Rangefinderless Rangefinder
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 37
- Views 5K
Michael Markey
Veteran
Back on topic though I think its the RF that defines an M.
It wouldn`t surprise me if at some stage Leica moved away from that concept.
It wouldn`t surprise me if at some stage Leica moved away from that concept.
jsrockit
Moderator
Hmmm, good point.
GaryLH
Veteran
I have my doubts that Leica would ever go down this path...
From my perspective, when I got into rf cameras, it was first about the iq from the lenses and the lighter weight overall package. Rf style focusing was easier for me than slr. Seeing outside the frame lines really does help in certain situations compared to your tunnel vision of typical slr.
If u look at the Ricoh gxr m module implementation, it comes the closest to being able to use m lenses w/o a true rf... What it lacks is being able to c outside the frame lines such as the Fuji xpro 1.
Today there are no clear drf competitors out there. There are guys like Fuji, Ricoh and even Sony w/ their Nex line that offer alternatives. It is really a matter of deciding if those alternatives are good enough in the long run.
For me the Ricoh gxr is close enough. I just wish they would come out w/ next generation m module. If I want full frame I will use my Konica rf or my Leica CL.
Gary
From my perspective, when I got into rf cameras, it was first about the iq from the lenses and the lighter weight overall package. Rf style focusing was easier for me than slr. Seeing outside the frame lines really does help in certain situations compared to your tunnel vision of typical slr.
If u look at the Ricoh gxr m module implementation, it comes the closest to being able to use m lenses w/o a true rf... What it lacks is being able to c outside the frame lines such as the Fuji xpro 1.
Today there are no clear drf competitors out there. There are guys like Fuji, Ricoh and even Sony w/ their Nex line that offer alternatives. It is really a matter of deciding if those alternatives are good enough in the long run.
For me the Ricoh gxr is close enough. I just wish they would come out w/ next generation m module. If I want full frame I will use my Konica rf or my Leica CL.
Gary
D
D.J.
Guest
willie_901
Veteran
I happen to enjoy and prefer using optical finders.
One of the reasons I'm keeping my X100 as a back up camera to my XP-1 is because the XE-1 doesn't have an OVF.
At the same time the problem described above could be trivially solved by manually overriding the EVF gain. While I know of no cameras with this feature, it doesn't seem like an expensive or inelegant solution.
rluka
Established
As someone who doesn't have an M, the main reason I lusted for a digital M is exactly the rangefinder experience.
Not the quality of the lenses or image character because my "flight hour" is not long enough to allow me such observation.
Not the compactness because there's smaller mirrorless. Neither is the style, there's X-Pro1.
Not the optical viewfinder nor full manual control because I had more experience with digital and I can live with it.
Not the legend nor the everlastingness because I'd rather have balance with quick affordability.
And in few more generations we might have 35mm sensor mirrorless out in the market.
That mechanical rangefinder is the last stand for rangefinder as their differentiation factor, something other brand are not interested to do.
Well, that and the smaller (for slower lens) and full manual lenses. The state of lens mount nowadays are like proprietary phone charger before the EU force everyone to use standard USB cable. Modern lenses seems to be designed to stop it from being used in other brand (electronic controlled aperture, focus-by-wire)
Not the quality of the lenses or image character because my "flight hour" is not long enough to allow me such observation.
Not the compactness because there's smaller mirrorless. Neither is the style, there's X-Pro1.
Not the optical viewfinder nor full manual control because I had more experience with digital and I can live with it.
Not the legend nor the everlastingness because I'd rather have balance with quick affordability.
And in few more generations we might have 35mm sensor mirrorless out in the market.
That mechanical rangefinder is the last stand for rangefinder as their differentiation factor, something other brand are not interested to do.
Well, that and the smaller (for slower lens) and full manual lenses. The state of lens mount nowadays are like proprietary phone charger before the EU force everyone to use standard USB cable. Modern lenses seems to be designed to stop it from being used in other brand (electronic controlled aperture, focus-by-wire)
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
However interesting the technical debates are, they are not the core of the issue anymore.
