jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
ywenz said:
Nah, the lenses wouldn't be fast enough for the kind of stuff I shoot. Would be nice for studio use, though. I like the quality you can get from the digital backs that fit on medium-format cameras, but the fact that they're currently only available on SLR-format cameras is constraining. A digital Mamiya-7-like camera would be great for studio people shots: You'd never lose sight of the model and you could see the flashes going off.
uhligfd
Well-known
Ok, you advocate that Nikon/Canon build a rangefinder each to use with their DSLR lenses.
Rangefinders usually do not carry retrofocus lenses as the DSLRs and SLRs do. So the body would have to be about 40+ mm deep, instead of just 30-mm. The lenses would be SLR doorstop weight, have problems with distortion from barrel to pincushion and everything in between. There would be plenty of such lenses, no doubt, with autofocus, and zoom, and motion stability and lens-collars, and .. .
And the only difference (that I can see) would be: no mirror, no prisma and a rangefinder patch instead. How awkward, big, heavy, mismatched ... .
Now if totally non-retrofocus lenses and mounts were to be designed to go with these new rangefinders: wonderful.
But just taking out the mirror and prisma (which incidentally allow very precise composition and focusing in (D)SLRS, giving them the advantage there), and replacing that with a patchy rangefinder ... does not sound very sensible, or did I misread your long write-up? Sorry if I did. But then please explain the technique of mounting SLR lenses to rangefinder patches, please. 42 mm flange to film distance to 29mm ? How done?
Rangefinders usually do not carry retrofocus lenses as the DSLRs and SLRs do. So the body would have to be about 40+ mm deep, instead of just 30-mm. The lenses would be SLR doorstop weight, have problems with distortion from barrel to pincushion and everything in between. There would be plenty of such lenses, no doubt, with autofocus, and zoom, and motion stability and lens-collars, and .. .
And the only difference (that I can see) would be: no mirror, no prisma and a rangefinder patch instead. How awkward, big, heavy, mismatched ... .
Now if totally non-retrofocus lenses and mounts were to be designed to go with these new rangefinders: wonderful.
But just taking out the mirror and prisma (which incidentally allow very precise composition and focusing in (D)SLRS, giving them the advantage there), and replacing that with a patchy rangefinder ... does not sound very sensible, or did I misread your long write-up? Sorry if I did. But then please explain the technique of mounting SLR lenses to rangefinder patches, please. 42 mm flange to film distance to 29mm ? How done?
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
I welcome any manufacturer to make a decent, reliable DRF regardless of lens mount.
I would be more than happy to offer my winning design to any takers...
(I think Sony, now with the Konica know-how and some pretty deep pockets, is our best bet.)
I would be more than happy to offer my winning design to any takers...
(I think Sony, now with the Konica know-how and some pretty deep pockets, is our best bet.)
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
Of course Nikon AF SLRs do have an electronic rangefinder built in. Unfortunately, on the bodies I've used, it's not been critically accurate. Admittedly, those were older models (N2020, N8008 and F4) so perhaps things have improved. One thing that put me off the Contax G1 or G2 systems was their reliance on electronic range finding, and clunky manual focus interfaces. Im sure someone could make an RF that combines manual optical RF like a Leica with an AF/ERF mount lens that could be manually focused in the traditional turn the focus ring manner or by internal AF motor. Having two focus systems in one camera might cost more, but it could have appeal to people who sometimes want point and shoot ease and sometimes want high focus accuracy. Not something I'd be likely to buy, but I'm not a typical guy.
Franky I'd llke to see Nikon, Fuji or Pentax breaking into the M-mount market to compete with Zeiss and Leica. A Fuji 24mm/1.9 Natura M lens or a Nikon M-mount film body with AMP or center-weighted metering and a 1/8000s shutter with a Nikon flash system would be tempting to me.
Franky I'd llke to see Nikon, Fuji or Pentax breaking into the M-mount market to compete with Zeiss and Leica. A Fuji 24mm/1.9 Natura M lens or a Nikon M-mount film body with AMP or center-weighted metering and a 1/8000s shutter with a Nikon flash system would be tempting to me.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
uhligfd said:
That's a little like saying that the only difference between drinking wine vs. drinking prussic acid is that a glass of wine won't kill you. To some of us, that's a very significant difference!
