Why not just build a digital rangefinder ?

I wouldn't call them totally useless, for one thing they take better pictures than your typical SLR, they are small and compact, they use smaller lenses, they are quiet, no annoying black-outs when you press the shutter, no shutter lag, can be totally mechanical, they weigh less, great for travel. I have almost every type of camera except a Range Finder and a mirror less camera, although I have used mirror less point-and-shoots in the past.

 

My ideal RF would be the Leica M3, but right now that's out of the question, so instead I'm looking at a couple of fixed-lens used models on eBay. Particularly the Canon Canonet GIII QL17, or the Olympus 35 SP, or the Yashica Electro 35 GSN. Haven't made up my mind yet .

 

https://emulsive.org/reviews/camera-reviews/olympus-camera-reviews/olympus-35-sp-by-matt-parry

Rangefinders do not take pictures, let alone better pictures.

Whether cameras relying on rangefinders for focus and framing are better is not even a question: they are not.

No, the size of lenses does not depend on whether they go on rangefinder cameras or not. Nor does their optical quality.

That you can and do take better pictures using rangefinder cameras than using slrs is nonsense.

You list a number of presumed advantages that also make little sense or are incorrect.

What it boils down to is that you would like a rangefinder camera, despite all the disadvantages. That's a choice. But do not confuse and present your longing for a rangefinder camera as something we all should want. The answer to the original question is "because it is not a sensible thing to do". It isn't. Outdated bits of technology that never were as good as what they were replaced with.

"That's a choice. But do not confuse and present your longing for a rangefinder camera as something we all should want. The answer to the original question is "because it is not a sensible thing to do"

Does it have to be all that ? Put the vodka down and relax a little...

I'm with you OP. I like the rangefinder. But all the lenses are dummied down nowadays. They don't suit the rangefinder. Plus I was told rangefinder is too $$, so they leave it off.

I wish they built a M4/3 rangefinder, Leica-like. Small think like the old half-frame Olympus Pen cams.

so instead I'm looking at a couple of fixed-lens used models on eBay. Particularly the Canon Canonet GIII QL17, or the Olympus 35 SP, or the Yashica Electro 35 GSN. Haven't made up my mind yet

I have both a QL17 and an Electro 35. You can't easily buy the battery for the Electro 35 any longer. And if you like viewing life through a small keyhole, then rangefinder cameras are fine. If you wear spectacles, forget 'em.

they weigh less, great for travel.

How lightweight and convenient is the 30 rolls of film needed to replace one 64GB SD card?

I think the

I'm with you OP. I like the rangefinder. But all the lenses are dummied down nowadays. They don't suit the rangefinder. Plus I was told rangefinder is too $$, so they leave it off.

 

I wish they built a M4/3 rangefinder, Leica-like. Small think like the old half-frame Olympus Pen cams.

I think some people did not understand the question. My question was why didn't camera manufacturers just go with digital rangefinders if the technology was already there ? I don't own one, and do not know much about them, but there IS a section on Rangefinder cameras in this Forum so its not like they are done and buried...

I think some people did not understand the question. My question was why didn't camera manufacturers just go with digital rangefinders if the technology was already there ? I don't own one, and do not know much about them, but there IS a section on Rangefinder cameras in this Forum so its not like they are done and buried...

I think I answered it earlier?

All the major camera manufacturers who had a rangefinder model in series production at the turn of the century have produced a digital model, either directly (Leica) or via a third party (Voigtlander - Epson).

That's it, all two of them.

Voigtlander (Cosina) no longer make cameras?

And there's the Piixi, though I don't know if it can be considered to be in series production yet.

The short answer (still) is: because it is not a good idea.

That's why most didn't (moved away from or never started using) use the "technology [that] was already there".

I think I answered it earlier?

 

All the major camera manufacturers who had a rangefinder model in series production at the turn of the century have produced a digital model, either directly (Leica) or via a third party (Voigtlander - Epson).

 

That's it, all two of them.

 

Voigtlander (Cosina) no longer make cameras?

 

And there's the Piixi, though I don't know if it can be considered to be in series production yet.

Here it is but I think you are still talking Manual lenses: Pixii Rangefinder Camera

Here it is but I think you are still talking Manual lenses: Pixii Rangefinder Camera

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what it is you're trying to say?

By definition, a rangefinder camera, at least as the term is commonly used, is manual focus.

Autofocus systems using the same triangulation principal exist, mostly in compact cameras, or systems such as the Contax G series cameras. These rarely give you an optical confirmation of the focus distance in the viewfinder though.

A 'rangefinder' camera is really just a viewfinder (i.e. not through the lens) camera with a rangefinder focussing aid.

Digital (autofocus) viewfinder cameras exist, the Fujifilm Xpro series.

Pixii Rangefinder Camera

The guy in the beanie hat looks as if he's had to become homeless to afford that stupidly-priced camera!

His screwed up face also graphically depicts how comfortable it is to peer through the peephole of a rangefinder.

