anta40
Newbie
haven't tried the xpro 2.
the predeccesor, xpro 1, is obviously not a real rangefinder.
but of course, probably it's the closest, affordable option to a rangefinder nowadays
Why RF is not popular these days?
- Thread starter anta40
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 58
- Views 5K
haven't tried the xpro 2.
the predeccesor, xpro 1, is obviously not a real rangefinder.
but of course, probably it's the closest, affordable option to a rangefinder nowadays
:: Mark
Well-known
I think that is a little unfair to many non-RF cameras. Although it is very true of phones and compact cameras, it is much less true for more "professional" (a word I really dislike...) systems.
For example, the focusing on my 5DIII is astonishingly good. I can select an off-centre focus point and lock focus far faster than I can do the same with my M7. And this works reliably with ultra-fast 50mm and 135mm lenses that are very problematic on a 35mm rangefinder.
I find shooting with both the Canon and the Leica very zen like. Both need a lot of time and practise, but in both cases the camera becomes an automatic extension of the photographer. Frankly, the Canon is much better built and a much more reliable image maker than the fragile and quirky M7, but it is precisely those quirks and limitations that make the rangefinder interesting.
Most people probably just want a camera to get the image with minimum hassle, and this is why rangefinders would be a niche even if there was not the Leica pricing to overcome.
I have been wondering about getting a digital RF, but on reflection I think the value in rangefinders (for me) is precisely the limitations and quirks of the camera, film and developing. If this makes me a hipster, well so shoot me.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Yes, well, um, I think "most people" these days means smart phone and digital camera users. That means AF in my little world. I agree there's SLR's and RF's but we are a diminishing band if you are thinking of manual focus.
The trouble is, it's difficult to answer a vague question with a precise answer.
Regards, David
Yes, well, um, I think "most people" these days means smart phone and digital camera users. That means AF in my little world. I agree there's SLR's and RF's but we are a diminishing band if you are thinking of manual focus.
The trouble is, it's difficult to answer a vague question with a precise answer.
Regards, David
YYV_146
Well-known
For most modern digital cameras, given good light, spot AF will almost always be much faster than what you can do with an RF. You can either pre-position the spot or focus and recompose, which is what I generally do with AF lenses in E-mount.
It's a different experience, that much is true, but I doubt anyone could nail focus more consistently and quickly with a Noctilux and digital M than the Noct and the Techart adapter. I'd still prefer MF for day-to-day shooting, but when you have to nail a portrait (or a dozen) there's no substitute for automation.
It's a different experience, that much is true, but I doubt anyone could nail focus more consistently and quickly with a Noctilux and digital M than the Noct and the Techart adapter. I'd still prefer MF for day-to-day shooting, but when you have to nail a portrait (or a dozen) there's no substitute for automation.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
dave lackey
Veteran
I have resisted this thread because it is impossible to get a consensus on a forum about such generalities and I just don't have time often for idle chit-chat.
But I have a few minutes this morning to do nothing but spend some quiet time. That is coming to a close and I feel purified to some degree with my mind focused sharply enough to realize I have to get back to work and get things done today.
That said, i can only answer the question of why RF is unpopular, etc. with this:
Because it is a PITA!
RF is part of the classic world. Everything else, not so much, as it is another world, a contemporary world... or maybe just different.
My M3 was a Porsche Speedster with a broken speedometer but lovely manual transmission and handling experience. Beautiful and simple aesthetics.
My M6 is a 911 SC, working speedometer, even better performer and beautiful in its own right.
My Nikons are Toyotas. Just a car...meh.
My CiroFlex is an MGTD. Another PITA!
Mind you, there is a world where a PITA is desirable. I guess it is more of a personality thing as any classic car to me is far more desirable that a contemporary car. I live in a world filled with PITA items. And I love it!😛
Wulfthari
Well-known
digital cameras are built on automatic production lines with little to no human intervention.
My tech tried to repair on and it was clearly make in different assembly steps, if you put a piece in the wrong sequence you had to disassemble and start from the closest step.
jsrockit
Moderator
I think RFs COULD be more popular... if someone would just make one that didn't cost between $5000-8000 new.
