Who... Digital BESSA R5

[dougiec29]

I know there is zero chance of the following, but here's my dream:

A 4x5 proportioned sensor with area as large at FF 35mm (~26x32.5). Light falloff would be slightly less than a FF sensor, crop factor would be minimal, and it's a classic proportion.

 

[Trius]

Dougie, that is a brilliant idea. The proportions of 24x36 are so well embedded in our psyche that it's sometimes hard to realize that it's just weird for still photography.

 

[gustav[] pEña]

four thirds digital rangefinder. with new lenses. Not M mount anymore. I dont care. I just want a digital rangefinder, and four thirds sensors is a good idea to make it happen.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

but cheap point and shoots have more mega pixels now.

People tend to gauge the "quality" of a digital camera by its sensor's megapixel resolution. This is one triumph of the camera industry's marketing machine.

The megapixel-to-quality ratio is hardly linear. You need a critical mass, so to speak. A camera with 6 or 8 megapixels tends to be "good enough", given that their image processing in-camera is excellent.

I've produced, and have seen produced by other people, great images with a Digital Rebel (aka 300D), which has an oft-laughed-at 6 megapixel sensor.

If consumers keep on lowering their expectations, camera manufacturers will not bend backwards to give them the best for the least moenay.

I have always been outspoken against crop factors. People get up in arms on the three sides of the argument (the fourth is off a bottomless cliff) whether a film format is "sacred".

I say let them give us the tools to use the lenses that were designed for their specific format. Workarounds are too ingrained in this "western" culture and should not be tolerated for as long they have been, which is a morbid carry-over from the horrible example computer hardware and software makers have set over the past 20 years. It's been like watching Cajun being adopted as official ancient Greek and Latin -- boggles the mind.

My opinion.

35mm format for 35mm format lenses. I care. If others don't that's fine, but they don't speak for me.

 

[BrianPhotog]

I say let them give us the tools to use the lenses that were designed for their specific format. Workarounds are too ingrained in this "western" culture and should not be tolerated for as long they have been, which is a morbid carry-over from the horrible example computer hardware and software makers have set over the past 20 years. It's been like watching Cajun being adopted as official ancient Greek and Latin -- boggles the mind.

My opinion.

There were workarounds for DC electric and steam powered devices of the industrial revolution, too. I'm can all but guarantee that at some point a roman legionnaire complained "hey, this leather belt holding my breastplate on is chaffing something terrible" followed by a buddy holding a bag of pig fat saying "hey, I have a work around for that!".

Look beyond your own lifetime if you want to see things in perspective.

 

[Didier]

four thirds digital rangefinder. with new lenses. Not M mount anymore. I dont care. I just want a digital rangefinder, and four thirds sensors is a good idea to make it happen.

Not likely. Using the actual 4/3 standard would mean same mount - which is useless as there would be no mirror house in a 4/3 RF body. Making a RF out of a SLR body would kill the RF advantage of the significantly shorter base flange length, allowing other lens designs.

Same 4/3 sensor, but new body, new mount and new lenses? Forget it. I don't expect Olympus to commit economical suicide. They have to fight enough to survive in the dslr market.

Didier

 

[John Robertson]

None of them!!

 

[Socke]

The LCD itself is cheap, but LCD screens end up dragging with them extensive image processing in-camera, needing firmware that is expensive to create (writing software is very expensive!). Throw away the LCD and your firmware just needs to read from the sensor and write a RAW file to the card. I don't know how much of the R-D1 budget was firmware development, but don't think it was peanuts...

That said, I don't believe Cosina will do a RxD, either... but we can only hope one of the digital players will notice how well the R-D1 is keeping its price and take a shot of the market.

But you would want some software to convert your RAW files somewhere, wouldn't you?

 

[sbug]

I'd buy a digital rangefinder from anyone daring enough to make it work with my Nikon S-mount rangefinder lenses.

 

[mascarenhas]

Using DNG, perhaps? I could live with it being a plugin no ACR for use with Lightroom and Photoshop, also...

But you would want some software to convert your RAW files somewhere, wouldn't you?

 

[georgef]

Ya know, I never really saw the point in having an LCD on a Digital SLR ( I guess for some things it makes sense). I get the idea that if you take a bad picture you know right away, but why sit there and waste your time editing on your camera when you could be taking more pictures..."

...well...'cause you can take it again. Landscapes don't go anywhere in a hurry, nor does still life....I am sure Ansel would have used one if born today!

"...What I want to see is a hybrid. It can be done, the pressure plate could even be used to house a full frame CCD or CMOS. It wouldn't to dissimilar from the Kodak/Nikon DCS 100. The difference now is that circuitry and memory take up significantly less room.

Just MHO on this whole hybrid analog/digital idea, isnt that kinda like putting a motor on a bicycle because you dont want to ride a motorbike? I mean, unless someone comes out with a film canister that can fit the sensor, batteries, card and hardware/software while delivering film-like quality what's the point! No one is going to invest on body-specific sensor "plates" and the digital canister idea was already invented in the mid-nineties and again in Europe in the early 00s (is that a word? LOL) with no particular success.
Pick one: film or digital, I dont think you'll get the proverbial in-between...

