Why are RF's so expensive?

[Avotius]

Ok, I love rangefinders so much more then SLR's but I have to take them with a grain of salt.

Why the heck are rangefinders so damn expensive??? The bargain bessa's are still a lot more then the bargian Canon or Nikons (30V and N90) by several hundred dollars and lack a lot of the features. Not that im interested in a lot of those features but still, makes you wonder a bit.

ie. I have a canon 30v (elan 7ne) and it cost me about $225 new while a bessa is so much much more at $539, not the mention the Zeiss Ikon.

Some of the lenses seem a little overpriced too when compared to their slr equiv. I thought rf lenses were simpler designs.

The Leica's are a little different I think, too much cult following and leica has taken advantage of that by jacking up the price.

What am I missing here.

 

[akalai]

Economy of Scale...

 

[Ash]

On the flip side you can pick up a lot of FSU and lomo-esque camera's for pennies.

 

[Avotius]

On the flip side you can pick up a lot of FSU and lomo-esque camera's for pennies.

indeed, I just picked up a yashica electro gsn for 30 bucks, but still...thats an old camera

 

[jaapv]

1. R&D have to be recovered over very small numbers of units
2. Large-scale automation is just not on; a lot of handwork.
3. Range-view-finders are elaborate and expensive to build and calibrate
4. Very tight and intensive quality control.
5. RF lenses are far more difficult to design and build due to the short film-nodal point distance and size restrictions.Mechanical tolerances have to be
a magnitude tighter than SLR lenses.


In short, all the arguments that go for any high level niche-market product.

BTW If Leica had jacked up the price far beyond the production costs they would be a lot less poor than they are now.

 

[wlewisiii]

As Akalai said, it's purely economy of scale. Canon has probably sold as many of their cameras in one month as all the Bessas that Cosina has ever sold. That may be an exageration, but if it is, it's not by much. Frankly, given what it takes to make a RF of even the Bessa's level, much less the ZI or Leicas, I'm constantly amazed at how cheap they are. Not that I can afford them mind, but they really should be even further out of reach than they are.

The same is true, and even moreso, for the lenses. Especially fast lenses. I'm hearing that the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 is going to be right around $1000. It's going to be a) painful for me to scrape up that kind of money and b) be an amazing bargain if I can.

William

 

[Ariya]

You have to consider the quality of the equipment. Leica's are machined metal and the consumer grade SLRs you mention are mass produced plastic boxes. Bessa's are produced in much smaller numbers which increases the cost per unit.

 

[Ash]

Aside from the quality points, the markets are very different.

SLR's have a lot harder competition. Up until the recent demise of many, there have been a lot of SLR companies all fighting for profits - cheaper bodies, more sales - i lot of the money in the professional market. I dont think a professional SLR outfit works out cheaper than a high cost RF outfit.

With Rangefinder, correct me if I'm wrong, your budget options are the older cameras, and the copies and FSU's. Your expensive options are the higher quality manufacturers.

With SLR, everything but the pro stuff is budget. And the cheaper the price, the more Canon...i mean...SLR companies... can put into R&D of the latest features no-one needs. (or for now, digital at a lower cost)

 

[Nick R.]

However, I think that if there was popular demand for rf cameras there would be the equivalent "mass produced plastic boxes" with rangefinders instead of viewfinders. There's nothing inherently forbidding about making a cheap, rf. There's just no demand.

 

[back alley]

However, I think that if there was popular demand for rf cameras there would be the equivalent "mass produced plastic boxes" with rangefinders instead of viewfinders. There's nothing inherently forbidding about making a cheap, rf. There's just no demand.

that's a disturbing thought that had not entered my mind before...

 

[Graham Line]

I can accept that the market has gone away, but if producing an RF camera is as difficult and expensive as some make out, how do they account for the flood of Minolta, Canon, Petri, Vivitar, Konica etc etc fixed-lens RF's that were marketed in the 1960 and 70s? They sold for substantially less than the Leica and Nikon RFs of the time and many are excellent picture-takers, within their limits.

 

[Ash]

because they were better than SLR's of the time, and still a popular pocketable camera

 

[skhan]

5. RF lenses are far more difficult to design and build due to the short film-nodal point distance and size restrictions.Mechanical tolerances have to be
a magnitude tighter than SLR lenses.

