Well, I for one have shot Leica, Olympus, Retina IIa and Yashica RF's and still don't get the fanaticism that some hold for the RF camera design. Yes, they work and I've taken excellent photos with the cameras, but the design is nothing that I would consider "paradise lost" or anything, it was just an alternative design to consider. People didn't shift from RF's to SLR's because the SLR's were cheaper or worked less good for most purposes, SLR's were initially much more expensive, but are better for almost all shooting styles so RF's were taken out by the market... IE., given the choice most people chose the SLR for serious shooting.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Rangefinders - why the want from Oly and Pany m43 users?
- Thread starter Memerang
- Start date
DRabbit
Veteran Member
Compared to a 5DII or other Full-Frame beast it is. And go figure, it's a FF mirror-less. LOL
Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Google+: http://gplus.to/DangRabbit
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DangRabbit
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DangRabbitPhotography
PAD Project: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography/pad
Gallery: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography
tedolf
Veteran Member
I didn't say M9. A digital M4 is what people want.
Maximus Decimus Tedolphus--Good question. Judging by the sales figures, there aren't that many. But I guess the faithful few are still dreaming about the first half of last century.
Thomas
tedolf
Veteran Member
Come on, you are not being honest. You can see activity outside of the frame-that alone is huge. You can compose in very, very dim conditions-that is huge. With a 0.92x viewfinder magnification, you can focus and compose with both eyes open-that is huge.
How can you ignore those things.
Need I go on with flash sync. at any speed, quiet shutters, hand holding a full F stop below SLR speeds, compact, great at wide angle, etc. etc.
Maximus Decimus Tedolphus
Is there any reason to believe all of that won't be possible with a digital body?
Selectable viewfinder magnification at base viewing seems to be attainable now, and cleaner low light imaging looks possible. For example, I haven't seen Sony's latest OLED EVF effort, but I'm guessing it's better in low light than the Olympus VF-2. Global shutter technology would take care of flash sync, noise, and some durability issues, as will continued sensor advances.
I'm no film rangefinder aficionado, but it looks to me like we're at the threshold of exactly the digital rangefinder you suggest, at far less than Leica price points. Whoever delivers that package at the right price will clean up. I'm betting on m43, but the NEX-7 seems to be making a strong showing, too.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
WC Wood
Veteran Member
--The hand/finger grip became necessary when we all started holding our cameras out in front of us with one hand. With the small, light P&S cameras, a grip isn't necessary.
W.C.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29320396@N05/show/
E-PL1
Digilux 2
LX3
FZ18
Nikon FM
AI 50 1.8
Leica CL w/40 cron
FED 2b
Exakta VXII
W.C.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29320396@N05/show/
E-PL1
Digilux 2
LX3
FZ18
Nikon FM
AI 50 1.8
Leica CL w/40 cron
FED 2b
Exakta VXII
tedolf
Veteran Member
It is, with a digital rangefinder body!
Why not just use an optical viewfinder with all the data projected on to it?
Sort of an evolution of the Fuji x100 hybrid viewfinder except it zooms with focal lenght. And then, just like an SLR, you have a live view button that gives full live view when you want it.
Yes, we are really at the threashold. If the rumors are true that Oly supplies a lot of the sub assemblies for the x100 and was intimatley in volved in the design of that camera, we may be closer than anyone thinks. I suspect that with the termoil at Oly, revolutionalry designs are hard to find champions for right now.
Maximus Decimus Tedolphus
That sounds like a complicated and likely expensive solution compared to pushing EVF technology forward, but I'm not an engineer and won't pretend to know if there's a good way to make it happen. EVF blackout could probably be reduced to the projected data, so the optical side of the VF would be completely unaffected for shot framing. Not sure how this approach would deal with providing the view necessary for focusing, though, as that would seem to be part of the E side of things.
There may be glee in the realm of the Oly Haters, but there shouldn't be. Like them or not, Olympus has a role to play, and it's a shame the money folk have mucked things up so much. Sad to see the company at the brink while still bringing out good products like the E-P3 and 12/2.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
So are you saying that the whole market shift from RF to SLR for both personal and professional photography was driven by everyone simply being idiots?
I'm not saying that there aren't some nice features when shooting a RF, but overall I think that for me and almost everyone else that they are negated by all the reasons SLRs are better.
Personally, having to pay attention to framelines and what is outside of them is annoying. Being able to view and frame with both eyes open is optically really neat, but in practice I never do it. Quiet shutters and low vibration is nice, but neither is that meaningful for me when I shoot. If I'm at the edge I either brace myself or use a tripod and that is much better than the questionable 1-stop different between designs. For flash, it is only the leaf shutter models that sync at all speeds, focal plane shutters are the same with a mirror in front of them and without.
Leica is the only real camera maker that continued to make RF's and they succeeded of sorts by offering unique niche cameras of beautiful precision -- they are very unique and priced accordingly -- not because RF's are so much better than SLR's.
Also, since I mostly shoot faster primes and not slow zooms the VF in a decent SLR is more than adequate for low light shooting.
I'm not saying that there aren't some nice features when shooting a RF, but overall I think that for me and almost everyone else that they are negated by all the reasons SLRs are better.
Personally, having to pay attention to framelines and what is outside of them is annoying. Being able to view and frame with both eyes open is optically really neat, but in practice I never do it. Quiet shutters and low vibration is nice, but neither is that meaningful for me when I shoot. If I'm at the edge I either brace myself or use a tripod and that is much better than the questionable 1-stop different between designs. For flash, it is only the leaf shutter models that sync at all speeds, focal plane shutters are the same with a mirror in front of them and without.
