lgstoian
Member
This issue has been bugging me for quite some time now. I love shooting rangefinders but I am not a big fan of film. It has it's good points but , to me , the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I'm not writing this as a rant against film , I know many love it and I understand their passion for it. I'm willing to put up with any issues I have with film , no matter how big , just to be able to shoot with a rangefinder. But I can't help myself from drooling over the idea of going digital ... just one issue ... the damm things are way out of my budget. The cheapest DRF would be the Epson R-D1 , a great camera , which I would buy instantly if only I had 2000 usd. Got into mirror-less thinking it would be close to the RF feel ... but it's not. I find it strange and annoying that up until this point no manufacturer tried to release an entry level DRF ( And NO the Leica M-E is still far from being "Entry Level" ). Back in the days of film there were tons of cheap , accessible RF that still offered you great quality , think the old USSR ones ( I use a FED 3) or the Olympus XA. APS-C and Full Frame sensors are now at a small fraction of their former prices , so why still nothing accessible. And don't mention mirror-less cameras , I want an actual RF , fully manual. A knob for shutter speed , one for ISO and instead of film a sensor. No fancy features like auto exposure or auto focus ... just a pure rangefinder that shoots only digital RAW. I imagine such a camera would sell extremely well. Whys is everyone except Leica completely ignoring the DRF market ?
nongfuspring
Well-known
Because the fully manual DRFs are a very niche market so unless they're sold at low volume for a high price it doesn't make economic sense for companies to produce them.
How about an X100? Besides the manual focus it fits your criteria.
How about an X100? Besides the manual focus it fits your criteria.
lgstoian
Member
I'm already invested in the micro 43 world. Have a body and several lenses. So I wont be changing mirror-less mounts unless I get something as close as possible to what I want.
citizen99
Well-known
This would be my ideal digital format as well. Don't see it happening either 
.
.
MaxElmar
Well-known
"Whys is everyone except Leica completely ignoring the DRF market ?"
Because everyone except Leica (and CV) completely ignored the film rangefinder market.
Because everyone except Leica (and CV) completely ignored the film rangefinder market.
MarylandBill
Established
The basic problem with most of the camera market is that it is driven by the average consumer. Digital over took film not because it produced better images (Though it may now, it didn't when mass consumer adoption took off), but because it is more convenient and easier. Its why most people today are dropping point and shoot cameras in favor of their smart phones. Even more advanced shooters usually choose the camera that can do everything for them (except perhaps that one or two parameters they are interested in. Maybe as the dedicated camera market starts to shrink in favor of phone cameras, the dedicated manufacturers will be forced to cater to every niche as opposed to producing for the masses.
--
Bill
--
Bill
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
It could be argued that the Leica M9 is reasonably priced for what you get...
But here I think it means much cheaper than the M9 and that's not the same. OTOH, a second-hand M8 might meet the criteria.
Regards, David
It could be argued that the Leica M9 is reasonably priced for what you get...
But here I think it means much cheaper than the M9 and that's not the same. OTOH, a second-hand M8 might meet the criteria.
Regards, David
btgc
Veteran
I agree. It would sell very well....if made as a limited model by Leica with a body carved from lunar stone. And it would have to be expensive, otherwise it would be another niche product without any demand except from a few enthusiasts, so not reasonable to manufacture.
Good half of people even don't know they need to push shutter release in way, engaging AF. People need iphones, not manual rangefinders. Let's just face it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
How do you define 'reasonable'? And what reasoning are you using?
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
MarylandBill
Established
Actually, I would say that the m9 and even an m8 are not reasonably priced cameras... not compared to their film predecessors. The basic problem is this, almost by definition a digital camera is a relatively short term investment. Almost any 5 year old digital camera is ancient by modern standards. While current digital cameras might produce images that will be good enough for the vast majority of users far into the future, it will become very difficult to service older cameras as their electronics begin to fail.
In contrast, almost 60 years on, how many M3's are still being used?
If you want me to drop that sort of money on a digital camera body, I think what we really need is a rangefinder body designed to be used with replaceable, upgradable digital backs (kind of like they have in medium format land). While no one has figured out a way to add digital backs to existing cameras economically, I bet it could be done if a camera was designed to have dedicated digital backs. That way the camera and its mechanicals could be made robust.
