blazeicehockey
Brand New In Box
Use the dials on the camera like everyone else?
Who... Digital BESSA R5
- Thread starter mdspace
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 207
- Views 6K
Use the dials on the camera like everyone else?
blazeicehockey
Brand New In Box
Of course, no one could complain about an E-1 fitted with OM primes. Analogue buttons coming out from all sides, excellent ergonomics, IQ and glass. A bit larger than an R-D1 but I am sure just as satisfying.
kshapero
South Florida Man
It is like owning a British sports car but the R-D1 is a Digital Bessa.
Darren Abate
Professional Shooter
Until digital technology can match the latitude and predictability of film, a screen is absolutely necessary (at least when shooting professionally) simply because sometimes you have to check the histogram to make sure you're not blowing out something vital.
That's one of the few things I don't like about my R-D1: no histogram! It wouldn't matter so much if the screen were a little closer to true, but highlights that look blown out on-screen are often not-so in reality.
SteveM(PA)
Poser
Wha? Mine is right there when I press the review button. If you turn it on, it stays on, even after you off/on.
MCTuomey
Veteran
I think we should take up a collection to fund an R-D1 manual for Darren ... and then force him to read it 🙂
mh2000
Well-known
Nope, Nikon digital didn't kill its film camera... it just slowed the losses to Canon.
>>If Cosina makes a digital Rf, it would kill off its own film Bessa RF.
That happened to Nikon. Film SLRs are now almost history.
>>If Cosina makes a digital Rf, it would kill off its own film Bessa RF.
That happened to Nikon. Film SLRs are now almost history.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
There was only one reason why CV built the RD-1 for Epson…earning income.
Kobayashi San might have been quoted to say he does not like digital…he will change his tune when the now already niche film camera business eventually dies down, or when Kodak pulls the plug.
Manufacturers love to distinguish themselves by building unique things…if thread sizes or battery types are considered unique. A smarter approach is to be consistent, like Nikon F-mount or now…after 50 years of monopoly…the M-mount.
Take apart an obsolete digital back, or a camera…I did. It is clear to me that the senor and all electronic bits can be contained in a match-book size unit. If you don’t believe that, there are plenty of pictures on the Internet showing the guts of the RD-1 around the time of its launch…or the new Nikon D3.
Or, if you don’t believe that, take apart a cell phone. The guts are smaller than the battery.
So what stops a manufacturer taking the approach that the sensor unit is upgradeable?
Before anyone argues about price, consider this:
A digital sensor is akin to having prepaid all recurring film/processing costs up front. What is the probable number of rolls one might consume in the life of a camera? If we don’t complain about film cost, why complain about chip upgrade cost. We chose this hobby/interest, no one forced us.
What if Kodak or Phase-1 had built such a sensor unit?
CV would be wise to perfect the rangefinder unit (even Leica grafted its tried-and-true unit into the M8) and a robust shutter; invest in digital-friendly lens development; and think about the sensor unit as a separate and upgradeable component…like a flatter digital back. Build your own instead of waiting for others…you did it once already.
And, make sure the camera firmware is sound and consistent.
Since there is no live-view in a rangefinder camera, why bother mounting a screen on the camera back? Adapt an iPod for image review is doable…with better image quality.
As to the rest of the debates:
Most people buy films ranging from ISO 100~400, why is it now we must have ISO 6400? What is the maximum in an M7? Who has actually push-processed his own films?
Most photographic situation can be covered with lens focal length ranging from 28~105mm, why must we now use super-zooms? What lens do you now own anyway?
New technology requires new thinking…but also real understanding of the old. Denouncing future is futile…and foolish.
Kobayashi San might have been quoted to say he does not like digital…he will change his tune when the now already niche film camera business eventually dies down, or when Kodak pulls the plug.
Manufacturers love to distinguish themselves by building unique things…if thread sizes or battery types are considered unique. A smarter approach is to be consistent, like Nikon F-mount or now…after 50 years of monopoly…the M-mount.
Take apart an obsolete digital back, or a camera…I did. It is clear to me that the senor and all electronic bits can be contained in a match-book size unit. If you don’t believe that, there are plenty of pictures on the Internet showing the guts of the RD-1 around the time of its launch…or the new Nikon D3.
Or, if you don’t believe that, take apart a cell phone. The guts are smaller than the battery.