 

[shadowfox]

Just MHO on this whole hybrid analog/digital idea, isnt that kinda like putting a motor on a bicycle because you dont want to ride a motorbike? I mean, unless someone comes out with a film canister that can fit the sensor, batteries, card and hardware/software while delivering film-like quality what's the point! No one is going to invest on body-specific sensor "plates" and the digital canister idea was already invented in the mid-nineties and again in Europe in the early 00s (is that a word? LOL) with no particular success.
Pick one: film or digital, I dont think you'll get the proverbial in-between...

George, this idea makes sense for people like me who cherish the tactile feeling of using old/vintage/classic film cameras. We'd like to use those even if (not when) film becomes scarce or prohibitively expensive.

It's more like putting a new engine inside a beautiful antique car because the original one can no longer run.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Look beyond your own lifetime if you want to see things in perspective.

Gladly. But without taking steps backwards. Crop factors chafe something terrible.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Just MHO on this whole hybrid analog/digital idea, isnt that kinda like putting a motor on a bicycle because you dont want to ride a motorbike?

You're grasping the chatter noise. Some people would be very happy with a cauldron powering their steam-powered bicycle. Others would think it a leap forward to use compost to fire it up, missing the whole point behind recycling.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Nevertheless, I feel ready now to also try the digital photography, but enjoying a rangefinder camera, the options are few… Leica M8 or Epson R-D1s ...

Epson R-D1 = Bessa R5

 

[rpsawin]

It will never happen. Kobayashi-san does not like digital cameras and, far more importantly, the expensive & nasty short upgrade cycle they require. Hence there will never be a digital Bessa as long as he controls the rights to the Voightlander name. Or for that matter, is the director of Cosina. While I can sympathize with your desire (I was fantasing about a FD mount digi-cam from Cosina earlier today ) all the sympathies in the world can not change reality & the reality is that Cosina will not make digital cameras.

Sorry,

William

William,

Well said. It really is very simple. Kobayashi-san is not interested. It has been said repeatedly.... a digital CV whatever is not going to happen.

Bob

 

[loslosbaby]

The back door approach to Digital is one of two roads:

1) A "Back Door"...a la the Leica DMR. Put a digital module solely on the back of the camera, with passive shutter-firing detection, and retrofit existing cameras (let's just say, for sanity's sake, R3 and R4 only). Not impossible...could even be hacked from an existing camera's sensor.

Passive detection of the servo/solenoid that fires the "A" cameras' elec. shutter is possible...and, a 2nd (3rd really) shutter in front of the sensor itself is also possible, where you'd set the R camera's shutter to at least two speeds slower and just leave it. Detect shutter fire, and fire shutter on module.

Another way is to have a "wakeup for 1hr" button on the module, and then a laser that is on a frequency that won't bother the sensor detect when the shutter opens. Ultrasonic, put a Hall Effect sensor butted up smooth against the elec shutter solenoid to detect the RF spike when the solenoid fires, both, who knows.

I'm saying it right here, for the technical and business reasons ("Us small guys have to stick together") I'd use the guts of the Sigma DP1...its the right size, has the right sensor, which is alllllready dealing with a fairly wide-angle lens. Yeah, I'd deal and not use it on the 15mm or 12mm or 21mm if I had to....I just want to work with the 40's and 50's...puh-leeeze!

So, you put LCD, chip slot, and buttons allll on the module. Price it accordingly (2200$) and punish those that want digital, and leave me in 475$ land happily.

2) The new epson 6400dpi scanner for 250$.

The #1 approach could be done without any help from CV. I bet I could get it engineered in a "hack" form just by using a de-lensed DP1 with a diopter in front, and later after packaging...skip the diopter (DP1 guts closer to back-frame of R camera. Min focus for the DP1 is 30cm, so, the lens has to come off.

Anyone have 200k$ for the project?

I will be engaging in option #2, for now.

G.

p.s. The Germans willllll make the M8 work right, bet on it. There are ample lenses for it already, so, POOF, that's your R5. IF it is successful, then, Mr. K. will do "the right thing" at the time.

p.p.s. I've laid it all out ("DP1 = R3 back") can someone please build it?

 

[mdspace]

Somebody have a good news about a digital RF?

The digital Bessa R5 still being the winner, some ideas about WHY???

 

[sherm]

It's truly amazing how this topic of a digital Bessa comes up every 6 weeks or so.......... :bang: :bang:

As has been stated in this thread and the many before it, it won't happen anytime soon. Let it go already..... buy an RD-1 or M8 if you want a digital RF camera; these are your only two options to date. Where is the disconnect here after this has already been discussed, debated and just plain beaten to death

 

[Olsen]

All this reflects - first of all, the deteriorating purchasing power of, first of all, americans. Pitty, because it was the 'american market' that always has been the salvation for Leica with it's rich and prosperous customers. Not any more. Now the same americans are daydreaming about a digital rangefinder costing 2,000 $

Now come on...!

For that kind of money you are not even within the good part of the D-SLR-market, - God forbid. With your 2,000 $ you are a digital P & S customer. Buy two.