Why are RF's so expensive?

[David Murphy]

The Voigtlander gear is *very* reasonably price even by film SLR standards -- great value and superb gear. On the used market I can recommend Canon Screw mount as a reasonably priced system rangefinder line. These offer results as good as any Japanese SLR system.

 

[xayraa33]

it is supply and demand.
caused by people like us.
in the early 1970s the 35mm slr was king.
used Leica IIIa bodies could be bought for $ 37.95 , a IIIc, a few dollars more and a 50mm Summars for $ 17.00 in spotless shape . Tower/ Nicca bodies sold for even less.
a Nikon Sp was $ 100.00 used and in good shape.
Leica Ms and their lenses sold for a good bit of money though.

 

[Kin Lau]

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.

The best comparison, then would be Bessa R to the Bessaflex.

The Cameraquest price list would indicate that the prices are about equal.

Chances are though, if you're buying an entry level SLR, it's probably made by Cosina anyhow.

 

[pvdhaar]

Prices for new RF's have been dropping like a rock in the last decade..

Remember 1999? The only option new was an M6, which would set you back about $2600 if you wanted a 50/2 lens as well. In the early 2000's you could get a Hexar RF kit for $1600. Some years later down the road and you're getting a new Bessa with a 50 for about $600.

While not ultra-cheap, RFs have certainly become reasonably priced again in the last years..

 

[jaapv]

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? 😕

Leica M wideangles have been retrofocus for decades now, not because of geometric concerns, like SLR lenses, but to reach the desired correction. No, the problem lies in the viewfinder window. Not to obscure that, or at least as little as possible, places restraints on the size of the lens. Now there is one design rule that states that by increasing the diameter of the lens one reduces the difficulty of correcting it exponentially, especially in high-aperture lenses. So working within the narrow barrel of a RF lens makes life very hard for a designer. The other effect is the mechanical tolerance, which is intimately linked to the optical design: both the greater ease of correction and the fact that the lens focusses visibly on the focussing screen make the tolerances of machining wider. Think of the Canon 28-135 IS lens, also nicknamed "floppy-front". That one wobbles and rattles,with more than a mm lateral play in the front part of the barrel, but is still a very good lens. It would never do for a rangefinder.

 

[rvaubel]

There's just a lot more going on in a rangefinder. The rangefinder mechanism has to function in a parallel and linear way with the focusing mechanism of the camera. This necessitates tighter manufacuring tolerances than in an SLR. After all the autofocus just keeps searching until the phase contrast thingy tells the lens everything is hunky dory. Autofocus covers a multitude of manufacturing sins.

Rex

 

[jaapv]

. Autofocus covers a multitude of manufacturing sins.

Rex

Well said! Not to mention photographer's sins.....

 

[David Murphy]

it is supply and demand.
caused by people like us.
in the early 1970s the 35mm slr was king.
used Leica IIIa bodies could be bought for $ 37.95 , a IIIc, a few dollars more and a 50mm Summars for $ 17.00 in spotless shape . Tower/ Nicca bodies sold for even less.
a Nikon Sp was $ 100.00 used and in good shape.
Leica Ms and their lenses sold for a good bit of money though.

I was around then and I remember that the minimum wage was $1.60 per hour meaning you need to apply about a factor of four to valuate these in 2006 dolalrs (very roughly). So of course they were still cheaper, but not as extremely so .

The photo press back then was, as is now, a propaganda mouthpiece for the photo industry and they were incessantly hawking the idea that all camera designs except the interchangeable lens SLR were inferior. This of course contributed to the temporary demise of the rangefinder as well as the TLR. The same thing is happening now with digital vs. film. Fortunately the great classic rangefinders were so brilliantly designed and well-built that the've endured.

 

[Socke]

The photo press back then was, as is now, a propaganda mouthpiece for the photo industry and they were incessantly hawking the idea that all camera designs except the interchangeable lens SLR were inferior.

