Open letter to Mr. Kobayashi

[morgan]

On top of that, the view through a Leica and through the railway-tunnel gloom of a cheap DSLR are even more different than the view through a Leica (superimposed frames) and a good SLR.

Cheers,

R.

I've been using only my 7D for the last 6 weeks or so. The other day I pulled out my Bessa-R and I almost gasped when I looked through that beautiful huge bright viewfinder. It's nicer than my R-D1 as well. There's a ton of validity to what your saying there Roger. And the 7D vf isn't even bad for an slr, by any stretch, but it's just slaughtered by my bessa.

Personally, I'd love a FF rangefinder that wasn't 7k. I'm pretty happy with my R-D1 with the exception of max shutter speed and card choices. The wide angle issue is a little tough though, despite the R-D1's decent-for-its-vintage lower light performance. I wouldn't mind having more mp to play around with (especially after using my 7D), but I wouldn't want to sacrifice image quality.

 

[Keith]

The ironic thing is that eventually the DSLR and the rangefinder could both be left behind in the wake of new developments in cameras.

Micro four thirds is the trickle of the beginnings of this change. I expect to see very small bodied cameras with extrordinarily sophisticated sensors not necessarilly full frame because full frame is purely a term related to film ... and the billions of lenses on the planet that were designed for this 24 x 36 format could ultimately be orphaned!

So far the engineers have been happy to mimick what has been before to keep the punters happy, give them designs intended for silver halide cleverly converted for capturing pixels by all means ... but it can't last forever!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The ironic thing is that eventually the DSLR and the rangefinder could both be left behind in the wake of new developments in cameras.

Micro four thirds is the trickle of the beginnings of this change. I expect to see very small bodied cameras with extrordinarily sophisticated sensors not necessarilly full frame because full frame is purely a term related to film ... and the billions of lenses on the planet that were designed for this 24 x 36 format could ultimately be orphaned!

So far the engineers have been happy to mimick what has been before to keep the punters happy, give them designs intended for silver halide cleverly converted for capturing pixels by all means ... but it can't last forever!

Hi Keith,

One day we'll see all 35mm lenses orphaned, and dead film, and Bill Laden showing us the cave where he lives in and where he's been hiding Irak's massive destruction weapons George Bush reported... 😀

Cheers,

Juan

 

[wgerrard]

Keith is right.

If money was to be made selling a full-frame RF at a price point below the M9, someone would be selling it. Remember, Leica went through hoops to produce a $7000 camera that has a sensor the same size as a 35mm frame. The number of people who care about that are exceedingly small.

The future is in small cameras with big sensors. Does anyone really imagine that the first company to develop a cheap 40mmx40mm sensor is going to downsize it merely to keep happy a few people with old lenses?

I continue to believe that cameras will use software that allows in-camera adjustment of shutter speed, exposure, etc., apart from the optics and the shutter. We will be able to "teach" our preferences to the software and, once done, it will apply them automatically.

 

[Keith]

Keith is right.

If money was to be made selling a full-frame RF at a price point below the M9, someone would be selling it. Remember, Leica went through hoops to produce a $7000 camera that has a sensor the same size as a 35mm frame. The number of people who care about that are exceedingly small.

The future is in small cameras with big sensors. Does anyone really imagine that the first company to develop a cheap 40mmx40mm sensor is going to downsize it merely to keep happy a few people with old lenses?

I continue to believe that cameras will use software that allows in-camera adjustment of shutter speed, exposure, etc., apart from the optics and the shutter. We will be able to "teach" our preferences to the software and, once done, it will apply them automatically.

Ahhh ... another futurist who sees the futile but necessary path the camera designers have been following to keep us amused and interested!

For god's sake Juan ... get with the program mate! 😀

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Bill,

Are you saying we'll see more digital cameras with smaller than 24x36 sensors (same as the last decade) or what you mean is that in our lifetimes our 35mm lenses will be totally useless?

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Ahhh ... another futurist who sees the futile but necessary path the camera designers have been following to keep us amused and interested!

For god's sake Juan ... get with the program mate! 😀

I'm trying hard, Pickett...😛

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Ahhh ... another futurist who sees the futile but necessary path the camera designers have been following to keep us amused and interested!

For god's sake Juan ... get with the program mate! 😀

Now seriously, Keith:

It's easy to understand that after doing your jobs (covering events) with a big DSLR you can feel an M9 would be a more comfortable option...

But converting your need in declaring that "in general" rangefinders are cameras for small spaces or interiors with very low light, just isn't right... In fact that's probably a minimal field in RF photography history...

And the next step, declaring some more new small sensor cameras will make 35mm lenses useless soon is... your opinion. We'll have to talk about it when our lenses become useless. By now, that's nothing else than words...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Keith]

You seem very 'locked' in history for one so young Juan ... far more interesting to know what a camera or system may excel at currently rather than muse over what it may have done well previously! :angel:

[edit] ...And just as a matter of interest the word 'could' is very important here ... because it means I was hypothesising ... not making a statement or declaration!

were designed for this 24 x 36 format could ultimately be orphaned!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

You seem very 'locked' in history for one so young Juan ... far more interesting to know what a camera or system may excel at currently rather than muse over what it may have done well previously! :angel:

Too personal, Keith, at what age? I'm afraid I'm not the one expecting newer digital cameras for better results... Apart, I used (and own) digital equipment professionally lots of years ago... Imagination and words, words, words... It's not about the past, but about fun, and best tonality, and the beauty of final output...

But don't worry: keep waiting for new small sensor digital cameras, and keep waiting for the day all 35mm lenses will become useless. You won't see that day come, though. I enjoy my 35mm and MF and LF shooting... And my viewers and customers too: it doesn't depend on format or system.

