Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here's a camera with a bigger sensor than mini 4/3, but still no mirror box
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3920&review=samsung+nx
It's still not a physical reality, but, does this evolving design show what digital rangefinder users will be using in the future - essentially a rangefinder without the rangefinder? (But, hopefully, with a Leica lens mount adapter?)
Bill
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3920&review=samsung+nx
It's still not a physical reality, but, does this evolving design show what digital rangefinder users will be using in the future - essentially a rangefinder without the rangefinder? (But, hopefully, with a Leica lens mount adapter?)
Bill
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
We will believe it when we see it Bill.
No one has made the equivalent of a digital Minolta CLE yet, except for the very pricey M8 and the still pricey resurrected Rd-1.
No one has made the equivalent of a digital Minolta CLE yet, except for the very pricey M8 and the still pricey resurrected Rd-1.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Well, it's a RF without the RF and an SLR without the mirror...
On Thom Hogan's site I have read some vague hints about a future Nikon 'big sensor compact'. Could very well be something like this Samsung NX, based on an APS-C sensor and compatible with the F-mount.
Samsung, or even Pentax are small players. As soon as Canon and Nikon jump in it might very well be the 'next thing'.
We can but wait and see... but a Nikon based camera (with backwards compatibility) along the same lines I would buy in a heartbeat...
On Thom Hogan's site I have read some vague hints about a future Nikon 'big sensor compact'. Could very well be something like this Samsung NX, based on an APS-C sensor and compatible with the F-mount.
Samsung, or even Pentax are small players. As soon as Canon and Nikon jump in it might very well be the 'next thing'.
We can but wait and see... but a Nikon based camera (with backwards compatibility) along the same lines I would buy in a heartbeat...
DougFord
on the good foot
"We estimate that the hybrid digital camera market will be over 20 percent of the global digital still camera market by 2012," said Samsung Digital Imaging's CEO, Sang-jin Park, in a statement in today's press release.
Define ‘rangefinder’ camera.
Some would suggest that a mechanical RF assembly with an M-mount bayonet located somewhere underneath to be a prerequisite.
Without the existence of, or eminent threat of a FF dRF camera, Epson has decided to re-release an old design. Perhaps not a moment too soon, seeing as these hybrid cameras will start showing up on the market later this year.
The ability to attach an m-mount lens on the G1 seems mostly a novelty. I can’t imagine a large number of m-camera owners buying the G1 just because you can use an m-mount lens. Maybe the sensor is too small and the focal length hit too great, but what happens if the same package becomes available with an APS-C sensor?
Will it also be a ‘novelty’ if one of these APS-C hybrid cameras, with current generation technology, has m-mount capabilities?
Do you need a mechanical RF assembly fitted atop a package that resembles the RF of yore? If you do, the choices are obvious.
If not, I would say that the current Epson and the m8.2 are experiencing their last year of limited competition in the market for m-mount digital camera buyers.
Define ‘rangefinder’ camera.
Some would suggest that a mechanical RF assembly with an M-mount bayonet located somewhere underneath to be a prerequisite.
Without the existence of, or eminent threat of a FF dRF camera, Epson has decided to re-release an old design. Perhaps not a moment too soon, seeing as these hybrid cameras will start showing up on the market later this year.
The ability to attach an m-mount lens on the G1 seems mostly a novelty. I can’t imagine a large number of m-camera owners buying the G1 just because you can use an m-mount lens. Maybe the sensor is too small and the focal length hit too great, but what happens if the same package becomes available with an APS-C sensor?
Will it also be a ‘novelty’ if one of these APS-C hybrid cameras, with current generation technology, has m-mount capabilities?
Do you need a mechanical RF assembly fitted atop a package that resembles the RF of yore? If you do, the choices are obvious.
If not, I would say that the current Epson and the m8.2 are experiencing their last year of limited competition in the market for m-mount digital camera buyers.
bmattock
Veteran
A camera which is focused by the convergence of images in a portion of the viewfinder, as seen by the eye of the user, by the action of a manually-operated opto-mechanical ranging device constructed for that purpose, which focuses the lens in a locked relationship with the ranging device.
Some would be sniffing a lot of glue. Lots of rangefinder cameras have no M mounts. Some have no removable lenses at all.
Being of a more cynical bent, I simply suspect that they have a lot of leftovers.
A) There aren't a lot of M-body camera owners, comparatively speaking.