90% of the people I know who buy cameras never read any photo magazines.

And to be true, in my opinion the interchangeable lens SLR is the most versatile tool in photography, the interchangeable lens RF is a close second but with better size/performance ratio for what I do.

 

[Ash]

in my opinion the interchangeable lens SLR is the most versatile tool in photography

very true indeed. RF's are more on the side of 'fun' for me. I enjoy using RF's and TLR's more than I do SLR's, but SLR *is* king.

Don't flame me for this, but if you want to shoot professional imagery, you dont want parallax, you dont want calibration issues. With the evolution of SLR significantly overtaking RF, I have to agree with Socke.

 

[David Murphy]

90% of the people I know who buy cameras never read any photo magazines.

And to be true, in my opinion the interchangeable lens SLR is the most versatile tool in photography, the interchangeable lens RF is a close second but with better size/performance ratio for what I do.

Well congratulations for running with such an elite crowd, but people do read these magazines and they are used as major sales vehicles, that's pure fact.

As far as the SLR being a versatile tool -- I never said I was not ! Of course it is, and overall it is arguably superior to the RF as an all purpose camera no doubt. I own and use several myself. My point is that the SLR was practically glorified by the photo industry in that era -- I know that for sure.

 

[dll927]

Could it be that technology changed things? When the original "classic" Exaktas were around, they were slow klutzes to operate - and left-handed at that. It wasn't until automatic diaphrams and instant-return mirrors were developed (supposedly both by Pentax), that SLRs took off.

I'm old enough to remember articles in Pop Photo about "SLR vs. RF" cameras. Somewhat akin to today's "film vs. digital".

When I was in high school, I had a Montgomery Ward photo catalog, and Wards wasn't known for 'discount' prices. I distinctly remember that, around 1954, a Contax III cost $444 in that catalog. In those days, that was probably a good deal more than most peoples' MONTHLY income.

My original Minolta SLR, an SRT-101, cost me about $175 with a 50mm lens in about 1970. Last summer I bought a Maxxum 7D (from B&H) that cost $1,100. So that common influence known as inflation has played a part, and there is no, or little, hope that that will go away.

Read 'em and weep - I have a Leica M4-2 bought new in 1983 that cost me $800 for the body and about $450 for the 50mm lens. Still have them, and they take great pictures. I don't need that latest gimmick to photograph with. I don't need an M-8 (if and when it arrives), and I don't need an M-7, either.

 

[David Murphy]

Could it be that technology changed things? When the original "classic" Exaktas were around, they were slow klutzes to operate - and left-handed at that. It wasn't until automatic diaphrams and instant-return mirrors were developed (supposedly both by Pentax), that SLRs took off.

I'm old enough to remember articles in Pop Photo about "SLR vs. RF" cameras. Somewhat akin to today's "film vs. digital".

When I was in high school, I had a Montgomery Ward photo catalog, and Wards wasn't known for 'discount' prices. I distinctly remember that, around 1954, a Contax III cost $444 in that catalog. In those days, that was probably a good deal more than most peoples' MONTHLY income.

My original Minolta SLR, an SRT-101, cost me about $175 with a 50mm lens in about 1970. Last summer I bought a Maxxum 7D (from B&H) that cost $1,100. So that common influence known as inflation has played a part, and there is no, or little, hope that that will go away.

Read 'em and weep - I have a Leica M4-2 bought new in 1983 that cost me $800 for the body and about $450 for the 50mm lens. Still have them, and they take great pictures. I don't need that latest gimmick to photograph with. I don't need an M-8 (if and when it arrives), and I don't need an M-7, either.

Well put. The early SLR's were a horror show to use compared to modern designs. Go play around with a Praktina FX sometime to see why Canon and Leica rangefinders were all the rage in their day! Unfortunately some early SLR systems have great lenses making their use today still necessary 🙂

 

[tkluck]

The only reason I got to use a closet full of Leica gear in the early 70's was that nobody, and I do mean nobody, else wanted to use it when the other closet was full of Nikon SLR gear. I was at the bottom of the pecking order.