There's no magic to a 29mm flange-to-film distance -- it's just (roughly) the distance Leitz chose for its lens mount. It's perfectly possible to design rangefinder couplings for any convenient flange-to-film distance; 4x5-inch press cameras have flange-to-film distances on the order of several inches, yet their rangefinders still couple, no problem.
What I said about this in my long post was that using a longer distance would cause no problems in the design of the rangefinder, and would make it easier to solve the various optical problems that have afflicted digital RF cameras thus far (vignetting, color fringing, etc.)
anselwannab
Well-known
AusDLK said:
I think you are exactly right about Sony. Since they have the KM Hexar RF body and lenses to build on, plus more importantly, if they could pull off a real dRF that is accepted, it would be a major way for them to be taken seriously by the cognescenti.
Taking dSLR lenses and making a dRFout of them is a dead end. I've looked at the distance info from my 20D and it seems to be all over the place, but then again the focus is all over the place.
A primary problem with APS-c sized dSLRs is that their pentaprisms are so small it makes it really hard to manually focus. Add in there is not a split prism worth a damn on any of the pro-sumer Canon camera.
If 4/3 maxes out at 12mp and can be massaged to give good high iso performance, that is more than enough for me, especially if we can get a CL sized camera out of it.
Size and unobtrusiveness are the primary drivers to me. If you are in a situation were you have to get a shot and it has to be high quality, stop screwing around and get a 1DsMKII (Or the MKIII soon).
I think other thing to keep in mind is price point. the M8 is $5k (?) so I think any any other dRF would have to come in around the $3000-$2500 price point. The RD-1 has run its course, and it was and still is a good camera.
Another dark horse to me is if Mr. K would make a dedicated APS-C sized B&W dRF. Get rid of the Bayer filter and get great resolution, less worry about IR odd coloration, perhaps better high ISO performance.
Mark
Athena
Well-known
Gee...it doesn't take too much more than a perusal of the first two posts to figure out the rest!
EVF....
EVF....
agentsim
Member
anselwannab said:
A few people have mentionned this fear, where does it come from?
A quick look a dpreview seems to refute this. A Canon G7 is 10.0 MP, with a 1/1.8" sensor (7.176mm x 5.319mm) has a total area of 38.17mm^2. The 4/3rds system has an area of 243mm^2 (18mm x 13.5mm). Assuming that the max MP of a given sensor is a calculation dominated by the size of an individual light sensing cell (1 pixel/cell I guess...), then 4/3rds can go a lot futher than 12MP.
I'd imagine digital sensor technology will surpass what even the best lenses can resolve in the most generous of lab conditions within a decade or so (witness Moore's law with computers), ending the MP race once and for all
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Summing up the results thus far
Summing up the results thus far
I started this thread, frankly, just to stir things up -- but it has turned out to be an interesting prism through which to diffract our RF-using community into its component parts!
-- First, I was reminded that we are divided into: people who already use a DRF camera; people who don't use a DRF camera but would consider it; and people who are committed to film and wouldn't use any digital camera within the realm of current technology.
Since my post was specifically about increasing the range of DRF cameras available on the market, it's necessary to "filter out" the third group -- but it's always worth remembering that these silver-halide loyalists are out there!
-- Second: I had assumed that the main thing that attracts people to rangefinder cameras was, well, the rangefinder, you know? I was surprised to find out I was wrong.
Range/viewfinder viewing and focusing is the big draw for me because of the kind of photography I do and the way I prefer to do it. I like to watch closely and respond spontaneously. I need to see my subjects very clearly and watch them very intently; it's not unusual for me to have my eye at the viewfinder for a half-hour at a stretch. I need to see what's happening inside and outside the frame, so I can watch for dramatic moments and significant gestures. I need to be able to sense the ongoing flow of movement and the rhythm of action -- so a camera that blacks out my view at the peaks of the action deprives me of vital information. Autofocus is of very little use to me: if I look down a diagonal line of eight ballerinas, I know which one is the center of interest, but the camera can't know.
So for me, the type of viewfinder in my Epson R-D 1 is just about perfect. I can see naturally, with both eyes open; the picture frame and focusing spot are magically superimposed over my normal field of vision. It's almost exactly like watching the scene without a camera.
