Why RF is not popular these days?

[anta40]

Back in the film era, RF was quite popular. Not only Leica, but there were also Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta etc as well.

Now in the digital era, we practically only have the (really expensive) Leica.

I'm curious why other camera manufacturers are not interesting in creating digital RF. Is is difficult? Or won't gain much interest? Or... ?

 

[FrankS]

Fuji X pro 2?

 

[michaelwj]

Canon, Nikon both stopped making RF when they started making SLRs.
Compact RFs died with autofocus.
Nothing to do with digital, it's a mix of what the public wants and what we're selling.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

RF mass era was before SLR and RF lasted until AF came.
Digital is 99% AF, which is most effective for the mass. Today RF is with the smart and smarts are nether with mass.

 

[Robert Lai]

Most people today want automatic everything.

My dad had an Army surplus WW2 era Jeep when we lived in Burma (1960s). You had to take out a big crank, go to the front of the car, and crank it in order to start it. Magneto ignition with carburators. The transmission required manual shifting, of course. No seat belts either, which made travelling up and down the mountains of Burma a scary experience for us children. No roof, and no doors to boot. But, we made many a trip from Mandalay to Rangoon (with side trips to Maymyo) this way, and we all survived. That vehicle was nearly indestructible.

Now the spoiled people want electric starting motors, automatic transmissions, seat belts, doors and roofs on their cars. I won't even touch upon the self driving cars.

RF == Jeep.
AF + AE + autoflash + video == what we get these days.

 

[aizan]

rangefinders are not "popular" or rather mass market today because manual focus is not mass market. no major manufacturer makes manual focus lenses, really. looking at SLRs, only cosina, zeiss, leica, and a few tiny companies make manual focus lenses, and often for the cine market. they are niche products by definition, though the people who like them like them a lot.

on the other hand, rangefinder-style cameras are popular enough these days, just with autofocus and maybe an evf instead of a reverse-galilean viewfinder.

 

[btgc]

Imagine instagram if people would be forced to guess exposure and set it in smartphone. This would complement RF focusing nicely.

 

[lynnb]

There's a lot of rangefinder enthusiasts who'd love to see an updated Epson R-D1, however as already mentioned auto-everything is for the mass market and the Fuji X-Pro cameras are the closest thing to a rangefinder at a price the mass market can afford.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I would say that RF's are for people who want to decide what they focus on and not leave it to some vague machine. In the same way that manual controls let us decide what's important in the picture, like DoF, blur or stillness and so on.

BTW, it's nothing to do with film or digital recording but just focussing.

Imagine if all we were given or allowed was a simple P&S...

Regards, David

PS And I suspect digital cameras, like computers, are partially built by robots or 14 year olds and not by skilled technicians, which would put up the cost and cut into the profits.

 

[Santtu Määttänen]

Simple answer, Nikon F.
More complex answer; people prefer to see the image they're taking, not approximation of it. Also SLR systems (and later dSLR:s) gave modern improvements quicker then RF systems did, like matrix metering, autofocus, internal motor drive, etc.

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a user base for RF or that it would have been declining over the last decade or s. o. Ones that used one through the slr revolution and evolution to digital, most likely continue using one today (film or digital). And there are plenty of people jumping the film wagon lately. Mainly due to digital technology which has made learning curve easier (internet). Same reason why historical printing processes have made comeback lately. I don't think gum printing has been as popular as it's today ever before.

Besides there's tons of applications where slr is far better option. Macro work for example is one of them. But for the user experience when manual focusing, nothing beats a nice RF camera 🙂

 

[ForestCap]

Compared to RF, the cameras that allows you to focus through the lens are (considered to be) more advanced. With these cameras, you have a huge advantage when doing close focus and telephoto, as well as better framing and more direct DOF control.

These cameras were namely the SLRs, and today they are being replaced by digital cameras with Live View (which even a Leica M gives a **** about 🙂 ).

 

[leicapixie]

The RF died when everybody voted with buying SLR.
SLR with ability to stop down, a good focus screen, good viewing.
A real PENTAPRISM, not shoddy mirrors.
The DSLR is a farce compared to a really good SLR.
My Nikon-F kit, Spotmatic kit.
I actually prefer the beautiful seeing to a RF.
I like my RF. Leitz Leica M3 and M2.
The M6 not so much..

 

[daveleo]

Rangefinders were most popular when there was no competition (in design). SLR's became more popular for all the above reasons.
With digital SLR's and mirrorless EFV's most people don't see how a true digital rangefinder design will make their lives better.
If the rangefinder design had never existed, and someone desgined it today, I think it would be only a curiosity. (I would say the same about film.)

 

[sojournerphoto]

Rangefinders were most popular when there was no competition (in design). SLR's became more popular for all the above reasons.
With digital SLR's and mirrorless EFV's most people don't see how a true digital rangefinder design will make their lives better.
If the rangefinder design had never existed, and someone desgined it today, I think it would be only a curiosity. (I would say the same about film.)

I think that you're pretty well spot on.

I've concluded that I like film rangefinders for the very pure photographic process - manual focus where I want, a clear view through the finder and manual (preset, not thinking at point of shot) exposure. They are subject oriented tools.

SLR's and evf mirrorless are more image oriented tools and good dslr's work well. I've never had a camera with a mirror box rather than a pentaprism and I've never had an APS-C dslr - viewfinder not sensor size being the challenge.

The Pro2 walks a fine and interesting line - af with window finder is a bit towards rf. Adding in manual focus is mor so, but not the same. evf is a super solution for legacy glass and I really really like what I can make with my old, ol dcanon FD 55/1.2 (breechlock)- a super sharp soft imager if ever thre was.

