Mister E
Well-known
I'm going to start a thread: "Open letter for you to start shooting film". Then inside I'll say something equally as dull as the OPs post: "You should shoot film". In a world where all this wonderful film is still easy to get and shoot in 50+ years of great cameras who needs digital?
btgc
Veteran
If it still comes out expensive to build it, please make just full-frame insert I can use in film cameras. It doesn't has to be sophisticated, it will be OK if it has only a few features like adjustment of focus plane and open API.
swoop
Well-known
I doubt Cosina has the resources to pull off a digital rangefinder. The RD-1 was funded by and produced for Epson.
Zeiss would be in the same boat. Though I imagine they have more R&D money, they'd stlll be starting from the ground up.
But what about Leica? They did it. Well, Leica had to in order to stay alive and relevant and sell more of their lenses. In fact Zeiss and Cosina should be thanking Leica for developing the M8 and M9 and not trying to steal a piece of the pie. As I'm sure they have seen their lens sales spike since the M8 came around. And they're probably happy with that extra revenue. Despite the M9's success, it's still a niche market. There's only so much demand for these things. Why pour all that money and resources into creating digital rangefinders if they're not even sure they can sell enough of them.
Zeiss would be in the same boat. Though I imagine they have more R&D money, they'd stlll be starting from the ground up.
But what about Leica? They did it. Well, Leica had to in order to stay alive and relevant and sell more of their lenses. In fact Zeiss and Cosina should be thanking Leica for developing the M8 and M9 and not trying to steal a piece of the pie. As I'm sure they have seen their lens sales spike since the M8 came around. And they're probably happy with that extra revenue. Despite the M9's success, it's still a niche market. There's only so much demand for these things. Why pour all that money and resources into creating digital rangefinders if they're not even sure they can sell enough of them.
Last edited:
btgc
Veteran
swoop makes a good point about lenses.
Only thing others could do is collaborate and make their DRF, sharing production costs. Selling more their own lenses.could keep this project on water.
But we don't know if they have any agreement with Leica which currently provides customers buying new M-mount lenses from all lens makers.
Only thing others could do is collaborate and make their DRF, sharing production costs. Selling more their own lenses.could keep this project on water.
But we don't know if they have any agreement with Leica which currently provides customers buying new M-mount lenses from all lens makers.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
There's always some diehard prepared to take any opportunity to turn a well meaning thread into a film verses digital platform.
I love film and actually choose it over digital but can see the validity of the OP's post ... and do enlighten me, where is he telling us we should shoot digital?
... get a life!
Last edited:
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
well, at least that's not me.
even though i have do admit, that i forgot to use the words "in the meantime" in my previous post. sorry for that.
finally, i also should admit, that i posess (and use) an R-D1 myself, and i am quite clear about the advantages of digital. but at the same time, i still prefer film these days, and i am very happy with a "halfblood" workflow combining the disadvantages of both silver based and digital photography (scanning my shop developed film for further processing and printing).
so, don't let some "outfashioned pelliculophile" spoil your joy with digital cameras and your plea for more of those.
;-)
cheers,
sebastian
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Please disregard the tone of my previous post ... I'm grumpy today! (toothache)
I am happy though that at the moment we still have the choice of shooting film or digital ... twenty or so years ago there was no such choice, so as photographers we really are better off than we have ever been!
I am happy though that at the moment we still have the choice of shooting film or digital ... twenty or so years ago there was no such choice, so as photographers we really are better off than we have ever been!
Last edited:
Mister E
Well-known
I'm hardly a die hard film shooter. I was responding with a bit of sarcasm to what was posted in here, especially the lack of any breadth in the original post.There's always some diehard prepared to take any opportunity to turn a well meaning thread into a film verses digital platform.
I love film and actually choose it over digital but can see the validity of the OP's post ... and do enlighten me, where is he telling us we should shoot digital?
... get a life!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A cynical observation from a friend who used to work for Ilford:
Whenever anyone says, "Why don't you make ________ to provide some competition for __________," what they mean is, "Why don't you make a cheaper version?"
And (continued my chum), "There were normally two good reasons why we didn't want to make it. One was that it was such a small market that they were lucky to get the product that was available, and the other was that we couldn't make it cheaper anyway."
A further interesting observation from Simon Ward-Hastelow, editor of Land Rover World, is that at a German trade show he attended recently, the usual question to manufacturers and dealers was, "Is your product as good as so-and-so's?" He remarked on the contrast with the UK, where (he reckoned) the most usual question is, "Is it cheaper?"
Cheers,
R.
Whenever anyone says, "Why don't you make ________ to provide some competition for __________," what they mean is, "Why don't you make a cheaper version?"
And (continued my chum), "There were normally two good reasons why we didn't want to make it. One was that it was such a small market that they were lucky to get the product that was available, and the other was that we couldn't make it cheaper anyway."
A further interesting observation from Simon Ward-Hastelow, editor of Land Rover World, is that at a German trade show he attended recently, the usual question to manufacturers and dealers was, "Is your product as good as so-and-so's?" He remarked on the contrast with the UK, where (he reckoned) the most usual question is, "Is it cheaper?"
Cheers,
R.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
As I said I was grumpy and felt like taking it out on someone and you happened to be nearby!
Nothing personal ... !
Back to the OP .. it's only his second ever post and English is not his native tongue ... so he did ok I reckon!
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
So true!
And -just an opinion- what I can't understand is why people want unexistant gear, especially if several good options with very different prices exist...
The results I've seen from the R-D1 are amazing: a clean and real tone... And a very beautiful machine... And it's enough for pro work: when a 6Mb image is well done, it's sharp (or any other thing) enough for a full page magazine print, and that well made image can be made bigger digitally if a bigger size is necessary, and will retain its quality...
And those who know more than me, can buy a not so expensive M8, or pay more for an M9...
If I wanted a digital RF, I would get one, instead of waiting for future models... Maybe this waiting is a more common thing in digital photography: I don't remember myself wondering about future film camera models in 25 years...
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
To a point Juan!
One of the major strengths of a rangefinder is it's ability in low light in confined spaces ... which requires focal lengths of 35mm or wider and fast glass at that!
The Epson misses the boat totally in this area with it's crop factor and the M8 barely sneaks in ... that leaves someone who shoots regularly in these conditions the choice of spending seven grand on the M9 or lugging a DSLR around!
One choice (the M9) is better than none I guess but an alternative would be nice.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Keith,
I didn't know the R-D1 is way below film abilities regarding ISO as to be that unusable.
Cheers,
Juan
I didn't know the R-D1 is way below film abilities regarding ISO as to be that unusable.
Cheers,
Juan
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Without selling any body parts the fastest 24mm or 25mm lens (25mm equates to 35mm on RD-1) you're likely to get will be f2.8 ... try using that on an RD-1 in a dimly lit environment!
I was struggling with an f1.2 on my M8 ... an RD-1 would have been out of the question!
LCT
ex-newbie
A rangefinder is not a wide camera by essence. The M3 was a .91x body needing goggles to fit 35mm lenses.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Maybe those cameras can be used in other ways, as they sell for more money than film Nikon SLRs and Leica Ms...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
j j
Well-known
Call me a typical Brit, as I wish for a digital rangefinder at less cost than the current choice of one camera priced £5,500. Leica produces premium products at a premium price. Another company could produce something more affordable than an M9. Whether any company will is another matter.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
And the M3 was conceived in the early fifties when 50mm was considered to be as wide as generally needed by Leica obviously. Most of their current bodies have frame lines 28mm or wider now.
I agree that a rangefinder is not a wide camera by it's essence but it certainly is one of it's major strengths! The 24 mm f1.4 Summilux is an indication that they felt there was a need for a fast extra wide ... not that any mortal can afford that lens of course!
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
No one will make a camera as good as the M9 at a much lower price... No one will make a camera that's much better than the R-D1 at a lower price... The next full frame digital RF will cost several thousands too, close to M9's price... That's why it made so much sense getting an M9 precisely when it came out... To enjoy it all these "first time" years...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Jamie123
Veteran
I think if you look at an M9 and compare it to an entry-level DSLR like a Canon 550D there's not much of a size difference. The M9 is 585g while the Canon 550D is 530g. Sure, the M lenses are smaller than EF lenses but a fast M lens isn't exactly light. So I don't think the argument of having to get an M9 in order not to have to 'lug a DSLR around' has much validity. There's an comparable amount of lugging required with both systems. Also, the DSLR will most likely surpass the M9 in low light performance and focus accuracy. Low light? Stick a ST-E2 for IR focusing on there.
What I'm trying to say is that on a practical level there's little to no reason why one should use an M9 instead of a DSLR. Just like, on a practical level, there's no reason to go with a Rolex instead of a cheap quartz watch. Why do people buy Rolex watches? Well, because they just prefer it and think it looks nicer. (Let's disregard reasons like them being status symbols etc.)
Why do people use an M9? I suspect in the end it's simply a matter of habit and personal preference. There's nothing wrong with that but one has to realize that the market for such a camera is comparably small and limited. There may be a demand for digital rangefinders but I doubt that there's a growing demand. Anyone entering this market will be sharing it with Leica and the question really is whether or not it's even worth the effort. They might as well just stick to making lenses and leave the camera market to Leica.