So imagine my amazement when I found out that many RF users don't care about that at all. They don't see any advantage to range/viewfinder viewing over SLR viewing; many seem to feel SLR viewing is better. Instead, they're attracted to RF cameras for other reasons, such as:
-- Compactness of the camera body and lenses. There's nothing uniquely "RF-ish" about a small camera -- ask any Olympus fan -- but it's a fact that in general RF systems are pretty compact. An M-mount camera's slender body gives digital-sensor designers fits, but it does make it easier to slide into a small bag. And most RF lenses are smaller than their SLR equivalents -- although that's not so much because they're RF-coupled as because they don't need room in their barrels for auto-diaphragm actuators and AF motors.
-- A perception that the optical quality of RF lenses is better, especially at the wide-angle end. I'm not sure how much of this is because RF lenses don't need to leave space for a reflex mirror (which simplifies optical design for film use but imposes penalties for digital cameras) and how much is simply because an RF camera is capable of focusing a wide-angle lens more accurately than an auto- or manual-focus SLR. But whether it's true or not, there's a band of loyalists who believe it's true.
-- Appreciation of a feeling of traditional craftsmanship and quality. Again, there's nothing especially "RF-ish" about this; SLRs can have it too, as anyone who has ever handled a Nikon F or Leicaflex SL knows. But SLR design moved on to the era of plastic cover panels and motorized mechanisms; these cameras probably are just as precise as the old ones, but they don't feel the same. In the meantime, RF-camera design largely stayed stuck in the mechanical era, simply because the market was small and there wasn't much incentive for manufacturers to redesign the cameras for efficient high-volume production.
So, it seems that many RF fans appreciate their cameras for reasons that have nothing to do with the range/viewfinder viewing system; they're drawn by qualities that are at best coincidental to the RF concept!
While it's always good to have more fans in your tent, I can't help wonder if this doesn't bode ill for the future of the RF camera. The compact-systems buffs could easily be seduced away by a camera with some other type of focusing/viewing system but an equally compact body and lenses; it's certainly possible to design SLR lenses that will satisfy the optical-performance crew; and traditional-craftsmanship enthusiasts could be just as happy with some other type of camera that captures the same knurly, gnarly panache.
That would leave those of us who prefer a rangefinder camera because it's a rangefinder camera in a pretty lonely position... and would tell manufacturers looking for new niche markets that this one is too fragmented to be worth entering.
Not exactly the answer I was hoping to get... but it HAS been interesting!
Summing up the results thus far
I started this thread, frankly, just to stir things up -- but it has turned out to be an interesting prism through which to diffract our RF-using community into its component parts!
-- First, I was reminded that we are divided into: people who already use a DRF camera; people who don't use a DRF camera but would consider it; and people who are committed to film and wouldn't use any digital camera within the realm of current technology.
Since my post was specifically about increasing the range of DRF cameras available on the market, it's necessary to "filter out" the third group -- but it's always worth remembering that these silver-halide loyalists are out there!
-- Second: I had assumed that the main thing that attracts people to rangefinder cameras was, well, the rangefinder, you know? I was surprised to find out I was wrong.
Range/viewfinder viewing and focusing is the big draw for me because of the kind of photography I do and the way I prefer to do it. I like to watch closely and respond spontaneously. I need to see my subjects very clearly and watch them very intently; it's not unusual for me to have my eye at the viewfinder for a half-hour at a stretch. I need to see what's happening inside and outside the frame, so I can watch for dramatic moments and significant gestures. I need to be able to sense the ongoing flow of movement and the rhythm of action -- so a camera that blacks out my view at the peaks of the action deprives me of vital information. Autofocus is of very little use to me: if I look down a diagonal line of eight ballerinas, I know which one is the center of interest, but the camera can't know.
So for me, the type of viewfinder in my Epson R-D 1 is just about perfect. I can see naturally, with both eyes open; the picture frame and focusing spot are magically superimposed over my normal field of vision. It's almost exactly like watching the scene without a camera.
So imagine my amazement when I found out that many RF users don't care about that at all. They don't see any advantage to range/viewfinder viewing over SLR viewing; many seem to feel SLR viewing is better. Instead, they're attracted to RF cameras for other reasons, such as:
-- Compactness of the camera body and lenses. There's nothing uniquely "RF-ish" about a small camera -- ask any Olympus fan -- but it's a fact that in general RF systems are pretty compact. An M-mount camera's slender body gives digital-sensor designers fits, but it does make it easier to slide into a small bag. And most RF lenses are smaller than their SLR equivalents -- although that's not so much because they're RF-coupled as because they don't need room in their barrels for auto-diaphragm actuators and AF motors.