Leica is the only real camera maker that continued to make RF's and they succeeded of sorts by offering unique niche cameras of beautiful precision -- they are very unique and priced accordingly -- not because RF's are so much better than SLR's.
Also, since I mostly shoot faster primes and not slow zooms the VF in a decent SLR is more than adequate for low light shooting.
Maybe I don't understand your argument. But it seems obvious to me that the move from RF to SLR-type bodies was all about the single lens part of SLR. And that required a mirror right above the lens. And that required a hump, etc. The hump wasn't placed there to because of ergonomics use; it was placed there because that's where the mirror had to go.
Now that we mirrorless cameras, the viewing can take place anywhere--on the back of the camera on an LCD screen, or in an EVF placed anywhere on the camera, or attachable and removable like the Olympus VF-2. IMO, the decision to retain the vestigial hump of a true SLR on a mirrorless camera like the G2, GH2, etc. is kind of silly.
(Note I'd still love an EVF, but I see no reason it has to involve a hump that makes the camera less compact than it needs to be.)
Anders W
Veteran Member
And what, in your opinion, is the critical difference between "a digital M4" and an M9?
Anders W
Veteran Member
No that's not huge. See below.
No, that's a truly marginal advantage. I don't think I have ever encountered a situation where I wanted to shoot but where it was so dark that my SLR finder didn't allow me to compose.
I can do that with an SLR too and thus see what's outside the frame to the extent that I need to.
With a Leica curtain shutter or what?
The current Leica shutter is reported to be noisier than the D7000 in silent mode.
Not in my experience. Haven't found much of a difference.
Yes, that's about it.
You mean better with WAs than with teles, not better than with SLRs, right?
(...)
Why is it silly? Many people prefer this position. Looking at today's humps, most of them are containers for flashes and in some cases stereo microphones. So the really have functional or ergonomic reasons. Internal flashes are usually stronger and more robust, when placed in the hump, than the tiny flashes with those flimsy mechanical flip out contructions. Remembering the G1, the hump had much less profile to the one of the GH1 or GH2 (no mic in it). I may prefer a camera without flush and a smaller hump, but that is probably not marketable.
Since the view finder is usually going above the LCD, camera bodies with build-in VFs usually have a higher flat body plate. In "hump" designs, you can make the shoulders, which usually contain operation controls lower, and thus easier to reach with your hands while holding the camera. So there are indeed also ergonomic arguments in favor for a DSLR design, even if it is a m4/3 camera.
Ultimately it is everybodies own choice, but often arguments for rangefinder style are overrated (especially portability/pocketabiltiy, unconspiciousness or not really true (ergonomics etc.).
--
Thomas
When people talk about a digital rangefinders they mostly are talking about a real rangefinder, not just the placement of an EVF. I was responding to that.
tjuster1 wrote:
...
tjuster1 wrote:
...
You were doing great until here . . . overrated by whom? By you, of course. By the people who prefer RF-style cameras to DLSR-style cameras? Apparently not.
Obviously we don't agree on this--which is fine (good thing for choices). As long as I'm not telling you what you SHOULD prefer, and you're not telling me the same, then we can just agree to disagree.
But please don't tell me my reasons for preferring a compact RF-style body over the DLSR-style are invalid.
I would never do that.
But telling (not you of course) bodies like the GH2 "huge" or "monstrous", not pocketable or even portable, is the "overstating" I mean. Also pocketability is overrated by some, if more than small lenses come into play.
--
Thomas
tedolf
Veteran Member
tedolf
Veteran Member
Modern Photography did a survey in the 1970's which showed that over 70% of all SLR owners never took the 50mm lens off their camera. It may as well have been welded on. Consumer acceptance of SLR cameras may well have been one of the best marketing bambozzles of all time.
They all would have been beter off with a compact rangefinder with a fast 35mm lens (e.g. Oly RC).
Compare a film SLR with a 50mm lens welded on, to a rangefinder with a 50 mm lense and tell me why the SLR is better.
Most consider being able to see what is about to enter the frame as an advatage, and it is conventionaly admitted as such by SLR afficianoados.
False: Konica, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Roelli, Nikonos, Epson, Zorki, Fed, etc. all made interchangeable lens rangeinders or viewfinder cameras up through the 90's.....I could go on. It was the digial live view camera that ended everyone's rangefinder marketing plan. The PENs adn GF cameras are the direct spiritual decendants of the ICL rangefinder and make up the bulk of u 4/3 sales.
Rangefinders were always better at low light viewing than SLR's becuase the viewing system is not dependent on the speed of the lens, or the mirror/pentaprism system. This is well known.
Also, rangefinders always had a better selection of fast lenses than SLRs did. The fastest lenses were always rangefinder lenses. This is why they were known as avialable light cameras.
MDT
tedolf
Veteran Member
statements. Everyone agrees that the Leica rangefinder ergonomics are far superior to SLR ergonomics. It is one of the reasons that Leica's still exist, and that when the patent on the M mount expired, half a dozen companies came out with Leica M mount rangefinder bodies.
The SLR center hump on the G series is for marketing purposes only, because morons think that is what a "serious" camera is supposed to look like.
Tedolph
Anders W
Veteran Member
Well that critical addition makes the message slightly more intelligible.
M4: 138 x 77 x 33.5 mm, 545 g
M9: 139 x 80 x 37 mm, 589 g
Not a whole lot of difference between those two.
Leica CL: 121 × 76 × 32 mm, 365 g
Panasonic G3: 115 mm x 84 mm x 47 mm, 336 g
And not between these two either.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum