Jump to content

Why not just build a digital rangefinder ?


Recommended Posts

I also have trouble viewing an exposed image on an LCD outdoors in bright sunlight,

Hence the EVF, which can also be used to review the pictures taken.

Not sure how they (EVFs) react in bright sun light ?

Superbly. The light level is normalised so that it always appears like a correctly exposed picture.

 

If you simply want a direct-vision finder that also zooms with the taking lens, then Canon did that years ago with their neat little Gx series. They're pocket-sized and deliver great image quality too.

 

Nikon also did a "me too" series of similarly dinky little cameras, of which the Coolpix P6000 is a good example.

IMG_20171107_161603.thumb.jpg.cf0904487079c81655942ca75b166bb1.jpg

IMG_20190116_094818.thumb.jpg.0c1ae3817a0b1b7b43f6a1ce45f02819.jpg

IMG_20171107_155614.thumb.jpg.29f8d980b9fc95234a3c09e438742711.jpg

All taken with a CP P6000.

 

And a B&W conversion from one of its predecessors, a P5100 (which doesn't offer RAW shooting, whereas the P6000 does).

DSCN1428_BW-s.thumb.jpg.3be25a522f3a52eac2ee35882dcd9ece.jpg

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.

In the way that every mirror less phone-camera has gone extinct?

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"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 ?

OK! If some company make a rangefinder digital how much are you willing to pay for one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?

Best Buy for cameras? The latest Sony EVF's, 3.7 MP and up, are like glass windows on the world.

 

The development costs are probably much lower than you estimate. A private enterprise has pockets with bottoms, and do for millions what the government does for billions (and fails). An EVF is a small LCD with a magnifier, so even one million is probably over the top to develop existing technology.

 

For my part, $6500 for a new M9 would be far too much. Under $3K for an used one was doable, considering I garnered a handful of Leica lenses over the years. This was in 2014, before the A7ii shook up the digital world for me (and could use Leica lenses, Nikon, whatever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

before the A7ii shook up the digital world for me (and could use Leica lenses, Nikon, whatever).

And I think Ed has hit the nail on the head there.

 

Until then, all of that legendary RF glass (Leitz, Zeiss, et al) could only be used on RF bodies, aside from the flange focal distance, many RF lens designs have rear elements closer to the film plane than would be permitted by the flappy mirror in an SLR.

 

So to use those lenses, you had to be a member of the RF club, with it's entry price...

 

Then along came mirrorless digital bodies, with no flappy mirror and a shorter FFD than any rangefinder. You can mount almost any lens with a cheap adaptor and used ones start from €50 (these days).

 

So now anyone can use those fabled lenses...

 

So the only reason to want a digital rangefinder is for the optical rf focussing and the direct vision viewfinder. The latter can be approximated with an accessory finder on any mirrorless camera, the former can be simulated via the sensor's phase detection array.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love beautiful mechanical devices (I'm an engineer), but I understand why there are very few manufacturers of rangefinder cameras these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK! If some company make a rangefinder digital how much are you willing to pay for one?

 

I would be willing to pay as much as I would pay for a regular DSLR camera, nothing more. So what was the main objective of 'mirror less' cameras ? The main objective was smaller camera bodies, and smaller lenses as far as I know ? The size of the lenses for AF cameras has gotten pretty HUGE lately in comparison to manual lenses, so mirror less cameras were supposed to solve that issue. Without a mirror however, came the same old problems that has dodged camera manufacturers for decades, that is, the dreaded Inverted Image.

 

Mirror less cameras are nothing new. I have a 15 year old Panasonic point-and-shoot digital camera that does not have a mirror. As a matter of fact, that was my first digital camera ! You have to look at the LCD in the back to compose your picture. Unfortunately, that camera suffers from all types of shutter-lag, because the camera software has to somehow flip the image so what you see on the LCD is not upside down, like the old fashioned analog View Camera.

 

I'm sure camera manufacturers ringed their fingers before making the decision to go EVF since that was the only way to go, now that I think of it ? Basically an EVF is the back-LCD that you can see in your View Finder, although a little more sophisticated. It took years and millions of millions of dollars to develop to where it is today. If they had gone the Rangefinder route, maybe that would have meant the extinction of AF lenses, unless they devised a way to incorporate the Rangefinder to control the lens... I'm guessing that would have probably costs millions and millions if not Billions of dollars for a minor inconvenience.

 

I have a Pentax K-5 II which is not much bigger than a mirror less camera. It takes excellent screw mount lenses that are not much bigger than mirror less lenses. It has a 3D optical viewfinder and focus assist light and a display that shows all of my settings, so what more do I need ?! Of course it does not have the focusing point flexibility of mirror less cameras, or does it have a sophisticated EVF, but for 95% of my shooting situations it works fine.

