more rangefinder?

tex said:

tex said:

tex 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".

Click to expand...

kind of a catty comment, joe! why pick on dentists[not that i'm a
big fan of them]?

Click to expand...

My apologies, it's sort of an inside joke.

I'm senior faculty at Midwest Photographic Workshops, Michigan's largest and oldest privately owned photography school. The only person who teaches more classes there than me is the owner and director, Bryce Denison.

The school was originally founded (way back when I was like 8 years old) by Alan Lowy (full time photographer) and C. J. Elefont, excellent landscape and travel photographer and...

Get ready for it...

dentist.

I've taken classes from him long before I ever joined the faculty.

They brought Bryce in as a partner some 20-25 years ago, and Bryce decided to hire some faculty, rather than take on a new partner or two, when C. J. and Alan retired and fled Michigan to warmer climates.

tex said:

anyway, i am acquainted with a couple of dozen
pros of various stripes, and nearly half of them have either a
rangefinder or some other piece of quirky and somewhat expensive
gear.

Click to expand...

I don't know a single pro who doesn't have some "piece of quirky and somewhat expensive gear". Heck, I design pieces of quirky and somewhat expensive gear.

tex said:

they use them for their personal work, or as a refreshment
from their daily grind.

Click to expand...

Hence "weekend warrior"

I also often use the term dilettante in an affectionate way, as in Frederick the Great, never as an insult.

An amateur (the word comes from "love") may spend a lifetime learning and refining, while a pro often settles down into a rhythm of having to shoot to make money. Been there, done that...

tex said:

matbe the pros in my area [balto/wash
corridor] ar very different from those in your area.

Click to expand...

I bet you've got a lot more street shooters.

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

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Stephen Schwartz said:

How many are buying the M8?

Click to expand...

Don't laugh. My osteopath, who knows that I'm an accomplished photographer and photography teacher, recently asked me for my opinions on M8 as a vacation camera...

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

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

frederick the great is kinda good company to be in. i had an artist friend [sadly he died this past summer way too young] who had business cards printed up with only his name, centered, and underneath: dilletante

my question for you today is: there don't seem to be many dilletante engineers. is that true? if so, why, do you suppose? is it a dark art like alchemy in which all involved are full fledged practitioners, but simply of varying degrees of competence?

here is my official crow eating post for you and all forum members: this spring, you suggested that detroit would go all the way, and i said that would be as likely as the orioles going all the way.

surprisingly tasty bird, crow. reminds me of muskrat.

Stephen Schwartz said:

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.

Click to expand...

We may be missing each other's issues...

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

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).

Click to expand...

There's a reason why you need to be compatible with existing lenses. More on that in a second post...

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think you've got a slight misconception about how rangefinders work. The lens does not have to be "unit focusing", you don't have to move the entire lens nearer or farther from the camera as one block. You can use all the techniques of a modern optical design (front focusing, rear docusing, internal focusing, floating elements, etc). Indeed, some of the faster Zeiss wides are floating element designs (as I believe some Leicas also are).

Existing rangefinders are cam coupled. Somehow or other, you need a linkage from the focusing ring of the lens to a contoured cam near the rear. This can be a direct attachment to the helicoid on a rear or unit focusing lens, or a quarter cylinder outside the helicoid but inside the barrel for an internal or front focusing design.

If the zoom were truly parfocal (there were no change in the focus with zoom) a single cam would be sufficient to couple it to the rangefinder. Leica is almost there with the "Tri-elmar" designs. The biggest problem with a zoom on a rangefinder isn't focusing, it's framing. You have to bring up the right frame lines. If you did the frame lines with a "guest-host LCD", the same way that SLRs use for their focusing brackets, "on demand gridlines" and other viewfinder features, you could have zoom framelines.

You could even mechanically couple the zoom to the camera with a second cam, so the lens would still be fully mechanical and the electronics would be entirely within the camera.

My point is philosophical. Although it's quite possible to build lenses for a rangefinder that don't put any special burden on the sensor, and it's also possible to build zooms, that doesn't fit the exiting rangefinder demographic. Existing rangefinder shooters want small, unobtrusive cameras, and very fast, high quality lenses with Leica, Zeiss, or Konica "mystique". Even new shooters are often charmed by legends of Henri Cartier-Bressan and "the decisive moment". They want that kind of camera...

I think what you're talking about (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is cultivating a new rangefinder market, people who don't want to be Bressan, who just want something different. I'm not sure the market is there for that.

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

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Stephen Schwartz said:

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.

Click to expand...