RF prices and handgun prices, oddly enough, are vertualy the same for comparable levels of quality. Even to the point of "bargains" from the FSU. $4-500 for a good new pistol. $7-800 for a competitive target gun. The price of a good used car for a European target pistol that only makes one hole in the target, provided you hold it real still. And 75 bucks for a sturdy Russian service pistol.
Main difference is that the digital competition is still the size of a boxcar...

 

[John]

You can also understand RF prices from a business persons point of view. There was a void in the marketplace for new entry level RF gear. Cosina stepped up to the plate. Using all of their existing experience and expertise they have introduced a steady stream of improving product. You would think they deserve to make 20% or $100 on a R3a after it is all said and done. Similarly the distribution network needs 10 to 20% for their end of it. We have to pay $500 for a $300 thing or it won't exist. Leica and Zeiss have to cover their costs the same way. If something really takes off and sells like hotcakes, the manufacturers can afford to drop their margins.

 

[canonetc]

Why are RF's so expensive?

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.

Sir Jaapv sums it up really well (thanks Jaapv!). But if you want to spend less and have a great rangefinder, go for the Canonet. Refurbished for about $125.00, it's kick-butt, reliable, superb lens quality (a fixed, non-removable 40mm f/1.4 or 1.7) and ok viewfinder. So, they're not all super expensive.

I think there is a bit of uniqueness and well-deserved pride in using an RF. I doubt this figures into the business-side of it, but an RF is generally not for the Canon Rebel-average consumer user, unless they have an eye for quality photographs, enjoy the mechanics of "true manual" photography, and the simplicity of size-versus-electonic results. When you invest in a rangefinder, you are paying for a unique (somewhat) experience that will, or should, outlast any consumer-model camera such as the Canon Rebel or Elan II. Your RF will function in Lhasa, Detroit, on Everest or in the Sahara. A shooter I met years ago, the first thing he told me, holding up his M4 with a collapsable 50, was "Buy Glass"; meaning, invest in lens quality. RF lenses usually fit the bill. As do the bodies.

Chris
canonetc

 

[David Murphy]

I'd amend that wisdom to:

Buy Glass/Buy Metal

 

[Ash]

I think there is a bit of uniqueness and well-deserved pride in using an RF. I doubt this figures into the business-side of it, but an RF is generally not for the Canon Rebel-average consumer user, unless they have an eye for quality photographs, enjoy the mechanics of "true manual" photography

I used my dad's fully manual camera the other day. It was so funny

He uses a £600 Canon DSLR, and thinks manual photography is 'funny' - also shooting gig photography and finds low light impossible to focus in. I dont mind paying £30 for a FSU camera that is already obselete, as long as I NEVER get caught out saying something like that to another photographer 😀

 

[Solinar]

With an AF SLR in low light, you need a fast prime and need to stand close enough to the subject so that the focus assist lamp can be of use.

Speaking of autofocus glass, has anyone priced new pro-level Canons or Nikkors lately?

 

[Macpod]

errrr. A canon elan would have been a discontinued camera selling for next to nothing because the SLR market has moved on. Comparing it to a current camera that is demand is abit useless.

Same goes for lenses. The voigtlander lenses are not more expensive than SLR primes(if you can find them). Again it pointless comparing it to second hand SLR lenses which are cheap on Ebay.

someone has mentioned FSUs.

others have offered technical reasons to why RFs are mre expensive. im sure they are valid. But i simply think there is enough affordable RFs out there for you to use, that worrying about cost is not necessary.


LEica and zeiss are fringe cameras and not comparable to any SLR. normal market competition doesnt really apply there. But leicas seem to loose value FAST. a used m7 can be had for 1000USD less than new on ebay. and ive seen M6s for less than 1000!

Get a second hand bessa or FSU and make some pictures. oh and invest in a good scanner😀