Thing is that Leica are selling RF camera's for high prices and the cost of that expensive RF is covered by the price. Now answer me this: why would any sane marketing department change the specifics of their design if that change would appeal to a whole new customer base and at the same time be considered a downgrade in technology and a loss of the brand's high esteem? Remember, they tried it once with the Leica CL and it nearly killed them, and when they launched the M5 they almost were done in too.
It's not going to happen at this point in time. And if it does happen in the future it will be with a camera that will have other options that will justify a price high enough to put it up there with the Vuitton bags, Rolexes and Ferrari's. Either that or the marketing department will have excessed in sniffing glue before they put out a major f-up plan 😀
Thing is that Leica are selling RF camera's for high prices and the cost of that expensive RF is covered by the price. Now answer me this: why would any sane marketing department change the specifics of their design if that change would appeal to a whole new customer base and at the same time be considered a downgrade in technology and a loss of the brand's high esteem? Remember, they tried it once with the Leica CL and it nearly killed them, and when they launched the M5 they almost were done in too.
It's not going to happen at this point in time. And if it does happen in the future it will be with a camera that will have other options that will justify a price high enough to put it up there with the Vuitton bags, Rolexes and Ferrari's. Either that or the marketing department will have excessed in sniffing glue before they put out a major f-up plan 😀
MartinP
Veteran
As I think I mentioned in one of Roger's threads, I understand a rangefinder camera to have an optical viewfinder showing a consistent and reliable view. The rangefinder indication is a manual adjustment, chosen by the photographer - so not autofocus.
However, we have a dot and a couple of arrows for an opto-electronic lightmeter - why not another dot and a pair of arrows for some sort of contrast or phase based focus-indicator? The relevant area of what we focus on through the viewfinder could be marked, and move with the range as it does now, and indeed, if the framelines were electronically made and projected, they could also change in size with distance. We could have the most accurate viewfinder and rangefinder ever seen while maintaining the manual character and clear vision of this style of camera.
There is no new technology involved, nor is it difficult to think up. Why is this not available? Research and development resources, and marketing barriers probably.
However, we have a dot and a couple of arrows for an opto-electronic lightmeter - why not another dot and a pair of arrows for some sort of contrast or phase based focus-indicator? The relevant area of what we focus on through the viewfinder could be marked, and move with the range as it does now, and indeed, if the framelines were electronically made and projected, they could also change in size with distance. We could have the most accurate viewfinder and rangefinder ever seen while maintaining the manual character and clear vision of this style of camera.
There is no new technology involved, nor is it difficult to think up. Why is this not available? Research and development resources, and marketing barriers probably.
There are really two different discussions here.
I don't necessarily think that a 'new technology rangefinder' (for lack of a better term) that elminates mechanical variations and allows the user to focus extremely accurately directly off the sensor results in a different customer base.
To be clear, I'm talking optical viewfinder with framelines, with electronic rangefinder focus off the sensor. How this is actually accomplished is up to the engineers. 🙂
I'm not talking 'live view' with EVF which of course has been around for several years now.
DougFord
on the good foot
Have you heard that the new M will have an accessory VF? No, not a German designed and manufactured OVF but an EVF, that's MANUFACTURED IN JAPAN. That statement doesn't faze anyone these days. Now if you would have made that statement just 6 years ago you might of gotten a different reaction.
Are leica traditionalist de-evolving? *wink*
The acceptance of technology that heretofore would have been unthinkable is not. Unthinkable? yeah, like a Leica M without a mechanical RF (nervous laughter)
The GREAT BIFURCATION of the digital M line has already begun. The vestigial RF assembly is...vestigial.
Rangefinderless rangefinder cameras will be manufactured by Leica, side by side with the M-E, until M-E sales go the way of the....
Are leica traditionalist de-evolving? *wink*
The acceptance of technology that heretofore would have been unthinkable is not. Unthinkable? yeah, like a Leica M without a mechanical RF (nervous laughter)
The GREAT BIFURCATION of the digital M line has already begun. The vestigial RF assembly is...vestigial.
Rangefinderless rangefinder cameras will be manufactured by Leica, side by side with the M-E, until M-E sales go the way of the....