Just a thought.
--
Bill
Beemermark
Veteran
I think the M8 and M9 are comparably priced with what an M3, IIIF or whatever film camera cost when new.
Given what "niche" low production cameras cost (say a 5x7 view) I don't think the new bodies are unreasonably priced. It's the price of lenses that totally amaze me.
MarylandBill
Established
The lenses are pricey, but given that Leica has kept the M mount for nearly 60 years now, the price may not be that bad compared to SLR's where few cameras still are able to directly mount the same lenses that 30 year old cameras of the same lineage mounted.
I agree that the m8 and the m9 are probably priced comparably to what an M3 cost nearly 60 years ago, but there is much less value for your money. People are still using M3's today. Does anyone seriously think that more than a very rare handful of digital M's will still be usable in 60 years?
--
Bill
jschrader
Well-known
I totally agree with the initial poster's desire for a cheaper M9, but understand that it does not exist. I would buy one.
The point it, how long will you use it? Digital cameras are, let us say, 3 years before you get rid of them, right? Now, is the M-E the one that You will use 15 years, then pay 5times the price.
This is lost money you might have invested in the Leica, if you were sure it is sufficient (I think it is). Just estimate how much money you put into equipment in the last years.
The point it, how long will you use it? Digital cameras are, let us say, 3 years before you get rid of them, right? Now, is the M-E the one that You will use 15 years, then pay 5times the price.
This is lost money you might have invested in the Leica, if you were sure it is sufficient (I think it is). Just estimate how much money you put into equipment in the last years.
Kent
Finally at home...
Yes, I can understand those thoughts.
Minolta H-Matics, Olympus 35.., Zorkis, FEDs and my favourites th Yashica Electro 35 series ... those were fantastic yet affordable cameras which do not have a digital counterpart nowadays!
The reasons have been mentioned already.
Producing such a cam would not pay off for the company. The internal electronics, the sensor (if only APS) and the development investments would generate a price well beyond US$ 800,- (probably even more) for a fully manual cam just with an Av mode.
Only very few enthusiast (most of which are probably members here) would buy such a cam. It would be a fantastic thing for us but a great failure for the company's bookkeepers. That's why it won't happen, unfortunately.
For a while I have hoped for the "digital film roll", like the IMAGEK EFS-1. Some 6 MPix would definitely be enough. But it never was marketed. (I guess the big bad camera companies stopped it.)
Whoa, a dream! Just imagine you could use any "old" cam like a digital cam now!!
This also will never happen!
For me, who loves to shoot with a RFcam, I had to grasp the nettle and give my film rolls to bad labs just to enjoy shooting with one of my RFs.
Then I got the NEX-7 which was pretty close but not the real thing.
And finally I took the plunge and bought a used (but in excellent condition) M8.
Now, that magical feeling is back.
I sold some other stuff for that. So perhaps you can get rid of some things and buy an M8, too?
Minolta H-Matics, Olympus 35.., Zorkis, FEDs and my favourites th Yashica Electro 35 series ... those were fantastic yet affordable cameras which do not have a digital counterpart nowadays!
The reasons have been mentioned already.
Producing such a cam would not pay off for the company. The internal electronics, the sensor (if only APS) and the development investments would generate a price well beyond US$ 800,- (probably even more) for a fully manual cam just with an Av mode.
Only very few enthusiast (most of which are probably members here) would buy such a cam. It would be a fantastic thing for us but a great failure for the company's bookkeepers. That's why it won't happen, unfortunately.
For a while I have hoped for the "digital film roll", like the IMAGEK EFS-1. Some 6 MPix would definitely be enough. But it never was marketed. (I guess the big bad camera companies stopped it.
) Whoa, a dream! Just imagine you could use any "old" cam like a digital cam now!!
This also will never happen!
For me, who loves to shoot with a RFcam, I had to grasp the nettle and give my film rolls to bad labs just to enjoy shooting with one of my RFs.
Then I got the NEX-7 which was pretty close but not the real thing.
And finally I took the plunge and bought a used (but in excellent condition) M8.
Now, that magical feeling is back.
