HenningW
Well-known
I've heard that there are a couple of KoniMiolta 'mules' out on the streets of Tokyo with different sized sensors, based on the chassis of the Hexar RF. Does anyone else have any info on this?
The possibility of a Hexar RF based digital camera, possibly with K-M's anti-shake technology makes my mouth water and my hands quiver; figuratively at least. For the last couple of years my two Hexars have gotten as much or more use than my Leica Ms, especially with shorter lenses, and I would love to have something similar for digital use.
Henning
The possibility of a Hexar RF based digital camera, possibly with K-M's anti-shake technology makes my mouth water and my hands quiver; figuratively at least. For the last couple of years my two Hexars have gotten as much or more use than my Leica Ms, especially with shorter lenses, and I would love to have something similar for digital use.
Henning
HenningW
Well-known
Sorry; I guess the 'hands quiver' wasn't completely figurative. That should have been 'KoniMinolta'.
Henning
Henning
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
There's been talk here based on something Stephen Gandy posted to the Cosina/Voigtlander list. He said there were prototype cameras, including one with a full-35mm-size sensor (which probably would rule out the anti-shake feature) but NO definite plans for production.
greggebhardt
Well-known
jlw said:
Boy, a full size 35mm sensor would really shake things up. I wish the future would come quicker. I would just love to see the specs on the real Leica and Zeiss RF digital offerings. Maybe in a few months.
brightsky
Established
Leica RF?
Leica RF?
I suspect the sticker shock of a "real" Leica digital RF would make the R-D1 look like a bargain, despite the QC issues. Others may be able to produce one without the elite name price tag.
Leica RF?
I suspect the sticker shock of a "real" Leica digital RF would make the R-D1 look like a bargain, despite the QC issues. Others may be able to produce one without the elite name price tag.
djon
Well-known
Two Pansonics, destined for release in the fall, feature anti-shake, 8MP (larger chips but not full-sized), and Leica optics. One is a DSLR and the other is an ultra-wide, ultra-compact. Samples online indicate that they're terrific.
We'll never see rangefinder focus, given the success and ever-improving quality of autofocus.
Today's 8MP Canons and Nikons are temporary technology, destined for Ebay in 2006: their optics (especially their funky "kit lenses") can't rival Leica's and they lack anti-shake.
We'll never see rangefinder focus, given the success and ever-improving quality of autofocus.
Today's 8MP Canons and Nikons are temporary technology, destined for Ebay in 2006: their optics (especially their funky "kit lenses") can't rival Leica's and they lack anti-shake.
R
RML
Guest
djon said:
Successful in terms of sale, yes. Accurate, IMO not really.
I've never had more incorrectly focused shots as with my Eos 300D. Even my lowly ($300 in 1999) Eos 3000 did a better job. Nowadays I have better focused shots from my RF cameras than from my 300D, even from the CL with it's short RF base using my J9 85mm wide open. But maybe I'm just lousy when it comes to using autofocus.
aizan
Veteran
there are two kinds of focusing: rough and fine. no focusing mechanism is ideal for both, so a combination is really nice. even better if they're combined in the same camera.
djon
Well-known
Yes, it's well known that some Canon autofocus lenses are accurate and others are cheap. You pays yer money and gets what you deserve.
Unfortunately there's no future in rangefinders, unless of course they're autofocus (a wide-base laser autofocus rangefinder would of course be far more accurate than today's contrast-sensors).
Precise and tough mechanical mechanisms such as manual rangefinders are more expensive to manufacture than are motorized, microprocessor gizmos.
Years ago when Volkswagen needed a cheaper model to compete with bottom Nissans they reintroduced mechanical windows instead of the power windows that'd become standard. The funny thing was that the $800 cheaper mechancial window option actually cost MUCH more to manufacture than did the standard power window version. Same with cameras.
Unfortunately there's no future in rangefinders, unless of course they're autofocus (a wide-base laser autofocus rangefinder would of course be far more accurate than today's contrast-sensors).
Precise and tough mechanical mechanisms such as manual rangefinders are more expensive to manufacture than are motorized, microprocessor gizmos.
Years ago when Volkswagen needed a cheaper model to compete with bottom Nissans they reintroduced mechanical windows instead of the power windows that'd become standard. The funny thing was that the $800 cheaper mechancial window option actually cost MUCH more to manufacture than did the standard power window version. Same with cameras.
Last edited:
ulrik
Established
djon: do you have any documentation on the volkswagen story? i'm interested as i'm doing a paper on digital and analog solutions. thanks