But it would have limits. A very small sensor camera, like my Canon S400 (1/1.8 inch sensor, 35-105mm equivalent lens) hardly needs a rangefinder, because it has so much depth of field you don't really notice focusing errors very much. So, I'd assume you're talking about a larger sensor camera, APS sized (like the 1.6x crop Sony RD1 or the new 1.7x crop 28mm equivalent fixed lens Sigma DP1.

A larger sensor camera needs rangefinder style symmetric lenses. The rangefinder (or for that matter, a simple optical viewfinder) looks out at the world from a spot on the front of the camera. The lens (even compact rangefinder lenses) typically protrudes from the front of the camera. A wide angle lens can be seen by the viewfinder, it blocks part of your view. Have you ever wondered why rangefinder lenses have those weird looking "vented" lens hoods? It's so the viewfinder and rangefinder can see through the cutouts on the back of the hood.

You simply can't use SLR style retrofocus lenses on a rangefinder, they get in the way of the viewfinder and the rangefinder. Same for zooms, unless they're very slow and small.

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

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

tex said:

frederick the great is kinda good company to be in. i had an
artist friend [sadly he died this past summer way too young] who
had business cards printed up with only his name, centered, and
underneath: dilletante

Click to expand...

Cool. My WizWerks consultant business cards say "rogue engineer".

tex said:

my question for you today is: there don't seem to be many
dilletante engineers. is that true? if so, why, do you suppose?
is it a dark art like alchemy in which all involved are full
fledged practitioners, but simply of varying degrees of competence?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's true. My old group at Visteon (originally Ford Motor Company, Electronics Division) was positively full of them.

Dr. Joe Tillo (Ph.D. in electronics) is a very competent birder (and shoots a Leica R9 for film with Modul-R for digital). Bill Whikehart is a mixed media artist, I photographed some of his art for jury slides. Another of my coworkers (who shall remain nameless), quite a bright engineer, a CMU grad, was also an accomplished musician, and actually quit engineering for a couple of years to take his band "Downer's Grove" on the road. He's back to being a full time engineer and weekend warrior. Rod Niner, another EE, is also a glassblower.

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

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

tex said:

frederick the great is kinda good company to be in. i had an
artist friend [sadly he died this past summer way too young] who
had business cards printed up with only his name, centered, and
underneath: dilletante

my question for you today is: there don't seem to be many
dilletante engineers. is that true? if so, why, do you suppose?
is it a dark art like alchemy in which all involved are full
fledged practitioners, but simply of varying degrees of competence?

Click to expand...

I also know a lot of part time engineers and tinkerers...

Gary Justice is a local photographer who designed his own semicircular track rotator bracket, patented it, and set up a garage machine shop to make them. He now makes his living from the "Just Rite bracket. Bryce dabbles, he designed and marketed a collapsible light tent for macro photography in the field.

In the Detroit area, lots of people "tinker" fairly seriously. We have the highest per capita concentration of basement and garage workshops in the world.

As for myself, I could solder by age 8, read simple schematics, sketched up all sorts of circuits by my teens...

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

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

I am oinly interested in making pictures. If a zoom/RF can be made to work well in these conditions, then the only reaosj not to want one would be luddism.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

tex said:

here is my official crow eating post for you and all forum members:
this spring, you suggested that detroit would go all the way, and i
said that would be as likely as the orioles going all the way.

Click to expand...

Detroiters are nothing, if not optimists...

Well, Saturday was a shocker, but Sunday went better

tex said:

surprisingly tasty bird, crow. reminds me of muskrat.

Click to expand...

You're not going to believe this one, but Bryce Denison, the owner/director of Midwest Photographic Workshops, used to be partners in an audio visual production company with his childhood friend Johnny Kolakowski.

After that broke up, Bryce ended up with MPW, and Johnny started a rather unique restaurant downriver...

Kola's Food Factory.

http://www.kolasfoodfactory.com/index.htm

Aside from some standard Polish fare (stuffed cabbage, city chicken, kielbasa, pierogi, and potato pancakes) he's also got what I've heard are pretty good ribs, alligator medallions and...

muskrat (Sautéed in butter & garlic, mashed potatoes and gravy with a side of sauerkraut).

I've had restaurant muskrat and squirrel, and bagged my own raccoon and rabbit...

But that was years ago, I've been a vegetarian for about 20 years.

So, eat Brussel's sprouts..

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

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

WADR, he was one of the least ocmetent photgrpahers in re image quality. His negs were horrible to print.

