why isn't there an affordable digital rangefinder?


Status
Not open for further replies.

cosycatus

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2004
1,132
0
36
other than the M8, M9 which cost an arm and leg..the alternative is the ageing R1Ds.

How hard is it to come up with a 1-2K digital range finder? Shouldn't be too hard since it doesn't require fast AF modules, 10FPS watever DR optimization etc.

Find a plain old vanilla fullframe sensor aka 5D sensor , small rugged body and it might just sell like hot cakes.

maybe just that there is no market..
 

Put a fullframe sensor in there and it wouldn't be affordable anymore.

Actually, the m4/3 cameras sort of fulfilled some of the needs of rangefinder users. If you think about it, they are pretty much what a rangefinder should be, less the "rangefinder part". With the advent of Liveview and autofocus, is the actual rangefinder mechanism still applicable? Sure it is fun to use, but for the more general consumer, they would want something more in-line with a PnS. That said, I think m4/3 cameras are very similar to digital range finders in the following aspects:

- smaller form factor
- smaller interchangeable lenses

And with the availability of so many adapters, the m4/3 system can mount so many different legacy lenses. What's not to love about the m4/3?
 

Last edited:
yeah plus with the introduction of the sony NEX with a bigger sensor, it's the same size as the r1ds now!
 

i suspect the answer is a bit more insidious. nobody knows what a rangefinder is... everyone sees Canon and Nikon...and perhaps Sony and Olympus plus the constant bombardment of Samsung, Panasonic and Casio.

They only see M9 used in cool adverts....

raytoei
 

still, it is noteworthy to point out that while the mirrorless systems indeed do have a quiet shutter (because there isn't one).. most of them are still based on things like lcd screens, with sometimes EVF.. and the occasional optional optical viewfinder..

and even taking that out of account, the main reason why a rangefinder is called a rangefinder is not present - the focusing mechanism is probably not quite the same, nor as speedy as that of a rangefinder in well-practised hands.
 

How hard is it to come up with a 1-2K digital range finder? Shouldn't be too hard since it doesn't require fast AF modules, 10FPS watever DR optimization etc.

Find a plain old vanilla fullframe sensor aka 5D sensor , small rugged body and it might just sell like hot cakes.

maybe just that there is no market..

i think the main reason is that leica along with the other rf companies are aiming to produce really niche products. they are targeting a particular customer profile, and their customer base tends to be a certain sort - either real true blue rf enthuaists, or rich kids with too much money to throw. sorry, no offense to any rangefinder users here - you know that there are those bozos using your type of camera. so the former group doesn't care about price - they're willing to pay the price for something intangible; the latter group is more than happy to spend big money and feeling cool squinting into their camera and shooting nothing particularly exhilerating or exciting. so the result is a high-priced product - all that quality comes at a cost, but pricing is part of the package, like it or not.

they aren't aimed at the mass market, and the big companies like sony, canon, nikon are targeting a broader base. do you really think average joe wants to pick up a rangefinder and feel cool turning manual focus until images overlap? don't think so. autofocus, easy menus, etc are still the rage of a person new to photography... and when you're stuck with that methodology, you're just.. stuck. i found it hard to get used to using a rangefinder, although i admit that it definitely has its advantages.
 

Last edited:
Well, RF doesnt attract a huge crowd really.

Big boys like Sony, Canon, Nikon aint into it if it isnt gonna be a money spinning product for the masses.

Their returns wouldnt be as much as selling a DSLR or compact PNS compared to a digital RF which only attracts a small crowd. R&D, production cost will not be recovered.

I dont exactly agree that m4/3 is a RF or the other stuff that are rolling out on a market now...
 

night86mare's reply raised some other valid points.
Leicas has a customer base that is clearly divided between the dedicated rangefinder users and the poseurs. Even in this forum one can observe those that display photos of their Leicas but which are rarely accompanied by any images of any note that they have taken with them!
Leica products are unarguably premium quality but since LVMH acquired ownership of the company they have become eye-wateringly expensive; resulting in them becoming yet more sought after by the poseurs.
Thankfully Cosina Voigtlander have in recent years offered a range of quality products at sensible prices; not Leica standard of finish but optically very good when weighed against price. This has enabled the genuine rangefinder user to afford to acquire the necessary kit to pursue his interest. This has encouraged a revival of interest in and use of rangefinders. The creation of this rangefinder sub forum is evidence of this. Those that take the trouble to master using the rangefinder are rewarded with a camera that is a fine tool for low light photography. You only have to explore the focussing inaccuracies of autofocus DSLRs in low light to appreciate the real advantage of the rangefinder system.
Who knows - perhaps Holga's Research and Development team are planning to expand their Lomo product range to include the budget price digital rangefinder as envisaged by cosycatus!.
 

