Pricing a digital rangefinder

[Chuck A]

Hi All,

I must say that I am surprised that we have not seen any other digital rangefinders on the market. There are rumors of them but except for the R-D1 we haven't seen any. I have to say that I am dying for an AFFORDABLE digital rangefinder. My target price would be under $1500. Under $1000 if possible.

It should be possible to make an affordable DR. Take the R-D1. It is based on the Bessa R2A/R3A body which costs about $599 new (the most affordable rangefinder). Epson added bells and whistles. I heard that the dial system on the R-D1 alone cost $1000. Take away the bells and whistles and give us a basic camera. The price should drop accordingly.

Because the R-D1 was the first, I guess that they could basically charge whatever they wanted for it. I think that Epson wanted it to be a premium item so they priced it accordingly. If they had made it more basic and priced it lower they would have sold out very quickly.

If a DSLR can cost $799 for a body we surely can get a DR that costs $1500 or under. I think that the first company that gives us an affordable DR will mimic what Canon did when they brought out the Digital Rebel. They will sell lots of them.

Epson seems to have given us pretty good image quality. Did they redesign the sensor like Leica is doing? If it is the same one used in the D100 they couldn't have done too much to it. How much does it actually cost to put a sensor and electronics in? There is probably some body redesign to fit it all in but that seems minimal. So, take an afffordable body, add a proven sensor and keep it basic.

I would love to have a camera like the R-D1 but at this price level I expected better quality control. Lots of hot pixels and misaligned framelines and rangefinders. If Epson wanted it to be a premium camera then I would expect better QC.

Maybe I am way off base here and just don't understand the economics. If so let me know and I will adjust my perspective.

 

[ywenz]

Just buy a used RD-1, they'll come down to the $1500 sooner than you think. The reason DSLRs cost so much lower is because they sell more of it, and that's because the SLR form factor is less of a gimmick to use, for most applications of photography. Lets face it, RFs are only suitable for a handful of photographic needs.

 

[zeos 386sx]

I doubt Epson went into the camera business expecting to compete with Canon or Nikon. That may be one of the reasons they chose to present us with a rangefinder instead of an SLR. It is an image of the joining of "old" and "new" technologies and Epson didn't have to set itself up as competing with Canon and Nikon, etc.

The R-D1 was developed (according to Epson) to showcase their imaging technologies. I believe that is why they only chose to manufacture 10,000 R-D1's. I'm not certain they anticipated that professional photographers would fall in love with them and start to use them to death. The Canon and Nikon Pro cameras are tanks. If Epson gets the idea that the R-D1-2-3's are actually going to be used by Pro's they may take greater pains to upgrade the camera's construction to Pro levels.

That kind of construction is not cheap. Don't expect Leica construction quality for $1500.

 

[Chuck A]

Just buy a used RD-1, they'll come down to the $1500 sooner than you think. The reason DSLRs cost so much lower is because they sell more of it, and that's because the SLR form factor is less of a gimmick to use, for most applications of photography. Lets face it, RFs are only suitable for a handful of photographic needs.

A used R-D1 is a possibility but if we don't get other rangefinders the price will not lower too much. One of the major things this camera gives you is the ability to use rangefinder glass. That is a significant plus. From what I see most RF glass is superior to SLR glass. This fact is lost on most and that is why so many mediocre zoom lenses are sold.

 

[ywenz]

A used R-D1 is a possibility but if we don't get other rangefinders the price will not lower too much. One of the major things this camera gives you is the ability to use rangefinder glass. That is a significant plus. From what I see most RF glass is superior to SLR glass. This fact is lost on most and that is why so many mediocre zoom lenses are sold.

How did you figure that most RF glass is superior to SLR glass?

 

[stephen_lumsden]

I would like to see some digital versions of the fixed lens rangfinders, say the Canonet or Konica Auto S2. That would be enough top start with.

Thats my $0.02.

regards

Stephen

 

[vincentbenoit]

How did you figure that most RF glass is superior to SLR glass?

Higher performance-to-bulk ratio? Especially for shorter focal lengths...

 

[bmattock]

How did you figure that most RF glass is superior to SLR glass?

Not that the glass is superior in and of itself.

However, RF lenses do not have to deal with many of the functional requirements of SLR lenses, including the aperture open/close linkage to the camera body.

As well, any lens that can be designed to have a rear element closer to the recording plane than another will have fewer compromises in lens design. The more distance from lens to media, the more light spreads and that spread must be designed into the lens formula.

Finally, most modern SLR glass is of the zoom lens variety - primes are more the standard for RF cameras. Primes tend to be better than zooms - again, fewer compromises in optical design.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Chuck A]

How did you figure that most RF glass is superior to SLR glass?

Good question.

I have used lenses from both types of cameras. I have used a larger number of SLR lenses though. This statement is based on my evaluation of photos and reviews. While both have stars in the lens lineup, rangefinder lenses seem to have more consistancy. Check out Photozones Lens Performance Survey.
Rangefinder lenses score much higher and with much better consistancy than SLR lenses. Also, I think the best rangefinder lenses just seem to have a bit more character than their SLR counterparts. Can I prove this, not really. It is my conclusion though.

I also agree that size to performance is much, much better with rangefinder lenses.

 

[RML]

I find the dial system of the R-D1 much simpler, more intuitive and useful than the horibble push-here-turn-knob-there-squeeze-my-pinky-and-hope-to-die way of setting anything but the on/off switch on SLRs, not to mention the sea of menus one has to wade through to get to anything else.

 

[pvdhaar]

From what I see most RF glass is superior to SLR glass..

Agreed when you're comparing a $150 SLR zoom to a $500 RF prime, but even I as a rangefinder afficionado have to admit that there's a lot of SLR glass out there that matches RF lenses all the way. Case in point: a Tamron 90/2.8 macro has substantially higher resolving power than a similarly priced CV90/3.5, despite the Apo moniker on the latter.. As soon as you've cleared the mirror box, the odds are the same..

Only with short focal lengths do you expect differences, but even there you can find surprises. Although the CV25/4 is loads sharper than the Nikon24/2.8AFD, I've found it lacking when compared to a Nikon28/2.8AFD. This may be due to sample variation on the Nikons, (I returned two 24s because they were so/so, before I finally settled on a 28) but still...