B) It seems to me that Leica M-body camera owners come in two classes. The class that can afford the M8 or M8.2 and the class that cannot. It would seem from observation that the class who cannot still want to be able to use their M-mount lenses digitally.
That's apparently what the Samsung camera has in it.
Who knows? That's the big question; whether there is a market for that sort of thing.
I suspect you can't properly call a G1 or the new Samsung a rangefinder, but I understand the argument that it has some of the characteristics that a rangefinder does, mostly in terms of size and quietness.
I don't see why the market does not exist for the people who want an M8 and the people who want something that will take M lenses but costs less. I agree that the Epson would tread on the same market turf as G1 or Samsung buyers (potentially). However, if Epson is just shelf-clearing, I doubt they care much. It's a sunk cost, now they just need to get rid of them - and no hurry to do so, they have space to keep them, apparently, so no discounts.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I think there is a consumer demand for a camera that gives better performance than the pocket mini's, especially at high ISO's, without the size and weight of the DSLR. I would imagine we are talking about a potentially large group of buyers. There should be a lot of attempts to come up with a camera like this at a reasonable price.
The C sensor would certainly help with noise at higher ISO's. The Canon 40D does well, better than the higher count 50 which, with smaller pixels, shows higher noise. The 1.6 sensor would have less of a problems with steeply angled edge rays from conventional shorter focal length lenses, but how much less?
Leica adapters? I suspect someone will make them. Your 28 will be a 45; your 35 will be a 56. Will the lenses, however, focus and meter conveniently and accurately?
What no one knows is the who, what, when of the camera that emerges to do this job. But part of the job would be filling many of the functions of the current digital rangefinders.
Bill
The C sensor would certainly help with noise at higher ISO's. The Canon 40D does well, better than the higher count 50 which, with smaller pixels, shows higher noise. The 1.6 sensor would have less of a problems with steeply angled edge rays from conventional shorter focal length lenses, but how much less?
Leica adapters? I suspect someone will make them. Your 28 will be a 45; your 35 will be a 56. Will the lenses, however, focus and meter conveniently and accurately?
What no one knows is the who, what, when of the camera that emerges to do this job. But part of the job would be filling many of the functions of the current digital rangefinders.
Bill
NickTrop
Veteran
Fuji F10,11,20,30,31 ($50-$200 used) + Alien Skin Bokeh + Alien Skin Exposure.
This is the answer. The large LCD that you hold in front of you lets you totally anticipate the capture - but it takes getting used to and practice. Digital "capture", all other film/RF "style elements" added in post - selective focus, "film look", and grain. Put a 2 gigabyte XD card in her, make sure the battery is charged (perhaps invest in a spare) and shoot - natural light, with a completely silent totally unobtrusive camera no bigger than a pack of cigarettes. Shoot as much and as often as HCB - thousands of shots, unlimited. Pick the keepers, work to get the style elements of film in post. The "quality elements" are not "quality elements". They're style elements which can be added and controlled digitally.
This is the answer. The large LCD that you hold in front of you lets you totally anticipate the capture - but it takes getting used to and practice. Digital "capture", all other film/RF "style elements" added in post - selective focus, "film look", and grain. Put a 2 gigabyte XD card in her, make sure the battery is charged (perhaps invest in a spare) and shoot - natural light, with a completely silent totally unobtrusive camera no bigger than a pack of cigarettes. Shoot as much and as often as HCB - thousands of shots, unlimited. Pick the keepers, work to get the style elements of film in post. The "quality elements" are not "quality elements". They're style elements which can be added and controlled digitally.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I'm happy with a DRF (Digital Range Finder). Folks use them all the time in golf and hunting and having a green light in a viewfinder telling me that I have the point in the center in focus is fine. I do not have to have an optical image tell me. Computers are smart enough that I can trust them for that. Exposure I still want full control over, but focus is something I trust them.
The 1.5 is not a show stopper for me as long as Pres K comes out with more than just a 20/3.5 her. If he could come out with a 16 and a 200 I'd be very very happy. SLR is just easier for long lenses, but I believe that a DRF would be equally as good.
Perhaps we should call this new concept camera a EVF camera?
B2 (;->
The 1.5 is not a show stopper for me as long as Pres K comes out with more than just a 20/3.5 her. If he could come out with a 16 and a 200 I'd be very very happy. SLR is just easier for long lenses, but I believe that a DRF would be equally as good.
