more rangefinder?

Does anybody know if there are coming more rangefinder camera's? The M8 is far too expensive. The RD1 is also a bit expensive and to much vignetting.

RF cameras, whether film or digital will always be more expensive. There have been really only two makers of RF film cameras for the last 15 or 20 years or so (Leica and Bessa) and it appears there are only 2 DRF makers, Leica and Epson (and I believe Epson has 'familial' ties to Bessa). Maybe gthe market really ISN'T that large for RF cameras (at least TRADITIONAL RFs).

It seems that a DRF, based on the constraints Epson and Leica have chosen to adopt is somewhat difficult to achieve. I can't help but wonder though what a DRF built around a modern high end Digital P&S (with or without interchangable lenses) would be like and if the price would be lower.

It is possible to create a rangefinder mechanism that could accomodate a modest 3:1 zoom. So I think a DRF built around one of the better P&S sensors with a really great and moderately fast 3:1 non interchangagle zoom lens would be viable not only as a camera but as a marketable camera (more expensive than current HE Point & shoots, but cheaper than, a Leica.) Well, I'd buy one!

As I see it, it wouldn't be a replacement for a DSLR, but it would serve as an excellent candid shooter.

--
Never trust a man who spells the word 'cheese' with a 'z'

Well I recently bought a FED 5c just to learn what a rangefinder is. They are really cheap...and still a range finder.

The only problem I can see manufactorers have is to find a sensor that works with tihis type of camera. It seems that vignetting is a big issue, leica created special software to fix it, the sensor can't handle it.
The rest they should be easy to get ( the rangefinder and digital processor )

I trully like the high quality images they can make and the portabillity. The zoom factor I wouldn't miss...I've got two legs ( and if necessary a DSLR)

The arguement that a RF can not be made as a digital camera is nonsense. Focus is focus. If it works in a 35mm camera with film the focus will work in a 35 mm camera with a sensor.

There are other issues. For one, it may be hard to couple a RF to a zoom lens. Even if the zoom is parfocal, the requrements for focus are different at different focal lengths. More stroingent at high zoom. I suspect the issues is very solveable at an enginering end using modern elctronics BUT the market may nto be bigh enough to justify it.

As for the ludicous price of the M8, I really wonder who is buying these. Are professionals buying them or collectors?
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

Stephen Schwartz said:

focus is focus. If it works in a 35mm camera with film> the focus will work in a 35 mm camera with a sensor.
There are other issues. For one, it may be hard to couple a RF to> a zoom lens.

Click to expand...

It's may be possible but it isn't worth the effort. Everybody wants telephoto zooms and, the longer the lens, the less practical it is on a rangefinder. Then there is the small matter of the viewfinder.

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

As for the ludicous price of the M8, I really wonder who is buying> these. Are professionals buying them or collectors?

Click to expand...

Probably the latter.

It's easy and cheap to make a rangefinder with a digital sensor. There were cheap film rangefinder in the 60's that had a fixed focal length lens and maybe an external exposure meter. It was a big deal when Kodak encoded the 35mm cartridge to automatically set the ISO (ASA, then). I had one made by Konica. It was simple, limited and cheap - $40. You can put a digital sensor in something like this cheaply. It'll be a rangefinder, but today who would buy it?

But it's difficult and expensive to make one with the percision, automation and zoom range of even today's simple P&S digicam. That's because the rangefinder concept requires many complex mechanical and optical linkages that are expensive whereas these "linkages" in today's digicams are digital signals on minature ribbon cables tied to sensors and digital processors. The Leica M8 is such a precision and versatile rangefinder camera. And the pricetag reflects it.

--mamallama

A RF is best for low light photogrpahy ... e.g. http://seattlejew.blogspot.com/

OTOH, I suspect an evf would be even better with good focusing mechanism.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

WADR,

Whiule it is true that low production cost $$, I sincerely doubt there is any great challenge ot manufacturing a good RF at low prices .. if the market is there. I supect the biggest issue is market.