-- A perception that the optical quality of RF lenses is better, especially at the wide-angle end. I'm not sure how much of this is because RF lenses don't need to leave space for a reflex mirror (which simplifies optical design for film use but imposes penalties for digital cameras) and how much is simply because an RF camera is capable of focusing a wide-angle lens more accurately than an auto- or manual-focus SLR. But whether it's true or not, there's a band of loyalists who believe it's true.
-- Appreciation of a feeling of traditional craftsmanship and quality. Again, there's nothing especially "RF-ish" about this; SLRs can have it too, as anyone who has ever handled a Nikon F or Leicaflex SL knows. But SLR design moved on to the era of plastic cover panels and motorized mechanisms; these cameras probably are just as precise as the old ones, but they don't feel the same. In the meantime, RF-camera design largely stayed stuck in the mechanical era, simply because the market was small and there wasn't much incentive for manufacturers to redesign the cameras for efficient high-volume production.
So, it seems that many RF fans appreciate their cameras for reasons that have nothing to do with the range/viewfinder viewing system; they're drawn by qualities that are at best coincidental to the RF concept!
While it's always good to have more fans in your tent, I can't help wonder if this doesn't bode ill for the future of the RF camera. The compact-systems buffs could easily be seduced away by a camera with some other type of focusing/viewing system but an equally compact body and lenses; it's certainly possible to design SLR lenses that will satisfy the optical-performance crew; and traditional-craftsmanship enthusiasts could be just as happy with some other type of camera that captures the same knurly, gnarly panache.
That would leave those of us who prefer a rangefinder camera because it's a rangefinder camera in a pretty lonely position... and would tell manufacturers looking for new niche markets that this one is too fragmented to be worth entering.
Not exactly the answer I was hoping to get... but it HAS been interesting!
Last edited:
summaron
Established
But camera manufacturers have been running away from rangefinders as fast as their R&D legs would let them for the last 5 years. With the exception of Ricoh, bless their hearts, there are simply no non M or dedicated lens digital cameras being made today that have decent optical viewfinders, non zoom lenses and rangefinder like feel. It would be like asking Detroit to make a coherently designed and fuel efficient car; there is simply no interest there.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
summaron said:
Longer than that. But as I've said in a previous response, that's mostly because the limitations of a traditional mechanically coupled rangefinder don't let them leverage the efficiencies of manufacturing technology. An electronically-coupled rangefinder would work just as well and would fit more easily into today's production environment.
"Detroit" is perfectly capable of designing good-performing, fuel-efficient cars; the reason they don't is that not enough people ARE asking for them (and clamoring for F-150 pickups instead.) People who want a fuel-efficient car tend to shop European and Asian brands out of sheer bias, just as people who want a sophisticated, modern camera tend to choose SLR and EVF types out of sheer bias.
40oz
...
who wants a camera body that is obselete in two or three years tops when they can have a camera body that will still be sought after 30 years down the road, and is capable of taking advantage of the latest imaging technology by simply replacing a lens or buying a roll of film? Doesn't seem logical to suggest buying into a digital system that EVERYONE knows will be non-relevant in five years. It doesn't matter what the lens mount is.
RichC
Well-known
I'll give my thoughts about the camera mounts at the end of this post, but first I want to explore some other points that have come up.
I'm not saying that plastic is bad: I'm well aware that plastics in cameras often make more engineering sense than metal. This issue simply boils down to aesthetics and tactility for me.
(As a brief aside, I've heard criticism (usually by Leica users) of the cheap build quality of the R-D1. There are very few cameras built like Leicas, so comparing it to one is unreasonable. However, compared with modern "prosumer" dSLRs (like my Canon 10D), it's a revelation: things I expect to be plastic are metal, such as the knurled shutter-speed selector ring and the shutter button, and lenses are solid metal.)
