Harry the K
Well-known
Of course there is. That´s the fun part!
Of course it is outdated and has been for 60 years. That does not make people stop liking them. And cultish behavior on a site call Rangefinder Forum? No way. Who would have guessed people would stand up for rangefinders here.
I have never understood it when people want to take something unique and turn it into something regular when we have many choices that are already regular. It makes no sense to me.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Let's not forget Leica's other rangefinder products: Rangemaster and complimentary Riflescopes. Designed to spot, then kill, furry animals! 
pvdhaar
Peter
Why, oh, why, does this always happen to me?
After shooting digital only for a couple of years, I started missing the whole analog RF experience, managed to get my paws on a decent M4 earlier this week, and now I'm told it's no good?
After shooting digital only for a couple of years, I started missing the whole analog RF experience, managed to get my paws on a decent M4 earlier this week, and now I'm told it's no good?
"he economy would stop without digital. It has been so for 50+ years. The problem is not the digital world so much as the misuse of it. People probably complained about Gutenberg, Edison, Morse, Bell and the Wright brothers, too. Do you really want to give up cell phones and computers, even the computers in your fridge and stove?"
It's paid my bills since 1977. Intern, computer scientist, computer engineer working in Optics. Digital Imaging Sensors since 1981. Been writing Image processing software since 1979. Developed digital electronics and firmware for imaging sensors for most of the 1980s and 1990s.
Most people do not understand the strengths of an opto-mechanical mechanism in a digital imaging system. I do. The author of the click-bait article does not. I give him an F.
To get true liveview through the exposure, you need to constantly readout the sensor. Tripping the "release" would have to change the sensor mode to full-resolution but constantly read out the sensor and update the viewfinder. Sensors under-sample in a low power mode for just viewfinder and focus functions. Running full resolution constantly would drain the battery and overheat the sensor, the latter increases noise. You have to get rid of the mechanical shutter and go all-electronic. The Pixii "dumped" the all-electronic shutter and uses an opto-mechanical viewing and focusing mechanism. Saves power, probably reduces noise. Good engineering choice. To solve the problem of viewing outside the frame with the sensor, the problem is the image circle from the lens does not cover much more than what is outside of the frame. You could "crop" and record just the center portion, this is wasteful. OR you can use a second sensor with a wide-angle lens built into the camera body and use it it to overlay what is outside the frame onto the EVF. Some fancy processing would be required to line the images up in realtime. A simple small sensor, like that in a cell phone would be sufficient. That would be fun code to write, in FORTRAN of course.
SO what we need is a new name for "Rangefinder" as it is obviously outdated.
Integrated-Opto-Mechanical-Focus-Mechanism. The IOM for short.
It's paid my bills since 1977. Intern, computer scientist, computer engineer working in Optics. Digital Imaging Sensors since 1981. Been writing Image processing software since 1979. Developed digital electronics and firmware for imaging sensors for most of the 1980s and 1990s.
Most people do not understand the strengths of an opto-mechanical mechanism in a digital imaging system. I do. The author of the click-bait article does not. I give him an F.
To get true liveview through the exposure, you need to constantly readout the sensor. Tripping the "release" would have to change the sensor mode to full-resolution but constantly read out the sensor and update the viewfinder. Sensors under-sample in a low power mode for just viewfinder and focus functions. Running full resolution constantly would drain the battery and overheat the sensor, the latter increases noise. You have to get rid of the mechanical shutter and go all-electronic. The Pixii "dumped" the all-electronic shutter and uses an opto-mechanical viewing and focusing mechanism. Saves power, probably reduces noise. Good engineering choice. To solve the problem of viewing outside the frame with the sensor, the problem is the image circle from the lens does not cover much more than what is outside of the frame. You could "crop" and record just the center portion, this is wasteful. OR you can use a second sensor with a wide-angle lens built into the camera body and use it it to overlay what is outside the frame onto the EVF. Some fancy processing would be required to line the images up in realtime. A simple small sensor, like that in a cell phone would be sufficient. That would be fun code to write, in FORTRAN of course.
