Why dont they make more digital RF's?

[Old Fashioned]

First, hello from a newbie enthusiast! I've been reading up on this forum for a good week now and decided to register to actively participate and sort some questions out.

I've always been keen on quality photography, but it all seemed like such a hassle and also lacking "realness". I like to see photography as a tool to convay an idea/message, not be its own purpose. Seeing my friends in action with their leicas M8's (and the resoults later), i thought to myself this is the thing for me. Quality, with balls, on the fly. This is how i discovered RF-way of doing things.

Upon further research i discovered a couple of things.. Leicas are expensive. There is only one other digital RF. It too is pretty expensive.

I dont get it, film RF's can be had on penny to the dolar, awesome digital compacts like G11 and LX3 also. Even entry level digi-SLRs can be pretty cheap. But only superexpensive Leica makes a digital RF? What the deal?! Somebody please explain this to me.

I really wished there would be something for me in the digital area; i was looking at the lumix LX3, but reading on various comments here and there im not too sure.

So with my digi-decision on hold, i found a good deal localy on a what seams a well preserved yashica lynx 1000. Should be arriving any day now, so expect more inquisition😀 But in the future i'd definatelly want a digi-cam to work with, as a part of my proffession etc. So really, how come only leica has, what i (we?) want?

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

There's just a really small market for 'em, and so the economies of scale make them expensive. You might look into Micro Four Thirds cameras for a rangefinder-esque experience, though.

Welcome on board, and enjoy that Yashica!

 

[Roger Hicks]

'Cause they're quite difficult and expensive to make, with complex optical/mechanical couplings, and a short flange-to-sensor distance which means that the light strikes the corners of the sensor at steep angles.

Most film RFs were made 30-80 years ago, when labour was cheaper and prices were relatively higher in inflation-adjusted terms.

You're not so much comparing apples and oranges as apples and ferrets.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

There is a rumor that Leica will make a D-Lux 5 with an electronic viewfinder. Personally, I doubt it. Most people, however, are perfectly happy with zoom lenses & autofocus & they buy cameras. I am not an engineer but a digital rangefinder appears to be more difficult to make. As for Nikon & Canon their high end digitals are for professionals who need many of the functions that are not incorporated into the Leica M9. But, then again even with the new Leica M9, as good as it appears, still had some flaws with lenses and the red corners. Also, it does not have the rendition in B&W that was expected out of the box (jpeg) and needs computer enhancing. Most purchasers of cameras want to shoot 500 photos in a day and post them on the internet without any adjusting or in other words shooting raw. In summation, and this is MHO, it is not cost effective to for Nikon or Canon or Olympus to build a competitor to the Leica M9...as much as most of us would like them to do.

 

[gb hill]

Epson made the RD-1 so manufacture of a digital rf is not hard at all. I think it all comes down to money. There is no mass market for a digital rf, & rf users have a tendency not to fall for these discontinues & upgrades like one sees with P&S cameras & DSLR's which BTW helps keep manufacturers like Nikon & Canon in business.

 

[Old Fashioned]

Yeah this just doesnt make any sense to me. Each company has 1000's of models of digital cameras, and they are coming up wiht more and more each day. But in this field there is none. And reading through various disscussions in photo communities, photo enthusiasts seem to love the manual controls. So it wouldnt be much of a streach to say the aformentioned product would seem desirable. I mean LX3 is a hot item right now, sales seem to be good, and its preatty much as manual as it gets in the compact world.

And i also am no engineer, but with all the technology at hand i cant believe it would be to expensive to make one. Besides, the price is dictated by the demand on the market anyway.

So is it completely unrealistic to expect something like a digital Yashica electro 35 RF to be released anytime (at all)?

Thanky you for your answers, and yeah i'm sure i will enjoy my yashica🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yeah this just doesnt make any sense to me. Each company has 1000's of models of digital cameras, and they are coming up wiht more and more each day. But in this field there is none. And reading through various disscussions in photo communities, photo enthusiasts seem to love the manual controls. So it wouldnt be much of a streach to say the aformentioned product would seem desirable. I mean LX3 is a hot item right now, sales seem to be good, and its preatty much as manual as it gets in the compact world.

And i also am no engineer, but with all the technology at hand i cant believe it would be to expensive to make one. Besides, the price is dictated by the demand on the market anyway.

So is it completely unrealistic to expect something like a digital Yashica electro 35 RF to be released anytime (at all)?

Thanky you for your answers, and yeah i'm sure i will enjoy my yashica🙂

Highlight 1: Without wishing to be rude, you are certainly telling the truth. It really is a great deal more expensive and complicated than a non-engineer might believe.

Highlight 2: No. Cost also depends on what something costs to make. It costs quite a lot to make a complicated piece of machinery in limited numbers -- and it will always be limited numbers, because, as already pointed out, most people are happy with something else which is also cheaper and easier to use.

Highlight 3: Yes. Soon, or ever.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

Rangefinders have been a niche product since the 60s. 50 years later, a digital rangefinder is an even bigger niche market.