So what stops a manufacturer taking the approach that the sensor unit is upgradeable?
Before anyone argues about price, consider this:
A digital sensor is akin to having prepaid all recurring film/processing costs up front. What is the probable number of rolls one might consume in the life of a camera? If we don’t complain about film cost, why complain about chip upgrade cost. We chose this hobby/interest, no one forced us.
What if Kodak or Phase-1 had built such a sensor unit?
CV would be wise to perfect the rangefinder unit (even Leica grafted its tried-and-true unit into the M8) and a robust shutter; invest in digital-friendly lens development; and think about the sensor unit as a separate and upgradeable component…like a flatter digital back. Build your own instead of waiting for others…you did it once already.
And, make sure the camera firmware is sound and consistent.
Since there is no live-view in a rangefinder camera, why bother mounting a screen on the camera back? Adapt an iPod for image review is doable…with better image quality.
As to the rest of the debates:
Most people buy films ranging from ISO 100~400, why is it now we must have ISO 6400? What is the maximum in an M7? Who has actually push-processed his own films?
Most photographic situation can be covered with lens focal length ranging from 28~105mm, why must we now use super-zooms? What lens do you now own anyway?
New technology requires new thinking…but also real understanding of the old. Denouncing future is futile…and foolish.
kossi008
Photon Counter
You forgot to add "none of the above" to your list. This way, I cannot vote... 😀
Mattikk
Well-known
Actually I don't know how much my card 1 GB takes RAW's since at empty my Nikon D50 shows that it can have 136 shots in it, but I might easily end up with over 170 when I'm home. It seems to get messed up while deleting files from it after shooting some.
Eric T
Well-known
Unfortunately, the RF market is far too small for a VERY large company like Canon to be interested in it. Epson was burned once and won't do it again. Cosina doesn't want to do it. That leaves Zeiss - they might, especially if they partnered with Sony.
Eric
Eric
JohnL
Very confused
Sadly, I'm beginning to think that digital RF development in the traditional mold is heading for a dead-end, or at best a tiny niche backwater ... I suspect that we shall soon be seeing a new generation of up-market P&S cameras that answer most of the practical wants of RF lovers:
- much better IQ at higher ISOs with bigger sensors (like the new micro 4/43 standard from Olympus/Panasonic or up to APS-C from other makers).
- fixed lenses or decent zooms covering the basic range (say about 24 to 75mm equivalent FOV) - witness the Sigma DP-1 as an early example ... or the Ricoh with its "stepping zoom" - now that's a good idea!
- small and light, but some models will have good build quality.
- some models will have optical VFs or eventually decent EVFs.
- AF and MF options in some models, with improved ergonomics for MF.
- possibly some models with have interchangeable lenses to permit (1) wider, (2) longer, and (3) very fast lenses in the 35-50mm (equiv) range, so we can once again have selective focus.
- who knows what else? I can imagine some really nice RF-like cameras along these lines.
OTOH, I don't think M-mount compatibility is high on the priority list of any large manufacturer ... they'd rather sell their own (new) lenses.
Just my $.02 ...
- much better IQ at higher ISOs with bigger sensors (like the new micro 4/43 standard from Olympus/Panasonic or up to APS-C from other makers).
- fixed lenses or decent zooms covering the basic range (say about 24 to 75mm equivalent FOV) - witness the Sigma DP-1 as an early example ... or the Ricoh with its "stepping zoom" - now that's a good idea!
- small and light, but some models will have good build quality.
- some models will have optical VFs or eventually decent EVFs.
- AF and MF options in some models, with improved ergonomics for MF.
- possibly some models with have interchangeable lenses to permit (1) wider, (2) longer, and (3) very fast lenses in the 35-50mm (equiv) range, so we can once again have selective focus.
- who knows what else? I can imagine some really nice RF-like cameras along these lines.
OTOH, I don't think M-mount compatibility is high on the priority list of any large manufacturer ... they'd rather sell their own (new) lenses.
Just my $.02 ...
Last edited:
Zenjitsuman
Established
I think we all are used to cameras without frills so we don't need or expect them.
We want our RF lenses to perform well with a new digital body. Since sometime in the future film will become a costly and less supported media our expensive lenses will need a new home.
I don't care if we have a rangefinder VF or a really good live view on a high def 3 inch lcd (like the they have on Nikon D300).