Huh? 😕 I thought retrofocus design puts more constraints on the designer, and I thought thats the reason most wide-angle RF lenses are better than their SLR versions. Anybody cares to elaborate? 😕

 

[Ash]

I thought in shorter focal lengths it's better on RF's because there is no mirror... you can still see what you're gonna take a photo of, but the glass can be closer to the focal plane. - only way with SLR's is mirror lockup, killing the point of an SLR

 

[rxmd]

how do they account for the flood of Minolta, Canon, Petri, Vivitar, Konica etc etc fixed-lens RF's that were marketed in the 1960 and 70s? They sold for substantially less than the Leica and Nikon RFs of the time

- focal plane shutters are a lot more complicated than off-the-shelf in-lens leaf shutters
- other more complicated components on an interchangeable lens RF include: lens mount with RF coupling (require great precision), rangefinders with interchangeable framelines
- a lot more were produced (millions of Canonets, for example), so economies of scale at work again
- the manufacturers used more efficient production facilities than Leica, so they simply could produce them more cheaply.

Philipp

 

[lushd]

Ahem - this may be slightly contoversial but what the hell. Rangefinders you can buy new these days are better cameras than an SLR at the same price. To prove my case, I recently bought a Bessa R and 35mm Color Skopar lens for $400 US. An entry level SLR at taht price would come with a plastic lens mount, a nasty zoom lens and low end build quality designed to fall to bits after a few years gentle use. My Bessa will easily give me 15 years and the lens will last forever. If you put pictures from the two next to each other the difference in quality would be obvious.

My Leica IIIa (expensive in 1936) and 50mm Elmar lens can still hold it's head up with pride in modern company and my 20 year old M6 and 50mm Summicron is still better than anything else I've seen, regardless of price.

So I can't zoom, but I can walk around.

 

[sf]

They are expensive because of people like us.

Notice how the Mamiya pro cameras are selling for a small fraction of their original prices? An RZproII system for $900? There isn't a body of collectors and enthusiasts driving up prices. COnsider the Bronica RF645 and its rare accessores and lenses. 100mm for $1400? Yup. Saw that one last week. Polarizer kit for over $300? Yup. Saw that too.

Black M3 for $8000? Oh yeah. And then some.

Mamiya 645e for $4000? Never going to happen.

 

[Toby]

Ahem - this may be slightly contoversial but what the hell. Rangefinders you can buy new these days are better cameras than an SLR at the same price. To prove my case, I recently bought a Bessa R and 35mm Color Skopar lens for $400 US. An entry level SLR at taht price would come with a plastic lens mount, a nasty zoom lens and low end build quality designed to fall to bits after a few years gentle use. My Bessa will easily give me 15 years and the lens will last forever. If you put pictures from the two next to each other the difference in quality would be obvious.

My Leica IIIa (expensive in 1936) and 50mm Elmar lens can still hold it's head up with pride in modern company and my 20 year old M6 and 50mm Summicron is still better than anything else I've seen, regardless of price.

So I can't zoom, but I can walk around.

Being devils advocate ( I don't really believe this ) but a cheap zoom gives you 4 average lenses 28-35-50-85 so the true equivalent in flexibilty terms is a bessa R plus at least $800-$1000 of glass plus no built in flash (add $60-80 for a cheap generic jobby) so say $1200 for the lot. The point of the Bessa is you can produce absolutely top notch professional grade images for $400 IF you have the skill, a $400 SLR is more flexible, easier to use, and can produce OK results even if you are not very skillful - guess what the marketing men chose.

 

[Socke]

Ahem - this may be slightly contoversial but what the hell. Rangefinders you can buy new these days are better cameras than an SLR at the same price. To prove my case, I recently bought a Bessa R and 35mm Color Skopar lens for $400 US.

The Bessa R is more or less based on the same body as the Nikon FM10, Yashica FX3, Canon T-something (?), Oly OM-2000 (?) and more. All very basic and cheap.

 

[Wimpler]

The argument of less rangefinder being made/sold is certainly true. This was different in the past.

However, in my eyes another very important fact is that interchangeable lens rangefinders have always been expensive. This is because it is quite hard to make. SLR focussing is extremely simple, basically the same as the view camera. You can glue a magnifying glass to a cardboard tube and take pictures with it.