OTOH, I would love to see a low light camera built around an EVF or even an EVF/SLR combo.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

Stephen Schwartz said:

WADR,

Whiule it is true that low production cost $$, I sincerely doubt
there is any great challenge ot manufacturing a good RF at low
prices .. if the market is there. I supect the biggest issue is
market.

Click to expand...

No market for it is correct. The reason being you can do so much more - cheaper, smaller and better with digital trchnology instead of mechanically. It's a circular argument.

--mamallama

Stephen Schwartz said:

WADR,

Whiule it is true that low production cost $$, I sincerely doubt
there is any great challenge ot manufacturing a good RF at low
prices .. if the market is there. I supect the biggest issue is
market.

Click to expand...

The rangefinder mechanism is very hard to make, Vöitglander use a much simpler version (as do Zeiss) in their RF cameras than Leica. The cheaper the mechanism the less precision in focus, especially close ups or low light with fast lenses.

The technical difficulties in making an (accurate) RF are huge, but when you have such a camera it's focusing is the fastest manual method available, and in low light it will out perform AF

Couple this with low manufacture in units, and you have a recipe for an expensive camera.

If you want EVF, AF etc in a small cheap plastic body their are hundreds of good P&S out there, the range-finder has a whole different raison d'etre IMHO

nickoly said:

Stephen Schwartz wrote:
Everybody wants
telephoto zooms

Click to expand...

The problem is that's the perception manufacturers also believe.

But the is a large pent up demand for a Contax T/T2/T3 sized quality camera with a good OVF; fixed 40mm equiv. f/2 or f/2.8 lens; full manual controls and an APS-C sized sensor.

The icing on the cake would be if that 40mm eqiv lens was mechanically focused and RF coupled ( rather than on of those motor driven telescoping AF things ).

For larger cameras, Zeiss/Voigtlander will be looking with envy at the sales of the M8 and wanting in on the action. They only need to show a prototype at PMA to cause a storm.

Are you trying to say a M8 isn't a modern digital camera?

It's as modern as any other camera out there. They aren't working around "constraints" they are working with what made the M so loved.

Voigtlander has produced a new analog version of their Bessa(r4m)....so there is still a market for it. The market in the digital world is likely to be bigger than the analog world...

mamallama said:

No market for it is correct. The reason being you can do so much
more - cheaper, smaller and better with digital trchnology instead
of mechanically. It's a circular argument.

--mamallama

Click to expand...

Except focus, maybe. It's generally accepted that a well-aligned mechanical rangefinder, focused manually, provides better focus than an electronic auto system. That's one of the reasons we still have rangefinder cameras at all today. I'm not saying "faster" focus, but I am saying "better," as in "sharper". Also, the pleasures and special capabilities of a good, bright optical finder haven't yet been matched by EVFs, at least any that I have yet seen or read about.

In answer to the original question, I have read that Zeiss may be introducing a digital version of their current film RF camera. If true, then it will take Leica M mount lenses and will not be at all cheap. As I think Cosina would be actually building it for them, it will be cheaper than the M8, though.

I have my doubts about there being any sort of zoom lens based DRF, though, as that kind of defeats some of the purpose of the design, at least as it stands in this day and age. One has to remember that the whole reason RFs continued to be made, even as SLRs took over much of the market, is because, when engineered properly, they have certain advantages.

Among the advantages:

No mirror slap. This is a big one among RF aficionados, as mirror slap tends to make the act of taking a picture more conspicuous and, if you're not using a tripod or resting your camera on something, it WILL rob the final image of some sharpness at most of the common shutter speeds. Also, no mirror box means a smaller camera...

No reflex mirror also means that the rear of the lens can be engineered differently, leading to non-retrofocus wide angles that don't require a mirror to be locked up for use.

No viewfinder blackout. Overall responsiveness tends to be improved. The notion of "the decisive moment" was based on a style of photography largely made possible by the RF.