SO what we need is a new name for "Rangefinder" as it is obviously outdated.
Integrated-Opto-Mechanical-Focus-Mechanism. The IOM for short.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I was a brain surgeon until I changed over to being a rocket scientist. Then digital came along and I started designing alarm clocks. It's been quite a ride. Now of course everyone just tells their little talky thing that plugs in a socket to set an alarm. Then when it goes off, they yell at it to stop but it won't, so they jerk it out of the socket and beat it with a hammer until it is in a million pieces, but it still won't stop because it is possessed. People don't appreciate a well designed digital alarm clock anymore. More's the pity.
David Hughes
David Hughes
What on earth are we all saying here? And why? Other than we like RF's and not everyone does but that seems to be caused by ignorance.
And the "millions do it" or "millions have it" argument means nothing to me; millions have Covid but that doesn't make it wonderful. (Although you have to admire those resourceful little viruses... ) And, again, I'll add that "new" has never meant best or even better.
Regards, David
And the "millions do it" or "millions have it" argument means nothing to me; millions have Covid but that doesn't make it wonderful. (Although you have to admire those resourceful little viruses... ) And, again, I'll add that "new" has never meant best or even better.
Regards, David
Luke_Miller
Established
I love cameras and photography. Although I dabbled in many forms I have pretty much settled on events. I have not found any camera design that can serve as a universal tool for my shooting. For candid images, nothing beats my discrete Leica Ms with their small size, and light weight. I can manually focus them faster than I can with my mirrorless bodies. When I really need autofocus my Nikon D5 and D850 come into play. Their weight and bulk become fatiguing during longer events, but the results are worth the effort. For slower moving subjects or when I want manual focus in low light events my Leica SL & SL2 work nicely. I have no "one size fits all" camera nor do I see one on the horizon. Horses for courses.
Makes me wonder how many degrees the Jethro Bodine school of brain surgery handed out.
The sensors I worked on were for Spaceborne platforms.
So, yes, I was a Rocket Scientist. Really fun at technical meetings when presenting results and someone states "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out!" And you get to correct them.
What I am stating: The functionality of the Optical Viewfinder with Focusing is very difficult to implement using all digital techniques. No other type of camera exists that offers the same functionality to the user. So, the above- free design engineering on how to do it. Any company would realize it's just easier to do this optically.
Totally agree that "New" is not the same as better. Look at the number of vulnerabilities going on today. Connecting everything to the Internet is a really bad idea.
The sensors I worked on were for Spaceborne platforms.
So, yes, I was a Rocket Scientist. Really fun at technical meetings when presenting results and someone states "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out!" And you get to correct them.
What I am stating: The functionality of the Optical Viewfinder with Focusing is very difficult to implement using all digital techniques. No other type of camera exists that offers the same functionality to the user. So, the above- free design engineering on how to do it. Any company would realize it's just easier to do this optically.
Totally agree that "New" is not the same as better. Look at the number of vulnerabilities going on today. Connecting everything to the Internet is a really bad idea.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Bit of a tangent, but have a look through the Internet of Sh*t account on Twitter. It's hilarious. So many dumb stories.
My absolute favourite from many years back was a secure facility with equipment on a dedicated network totally isolated from the internet. I forget what the place was - part of me wants to say it was a nuclear power plant. I may be wrong, but that's the sort of level we're talking about.
Anyway, one day the whole network gets infected with ransomware. Everything's locked out. Should be totally impossible, right? So the techs get to work, remove all the ransomware, get everything working again... and not long after everything's rebooted, the same damn ransomware spreads across the network again.
Turns out some idiot had installed a coffee machine in the kitchen that was part of the "internet of things" and needed to be connected to the internet to work. That coffee machine acted as a bridge between the local network and the wider internet, bringing down the whole system... twice.
