CV or others could also develop new, digital-specific lenses for the M mount that overcome the short registration distance issues. But that's just a belief; I'm not an optical engineer.

Earl

 

[Trius]

Isn't the 4/3 standard a lot like your ideal camera multisystem?

Yes, but most people believe the system is ultimately compromised by the sensor size. I am not a megapixel slut, but even Kodak's literature seems to indicate that the 4/3s format will max out at 12MP. Given that perception is reality in the megapixel "race" and that FF DSLRs have eclipsed that mark, I'd say the 4/3s sensor does not have a place among those who would buy DRFs in sufficient quantities to make it economic.

 

[ywenz]

The first question that needs to be asked is why doesn't Canon and Nikon make all of their pro lenses on par with Leica optics? I mean it should be a simple effort, t's just glass and physics we're talking about. They can probably afford to make them cheaper than Leicas'. So why aren't they doing so? Because the rule of diminishing return applies to lens performance and the current crop of Canon and Nikon glass is more than good enough for their purpose - even for professionals. How much more benefit would a large RF camera offer over a pro-level DSLR body? I would say not enough to convince Canon or Nikon to produce a digital RF camera.

Speaking for myself. I like the Leica M because it's compact and it's fully manual, not because of the RF system.

J|W: So you're basically looking for a digital Mamiya 7 to come out? I would welcome it with open arms if it's a digital MF, not if it's a 35mm sensor.

 

[jlw]

Isn't the 4/3 standard a lot like your ideal camera multisystem?

Yeah, if they could figure out how to incorporate an optical range/viewfinder and add a few high-speed medium tele lenses, I'd probably like it a lot. From another thread:

However, I'm not in the camp of people for whom compactness is the biggest appeal of RF photography. I just prefer to focus and view through a range/viewfinder, regardless of camera size.

What I'd like is a broader range of choices in cameras that are conceptually like the R-D 1 and M8... and I'd be willing to sacrifice the M mount (and a bit of compactness) to get a wider menu.

 

[kevin m]

If a new digital rangefinder system came on the market, I'd certainly take a look. But as others have said, one of the big advantages of the M mount is the small size of the lenses, relative to SLR's, and also their excellent performace, particularly wide-angles. I can't think of a single RF lens I've tried 35mm and wider that doesn't walk all over an SLR lens of the same focal length. And is there ANY SLR lens that equals the relatively inexpensive 50 Summicron, or the pricey Aspherical Summilux 50?

I think it's pretty amazing that Leica has managed to get a decent digital rangefinder on the market, given the technical hurdles. I have every confidence that the M9 will be even better in that regard, and that when it comes on the market, I will be able to pick up a minty M8 for a song.