Edited by hjoseph7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be willing to pay as much as I would pay for a regular DSLR camera, nothing more. So what was the main objective of 'mirror less' cameras ? The main objective was smaller camera bodies, and smaller lenses as far as I know ? The size of the lenses for AF cameras have gotten pretty HUGE lately in comparison to manual lenses, so mirror less cameras were supposed to solve that issue. Without a mirror however, came the same old problems that has dodged camera manufacturers for decades, that is the dreaded Inverted Image.

 

Mirror less cameras are nothing new. I have a 12 year old Panasonic point-and-shoot digital camera that does not have a mirror. As a matter of fact, that was my first digital camera ! You have to look at the LCD in the back to compose your picture. Unfortunately, that camera suffers from all types of shutter-lag, because the camera software has to somehow flip the image so what you see on the LCD is not upside down, like an old fashioned View Camera.

 

I'm sure camera manufacturers ringed their fingers before making the decision to go EVF since that was the only way to go, now that I think of it ? Basically an EVF is the back-LCD that you can see in your View Finder, although a little more sophisticated. It took years and millions of millions of dollars to develop to where it is today. If they had gone the Rangefinder route, maybe that would have meant the extinction of AF lenses, unless they devised a way to incorporate the Rangefinder to control the lens... I'm guessing that would have probably taken millions and millions if not Billions of dollars for a minor inconvenience.

 

I have a Pentax K-5 II which is not much bigger than a mirror less camera. It takes excellent screw mount lenses that are not much bigger than mirror less lenses. It has a a 3D optical viewfinder and focus assist light and a display that shows all of my settings, so what more do I need ?! It does not have the focusing point flexibility of mirror less cameras. or does it have a sophisticated EVF, but for 95% of my shooting situations it works fine.

Ok, now that make no sense whatsoever.

 

Do you really believe what you're writing, or is the goal simply to troll?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be willing to pay as much as I would pay for a regular DSLR camera, nothing more. So what was the main objective of 'mirror less' cameras ? The main objective was smaller camera bodies, and smaller lenses as far as I know ? The size of the lenses for AF cameras have gotten pretty HUGE lately in comparison to manual lenses, so mirror less cameras were supposed to solve that issue. Without a mirror however, came the same old problems that has dodged camera manufacturers for decades, that is the dreaded Inverted Image.

 

Mirror less cameras are nothing new. I have a 15 year old Panasonic point-and-shoot digital camera that does not have a mirror. As a matter of fact, that was my first digital camera ! You have to look at the LCD in the back to compose your picture. Unfortunately, that camera suffers from all types of shutter-lag, because the camera software has to somehow flip the image so what you see on the LCD is not upside down, like an old fashioned View Camera.

 

I'm sure camera manufacturers ringed their fingers before making the decision to go EVF since that was the only way to go, now that I think of it ? Basically an EVF is the back-LCD that you can see in your View Finder, although a little more sophisticated. It took years and millions of millions of dollars to develop to where it is today. If they had gone the Rangefinder route, maybe that would have meant the extinction of AF lenses, unless they devised a way to incorporate the Rangefinder to control the lens... I'm guessing that would have probably taken millions and millions if not Billions of dollars for a minor inconvenience.

 

I have a Pentax K-5 II which is not much bigger than a mirror less camera. It takes excellent screw mount lenses that are not much bigger than mirror less lenses. It has a a 3D optical viewfinder and focus assist light and a display that shows all of my settings, so what more do I need ?! It does not have the focusing point flexibility of mirror less cameras. or does it have a sophisticated EVF, but for 95% of my shooting situations it works fine.

 

Most people would want the EVF and few would want the rangefinder. Because you're in the minority the cost of making the camera for you is significantly more expensive because they lose the enonomy of scale. But since you don't want to pay extra there will never be the camera for you. Sorry. Just like someone asked if he can have a camera without video for less money? Nope the still camera without video today is more expensive. Why? because most people want it that way. Why the heck is film so expensive? Because they can't sell that much like before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now that make no sense whatsoever.

 

Do you really believe what you're writing, or is the goal simply to troll?

 

If that does not make any sense to you my friend then I feel sorry for your IQ .

Edited by hjoseph7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, to respond to the question of shutter lag:

 

(All figures autofocus/prefocussed)

 

Nikon D5 0.132 / 0.039

 

Nikon D500 0.170 / 0.049

 

Pentax K5ii 0.225 / 0.091

 

Sony A7ii 0.265 / 0.101

 

Fuji X-T2 0.053 / 0.033

 

All mechanical shutter. Times from imaging-resource.com

 

 

As to inverting the image, it's a trivial task for the processing hardware and could actually be accomplished without any processing at all, just wire the evf backwards with respect to the sensor!

 

Next.