In a desperate bid to bring this anecdote back to some sort of relevance, this is largely how I feel about Leica vs. other camera manufacturers: I don't want all the bells, whistles, and "advancements" that everyone else is trying to sell me - they just get in the way. I just want some goddamned coffee. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Wow! Arxhytas of Tarentum invented the screw. Screws are used on rockets. Therefore, Arxhytas of Tarentum was a rocket scientist. He never gets enough credit for his rocket work.
Much more than you were.
For the system I worked on: I calculated the orbits of the Satellites using FORTRAN code, that I wrote for the project. Learned all about orbitology.
I explained to the lead engineer for a new high-speed optical switch how to crash the system by sending a specific data pattern through it. His response- "Why would someone want to do that!" That seems to be the approach taken by many companies when developing firmware. With Leica- the worst firmware of any camera I've used. They should make it open source. Their attitude seems to be "Why would anyone want to take a picture with this?"
From a Stefan Daniels Interview:
"M stands for rangefinder and as long as I have something to say about Leica, it will have a range finder. Of course, it would be conceivable, but we would give away the most characteristic part of the Leica M, especially something that the majority of M users appreciate."
Leica knows it is their history and an important part of its history and brand.
And, both you Rocket Scientists, relax please...
"M stands for rangefinder and as long as I have something to say about Leica, it will have a range finder. Of course, it would be conceivable, but we would give away the most characteristic part of the Leica M, especially something that the majority of M users appreciate."
Leica knows it is their history and an important part of its history and brand.
And, both you Rocket Scientists, relax please...
sjones
Established
The title of your thread “Time to Let the Rangefinder Go” in a site titled “Rangefinder Forums” is deliberately provocative, perhaps even trollish, and you know it. But let’s explore some of your egregious logical fallacies.
To start, I merely suggested that one consider leaving RFF, you know, the site with “Rangefinder” in the title---perhaps you missed this, if one has a problem with rangefinders. I think this is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. It is not a matter of glorifying or, for that matter, even defending rangefinders as much as it is making sure that the reader is in a place that best comports with their preferences; a public service, really.
Also, I made it perfectly clear that I was expressing my personal preferences, noting in the first sentence, for example, that if one only uses a smartphone for photography, that’s great…it’s all subjective. But perhaps you missed my capitalized FOR MEs, which I intentionally stressed to indicate that I recognize the subjectivity of this discussion; to underscore (in what apparently was an exercise in futility) that I’m not making any absolute or universal statements about the superiority of any type of camera, let alone rangefinders.
You, on the other hand, are the one arguing that technologically advanced cameras are superior. You are the one who started a thread about it, so impassioned were you, or perhaps I should say cultish. You are the one who is advocating limitation of choice. I’m the one who argued that there are no “superior” cameras if the camera you have (any type of camera) produces photos that you like, including a pinhole camera. But you untenably attempted to perversely transmute this into a contradictory point buy fabricating the false premise that citing pinhole cameras somehow conflicted with my purported blind obsession with rangefinders. But I’m curious, where do I specifically “lather about RF photography”
You contend that Leicas are outdated, and really, this was the major point of my first post. So what? Again, remember how I mentioned pinhole cameras (perhaps you missed the point because you were too busy crafting a spurious claim). Remember, how I also noted that pianos, paint brushes, chisels, and the human voice were a bit long in the tooth. So what? They still create art, and art’s impact or quality aren’t inextricably linked to technological advances. Yes, technology can help expand the arts, but I still see handmade pottery and paintings (which predate photography, you know, in case you missed it) that tickle my eyeballs. That is, “outdated” is ultimately irrelevant in the universal scheme of things when it comes to aesthetics. This point is not controversial, tendentious, unreasonable, or cultish; on the contrary.
Thinking differently? Really, arguing that something that is niche is niche is thinking differently. Back on the other site that I referenced in my first post, I recall back around 2008 some folks stating the desire for a DSLR but with the smaller dimensions of, say, an Olympus OM4 or Nikon FM2. I recall people arguing that such desire was nonsense, that the markets don’t support it. Which was basically saying that we require capitalistic realities to validate our simple subjective desires. In the end, the digital variants of the smaller form factors did actualize. Anyway, my point about markets wasn’t backwards; you’ll have to think about it, I guess, although it should be obvious. By that stage, though, I think you were just tossing to see what would stick.