Well the digital M still has a traditional rangefinder. Unless I'm not following something in your post.
zuiko85
Veteran
No. A Leica M, digital or film, without the superimposed image rangefinder with projected frame lines would not be a the same. That is my opinion and I'm certainly nowhere near a Leica fan boy.
The Leica M viewing/focusing system is intrinsic to the appeal and character of the M system even if it could be 'improved' or simplified on by going to a electronic or electronic/hybrid viewing system.
Yes, I know Leica made some M bodies without a rangefinder or even a viewfinder, mostly for microscope and scientific use, but they were dwarfed by the production of regular M bodies.
That is my strong opinion. Some will share the same opinion, others will not. In the end I suppose it does not really matter.
The Leica M viewing/focusing system is intrinsic to the appeal and character of the M system even if it could be 'improved' or simplified on by going to a electronic or electronic/hybrid viewing system.
Yes, I know Leica made some M bodies without a rangefinder or even a viewfinder, mostly for microscope and scientific use, but they were dwarfed by the production of regular M bodies.
That is my strong opinion. Some will share the same opinion, others will not. In the end I suppose it does not really matter.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, it's not vestigial. Have you tried it? The accessory viewfinder is very much the second choice: a useful second choice, but still very much a second choice.
Cheers,
R.
thegman
Veteran
Would it be a Leica M? Well, I suppose the M1 is an M, and it has no range finder. And right now the only similarity, besides looking similar, between a Leica M3 and ME is the range finder, everything else is different.
Whether a range finder-less M is an M is up to the user, either you'll accept it as an M or you won't.
Is it required? Well, no, people have coped until now. Is it wanted? By most users, probably not. Is it wanted by Leica? Well, if they feel it will sell cameras, then probably at some point it will happen. I think it will be a long time though, if ever, Leica knows their user base, and radically changing the M in a way users don't like might drive them away in number.
Whether a range finder-less M is an M is up to the user, either you'll accept it as an M or you won't.
Is it required? Well, no, people have coped until now. Is it wanted? By most users, probably not. Is it wanted by Leica? Well, if they feel it will sell cameras, then probably at some point it will happen. I think it will be a long time though, if ever, Leica knows their user base, and radically changing the M in a way users don't like might drive them away in number.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
In some aspect better viewfinder systems have been introduced by the dozen, and rangefinders really were only in the lead for some ten or twenty years throughout the entire photo history. So the question in its generalized form has been decided at least 50 years ago.
The only question is whether and when Leica Camera will believe that a switch in focusing paradigm will gain more users on one side of their customer base than it will lose on the other. With the current owners focus on luxury goods, it is rather hard to determine a strategy there - that market is a discontinuum of different niches, and once a company has left the traditionalist niche (which Leica may have done with the M8), it will usually have to zigzag its way though different niche markets.
The only question is whether and when Leica Camera will believe that a switch in focusing paradigm will gain more users on one side of their customer base than it will lose on the other. With the current owners focus on luxury goods, it is rather hard to determine a strategy there - that market is a discontinuum of different niches, and once a company has left the traditionalist niche (which Leica may have done with the M8), it will usually have to zigzag its way though different niche markets.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, try 30 years (1932-early 1960s), and define 'better'. Is roast beef better than ice-cream? Also, there is no "question in its generalized form". This is about rangefinder cameras.
Cheers,
R.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
In my opinion, rangefinders are still the fastest surest way to get an image in focus, provided the camera and lenses are within tolerances. If not, this could be the most frustrating experience ever, not being able to get critical focus. I was very lucky that my recently purchased M9 works flawlessly with all my lenses, except one. The lens went to Zeiss for calibration and came back perfectly adjusted. I shot a while with the GXR-M before the M9 and while it is possible to get very accurate focus with magnified view, the focus peaking is not as precise as RF focusing. And most importantly, magnified view is not the way I enjoy taking photos, and not even suitable for many situations. I definitely look forward to live view with the typ 240, as it opens many possibilities and allows for critical focus when needed, but for me rangefinders are irreplaceable.
Similar threads
- Article