Now, we come to the main reason I bought an R-D1 and sold my dSLR: simplicity. I find modern cameras, owing to their automation, intrude and impose on my image-making. Rather than walk to a better vantage point to improve the composition, it's easier to zoom in or out; rather than think about the light, I'd trust the matrix auto-exposure. After a couple of years with my 10D, I wanted a different type of camera: one with simple, and easily predictable, controls that I could dominate totally. Weegee said famously "I see the thing, I feel the thing, I make the thing." With a modern dSLR you'd have to add "And my camera interferes"!
You can of course turn off a lot of automation in a dSLR, use prime lenses instead of zooms, etc., but modern cameras don't make this easy: manual focusing, for example, is awkward, with no split prism and no depth-of-field markings.
My ideal camera would be a 1970s SLR such as my sister's Olympus OM-1N fitted with a digital sensor (I don't use film!), ideally with the viewfinder/prism mechanism replaced with an identical-quality EVF to make the camera yet smaller, but it must still - importantly - be manual focus. I don't mind auto-exposure as long as it's predictable (spot or centre weighted) and I can override it easily, but manual everything else, please. And dials rather than an LCD - analogue info is more intuitive (cf. digital and analogue clock displays).
The R-D1 body, like the Bessas, is based on the shell of an old Cosina SLR, so it's about the same size as an OM-1N. Thus, there's no reason* why a dSLR can't be built that's the same size as the R-D1, if they leave out what to me are unnecessary features such as matrix metering and 3,258 "picture modes". Manual SLR lenses, although larger than rangefinder lenses, are much smaller than modern autofocus SLR lenses.
[*Except, of course, that not enough people would buy it to make its manufature worthwhile!]
At long last, we've reach lens mount considerations. I personally like the M-mount as it gives me a wide choice of lenses, and this was another reason I chose the R-D1. Modern lenses have high contrast and very well-controlled flare, which, to me, can make images seem rather clinical. My day-to-day lens is a CV 35/1.7 Ultron - it's very good, and I appreciate its precision. However, I also use two 1950s lenses (Elmar 50/2.8 and 90/4) - and these lenses give certain photos more personality owing to reduced contrast and some flare; a lens can be too perfect! A modern SLR locks me into using modern lenses only - messing around with adapters is possible but not very practical.
So, I'd only be happy with a new lens mount design if it was allied with a camera that allowed me to use old lenses via an adapter without compromising the function of the camera. The camera would also have to be small, and designed primarily for manual control (except for easily overridden auto-exposure - which is the setting I park my RD-1 on); I'd be happy with a rangefinder, but would prefer an SLR-type viewfinder (whether mechanical or electronic).
That's me...jlw said:
Not for me - I dislike it. I ended up using an R-D1 because it fulfilled other - more important - criteria. My ideal viewfinder is a 100% coverage split-prism SLR-type image, but without the prism. What this means to me is an electronic viewfinder (EVF), but perhaps technology hasn't caught up with my vision yet (or at least it's too expensive to put into a camera): I want resolution identical to an optical viewfinder and no lag time.
That's important to me: I can put the R-D1 in one coat pocket and several lenses in another, or a very small bag. And it's more discrete than my previous camera, a Canon 10D (once, someone came up to me, looked at it and said "Mate, why is your camera so big"!).
That's another reason I bought the R-D1. Photography for me is a hobby, so I can indulge myself and choose a tool that I enjoy using: a tool that has qualities that don't necessarily improve my image making in any quantifiable, practical way.
I'm not saying that plastic is bad: I'm well aware that plastics in cameras often make more engineering sense than metal. This issue simply boils down to aesthetics and tactility for me.
(As a brief aside, I've heard criticism (usually by Leica users) of the cheap build quality of the R-D1. There are very few cameras built like Leicas, so comparing it to one is unreasonable. However, compared with modern "prosumer" dSLRs (like my Canon 10D), it's a revelation: things I expect to be plastic are metal, such as the knurled shutter-speed selector ring and the shutter button, and lenses are solid metal.)
Now, we come to the main reason I bought an R-D1 and sold my dSLR: simplicity. I find modern cameras, owing to their automation, intrude and impose on my image-making. Rather than walk to a better vantage point to improve the composition, it's easier to zoom in or out; rather than think about the light, I'd trust the matrix auto-exposure. After a couple of years with my 10D, I wanted a different type of camera: one with simple, and easily predictable, controls that I could dominate totally. Weegee said famously "I see the thing, I feel the thing, I make the thing." With a modern dSLR you'd have to add "And my camera interferes"!