Anyway, being as RFs today exist to maximise potential image quality while minimising noise and noticeability, a zoom has little, if any place on one. Any RF system today is already going to cost so much, that anything less than an expensive and robustly engineered prime would be seen as a waste of time and money by most RF users. At least most of the ones I have ever known. The pool of RF users these days is somewhat small and I would imagine the subset of that pool who would even consider a zoom is so much smaller so as to provide next to no market incentive at all for a DRF with one.

I'm not trying to put anyone down for using the terms "zoom lens" and "rangefinder" together (go to the Leica forum on Photo.net if you really want abuse ^ ^ ) it's just that RFs long-ago reached a point where they sort of became not just simple photographic tools, but also manifestations of a particular philosophy of picture-taking.

Also, the price tag mainly reflects a high level of engineering for a niche market product.

The Customer

PhotoTraveler said:

Are you trying to say a M8 isn't a modern digital camera?

Click to expand...

Not at all! That's why it took so long to produce!

PhotoTraveler said:

It's as modern as any other camera out there. They aren't working
around "constraints" they are working with what made the M so loved.

Click to expand...

EVERY design has constraints! And 'working with what made the M so loved.' WERE the constraints Leica was working around. What I am saying is that the world seems to be looking at this thing all wrong.

I am suggesting that now that the M8 has made its appearance, let's loosen up a bit and think outside the box. (or in this case, the silver brick with the red dot).

What are the things that everyone who loves ragefinders and many people who don't like the current crop of digital cameras in general like about rangefinder cameras? I would suggest, they are 1) Fast accurate manual focus, and 2) a bright and usable viewfinder.

Does anyone think the manual focus of current crop of consumer/adv amateur level digital cameras (of any make except the m8) is FAST and ACCURATE? Does anyone think the same crop of cameras have a bright and usable viewfinder? Let's be honest, even the best modern digital viewfinders would have been laughingstocks 25 years ago.

Why not modify the m8 contsraints somewhat and produce a 'less pure' DRF? Forget legacy lenses! Forget the maximum accuracy of the leica style rangefinder! Forget getting rid of autofocus! make the rangefinder an optional device! Forget making the rangefinder work with all focal lengths in a zoom lens!

You can buy a reasonably accurate rangefinder without a camera attached in any golf shop for around $50. does anyone doubt THAT rangefinder technology if perhaps tweaked a bit and coupled to a decent if unspectacular camera wouldn't provide faster/more accurate manual focus than how the Canon G3 - G7 provides manua focus? (I can't speak for the G7, but the G3's 'manual' focus option is 'guess & set' with a miserable little electronic wheel)

I'd happily pay an extra $200 US for a Canon G7 with a bright and decent viewfinder/rangefinder whose rangefinder that only worked at 2 or 3 pre set focal lengths. And if it would seal the deal, I'd even stop whinning about the lack of RAW! (Well, until the G8 came out!)

--
Never trust a man who spells the word 'cheese' with a 'z'

Stephen Schwartz said:

The arguement that a RF can not be made as a digital camera is
nonsense. Focus is focus. If it works in a 35mm camera with film
the focus will work in a 35 mm camera with a sensor.

Click to expand...

The issue isn't the focusing mechanism, it's the angle at which light strikes the sensor. Film doesn't care what angle light hits it at, so rangefinder lens designers take advantage of this to make the lenses compact, but still high quality. Normals and wide angles from about 24mm to 50mm are typically symmetrical, the front elements are a mirror image of the rear elements. This cancels out a lot of aberrations and distortions. It also means that a 28mm lens has its "exit pupil" (the image of the aperture) about 28mm from the film. The elements behind the center come very close to the shutter, often within a few mm, and the elements in front of the center don't stick out all that far from the cameras, which is why you see 28mm and 35mm "pancake" lenses.

But digital sensors aren't film. Look at the data sheets (you can download sheets for many sensors from Kodak, Sony, DALSA, etc). Sensors start acting badly, and vignetting much more than film, when the light is more than 15-20 degrees from perpendicular to the sensor.