Last edited:
maybe just that there is no market..

I think you just answered your own question. Had DRF's market share been even one tenth of the DSLR's things might have been very different.
 

Leicas has a customer base that is clearly divided between the dedicated rangefinder users and the poseurs.

I disagree with the word "poseur". I really do not think people buy a Leica for the "look".

I would much prefer the word "wannabe". Personally, I confess I am a "wannabe" because I am a newbie to rangefinders. I buy Leica because I earnestly want to learn with and use the best. I do not buy a Leica for the red dot or for "the look".
 

Put a fullframe sensor in there and it wouldn't be affordable anymore.

Actually, the m4/3 cameras sort of fulfilled some of the needs of rangefinder users. If you think about it, they are pretty much what a rangefinder should be, less the "rangefinder part". With the advent of Liveview and autofocus, is the actual rangefinder mechanism still applicable? Sure it is fun to use, but for the more general consumer, they would want something more in-line with a PnS. That said, I think m4/3 cameras are very similar to digital range finders in the following aspects:

- smaller form factor
- smaller interchangeable lenses

And with the availability of so many adapters, the m4/3 system can mount so many different legacy lenses. What's not to love about the m4/3?



not true wor.
There is something very different about composing thru a optical viewfinder and composing on a LCD screen.
Furthermore, all this m43 lens really lack something...good fast wide primes. We only have a 20mm F1.7

If the m43 community comes up with a whole wide range of nice fast primes for the 35mm, 50mm , 28mm equivalents @ F1.4 AND having a nice EVF built into the camera body ( instead of having a monstrous EVF on top where the flash is suppose to be), then i think we do have an alternative to the rangefinder..

and a fullframe sensor is not that expensive anymore. It's not back in 2005 where 5D cost 5K and iDs2 cost 12K. A 5D2 cost 3.1K now and has more megapixels. The technology to produce cheap 12 mp fullframe is there.

I really hope those small indie producers like yashica, ricoh or even vogtinglander decide to do something to rock the market. Imagine yashica comming up with a 1K rangefinder body...I don't need fancy AF, FPS or 21mp.

And partly, leica is leica becuase it's expensive. You do not really need to sell a summilux at 5K when the nokton equivalent is ~$800? True that the leica has better distortion control and all
 

hmmmm ... interesting ..

is the rangefinder function or the "captured" moment you like ? regardless of the device you use ?

I would rather have the moment captured ...... priceless ...
 

other than the M8, M9 which cost an arm and leg..the alternative is the ageing R1Ds.

How hard is it to come up with a 1-2K digital range finder? Shouldn't be too hard since it doesn't require fast AF modules, 10FPS watever DR optimization etc.

Find a plain old vanilla fullframe sensor aka 5D sensor , small rugged body and it might just sell like hot cakes.

maybe just that there is no market..

I would love to see such a camera selling below SGD2k too.

I do agree with some of you here that the rangefinder market is not big. But I would think that the reason is becoz of the high barriers (price of a dRF, current RF uses film, which puts many off). If an affordable dRF comes out, I would be inclined to think that the market exist. Just look at how m43 users are crazy over adapters. Therefore, I feel that the market exist, just that there are no product to fill the gap.

I guess for RF fans, capturing moment and image quality is one thing; RF fans love the handling and control of a RF, which i can't find a substitute for (less the current dRF). Yes, m43 can mount all sort of lenses as long as u have the adaptor, but the feel of the control, handling and character of the lens is not there anymore. This aspect, puts many off, including myself.

I live with hope that an affordable dRF will be realised. For now, i'll just use my m43 with the m43 lenses.
 

One reason why RF is expensive is because of R&D. The nature of the design to correct for light entering at the corners (technical stuff not very good at nor care). All this is design mostly in-house with patents held by leica. All this cost is new and not covered back yet so early adopters suffer given the small customer base make it even more expensive.

2nd is as stated is the type of demand so given that we cannot perfectly discriminate the two groups and the true users of RF being small, price is dictated by the well heeled whose requirements differ and so true users pay for more for feature that might not want. Or purely to maximize profit which leica needs to do.