You can of course turn off a lot of automation in a dSLR, use prime lenses instead of zooms, etc., but modern cameras don't make this easy: manual focusing, for example, is awkward, with no split prism and no depth-of-field markings.
My ideal camera would be a 1970s SLR such as my sister's Olympus OM-1N fitted with a digital sensor (I don't use film!), ideally with the viewfinder/prism mechanism replaced with an identical-quality EVF to make the camera yet smaller, but it must still - importantly - be manual focus. I don't mind auto-exposure as long as it's predictable (spot or centre weighted) and I can override it easily, but manual everything else, please. And dials rather than an LCD - analogue info is more intuitive (cf. digital and analogue clock displays).
The R-D1 body, like the Bessas, is based on the shell of an old Cosina SLR, so it's about the same size as an OM-1N. Thus, there's no reason* why a dSLR can't be built that's the same size as the R-D1, if they leave out what to me are unnecessary features such as matrix metering and 3,258 "picture modes". Manual SLR lenses, although larger than rangefinder lenses, are much smaller than modern autofocus SLR lenses.
[*Except, of course, that not enough people would buy it to make its manufature worthwhile!]
At long last, we've reach lens mount considerations. I personally like the M-mount as it gives me a wide choice of lenses, and this was another reason I chose the R-D1. Modern lenses have high contrast and very well-controlled flare, which, to me, can make images seem rather clinical. My day-to-day lens is a CV 35/1.7 Ultron - it's very good, and I appreciate its precision. However, I also use two 1950s lenses (Elmar 50/2.8 and 90/4) - and these lenses give certain photos more personality owing to reduced contrast and some flare; a lens can be too perfect! A modern SLR locks me into using modern lenses only - messing around with adapters is possible but not very practical.
So, I'd only be happy with a new lens mount design if it was allied with a camera that allowed me to use old lenses via an adapter without compromising the function of the camera. The camera would also have to be small, and designed primarily for manual control (except for easily overridden auto-exposure - which is the setting I park my RD-1 on); I'd be happy with a rangefinder, but would prefer an SLR-type viewfinder (whether mechanical or electronic).
Last edited:
telenous
Well-known
C'mon lads. The compactness of the rangefinder system may be an evolutionary consequence of the rangefinder architecture but we are not presented with an either/or situation. There is a possible world (the actual one) where the two co-exist and they make each other much more desirable for that.
The rangefinder principle (lets call it that) and compactness are not mutually exclusive, so, fortunately, we do not have to choose one at the cost of the other. The rangefinder consittuency is precisely the overlap area between the two, and not some imagined P&S community meeting a rangefinder one. I am neither interested in a digital Minilux nor a digital Mamiya 7. Nor a digital Contax G for that matter.
The M8, the RD-1s and any other future proposition along these lines is what interest me: they are rangefinders and compact. If they weren't either of the two they wouldn't interest me. The fact that they both come with an M-mount is an optional extra, albeit a fortunate one if you have already invested in it.
Like I said before, for some of us, the rangefinder philosophy operates upon a set of jointly sufficient and individually necessary properties (list here the familiar rangefinder advantages). You 've got to have all of these properties and exactly these properties.
The rangefinder principle (lets call it that) and compactness are not mutually exclusive, so, fortunately, we do not have to choose one at the cost of the other. The rangefinder consittuency is precisely the overlap area between the two, and not some imagined P&S community meeting a rangefinder one. I am neither interested in a digital Minilux nor a digital Mamiya 7. Nor a digital Contax G for that matter.
The M8, the RD-1s and any other future proposition along these lines is what interest me: they are rangefinders and compact. If they weren't either of the two they wouldn't interest me. The fact that they both come with an M-mount is an optional extra, albeit a fortunate one if you have already invested in it.
Like I said before, for some of us, the rangefinder philosophy operates upon a set of jointly sufficient and individually necessary properties (list here the familiar rangefinder advantages). You 've got to have all of these properties and exactly these properties.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
jlw: I just wanted to clarify that for me, RF focusing and "seeing" is my #1 reason for preferring rangefinder cameras. My personal term for that is "immediacy", which is what I wrote in my post, but it certainly wasn't clear what that meant. Thus, I'd prefer a well-made (and reliable) plastic RF to not having one at all, or to an all-metal RF that wasn't built to high spec or had issues with the sensor/image quality.