 

(Edit, corrected d5 figure)

Edited by steve_gallimore|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, to respond to the question of shutter lag:

 

(All figures autofocus/prefocussed)

 

Nikon D5 0.225 / 0.039

 

Nikon D500 0.170 / 0.049

 

Pentax K5ii 0.225 / 0.091

 

Sony A7ii 0.265 / 0.101

 

Fuji X-T2 0.053 / 0.033

 

All mechanical shutter. Times from imaging-resource.com

 

 

As to inverting the image, it's a trivial task for the processing hardware and could actually be accomplished without any processing at all, just wire the evf backwards with respect to the sensor!

 

Next.

Excuse me but are you a human being ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main objective was smaller camera bodies, and smaller lenses

I disagree.The main advantage of an MILC is better image quality with fewer non-essential moving parts. The bonus factor is full-time live-view. It's nice to have completely silent operation when needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shutter lag on an A7Rii is on the order of 20 msec.

I didn't do an exhaustive search, just grabbed a few figures. I didn't include the EFCS figure for the Sony either, 0.023 sec.

 

There is a finite limit as to how fast you can move a mechanical shutter (and flip a mirror), we've probably reached it.

 

I can never remember which Sony or Canon are the fast ones, silly naming scheme...

 

Shutter lag is basically a non-issue, these things are inhumanly fast.

Edited by steve_gallimore|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.The main advantage of an MILC is better image quality with fewer non-essential moving parts. The bonus factor is full-time live-view. It's nice to have completely silent operation when needed.

 

IMO, the real driver for mirrorless cameras is manufacturing cost. For years there has been a push to eliminate mechanisms and mechanical parts in any and all products. They cost money and electronics is invariably cheaper. We've certainly reaped the benefits in terms of quality and reliability, but it would be naive to think that was all the manufacturers were thinking about. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manufacturers must build things people will want to buy. DSLRs and MILCs have existed side by side for several years at roughly the same prices, yet mirrorless cameras have tipped the scales in their direction. Where would 40-60 MP cameras be without continuous live-view? Why are lenses designed for SLRs largely ignored, even though they can easily be used, in favor of lenses designed specifically for high-resolution MILCs.

 

Whatever companies save in the elimination of obsolete moving technology is being reinvested in technology that does more things, better and faster. While there are always some who cling to the past, most find better value in the new, and vote with their pocketbooks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, the real driver for mirrorless cameras is manufacturing cost. For years there has been a push to eliminate mechanisms and mechanical parts in any and all products. They cost money and electronics is invariably cheaper. We've certainly reaped the benefits in terms of quality and reliability, but it would be naive to think that was all the manufacturers were thinking about. :)

Don't think so, I believe drive towards mirrorless ironically started with introduction video in DSLR, most pro users now do stills and videos and it easier implemented with mirrorless. Kind of remind to me Kodak, they invented digital sensor, but stayed with film till the end:(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain products, such as liquor and automobiles have to go through at least two intermediaries before reaching the customer - distributors and retailers. With MILC's, the image can now go directly to the sensor without passing a mirror. That's the difference between the free market and bureaucracy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone seems to have a "wish list" , here is mine for what it is worth.

As Electronic Camera's will not "go away" anytime soon (even I have to accept this :D) , how about ? :-.

 

Manufacturers should really concentrate on making better Batteries , (an "everlasting" one will be nice :D).

Manufacturers should standardise on perhaps one , or two , standard size batteries that will fit ALL camera's of ALL manufacturers.

Manufacturers should stop putting all sorts of unecessary gimmicks in their cameras.

 

Dreams , Dreams , Dreams :D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone seems to have a "wish list" , here is mine for what it is worth.

As Electronic Camera's will not "go away" anytime soon (even I have to accept this :D) , how about ? :-.

 

Manufacturers should really concentrate on making better Batteries , (an "everlasting" one will be nice :D).

Manufacturers should standardise on perhaps one , or two , standard size batteries that will fit ALL camera's of ALL manufacturers.

Manufacturers should stop putting all sorts of unecessary gimmicks in their cameras.

 

Dreams , Dreams , Dreams :D.

 

Making better batteries they are trying because besides cameras there are need for them with electric vehicles. But ever lasting ???

Standardize is nice but it won't allow for the flexibility of making the camera in the shape you want.

Gimmicks are what sell the cameras they can't stop that. They don't want to go out of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making better batteries they are trying because besides cameras there are need for them with electric vehicles. But ever lasting ???

Standardize is nice but it won't allow for the flexibility of making the camera in the shape you want.

Gimmicks are what sell the cameras they can't stop that. They don't want to go out of business.

A few standard sizes should be doable and would be better for consumers. AA, AAA. C and D batteries have been around for a long time and product designers have worked with this and made the trade offs between size and battery life. A similar standardization of rechargeable Li Ion batteries, which would allow more third party options would help lower costs to consumers and make devices less prone to obsolescence due to lack of batteries in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...