Really, do you understand that some folks, albeit the minority, but they’re still humans, like the simplicity of a mechanical camera, whether rangefinder, SLR, TLR, large format, medium format, etc.? That such simplicity is an important part of the process, however intangible it might be?
Anyway, I’ve yet to see a photo from the most up-to-date technically advanced camera that renders all previous photos taken from older cameras aesthetically obsolete. Actually, a good chunk of my favorite photography falls between the 1920s and 1970s. So when it comes to using a type of camera, “innovation” in camera development is, FOR ME (hope you don’t miss this), FOR ME, irrelevant; and actually it’s kind of nice not having to constantly chase the latest and greatest, at least, FOR ME. The majority would actually disagree with me, and that’s OK, because it’s all subjective and, after all, innovation creates more choice. Hooray!
Basically, this is it:
Site: For Folks Who Like the Color Red
Boojum: Red is outdated and niche. Blue is superior and more advanced. Blue is more marketable. Time to let red go, right?
Person who likes Red: Um, I like red. Some people like green and yellow, and yes, these colors are even mentioned on this red-centric site. In the end, whatever works, it’s all cool, it’s all subjective. But we should not eliminate red, we should not undermine choice. People have different preferences, preferences that sometimes go against mass appeal. So if you don’t like red, then perhaps you would enjoy a site that focuses on blue.
Boojum: Don’t get all David Koresh on me you red fanatic. And why did you mention yellow if you’re so enamored with red. Just because I think no one should have access to red anymore doesn’t mean you should get so defensive about it. God, if you love red so much, why don’t you marry it! Fact, blue things sell a lot more than red things, so time to put red in that history dustbin thingy. I’m just thinking differently, and you’ve gone wrapped me up around a Catherine wheel. Martyr me.
Bottom line, as I’ve said previously on this site:
Use what you want, use what you like, use what you need. Choice is a good thing. How contentious, how brainwashed I must be.
I'm out; not going to run around in circles any further. Have a good day, y'all!
To start, I merely suggested that one consider leaving RFF, you know, the site with “Rangefinder” in the title---perhaps you missed this, if one has a problem with rangefinders. I think this is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. It is not a matter of glorifying or, for that matter, even defending rangefinders as much as it is making sure that the reader is in a place that best comports with their preferences; a public service, really.
Also, I made it perfectly clear that I was expressing my personal preferences, noting in the first sentence, for example, that if one only uses a smartphone for photography, that’s great…it’s all subjective. But perhaps you missed my capitalized FOR MEs, which I intentionally stressed to indicate that I recognize the subjectivity of this discussion; to underscore (in what apparently was an exercise in futility) that I’m not making any absolute or universal statements about the superiority of any type of camera, let alone rangefinders.
You, on the other hand, are the one arguing that technologically advanced cameras are superior. You are the one who started a thread about it, so impassioned were you, or perhaps I should say cultish. You are the one who is advocating limitation of choice. I’m the one who argued that there are no “superior” cameras if the camera you have (any type of camera) produces photos that you like, including a pinhole camera. But you untenably attempted to perversely transmute this into a contradictory point buy fabricating the false premise that citing pinhole cameras somehow conflicted with my purported blind obsession with rangefinders. But I’m curious, where do I specifically “lather about RF photography”
You contend that Leicas are outdated, and really, this was the major point of my first post. So what? Again, remember how I mentioned pinhole cameras (perhaps you missed the point because you were too busy crafting a spurious claim). Remember, how I also noted that pianos, paint brushes, chisels, and the human voice were a bit long in the tooth. So what? They still create art, and art’s impact or quality aren’t inextricably linked to technological advances. Yes, technology can help expand the arts, but I still see handmade pottery and paintings (which predate photography, you know, in case you missed it) that tickle my eyeballs. That is, “outdated” is ultimately irrelevant in the universal scheme of things when it comes to aesthetics. This point is not controversial, tendentious, unreasonable, or cultish; on the contrary.