And while I do not share Rich's enthusiasm for an EVF, I do agree wholeheartedly with him regarding the simplicity and elegance of the "user interface" of most RFs. (I can't state strongly enough how much I hate the UI of electronic cameras. They get in the way of my photography.) For me, manual metering (both CW and spot) and exposure are fine, though an AE mode (no "programmed" mode, please) are often very convenient.
Rich also brings up a great point regarding the wealth of M and LTM lenses available. A new mount would wipe all that choice away, and we certainly can't expect any manufacturer (other than perhaps Leitz or CV) to start producing a range of rangefinder lenses in a new mount that mimic the characteristcs of lenses reaching back to the 1930s.
Thanks for kicking off this discussion. I think it's been one of the most stimulating we've had for awhile. (Well, the M8/IR threads were certainly stimulating, but not in the same way at all!) I suspect that as I think through the variety of comments and insights by everyone, I may very well change some of my ideas or perspectives.
The one question that begs to be asked as a result of this, however, is: Why? None of this matters if one is content with film and scanning. Image quality is great with film, it is only the hassle of the digital workflow when film is the original. My suspicion is that RF photographers are so committed to the RF cameras that they will continue to purchase and use film RFs as long as the dRFs are perceived to have significant compromises. Similarly, those of us who value compactness, optical performance and simplicity will continue to purchase used OMs, FMs, Pentax MXs, etc, and keep them going.
Earl
And while I do not share Rich's enthusiasm for an EVF, I do agree wholeheartedly with him regarding the simplicity and elegance of the "user interface" of most RFs. (I can't state strongly enough how much I hate the UI of electronic cameras. They get in the way of my photography.) For me, manual metering (both CW and spot) and exposure are fine, though an AE mode (no "programmed" mode, please) are often very convenient.
Rich also brings up a great point regarding the wealth of M and LTM lenses available. A new mount would wipe all that choice away, and we certainly can't expect any manufacturer (other than perhaps Leitz or CV) to start producing a range of rangefinder lenses in a new mount that mimic the characteristcs of lenses reaching back to the 1930s.
Thanks for kicking off this discussion. I think it's been one of the most stimulating we've had for awhile. (Well, the M8/IR threads were certainly stimulating, but not in the same way at all!) I suspect that as I think through the variety of comments and insights by everyone, I may very well change some of my ideas or perspectives.
The one question that begs to be asked as a result of this, however, is: Why? None of this matters if one is content with film and scanning. Image quality is great with film, it is only the hassle of the digital workflow when film is the original. My suspicion is that RF photographers are so committed to the RF cameras that they will continue to purchase and use film RFs as long as the dRFs are perceived to have significant compromises. Similarly, those of us who value compactness, optical performance and simplicity will continue to purchase used OMs, FMs, Pentax MXs, etc, and keep them going.
Earl
RichC
Well-known
Just want to emphasize that the EVF I want has to be as good as an optical viewfinder. Current EVFs are truly awful!Trius said:
anselwannab
Well-known
"That's important to me: I can put the R-D1 in one coat pocket and several lenses in another, or a very small bag. And it's more discrete than my previous camera, a Canon 10D (once, someone came up to me, looked at it and said "Mate, why is your camera so big"!)."
I always say "Genetics".
I think that dSLRs could be made smaller. Look at the Nikon d40 and the pentax pancake lenses. Make one with out the silly grip bulge by the shutter relase and leave out the almost useless flash. Less bulk from the grip and a much lower silhoutte. I have to think that Pentax is fixin' to do this, otherwise, why come out with pancake lenses for big bodies? Ballet shoes for elephants?
Drop the flash, give me a glass pentaprism and lets go shooting!
Maybe EVfs will get there. I think we're probably closer to having brain implants that feed us video.
THE M MOUNT IS DEAD; LONG LIVE THE N MOUNT!!!
Mark
I always say "Genetics".
I think that dSLRs could be made smaller. Look at the Nikon d40 and the pentax pancake lenses. Make one with out the silly grip bulge by the shutter relase and leave out the almost useless flash. Less bulk from the grip and a much lower silhoutte. I have to think that Pentax is fixin' to do this, otherwise, why come out with pancake lenses for big bodies? Ballet shoes for elephants?
