Still no reasonably priced digital rangefinders.

[btgc]

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.

35mm basically were for moms and dads, too lazy to use real formats. Personally I think of this - if you want advantages of modern engines, you can't have also carburettors. If you insist on them, go with a car of that era. One for track days, one for commuting but this are two different vehicles. Just like with cameras.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This is the big question: where's the market? There's a very small market segment that doesn't want/like modern 'conveniences' (auto exposure, autofocus), but which either can't afford an M-series or prefers to save money by buying a camera they don't really want (typically a DSLR).

This tiny market segment is sandwiched between the huge majority who want idiot-proof auto-everything (some of whom even want to ruin Leica Ms by adding autofocus) and a small minority who buy Leicas because they really like cameras without unnecessary bells and whistles. Ronald M sums it up very clearly.

Also, where were these 'reasonably priced' interchangeable-lens rangefinders? Especially after the mid-1960s? There were increasingly outdated and increasingly agricultural FSU designs, but basically, the 70s, 80s and most of the 90s were pretty much a dry spell for decent RFs until the Voigtländer name was reintroduced, followed by ZI -- and it's a LOT cheaper to develop a film RF on an existing chassis than to develop a digital RF from scratch. The few other reasonably high-end film RFs that showed up in the 70s, 80s and 90s were failures (or their manufacturers would have kept them in production longer). Where's the incentive to bring out a new digi RF that could at best compete in price with second-hand M8s?

Cheap fixed-lens RFs were popular because they were the cheapest way to get your pics in focus, reasonably reliably. Autofocus is now the cheapest way to do it. The moms and pops ain't gonna go back to fixed-lens RFs; there are several modern autofocus equivalents; and you can't even get (new) leaf shutters cheaply and easily any more. And yet, the fantasy keeps surfacing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[lgstoian]

But I don't want carburetors. I want to take advantage of all the improvements that a digital sensor has to offer. I don't even want a retro designed camera. All I want is to shoot manual lenses while focusing and framing through a rangefinder. Film may be dead but stuff like auto-focus + auto-exposure + EVF are still not up to par with what you could do yourself the good old fashion way. To use your car analogy : I want a car that still has a steering wheel and not a self-drivable one that you can choose to control by a keyboard. I want all the delicious under the hood goodies while doing things how I want.

 

[splitimageview]

If there were a large enough market they would exist. It's far cheaper to develop mirror less cams that are RF-similar that cover a much larger market demand.

 

[btgc]

But I don't want carburetors.

No, you insist your 2012 Civic should have carburettor. It's far cheaper to manufacture and maintain EFI system than train an army of mechanicals to periodically adjust carburettors - just because once they were commonly used in fuel systems, let alone costs of manufacturng.

If suddenly moms and pops would abandon their AE AF cameras and require all-manual digicams, someone would start to manufacture them. After time they would actually believe it's true. For a while there are few cameras with carburettor, I mean higher cost (compared to EFI, AF that is) mechanical focusing device which can be serviced by users if they train themselves.

 

[flip]

WWBD?
He would build his own.
If the cause moves you enough, get into it.