Perhaps we should call this new concept camera a EVF camera?
B2 (;->
Peter Klein
Well-known
If it's going to be "the digital age's answer to the RF," it needs to have have an accurate and easy to use manual focusing mechanism. And a viewfinder that doesn't make us cringe.
The G1 is a novelty, but every lens has its focal length doubled, and the image quality isn't nearly what you get with an M8 or the best DSLRs.
The concept document doesn't address whether the camera will be optimized for low light, how strong the anti-alias filter will be, and how one will focus with a fast lens. Given history, I don't think Samsung will be making f/1.4 lenses.
So is this the new rangefinder? Dunno, but so far I don't see that as part of the intent of this camera. I see Samsung thinking that P&S users would like to get better image quality, but not any more hassle. If that's the target market, I don't think we're going to get Leica quality images, or a camera that does what many Leica/RF types want.
I'd love to be proven wrong.
--Peter
The G1 is a novelty, but every lens has its focal length doubled, and the image quality isn't nearly what you get with an M8 or the best DSLRs.
The concept document doesn't address whether the camera will be optimized for low light, how strong the anti-alias filter will be, and how one will focus with a fast lens. Given history, I don't think Samsung will be making f/1.4 lenses.
So is this the new rangefinder? Dunno, but so far I don't see that as part of the intent of this camera. I see Samsung thinking that P&S users would like to get better image quality, but not any more hassle. If that's the target market, I don't think we're going to get Leica quality images, or a camera that does what many Leica/RF types want.
I'd love to be proven wrong.
--Peter
europanorama
Well-known
have you tested G1 with the sharpest lenses? or seen only kitlens-images?
The G1 is a $500 camera with a lens, which makes it about a $300 body. It always makes me laugh when comparisons are made about the G1 against cameras like the nearly 20 times more expensive M8 or the 'best DSLRs' which cost at least ten times as much (say, the $3000 D700.)
It's pretty obvious which camera gives the most bang for the buck. I've had an M8, and a D700, as well as a G1, so I know all about how good the image quality actually is.
Focal lengths are the same on the G1 as on any other camera a particular lens can fit on.
Last edited by a moderator:
mackigator
Well-known
Well, I think this so-called hybrid market is huge, nearly the size of the entire camera market.
Each time photographers could get good images out of a smaller package the industry has shifted. Pro photogs included. People left view cameras for medium formats, medium format for 35mm RF and SLR gear, then to film point and shoots, and currently the vast majority of cameras are digital point and shoots even though their image quality is mostly inferior to all of the above. Think about that: most people use inferior cameras because they are more convenient.
So what do you think will happen when a superior camera becomes convenient (size, weight, ergonomics, images, adorableness)?
First, it will sell.
The limiting factor in this progression is the size of the human hand and nothing else. Give me the smallest, lightest package that fits my hand and produces images with high perceived quality (In that regard I think the SLR size camera might have been a lot less dominant if more people had had the privilege of shooting with a Minolta CLE).
Each time photographers could get good images out of a smaller package the industry has shifted. Pro photogs included. People left view cameras for medium formats, medium format for 35mm RF and SLR gear, then to film point and shoots, and currently the vast majority of cameras are digital point and shoots even though their image quality is mostly inferior to all of the above. Think about that: most people use inferior cameras because they are more convenient.
So what do you think will happen when a superior camera becomes convenient (size, weight, ergonomics, images, adorableness)?
First, it will sell.
The limiting factor in this progression is the size of the human hand and nothing else. Give me the smallest, lightest package that fits my hand and produces images with high perceived quality (In that regard I think the SLR size camera might have been a lot less dominant if more people had had the privilege of shooting with a Minolta CLE).
back alley
IMAGES
if people were interested in quality there would be no ipod sales.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I'm not sure that's completely on target. The MP3 players of yesteryear were not any better than most of the iPods that have come into my home. The new shuffle is a bit too small for my tastes, but that's me.
I do have to agree with the core idea that quality is products is going the way of the Plymouth Suburban (old station wagon with a 318 in her). I'm hoping that people see this and we turn back some items (e.g. cell phones should not be disposable every year or two).
B2 (;->
Rui Morais de Sousa
Established
To compare such a thing to a rangefinder is pure heresy for me, no matter what the mount.
The only consolation I have, is to think that in five years from now no one will ever remember it...
The big question is, what comes after?