Double-image or split-image, there's not a rangefinder out there that works consistently and accurately. Not unless you have a high-contrast subject with strong vertical lines in it. Ideal for focussing on fence posts and similar.:cool:

P.S. I just dug out my old QL17. It takes a 625 mercury cell and has a rangefinder baseline with windows all of 25mm apart.

Double-image or split-image, there's not a rangefinder out there that works consistently and accurately. Not unless you have a high-contrast subject with strong vertical lines in it. Ideal for focussing on fence posts and similar.:cool:

Superimposed image rangefinders don't need vertical lines. Any identifiable object with reasonable edge contrast and a vertical axis will suffice. Notably you can use eyes, eyeglass frames, ears and noses for human subjects. Image separation is much greater for a Leica (and similar cameras) than for a split image prism in an SLR, in which the triangulation base is the width of the exit pupil.

In practice, you do not need to visually align edges or patterns with the Leica. The image in the rangefinder path seems to pop into focus when perfect alignment is achieved. That's what I relied on for decades, missed when afflicted with cataracts, and now see again following surgery. A Leica is quite usable in dim light, like in a theater or bar, where manual focus with an SLR is hopeless (as I found with my first SLR, a Nikon F3). A modern MILC with an EVF offers the same low-light and manual focus advantage, in spades. The EVF has only failed me in really dark places, like the Pacific NW mountains, 4 hours after sunset on a clear night.

Still, Ed, Leica too felt the need for a more accurate way to focus. Hence the (very early) Visoflex. And the Leica R.

That here was and is a following of Leicaphiles who value a type of camera more than what it is worth skewed things. But do not allow that to believe that rangefinders aare a good thing to have.

Two images superimposed pop in focus? Using a ground glass you can see not only when an image is in focus but also how out of focus they are when not. And that doesn't require vertical lines either.

Rangefinders, i know, are also quite useless in low light. When it is dark, it is dark, and it is difficult to see enough to use either rangefinder or groundglass.

Have i mentioned already that rangefinders are a bad idea. Good at the time. But even then they were looking for, and found, something better.

And now someone asks why they do not reintroduce such a thing...

"Have i mentioned already that rangefinders are a bad idea. Good at the time. But even then they were looking for, and found, something better.

And now someone asks why they do not reintroduce such a thing..."

de_ go out and take some pictures its not that serious...

But hey! Why not just build a digital TLR?

Stop, stop, please stop your are giving me an inferiority complex On-line, Oh my God ...

That PIXII is a digital "Olympus XA", that's the way I see it, nice little camera, no LCD to distract you when you're in a hurry to take a few quick shots. The viewfinder peep hole is not that small, and there's minimal control buttons. It's just what I was hoping would come onto the market, only the price holds me back. I can see why manual control film buffs might go for this digital gem, it's much like a film camera, but digital. I've always thought and experienced that rangefinder viewfinders are brighter than slr's, but I only have older film slr's. I also have trouble viewing an exposed image on an LCD outdoors in bright sunlight, I have to move to deep shade to get any idea of what I've taken. And there's been times when the battery was low, so switched the LCD off and used the viewfinder.

Just for interest, here's a link that shows an active animation the PIXII rangefinder. It's no different to any other but it's coupled to the focus ring electronically. Lightning fast reaction they reckon.

Scroll 3/4 the way down the page, and keep scrolling .... Rangefinder

" I see it, nice little camera, no LCD to distract you when you're in a hurry to take a few quick shots. "

For that type of money I would want an LCD and some type of storage method other than an iPhone. Thanks for the link though, I learned a lot.

Hmm... I'm waiting for a

digital teapot...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

his is from a "test drive" of my newly acquired M9 in September, 2014. It's a capable camera, even at 18 MP, 1/45 and f/16 (before I realized diffraction limiting occurs much sooner in a digital camera). My purpose on this occasion was to compare the M9 with film and an M3 in a beautiful and familiar location. Two Leicas on neck straps garnered some unwanted attention (and snickers), but what the heck. The M9 is one of the last CCD cameras, with unique color rendering, enhanced here. Just sayin' you can have fun and get creative with a manual camera and limited lens choices.

Maybe because a range finder is an obsolete bit of jurassic technology that doesn't do nearly the job that a good EVF does. Or you can get an X-Pro (x) with an optical viewfinder and a "range finder" which I seldom use as the EVF is superior to the best rangefinder in many many ways and modern camera makers would only be interested in the cost of producing it to market it to a niche group with the dubious sense of mystique and are willing to pay huge prices for it.

"Maybe because a range finder is an obsolete bit of jurassic technology that doesn't do nearly the job that a good EVF does"

Actually, if Sony did not pump millions and Billions of dollars into that EVF, the mirror less camera would have gone the way of the Do-Do bird. I sampled various mirror less cameras when I visit the local Best Buy and when I look through the EVF it's like looking at another computer screen... No matter how sophisticated, something is missing. Not sure how they react in bright sun light ?