Drop the flash, give me a glass pentaprism and lets go shooting!
Maybe EVfs will get there. I think we're probably closer to having brain implants that feed us video.
THE M MOUNT IS DEAD; LONG LIVE THE N MOUNT!!!
Mark
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
jlw said:
Given the hypothesis that "we want RF cameras to continue to advance in the digital age", you may be right or wrong. There certainly are pros & cons arguments.
Given the hypothesis that we want RF cameras to produce the best of 35mm photography, then IMVHO you're wrong. For I don't care about digital, and think that film is the only way to make genuine photography, the M cameras are the perfect tools for me (though I like very much my Leica IIIF, screw-mount and Contax mount cameras are not worse in regard to photographical achievement).
When I look at the RFF gallery I'm more and more satisfied that film is in a different league than digital; one noticeable exception is the work of Semrich which has a very warm and classic look.
I'm sorry but I don't feel your manifesto concerns me.
As a matter of fact, I would like to write a manifesto for film photography in general, RF film photography in particular. IMO, RFF should help film RF cameras more than digital. I think we'll be soon on the top of the curve when interest in digital will wane. My guess, my hope at least.
Any RFF members interested in a pro-film manifesto?
Best,
Marc-A.
Gid
Well-known
I use RFs primarily for their size, but also for the range of small high quality lenses on offer and the quietness of the shutter. Focusing using the RF is not a selling point for me - I can focus just as easily with my Canon F1 and even my Olympus E1 (manually). So, if someone produces a well built, high spec (enough MP and decent high iso performance) small DSLR and provides good quality fast primes, that'll do for me.
The new Olympus E400 appears to be a step in the right direction, at least size wise - a comparative shot of the E400 next to an OM1 suggests very little size difference. However, early indications are that there are some performance compromises, although I have yet to see a full review. Leica have a 25mm F1.4 in the pipeline for the 4/3 system (50mm in 35mm terms), so some of my desire for relatively small fast primes may be about to be fulfilled. If they can get the build quality and implementation to Olympus E1 standards, I'd buy one in an instant - the E1's shutter is almost as quiet as my Ms.
So small size, quality, decent fast primes and manual for me. It just happens that currently I can only get that in a RF. However, even if this beast is produced, I'll hang onto my manual cameras and film - its nice knowing that you don't have to rely on electronics.
The new Olympus E400 appears to be a step in the right direction, at least size wise - a comparative shot of the E400 next to an OM1 suggests very little size difference. However, early indications are that there are some performance compromises, although I have yet to see a full review. Leica have a 25mm F1.4 in the pipeline for the 4/3 system (50mm in 35mm terms), so some of my desire for relatively small fast primes may be about to be fulfilled. If they can get the build quality and implementation to Olympus E1 standards, I'd buy one in an instant - the E1's shutter is almost as quiet as my Ms.
So small size, quality, decent fast primes and manual for me. It just happens that currently I can only get that in a RF. However, even if this beast is produced, I'll hang onto my manual cameras and film - its nice knowing that you don't have to rely on electronics.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
40oz said:
Aside: Once the range of 35mm films becomes constrained by shrinking demand, I doubt that those cameras will be so sought-after!
Main point: Okay, so you've declared yourself to be in the camp of people who are film loyalists and wouldn't be interested in a digital camera no matter what. Fair enough.
But the topic was about how to increase the range of RF choices in the digital camera marketplace. The fact is that digital cameras are what most people want to buy, meaning that's what most manufacturers are going to be interested in producing.
Some of those buyers would choose a DRF camera if they understood the benefits and had a range of choices that met their needs; so, in the interest of giving photographers the tools they need to do their best work, we need to find ways to encourage manufacturers to offer a broader array of DRF cameras.
That's really what it's all about. I get tired of looking at crappy, gimmicky, predictable and obvious pictures -- pictures that most photographers make most of the time, partly because the cameras they choose are "enablers" for crappy photography.
I'd rather see pictures made responsively and with clear vision, a type of vision which I believe the RF concept facilitates. (Perhaps you've noticed that a random click on the RFF gallery is more likely to yield a picture worth looking at than a random click on p.net, Flickr, the Pop Photo gallery forum, or whatnot...)
So for me, getting more RF cameras into the hands of photographers is a way of increasing the supply of pictures that don't make me cringe.