We have manual lenses so no AF, matrix metering, just a regular meter and a basic flash, although I would not mind stabilization in camera. Use knobs more then menus, so we have convienent control.
I hate the 1.33 x Leica crop factor, close enough to 35mm but better if you make 8x10 or 20 x 16 is the 5:4 mode which is a 1.2 x crop. This would still solve a lot of vignetting and soft corner digital sensor problem but enhance wide angle lenses fov.
Keep it simple and costs down. No gizmos just good clean 1600 iso and without dslr shake and fast RF lenses we will still have the RF andvantages.
We want our RF lenses to perform well with a new digital body. Since sometime in the future film will become a costly and less supported media our expensive lenses will need a new home.
I don't care if we have a rangefinder VF or a really good live view on a high def 3 inch lcd (like the they have on Nikon D300).
We have manual lenses so no AF, matrix metering, just a regular meter and a basic flash, although I would not mind stabilization in camera. Use knobs more then menus, so we have convienent control.
I hate the 1.33 x Leica crop factor, close enough to 35mm but better if you make 8x10 or 20 x 16 is the 5:4 mode which is a 1.2 x crop. This would still solve a lot of vignetting and soft corner digital sensor problem but enhance wide angle lenses fov.
Keep it simple and costs down. No gizmos just good clean 1600 iso and without dslr shake and fast RF lenses we will still have the RF andvantages.
alien8
Established
Yes, that's what we want. The question is who will give it to us? Since today rangefinder users represent such a tiny market it is doubtful that any major electronics company (and that is what it would take) will decide to cater to our needs. Voigtlander and Zeiss are the best bets, but they can only do itwith the collaboration of one of the big electronics firms. I am doubtful that these latter will see it in their interest to produce devices for such a limited market.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm amazed that Cosina were prepared to develop a camera like the R4A which is a superb tool from what I've exprienced with the one I just got from Stephen. To bring out a film camera with the viewfinder magnification and frameline selection that the R4A has was a bold and groundbreaking move and the company head Kobyashi obviously reads the market very well!
When he reads that he can no longer sell enough film bodies to be viable on his terms ... he will release a digital body for his lenses and I don't care how many times he states publicly that he won't do it, I don't believe him for a minute! And when you consider Cosina's lens range and how many there are out there amongst us M mount users he will have to make it full frame or bring out a new range of lenses to suit the crop factor! 😛
When he reads that he can no longer sell enough film bodies to be viable on his terms ... he will release a digital body for his lenses and I don't care how many times he states publicly that he won't do it, I don't believe him for a minute! And when you consider Cosina's lens range and how many there are out there amongst us M mount users he will have to make it full frame or bring out a new range of lenses to suit the crop factor! 😛
pmu
Well-known
I didn't read the thread, but...
Now for this summer I have worked in a daily newspaper shooting with Canon 1,3x crop digital 1Dmk3, 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 300/4. And of course you all knew this because you have visited the daily work blog 😉
This rig has caused me:
-pain in the back. The weight is ridiculous even if I usually take max 2 lenses with me.
-Because of the 1,3x crop factor the wide is too wide and normal zoom is too long. The result = I have to change lenses all the time.
-I hate relying on autofocus in so many situations. I really don't trust the camera operating correctly.
-I hate the size of the camera. Ridiculous.
If there would be digital weather proof rangefinder body I would jump on it immediately. Goodbye to backpains! Goodbye to struggling with autofocus! Goodbye to carrying that ridiculously heavy camera bag! Surely I would lose the convenience of using zoom lenses, but who cares, like I said I have to change lenses all the time now also...
Only thing I would have to do would be to use dslr in sports photography. No big deal, 70-200/2.8 and 1,6x body would cover that.
So please someone, CV, Zeiss, SOMEONE! ANYONE! Please make me full frame (or really close to it) 10mpix, D3 style high ISO's, weather proofed rangefinder body. I wouldn't hesitate a second getting one. PLEASE! I want to get rid of dslr's as much as possible.
Now for this summer I have worked in a daily newspaper shooting with Canon 1,3x crop digital 1Dmk3, 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 300/4. And of course you all knew this because you have visited the daily work blog 😉
This rig has caused me:
-pain in the back. The weight is ridiculous even if I usually take max 2 lenses with me.
-Because of the 1,3x crop factor the wide is too wide and normal zoom is too long. The result = I have to change lenses all the time.
-I hate relying on autofocus in so many situations. I really don't trust the camera operating correctly.
-I hate the size of the camera. Ridiculous.
If there would be digital weather proof rangefinder body I would jump on it immediately. Goodbye to backpains! Goodbye to struggling with autofocus! Goodbye to carrying that ridiculously heavy camera bag! Surely I would lose the convenience of using zoom lenses, but who cares, like I said I have to change lenses all the time now also...
Only thing I would have to do would be to use dslr in sports photography. No big deal, 70-200/2.8 and 1,6x body would cover that.
So please someone, CV, Zeiss, SOMEONE! ANYONE! Please make me full frame (or really close to it) 10mpix, D3 style high ISO's, weather proofed rangefinder body. I wouldn't hesitate a second getting one. PLEASE! I want to get rid of dslr's as much as possible.
Erik L
Well-known
but i dont think the regular zeiss ikon zm even sells that well does it?
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
A digital Zeiss RF would sell better than the ZM.
bessa boy
Newbie
I have read most of this thread and it appears we accept the fact the RF is very much a niche market.
I would want to keep the film advance - the retro-ness of that is something I miss on any modern SLR - that's where the RD1 scores over the M8 for me. The joy of using the film advance made the feel of it so complete.
Shooting only in RAW - no problem there either.
It is nice to have a chance to review images, especially when I am on holiday and the light is brighter than the UK (like in Singapore) to get used to the change and make sure - unlike print - I am not making a pig's ear of my efforts.
The filter effect in B&W is a brilliant idea and if I had the RD1 I know I would use it. The tungsten, white balance etc is great, but i took a great picture in Venice early in the dark morning at ISO 1600 that is so full of noise it has character, and I just didn't realise it would look that good (or as good as it did to me).
Is there much more I need? OK the menus to set up time and date and so on are fine, but do we really need to worry about everything that my 10D asks of me? I have hardly changed that many settings.
Ironically I learned more about photography from my 10D than any other camera, excepting my first Bessa.
The "small" number of pixels doesn't concern me too much - I still have my Canon 10D and I still can't see any need to buy anything more than that for the foreseeable future (probably minimum 5 years). What I want is a sensor that does the job. I know there are limitations which create fringing on my Canon, yet I have a great pic taken with it - fringing and all.
http://www.ephotozine.com/u32399/gallery/200397
I now know better how to take an image like that! But why are people hung up so much on pixels? It's surprising how large or how good a print you can get. Unless you are wanting to exhibit, do you really need a Canon Mark III?
I haven't posted any of my (D)SLR or compact images here as I feel I should only put up my Bessa images (this is a rangefinder forum after all!).
I would want to keep the film advance - the retro-ness of that is something I miss on any modern SLR - that's where the RD1 scores over the M8 for me. The joy of using the film advance made the feel of it so complete.
Shooting only in RAW - no problem there either.
It is nice to have a chance to review images, especially when I am on holiday and the light is brighter than the UK (like in Singapore) to get used to the change and make sure - unlike print - I am not making a pig's ear of my efforts.
The filter effect in B&W is a brilliant idea and if I had the RD1 I know I would use it. The tungsten, white balance etc is great, but i took a great picture in Venice early in the dark morning at ISO 1600 that is so full of noise it has character, and I just didn't realise it would look that good (or as good as it did to me).
Is there much more I need? OK the menus to set up time and date and so on are fine, but do we really need to worry about everything that my 10D asks of me? I have hardly changed that many settings.
Ironically I learned more about photography from my 10D than any other camera, excepting my first Bessa.
The "small" number of pixels doesn't concern me too much - I still have my Canon 10D and I still can't see any need to buy anything more than that for the foreseeable future (probably minimum 5 years). What I want is a sensor that does the job. I know there are limitations which create fringing on my Canon, yet I have a great pic taken with it - fringing and all.
http://www.ephotozine.com/u32399/gallery/200397
I now know better how to take an image like that! But why are people hung up so much on pixels? It's surprising how large or how good a print you can get. Unless you are wanting to exhibit, do you really need a Canon Mark III?
I haven't posted any of my (D)SLR or compact images here as I feel I should only put up my Bessa images (this is a rangefinder forum after all!).
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
I'm not waiting. Have both an M8 and an RD-1.
Why wait?
Why wait?