As much as it is expensive the rf way of seeing is unique and have been argued to death by many 20th century photographers.. But in general from personal experience given that you see beyond the frame you can add or remove elements very much dynamic that creates the rf feel.
Skill sLR users can do the same.

Again, DRF is expensive but film Rf is not use cheap film and cheap processing given if you shoot like 3-4 rolls a week.

DRF for me is cheaper in the sense that I shoot 100 frames a day. I hit 4K exposure in 1 month.
36K exposure is covering the cost. Not including travel cost and all that which i am happy to remove from my work flow.

About being trigger happy: this is a personal matter which each must address but using film is a good way to control. I do shoot more but I do take more 'risky' shots.

if you really want a cheaper Rf option I can list a few:
Film Rf: Ideal is M6 classic/ Zeiss ikon for its wonderful VF but louder shutter (3K)
Ricoh GRD3 + zeiss 25/28 viewfinder (1.6K)
X1 + finder (4K)
M8 + lens (5-8K)
Not familiar with M43

Wannabe and all that... Some don't have the time to take as much but they do love the camera and taking pictures of family and friend means so much more in my view. Leica being a status symbol is true..but I do like camera collectors they are in a way historians of the photographic movement. Camera especially leicas, roliflex, hassy are just magic and a different grade from the cameras of today and have value to collect.
 

Last edited:
if you really want a cheaper Rf option I can list a few:
Film Rf: Ideal is M6 classic/ Zeiss ikon for its wonderful VF but louder shutter (3K)
Ricoh GRD3 + zeiss 25/28 viewfinder (1.6K)
X1 + finder (4K)
M8 + lens (5-8K)
Not familiar with M43

I'm using a GRD2 with a Voigtlander VF :) Not by choice but by necessity (need reading glasses liao :( )
 

bene123, the options you listed are not RFs at all because they use TTL focusing, not RF focusing. An RF must be an RF.

OP is correct, there is no option currently in the market for a cheap digital RF. From what I understand, the most expensive part of an RF body is the RF window mechanic. Is this true?
 

anyone seen this?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/04/april-fools.html

"People say they want Canon or Nikon to make a digital rangefinder. I heard an insider rumor a year or two ago that a big manufacturer was fairly far along with plans for just such a camera, but that Leica went to them and begged them not to do it, saying it would be the death of Leica. Leica is revered in Japan, and, according to my source, this Japanese company acquiesced, and shelved its plans. What that means—if there's any truth to that story—is that if you really want a cheaper M-mount digital rangefinder, your best bet is to be rooting for Leica to go out of business, because that's what it would take to clear the way for the camera you say you want. Is that what you want?"
 

Not necessary the case the the most expensive part is the RF itself in digital body its the sensor and microlens design to let light hit the full frame sensor. For film another part is it shutter which is darn quite for leicas. My options given at not technically 'Rf' but they approximate the RF way of seeing the worlld. hope this clarify things
 

anyone seen this?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/04/april-fools.html

"People say they want Canon or Nikon to make a digital rangefinder. I heard an insider rumor a year or two ago that a big manufacturer was fairly far along with plans for just such a camera, but that Leica went to them and begged them not to do it, saying it would be the death of Leica. Leica is revered in Japan, and, according to my source, this Japanese company acquiesced, and shelved its plans. What that means—if there's any truth to that story—is that if you really want a cheaper M-mount digital rangefinder, your best bet is to be rooting for Leica to go out of business, because that's what it would take to clear the way for the camera you say you want. Is that what you want?"

yawns...to quote from hardwarezone.
COOL STORY BRO!
 

hmmmm ... interesting ..

is the rangefinder function or the "captured" moment you like ? regardless of the device you use ?

I would rather have the moment captured ...... priceless ...

dun give us the crap about what "the camera is not impt, it's the man behind the camera that is impt" kind of logic. These are the words of guy who

1. either dun not have the $$ to get a better camera
2. someone who wants some diginity after spending 5K on a 5D today and canon start selling the 5D2 at 3.8K tml.
3. who copy this statement from someone

photography is not only about the image u capture, but also the process of capturing the image and the type of camera u use is part of the process. I want a small rangefinder but do not want to spend 10K on a M9 and another 5K on a summulux. Neither do i want to spend 2K on a M7 and spend another fortune developing film.

What i want is the rangefinder experience at an affordable price.. Give me a 1K+ range finder body and i can pair it with an affordable nokton lens.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.