I guess its actually depends on the individual. Some personally do not care about the process, all they are seeking for is the end results, the perfect moment. But others, like me in particular, do take into account the process of capturing what I see. Its largely intangible, I also cant describe the feeling lol :dunno: But all I know is, its :heart::thumbsup:
why isn't there an affordable digital rangefinder?
- Thread starter cosycatus
- Start date
- Status
I guess its actually depends on the individual. Some personally do not care about the process, all they are seeking for is the end results, the perfect moment. But others, like me in particular, do take into account the process of capturing what I see. Its largely intangible, I also cant describe the feeling lol :dunno: But all I know is, its :heart::thumbsup:
from same link:
Featured Comment by Voltz: "It wasn't a rumour; I tested an alpha prototype. I hadn't heard that it was Leica that killed it, only that development had been stopped. I blamed the global financial crisis."
heh, who knows if it's true or not
You should read my post again. I did not say they are the same. I just said they are similar in TWO aspects:
1. smaller form factor
2. smaller interchangeable lenses
And I said for the general consumer, these 2 factors are more important. For RF lovers and fanatics, I agree that the entire feeling is different. But in the end, these companies are more interested to make products that can sell well, and that means products tailored to the tastes of the general public (PnS users).
And you can still use the old fast primes on m4/3, with adapters.
As for FF sensors. even if we are not talking 5k. I think it is all about target segment. Companies are very careful not to "confuse the market". It might backfire by cannibalizing their own market in FF DSLRs. I mean, the techies inside us would love that, but marketing wise, it might be a very unwise thing to do.
Last edited:
of course i did lah. the april fool part refers to this:
"Well, Jeff Ascough has come clean that his elaborate (and very popular) rumor about testing a new rangefinder was an April 1 hoax, as many suspected. (Hey, saves me having to concoct my own April Fool's joke.)"
I thought they failed to see the digital age coming, and that SLRs were taking over RF many years back.
i don't know about the first part, but for the second; why? i mean, yeah, they're different, but there has to be a reason, right? :dunno:
Actually, it might be a good idea. You should start a company to do just that, make $1k RF bodies. Maybe you will be the next Singapore success story.
well if u dun need digital, u can get a analog RF.
FED is the cheapest
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=699433
FED is the cheapest
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=699433
trouble nowadays is camera maker must pass the dpreview test (or similar peer review forum) in order to attract consumer.
if u start new company, make sure must pull string in dpreview write nice story hor
be a little patient lah....... affordable DSLR just happened last year ......... and 5dII prices also recently just started to drop
there will be a affordable d-rf soon enough............. i bet that Cosina/Voigtlander will be there
there will be a affordable d-rf soon enough............. i bet that Cosina/Voigtlander will be there
Royale With Cheese
Senior Member
I'll give it 5 years for it to come along?
Anyway, way before Cosina, Konica was rumored to have already done the D-RF but plans got shelved with Sony came in. Am I right? Cant remember the exact details.
Royale With Cheese
Senior Member
Actually I do agree that the camera is not important.. It truly is the person behind it.
I just came back from Brighton today after a month, shot some with just an Iphone & they didnt look too bad at all. The camera is just a tool for recording images really, any camera can do that but it is still the person who pushes the shutter at the right moment.
Personally, I don't think a digital RF from any other manufacturers in the short term is going to come out soon. Not that the technology is not there yet, it's simply because it's not possible to make economical sense to sell it at what Leica is selling less today to keep the payroll of the staff of the company going.
I won't want to go into details why and how Epson did RD1, the rest is history. The fact that why RangeFinder camera is different from other manufacturers is because of the focusing mechanism. It's simply mechanical. Needs calibration when it goes offline. Cannot withstand knocks, even the lightest bang. The fact that even Fuji, who used to be a major Medium Format Range Finder player in the market need to partner with Cosina to make the 667 is because it no longer make sense for them to revive the mechanical manufacturer process in their company to come out a camera that sells less than 2000 pieces.
Cosina is able to do it economically because the company is small, has a history of turning around a product at very short period of time, major OEM facility for mechanical cameras for around fifity years, major supplier of projector lenses to most LCD projectors, OEM manufacturer for Zeiss Optics (ZF, ZM, ZE, ZS and Zeiss Ikon bodies) and they do not need to money from selling Voigtlander lenses to keep the payroll going....
For them to come up with a Digital RF is not impossible. If you have visited their factory, you would know that they can't do it alone. In a small town in Nagano, they do not have the facility to do it alone. They probably need to partner with someone who are already in the digital imaging market to make it happen. Whether they are doing it now, I do not know. But they have done it with Epson before, providing the body, shutter and RF mechanism for focusing.
I won't hope or wish for a new Digital RF body to be affordable, but once the M8 or M9 becomes affordable to me, I might buy one to use. Right now, I see no reason why using any negative or slides cannot produce 60 mega-pixel images with V700 scanners that cost 1/50 the price of the top end digital backs.
I won't want to go into details why and how Epson did RD1, the rest is history. The fact that why RangeFinder camera is different from other manufacturers is because of the focusing mechanism. It's simply mechanical. Needs calibration when it goes offline. Cannot withstand knocks, even the lightest bang. The fact that even Fuji, who used to be a major Medium Format Range Finder player in the market need to partner with Cosina to make the 667 is because it no longer make sense for them to revive the mechanical manufacturer process in their company to come out a camera that sells less than 2000 pieces.
Cosina is able to do it economically because the company is small, has a history of turning around a product at very short period of time, major OEM facility for mechanical cameras for around fifity years, major supplier of projector lenses to most LCD projectors, OEM manufacturer for Zeiss Optics (ZF, ZM, ZE, ZS and Zeiss Ikon bodies) and they do not need to money from selling Voigtlander lenses to keep the payroll going....
For them to come up with a Digital RF is not impossible. If you have visited their factory, you would know that they can't do it alone. In a small town in Nagano, they do not have the facility to do it alone. They probably need to partner with someone who are already in the digital imaging market to make it happen. Whether they are doing it now, I do not know. But they have done it with Epson before, providing the body, shutter and RF mechanism for focusing.
I won't hope or wish for a new Digital RF body to be affordable, but once the M8 or M9 becomes affordable to me, I might buy one to use. Right now, I see no reason why using any negative or slides cannot produce 60 mega-pixel images with V700 scanners that cost 1/50 the price of the top end digital backs.
Yup! iPhone, to me is the BEST DIGITAL CAMERA IN THE WORLD!
Those who says it's crappy simply do not know how to exploit it's fullest potential.
Excellent white balance, good dynamic range, easy to use, portable, decent VGA video recording... and it's almost free with any top end phone plan!
Just want to know more details, was voigtlander actually fighting with epson on trying to pen their brand name onto the R-D1 but they lost as ultimately the sensor portion which is the heart of the cam was provided by epson. My 2 cents.
I skipped some parts of the conversation here but,
has no one mentioned that m4/3 has a more suitable sensor size for the image circle of cine-lenses?
Even APS-C lenses yield a megapixel count a little low for comfort on the 5dmk2, after cropping. Depending on what you want them for too.
has no one mentioned that m4/3 has a more suitable sensor size for the image circle of cine-lenses?
Even APS-C lenses yield a megapixel count a little low for comfort on the 5dmk2, after cropping. Depending on what you want them for too.
- Status
Similar threads