I understand there are pople who need fantasies, but as you suyggest, I was talking about people who want only to make great images in little light.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

What sort of car does he drive LOL
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

Glen Barrington said:

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!)

Click to expand...

I think (but not 100% sure) that the focal length of the lenses used on compact digicams are so short that the distance required to moved to lens elements to change the focus distance is very small.

That pretty much explains why any of them that have a manual focus ring are all "focus by wire", because if it was directly mechanicaly coupled then it would be even "twitchier".

I imagine that any RF coupling mechanism would have to built to even higher tolerances than a Leica M, to translate the very small movements of the lens into the RF mechanism.

Something to ponder:

The lens cell of a 50mm Pentax K lens moves about 8mm from infinity focus to 1m focus, where-as a 16mm Pentax K lens (a Zenitar, in this case) moves less than 1.5mm from infinity focus to closest focus.

Just imagine how small the distance the lens elements move in the 7mm setting on (for example) a Dimage A200 (it has a 7-50mm zoom lens) move throughout it's focus range, it might be less than half a milimetre.

That is the sort of tolerances that would have to be kept in mind for a 2/3" CCD based rangefinder camera.

Don't forget, as the sensor size goes down, so does the actual focal length to get the same 35mm equivalent focal length.

Stephen Schwartz said:

I am oinly interested in making pictures. If a zoom/RF can be made
to work well in these conditions, then the only reaosj not to want
one would be luddism.

Click to expand...

Stephen there are lots of reasons why range-finder users don't like zooms, none of them have to be 'luddite' but rather the reasons help them to make pictures.
Prime lenses generally have:
• Faster Apertures
• less aberrations
• better corner to corner sharpness
• less vignetting
• smaller size (to go with their dinky little cameras)

Leica instead of making a zoom have a Tri Elmar, kind of like a triple prime, instead of having a continuous zoom you get 3 highly corrected focal lengths in one lens.

Really though' you only need one or two focal lengths depending on your type of photography, I like 35 F2, 50 F2 and 90F2.8 can't imagine needing more than that and the wide ones take 90% of shots.
With a RF you use your head, eyes and your feet!

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

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Stephen Schwartz said:

WADR, he was one of the least ocmetent photgrpahers in re image
quality. His negs were horrible to print.

Click to expand...

No his negs are fine I've seen a few, they are not hard to print, I think you need to have a look at some of his actual prints they have a quality that I find inspirational.

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

I understand there are pople who need fantasies, but as you
suyggest, I was talking about people who want only to make great
images in little light.

Click to expand...

Like Brassaï ? Brandt? CB himself? all these guys worked with low ISO and made great images, you'd do well to go to a gallery and check them out– no fantasy required.

Stephen Schwartz said:

WADR, he was one of the least ocmetent photgrpahers in re image
quality. His negs were horrible to print.

Click to expand...

Do you mean "competent"?

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

I understand there are pople who need fantasies, but as you
suyggest, I was talking about people who want only to make great
images in little light.

Click to expand...

Those are the ones who need traditional rangefinders in the style of the Leica M8.

If you want great images in little light, you need the fast lenses and big sensors. And that means you've got to have a traditional rangefinder design, with the symmetric lens and much of the lens behind the lens mount. Otherwise, a much longer and larger retrofocus lens will block the viewfinder.

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

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

The image is the thing, the only thing.

While I too know folks who need to have black fingernails to prove they are photogs, a small RF, if it could be built, owuld be wonderful. All your other comemtns are techical. Can a zoom lens be good enough? Low light ophotogrpahy is usually somewhat soft becuase of nose/grain/ so I doubt that the extra sharpess would be detectable.

I like you use oboth primes and a zoom. In gen I use the orimes for low light for their greater speed.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

I have seen many prints and have talked with people who printed them. It all depends on your standards. No one working in these conditions can aspire to Edward Weston quality. My personal favorite, Eugene Smith, was wonderful but Gene's concept of the dceisive moment was a lot ore set up than the guys we are referring to. Also, inlike some of the folk yopu mentioned, Gene printed his own work.

Look, for one we are on the same boat here. I love avail light, social photogrpahy. The content, the challenge, the feel of the hunt are woderful ... take a look at my recent e3ssay in a bar at http://[email protected] .

But, working uder these conditions with the limtied qulity of current early generation sensors, is .. well good for the soul.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

If any makers are reading this with a budget for developing a CRF, how about spending the money on getting AF to work properly and all the time?

I've a nice little compact P&S that suits me fine when it gets the AF right. But it screws up too often. A clue or two, it isn't Olympus or Leica and the old Fuji A303's AF worked very well.

Regards, David