Greetings,
Rui
AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY
The only consolation I have, is to think that in five years from now no one will ever remember it...
The big question is, what comes after?
Greetings,
Rui
AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
The kit lens on the G1 delivers pretty darn good results, one reason being the in-camera correction of lens aberrations in the RAW file. Folks who have adapted Zeiss and Leica glass to the G1 have noted their results are no better in terms of resolution, just different off-axis and bokeh results.
I remain of the opinion that, intrinsically, the u4/3 format isn't necessarily a technological revolution; but what has made the G1 a unique success is, in my opinion, the specifics of Panasonic's engineering of the camera, with the great live-view eye-level finder, the articulating LCD, the manual focus via a zoomed display window, the small, lightweight ergonomic body. It's going to take a lot for Olympus and Samsung (and others) to meet or beat this camera. I really think it's the new "M" of the digital era.
~Joe
I remain of the opinion that, intrinsically, the u4/3 format isn't necessarily a technological revolution; but what has made the G1 a unique success is, in my opinion, the specifics of Panasonic's engineering of the camera, with the great live-view eye-level finder, the articulating LCD, the manual focus via a zoomed display window, the small, lightweight ergonomic body. It's going to take a lot for Olympus and Samsung (and others) to meet or beat this camera. I really think it's the new "M" of the digital era.
~Joe
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Let's see, 12mm heliar becomes my 18mm landscape lens, 55mm f1.4 m42 lens becomes my 82mm fast portrait lens.
All it needs is a fast "normal" AF prime from samsung and an implementation as good or better than the G1 and I'm sold.
Add in body IS too please.
All it needs is a fast "normal" AF prime from samsung and an implementation as good or better than the G1 and I'm sold.
Add in body IS too please.
Merkin
For the Weekend
The major issue for me in whether or not a camera could be considered 'the new rangefinder' would be one of reliability and durability, as well as size. The biggest advantage of the vast majority of rangefinder cameras, from the cheapest yashica to the priciest nikon or leica is the fact that they work, and keep working, and keep working for years. For a digital camera to truly replace film rangefinders for me, it would have to exhibit the following characteristics:
1. A body made entirely or mostly of metal, because plastic simply isn't as durable.
2. The sensor and shutter unit must be easily replaceable, preferably by the user of the camera. This way, people don't have to buy an entirely brand new body when a significantly better sensor becomes available.
3. If it has an EVF, it has to be able to function in both incredibly bright light and in conditions of incredibly low light.
4. The camera must be easy and intuitive to adjust both exposure and focus manually. Such controls should not be treated as an afterthought.
4. The firmware must be easily user upgradeable.
5. It does not necessarily have to work with existing lens mounts, but it does need high quality, fast, and small interchangeable lenses.
6. It would either need a full frame sensor, or lenses that are simultaneously fast, small, and wide angle. If a full frame sensor is an impossibility, make the largest sensor possible in a square aspect ratio. This would give a bit more freedom of choice.
None of these things would be particularly difficult to do, and even though it would be an expensive camera, it would be a camera that wouldn't need replacement every couple of years.
1. A body made entirely or mostly of metal, because plastic simply isn't as durable.
2. The sensor and shutter unit must be easily replaceable, preferably by the user of the camera. This way, people don't have to buy an entirely brand new body when a significantly better sensor becomes available.
3. If it has an EVF, it has to be able to function in both incredibly bright light and in conditions of incredibly low light.
4. The camera must be easy and intuitive to adjust both exposure and focus manually. Such controls should not be treated as an afterthought.
4. The firmware must be easily user upgradeable.
5. It does not necessarily have to work with existing lens mounts, but it does need high quality, fast, and small interchangeable lenses.
6. It would either need a full frame sensor, or lenses that are simultaneously fast, small, and wide angle. If a full frame sensor is an impossibility, make the largest sensor possible in a square aspect ratio. This would give a bit more freedom of choice.
None of these things would be particularly difficult to do, and even though it would be an expensive camera, it would be a camera that wouldn't need replacement every couple of years.
taxi38
Taxi Driver
Obviously its even bigger if you like 3:2 rather than 4:3 which I do,if you crop thr 4:3 to 3:2.
Sam N
Well-known
What history? Samsung has yet to make any interchangeable lenses for anything. I am willing to bet the kit will be a slow-ish zoom, but I don't see why they wouldn't have a couple quick/small primes in there too.