Wulfthari
Well-known
Bessas didn't cost that much but they have been discontinued.
jsrockit
Moderator
Well, I was speaking specifically about digital cameras. I'm sorry, but films current popularity is a blip compared to digital when it comes to new camera sales.
nongfuspring
Well-known
I was shocked (and I have to admit, was also disappointed) the other day when I managed to focus near instantaneously on a lightly textured wall in near candle light conditions with a previous generation entry level Nikon. I can only speak for myself, but DSLR AF certainly trounces my MF skills on any camera.
:: Mark
Well-known
Same here. The Canon 5D series can focus a 135mm f2 at a distance of a few meters instantly and almost unfailingly. The accuracy and speed are even better with some of the newer lenses.
The nice thing about the Canon is that I can calibrate out the fixed focus errors for each lens, and it will automatically apply the correction as needed. Having some means to do this on a digital Leica - even if just a simple mechanical mechanism - would be immensely helpful to avoid those trips to Wetzlar to calibrate camera and lens together.
I think that those trips to Wetzlar are another reason why contemporary rangefinders are less popular than they could be....
(And this from someone who *very* cautiously just cleaned out his rangefinder with a vacuum cleaner...)
The nice thing about the Canon is that I can calibrate out the fixed focus errors for each lens, and it will automatically apply the correction as needed. Having some means to do this on a digital Leica - even if just a simple mechanical mechanism - would be immensely helpful to avoid those trips to Wetzlar to calibrate camera and lens together.
I think that those trips to Wetzlar are another reason why contemporary rangefinders are less popular than they could be....
(And this from someone who *very* cautiously just cleaned out his rangefinder with a vacuum cleaner...)
css9450
Veteran
x3.
Long after its gotten much too dim for me to focus manually, my DSLRs can quickly and accurately focus in near-darkness. Every time.
Long after its gotten much too dim for me to focus manually, my DSLRs can quickly and accurately focus in near-darkness. Every time.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Hmmmm. Why just worry about RF usage, when there are plenty of other camera platforms that have been abandoned over the years. Progress marches on, and it plays the tune the masses want to hear.
PF
PF
Luis
Member
Early after the introduction of modern SLRs, such as the Nikon F, various models of Pentax and Canon, Topcon with the first through-the-lens metering, RFs were still used by photojournalists to complement their SLRs because of more accurate focusing with wide-angle lenses (I remember reading comparisons of both types by Bill Pierce), but the greater versatility of SLRs--no parallax, ability to use a greater variety of lenses, longer lenses, fisheyes, macros--finally overcame the limited advantages of the RF. And, as has been pointed out, auto-focus put the final nail on the coffin of the RF, now used only by the refined few (or at least that's what I tell myself, aided by Leica propaganda, I mean, advertising).
Addy101
Well-known
Please define "automatic production line" and "little to no human intervention". If you mean they are produced like everyday products like cookies (that are produced on automated production lines with no human intervention), you're wrong. Cameras, especially DSLRS, are complicated products that can't be produced in fully automated processes. This video shows ho Canon makes cameras - it is a marketing movie, but it gives you an idea.
Hand made products often are made in a distinct steps too. Hardly proof for an automated assembly line.
Fraser
Well-known
1. No mass market choice.
2. Why bother when a slr does everything most people need.
3. Autofocus is far faster than manual.
4. 99% of professionals use slrs.
5. Most amateurs have no interest and why should they in old technology.
2. Why bother when a slr does everything most people need.
3. Autofocus is far faster than manual.
4. 99% of professionals use slrs.
5. Most amateurs have no interest and why should they in old technology.
jsrockit
Moderator
Well, we are on RFF.
Fraser
Well-known
YYV_146
Well-known
Only entry-level DSLRs. The C&N flagships can and will focus in virtually any light and allow for lens-specific micro-adjustment profiles. Mirrorless bodies inherently don't have accuracy issues since they typically use some kind of hybrid AF where finer adjustments is handled via contrast detection which cannot be fooled.
In very poor light, any optical viewfinder is going to be severely hindered. For me the older Ms were problematic since the framelines sometimes became too dim to see. In the type 240 the LED framelines solved this issue.
Similar threads