I have, currently, one old Canon AE-1 that my grandfather bought me when it was new. I haven't had a dslr for several years, but will soon have a Penta K1 to scan film and use in it's own right as well.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The difference between a rangefinder and a reflex also has a lot to do with the style of photography. The dslr-world seems to be only interested in close-ups of animals and sunsets in digital colors, see flickr.

People who want to do a more personal, creative and artistic form of photography seems to prefer an old fashioned rf-camera that forces them to concentrate more on the subject and how to put that on film. They create the image before shooting it, they premeditate.

Erik.

 

[zuiko85]

Even when I began in the film era, 1969, RF (and by that I mean interchangeable lens RF) was a dim second to 35mm SLR sales. By that time only Leica was still in the market. I think that Canon and Nikon had both discontinued their RF line or would do so shortly. When I worked at Altman's in Chicago in the same time period SLR's outsold RF by at least 40 to 1 if not more. Sure, there were a lot of Japanese made fixed lens RF and we sold a fair number of those, but for interchangeable lens, and available new, there was only Leica.

Since Leica has a swing out and detachable back on their film M line it would be nice if someone (not Leica) made a replaceable back with digital sensor, powered up by a special baseplate and the battery could fit into the space where the film canister now fits. The base plate would be thicker and would house the processor and memory chip. To keep things simple and less expensive I wouldn't ask for full frame but think a 16 X 24 mm sensor would suffice. Since this conversion would be completely reversible a person could do RF digital photography without being so heavily invested in equipment. Do you think Panasonic could build it for leica?

 

[Ronald M]

Simple answer, Nikon F.
More complex answer; people prefer to see the image they're taking, not approximation of it. Also SLR systems (and later dSLR:s) gave modern improvements quicker then RF systems did, like matrix metering, autofocus, internal motor drive, etc.

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a user base for RF or that it would have been declining over the last decade or s. o. Ones that used one through the slr revolution and evolution to digital, most likely continue using one today (film or digital). And there are plenty of people jumping the film wagon lately. Mainly due to digital technology which has made learning curve easier (internet). Same reason why historical printing processes have made comeback lately. I don't think gum printing has been as popular as it's today ever before.

Besides there's tons of applications where slr is far better option. Macro work for example is one of them. But for the user experience when manual focusing, nothing beats a nice RF camera 🙂

Early SLR were clunky , no instant return mirror, only waist level viewfinder which made vertical format difficult. Nikon F made the SLR practical. Nikormat consumer models were really nice, but missing a few frills.

Early lenses were decent, some exceptional 105 2.8 20 4.0 .

Perfect framing close and far.

M3 with 50 2.0 was close to $500. No Nikon catalogs.

EPOI gave away F to pros to get the name around and word spread quickly.

One needed all kinds of gismos to make a Leica do what a F could do natively.

Families bought RF with built in lenses because the were cheap . Serious people tended to gravitate to the SLR.

Leica built the SL, AKA German tank, pricy and did not do what the F could do until further development.

Only Leica has successfully built a digital RF. Most people will buy a D5500 before a Leica.

 

[Prest_400]

As it is said around and Santu mentions, after SLRs came they took a sideline.
Zooms, focusing WYSIWYG, versatility et al are something SLRs have.

In digital we have the quasi RF. EVF cameras with RF type bodies. Given the quality of AF I doubt there is a need for the optical RF system anyhow, also counting on the live view through the sensor.
Mirrorless is the sibling and descendant of RF.

Most people today want automatic everything.

My dad had an Army surplus WW2 era Jeep when we lived in Burma (1960s). You had to take out a big crank, go to the front of the car, and crank it in order to start it. Magneto ignition with carburators. The transmission required manual shifting, of course. No seat belts either, which made travelling up and down the mountains of Burma a scary experience for us children. No roof, and no doors to boot. But, we made many a trip from Mandalay to Rangoon (with side trips to Maymyo) this way, and we all survived. That vehicle was nearly indestructible.

Now the spoiled people want electric starting motors, automatic transmissions, seat belts, doors and roofs on their cars. I won't even touch upon the self driving cars.

RF == Jeep.
AF + AE + autoflash + video == what we get these days.

That is a good analogy. I'd like to try one of those Willys to have around the mountains. General driving... Maybe not given how traffic and roads are now plus the safety advancements we have.
At least these didn't give mysterious warnings because the onboard computer goes bonkers and limits the car. Happened to our car last week.


<Beamed through Tapatalk relay>

 

[dof]

I think the Fuji X-Pro concept may have taken hold in more than just the financial realm. In the last generation, EVFs grew out of the "Acceptable, but Not Really 'There' Yet" stage into being "Kind of Great, Actually" and the improvements continue to arrive.

Over the course of a non-monogamous year with an X-T1, shooting with my beloved rangefinders has honestly begun to feel like a bit of a pain in the neck. The direct relationship between the viewfinder image and what's recorded to the sensor has made for more seamless shooting experiences. I've noticed a reduction in "second guessing" my instincts due to wondering if I "caught what I thought I caught".

As ever, evaluating my "contact sheets" over time will confirm whether or not this translates into making better pictures, but I wonder if I'm not alone in this line of inquiry.

 

[Lss]

Two parts of the puzzle both work against rangefinders. Through-the-lens is a more intuitive framing method for most people. It just seems to make so much sense, WYSIWYG and all. Most people are also happy with either the idea of AF or its actual performance.

With all the history talk, it is still good to keep in mind that there are folks who have come to rangefinder cameras because they prefer either the framing, the focusing method, or both over what is currently offered. In the digital age, too. If the options were not so expensive, I am sure there would be significantly more converts. TTL and AF would, of course, continue to rule nevertheless.