I sold some other stuff for that. So perhaps you can get rid of some things and buy an M8, too?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Well, I think it's wrong to compare a digital with film. From the M7 to the M9 is not a simple conversion. The M8 and M9 are the first CRF's to be made with digital in mind and a lot of pioneering work has to be done.
When the first digital SLR's came out they were also very, very dear and were a bit of a hybrid. Kodak and others putting stuff into a film body (albeit a modified one) and they took what were called legacy lenses. The price being in the region of thousands (? UKP 4,000 or so?)and that was 10 or even 15 years ago. And the crop factor was a shock, no full frame then.
Now can someone supply the price of the first professional dSLR's and we can up it by inflation just to see.
Regards, David
Well, I think it's wrong to compare a digital with film. From the M7 to the M9 is not a simple conversion. The M8 and M9 are the first CRF's to be made with digital in mind and a lot of pioneering work has to be done.
When the first digital SLR's came out they were also very, very dear and were a bit of a hybrid. Kodak and others putting stuff into a film body (albeit a modified one) and they took what were called legacy lenses. The price being in the region of thousands (? UKP 4,000 or so?)and that was 10 or even 15 years ago. And the crop factor was a shock, no full frame then.
Now can someone supply the price of the first professional dSLR's and we can up it by inflation just to see.
Regards, David
lgstoian
Member
Sorry for being silent till now. I got myself caught up in a project.
To Roger Hicks : I would like to see something under 800 - 900 usd.
I can't imagine designing a APS-C camera body these days being so expensive.
You need to keep in mind that such a camera would lack any AF technology , software wise and hardware wise. The mount's focus sensor and the rangefinder can be completely mechanical. There will be no in body JPG processing which means not only that you don't have to create the software for it but also you will avoid paying any royalties. The same will go for lack of video support.
Basically what you would need is a aluminium/magnesium body (heck I'd even accept high quality plastic) with a mechanical mount that is not governed by patents , something like the M39 ( as I believe it's old enough for the patents to have expired). The mechanical rangefinder system. A digital back that would only require an electronic shutter , iso control ,shutter speed control and that is it. We really wouldn't need any other feature. You could probably mass produce something like this in China for around 300. Maybe even cheaper if you go the way of Chinese APS-C sensors which are far cheaper then the big brand boys.
If only I had the funds and access to a hardware engineer ...
To Roger Hicks : I would like to see something under 800 - 900 usd.
I can't imagine designing a APS-C camera body these days being so expensive.
You need to keep in mind that such a camera would lack any AF technology , software wise and hardware wise. The mount's focus sensor and the rangefinder can be completely mechanical. There will be no in body JPG processing which means not only that you don't have to create the software for it but also you will avoid paying any royalties. The same will go for lack of video support.
Basically what you would need is a aluminium/magnesium body (heck I'd even accept high quality plastic) with a mechanical mount that is not governed by patents , something like the M39 ( as I believe it's old enough for the patents to have expired). The mechanical rangefinder system. A digital back that would only require an electronic shutter , iso control ,shutter speed control and that is it. We really wouldn't need any other feature. You could probably mass produce something like this in China for around 300. Maybe even cheaper if you go the way of Chinese APS-C sensors which are far cheaper then the big brand boys.
If only I had the funds and access to a hardware engineer ...
btgc
Veteran
Can not agree....there are enough cameras targeted at masses, priced lower and higher - just like ones you mentioned. Difference is only time when they appeared on shelves. Yes, newer cameras have sensors inside, also focusing is automated, but otherwise there is no change. Dad or housewife can buy one and document their kids or cats, or travels. Nothing has changed.
lgstoian
Member
True there are good cameras out there , but they became too focused on catering to moms and dads. Except Leica none offers a camera for people who still wanna retain a deeper connection with their gear and a purely manual control. Some of us like to set their exposure manually without any digital help , and we also like to frame using a rangefinder. I'd like to see the digital sensor as only a replacement for the film reel and nothing else.
citizen99
Well-known
+1
. <+ message lengthening for post>Ronald M
Veteran
Hard to build a top quality product that sells at low volume and keep the price reasonable. Notice Zeiss will not try. They have to pay all the engineers and build special tooling and buy specialized product like sensors from other producers who have the same low volume problems.
There will never be a cheap Leica M, never ever.
There will never be a cheap Leica M, never ever.