The math isn't hard, the image circle of 35mm film is 43.3mm, so the radius is 43.3mm/2=21.7mm. So, a 28mm lens has light that is arctan (21.7mm/28mm) = 37.8 degrees. That's way too much for a full frame digital sensor.

DSLRs don't have this problem. Because all the wide angle and normal lenses are designed to leave room for the swinging mirror of the DSLR, wides and normals are designed as "retrofocus" lenses. Their rear elements are at least 40mm from the film, and the exit pupils never get closer than 52mm from the film. So the very worst angle is 22 degrees, just barely enough to cause problems, and most lenses have exit pupils from 70-100mm, which never cause problems.

As Marco quite correctly pointed out, it takes Leica a lot of software to correct the vignetting. It also takes hardware, the sensor incorporates offset microlenses which allow some relief from the problems you'd normally encounter at steep angles. I've been talking about offset microlenses for 5 years, but this is the first time anyone's used them to build a rangefinder. And Leica limited the camera to a 1.33x crop factor sensor, further reducing the angles.

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

There are other issues. For one, it may be hard to couple a RF to
a zoom lens. Even if the zoom is parfocal, the requrements for
focus are different at different focal lengths. More stroingent at
high zoom. I suspect the issues is very solveable at an enginering
end using modern elctronics BUT the market may nto be bigh enough
to justify it.

Click to expand...

The market for zooms on rangefinders isn't high. It's counter to the lightweight, unobtrusive camera shooting style.

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

As for the ludicous price of the M8, I really wonder who is buying
these. Are professionals buying them or collectors?

Click to expand...

Neither. Dentists and other high budget "weekend warriors".

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

The Customer said:

The Customer said:

No market for it is correct. The reason being you can do so much
more - cheaper, smaller and better with digital trchnology instead
of mechanically. It's a circular argument.

--mamallama

Click to expand...

Except focus, maybe. It's generally accepted that a well-aligned
mechanical rangefinder, focused manually, provides better focus
than an electronic auto system.

Click to expand...

It's "generally accepted" by rangefinder shooters, making a virtue of what they already have...

The Customer said:

That's one of the reasons we still
have rangefinder cameras at all today. I'm not saying "faster"
focus, but I am saying "better," as in "sharper". Also, the
pleasures and special capabilities of a good, bright optical finder
haven't yet been matched by EVFs, at least any that I have yet seen
or read about.

Click to expand...

That's closer to the truth. Nice viewfinder, small lenses, quiet cameras, and a strong cult (as you mentioned elsewhere)...

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

With out a doubt, a small, fast to focus RF camera would be great BUT, so is zoom. If a RF can nto handle a easonable zoom the sell will be hard.

UNLESS ...

I 'spect a RF body that cna take exosting Leitz lenses would have a market if the price poitn were to fall to the range of a dSLR, say about $1000 with a starter lens. Unlike some here, I see no prqactical reaosn such a camera oculd not be built. With modern mass production, the ocst is nto high .. unless the # sold si so small as to not offset the engineering costs.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

I do not believe it.

A MODERN, cheaply made Rf could easily put out its ranging data as digital info. The rela isue is liley to be coupliong the lenses .. replacing the exisitng mechanical linkages wiht a servo mechanism that does nto creating a whole new class of lenses.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

This is a great essay on the problmes with digital sensors and lens design but it has nothing to do with the issues as I raised them.

One could obvioulsy build a RF onto any d-cam and have the RF do the focussing. That has nothing to do with why Leica went to all tyhe rouble they did to create a body thatn could use existing lenses (and I agree that this was not easy).

I do not agree on the RF::zoom issue. If one could create acompact camera with zoom and RF ot would be wonderful. I am, however, not sure there is a good way to tie a RF to a zoom unless the linkage were digital. But that should be doable. The outcome, as you point out, would proabbly not be Leica lens comaptible but ti would be small and fast.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com