Another thing: you said R-D1 was useless for low light. There are programs -great ones- (from that past I'm locked in: these past two years) that allow you to rebuild a noisy file in amazingly clean and detailed ways. I prefer wet printing anyway.

When could our 35mm lenses become useless, more or less?

Cheers,

Juan

 

[sojournerphoto]

They're dead ... haven't you been paying attention? 😛

Nice to have a digital alternative for those who cant be bothered with those 'cute little rolls' though! 😀

Kobayashi san is in a rather difficult situation here because he's on record as stating he'll never manufacture a digital camera ... well he did and it was called the Epson!

I'm sure if Zeiss gave Cosina a set of designs for a full frame DRF he'd oblige again if the price was right.

Just be patient

 

[BillBingham2]

I think Keith is right, we are on the edge of a major shift. Plate to Sheet, Sheet to Roll, RF to SLR, film to digital. Sadly there the billions of lenses out there are jettisoned.

B2 (;->

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

That change, happened already. Many years ago. Not only 35mm lenses are used on best digital cameras, but MF and LF film cameras are being used years ago with digital backs AND their original lenses.

That change is a thing of the past. I see no radical changes coming soon.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Jamie123]

I think you misunderstood my post. The reason I brought up zooms is because for most brands, that's the only option you have to getting the usual wide/normal focal length of 35mm (on a cropped camera, FX/FF can simply use a 35mm lens)

And the smudged images from high ISO is not so much from the sensors, but from the heavy noise reduction most dslrs employ (based on my own experiences with my 400d, 5dmk2 and D700)

And mirror slap is an issue, I've never been able to capture sharp images at 1/8s with any of my dslrs but manage it perfectly well with my M8. And yes, IS does come in handy..but name me a reasonably fast (f/2.8) zoom lense with IS that isn't a) Huge and b) Soft wide open (compared to the wonderful lenses you get on the M mount)

At the end of the day it all comes down to size, no matter how small a dslr is you're still dealing with a rather bulky design and large lenses (quality ones)

Also, regarding your last line..I have an M8, and can probably afford an M9 if I sell some of my nikon stuff. And yet I would still like a successor for the RD1, simply because I loved the feel and design of the first one. If it didn't have that blasted 1.5 crop factor, I'd buy it in an instant 🙂 Also, lets be honest..if they did manage to come out with a FF RD2, it won't even come near to the price of an M9. Whether you like it or not, the Leica brand does add to the cost of their products..heck, look at the Dlux 4/Lx3.

I still don't get your point about zooms. Why exactly can't you use a prime lens on a DSLR? Even on a crop sensor you can stick a 28mm f1.8 lens on and you have a 45mm equiv. Put on a 20mm f2.8 and you got your 35mm equiv.

As for noise, I must be doing something wrong because I don't get muddy smudged colors from my 5DII. I shoot RAW and use Adobe ACR 5 and the pictures look great up to ISO1600 or even 3200.

My point is still that at the end it doesn't come down to size. Sure, an M9 with a lens is smaller than a small DSLR with a lens but it's not that much smaller.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The ironic thing is that eventually the DSLR and the rangefinder could both be left behind in the wake of new developments in cameras.
!

Dear Keith,

Everything can get left behind eventually. But (a) it doesn't always mean that the old technlogy vanishes completely and (b) once something is right the scope for change is limited. A bicycle can only have two wheels (or it becomes a unicycle, tricycle, quadricycle) and although 'feet-forward' or 'recumbent' bicycles have been around for several decades, the conventional design remains more popular.

An undersized, underweight camera is as difficult to hold still as one that is oversize and overweight, and unless you rely totally on automation, the controls are too small too.

Cheers,

R.

 

[LCT]

...Micro four thirds is the trickle of the beginnings of this change...

I don't think so. Good stuff but too wide DoF. Small cams can be made in larger format as well. Preference for 24x36 is mainly based on DoF as well, at least for me. Aside from small sensor cams, i feel that the best compromise for small gear is APS-C definitely. YMMV.

 

[j j]

I see much truth in what Keith is saying. Cameras (SLR and rangefinder) are based around the design of 35mm cameras and it makes no sense.

Panasonic, Olympus, Sony and Samsung are changing the camera concept, and that change is set to continue and gain pace. Their cameras thus far ape 35mm so as not to alienate users. That will not last long as the folk memory of what cameras look like changes. Touch screens are catching up with dials and buttons and the shape and appearance of cameras and their interfaces will change.

Folks have stated already in this thread that there will be nothing to compete with the M9. I doubt anyone expects a new Leica film camera. Of course, some people will be happy to use legacy equipment and will get great images from it. But soon it will be an compromise to use M equipment as better image quality will be available from other types of camera.

 

[Keith]

I don't think so. Good stuff but too wide DoF. Small cams can be made in larger format as well. Preference for 24x36 is mainly based on DoF as well, at least for me. Aside from small sensor cams, i feel that the best compromise for small gear is APS-C definitely. YMMV.

Wasn't someone messing around with a fluid lens design recently ... infinitely variable?

As for depth of field that may become controlled by things other than optical parameters, lens to sensor ratio etc The depth of field of a micro four thirds camera surely has a lot to do with it's compromised design intended to make it marketable to people who expect a camera to follow a form they're familiar with.

 

[gho]

Putting merchantability and cost aside, from a practical point of view a Bessa Rx with a full frame digital sensor would be a very useful camera, given that the sensor does the job right. Think full frame foveon like output with good high iso performance and color accuracy. But I am not sure if the development of something like this is a.) economically reasonable and b.) technically doable for a relatively small company alone. So I keep shooting film in my RFs. Happily.