Thinking differently? Really, arguing that something that is niche is niche is thinking differently. Back on the other site that I referenced in my first post, I recall back around 2008 some folks stating the desire for a DSLR but with the smaller dimensions of, say, an Olympus OM4 or Nikon FM2. I recall people arguing that such desire was nonsense, that the markets don’t support it. Which was basically saying that we require capitalistic realities to validate our simple subjective desires. In the end, the digital variants of the smaller form factors did actualize. Anyway, my point about markets wasn’t backwards; you’ll have to think about it, I guess, although it should be obvious. By that stage, though, I think you were just tossing to see what would stick.
Really, do you understand that some folks, albeit the minority, but they’re still humans, like the simplicity of a mechanical camera, whether rangefinder, SLR, TLR, large format, medium format, etc.? That such simplicity is an important part of the process, however intangible it might be?
Anyway, I’ve yet to see a photo from the most up-to-date technically advanced camera that renders all previous photos taken from older cameras aesthetically obsolete. Actually, a good chunk of my favorite photography falls between the 1920s and 1970s. So when it comes to using a type of camera, “innovation” in camera development is, FOR ME (hope you don’t miss this), FOR ME, irrelevant; and actually it’s kind of nice not having to constantly chase the latest and greatest, at least, FOR ME. The majority would actually disagree with me, and that’s OK, because it’s all subjective and, after all, innovation creates more choice. Hooray!
Basically, this is it:
Site: For Folks Who Like the Color Red
Boojum: Red is outdated and niche. Blue is superior and more advanced. Blue is more marketable. Time to let red go, right?
Person who likes Red: Um, I like red. Some people like green and yellow, and yes, these colors are even mentioned on this red-centric site. In the end, whatever works, it’s all cool, it’s all subjective. But we should not eliminate red, we should not undermine choice. People have different preferences, preferences that sometimes go against mass appeal. So if you don’t like red, then perhaps you would enjoy a site that focuses on blue.
Boojum: Don’t get all David Koresh on me you red fanatic. And why did you mention yellow if you’re so enamored with red. Just because I think no one should have access to red anymore doesn’t mean you should get so defensive about it. God, if you love red so much, why don’t you marry it! Fact, blue things sell a lot more than red things, so time to put red in that history dustbin thingy. I’m just thinking differently, and you’ve gone wrapped me up around a Catherine wheel. Martyr me.
Bottom line, as I’ve said previously on this site:
Use what you want, use what you like, use what you need. Choice is a good thing. How contentious, how brainwashed I must be.
I'm out; not going to run around in circles any further. Have a good day, y'all!
From a Stefan Daniels Interview:
And, both you Rocket Scientists, relax please...
I get tired of making a post that is relative to a thread and having it quoted and ridiculed.
Those are the actions of a Troll. RFF has a lot of trolls on it.
When I am considered a troll, I will leave.
santino
FSU gear head
I can‘t speak for rff, but your contributions to the forum are one of a few reasons I come back to this site over and over again.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Something got lost!
Last edited by a moderator:
Please do not take what I said personally. I understand how you feel. Let's keep it on topic all.
Capt. E
Established
I suppose I am an anachronism in all directions. At present I use a Pentax K-1 with three lenses which fills all my digital needs and I have two Nikon rangefinder bodies, an S2 and an S3 with a 3.5cm, 5.0cm and 10.5cm that fills my b&w film habit. I'm also 72 y/o. I've used everything from a Pentax Spotmatic, KX, MX, LX, several Nikons and Canons (my first auto-focus), Mamiya C330, Rollei TLR, 4x5 view, 8x10 view, Rollei SL66, Leica M3, M4, M4-P, M6, CLE, Minolta CL, etc. I've enjoyed every single one of them and even made some money occasionally. I take photos with my phone, but have only one car that is 12 years old. Walking around with my S3 loaded with Tri-X and a Luna-pro works pretty well.