Missing camera type

<p>Several manufacturers have made relatively simple range-finder cameras with fixed zoom lenses. Leica and perhaps a couple of others have made multi-focal (not continuous zoom) lenses. No one, to my knowledge, has combined the two ideas in a high quality camera. I'd be delighted to have one with 35mm, 50mm and 90mm positions, the "classic" focal lengths for the camera type.</p>

<p>I think there might be a lot of engineering to get focusing accuracy. It would be a lot easier to achieve acceptable accuracy with slow lenses. Good thought though</p>

Leica made one of them as a true zoom.

 

I'd guess that nobody believed/believes there's a viable market for such a beast; on the other hand, any

digicam with preset focal length selections would fit the bill. Perhaps you should contact Fuji about their

next X?00 release?

<p>A digicam records images far smaller than 36mm by 24mm, which affects depth of field. Nor, usually, can it be described as a high quality device. Forecasting is one thing, but we do not know that there is no market for such a beast because none came on Noah's ark. Will someone explain to me the arrangement in the Tri Elmars that deals with frame lines and focus?</p>

<p>Is there a problem with the Canon G1X? </p>

<p>The G1X looks like a capable camera, but its sensor is only a little larger than a "half frame" 35mm film frame and its optical viewfinder covers only around 80 per cent, probably without compensation for parallax. And of course it cannot be called a range-finder type camera. What I had in mind was a film camera similar to an M Leica but with a fixed multi-focal lens. My reasoning is that the finder of such a camera will be simpler than one dictated by a continuous zoom lens. Then the lens could well be less expensive than a zoom one. Together, these facts would lead to a camera substantially less expensive than, say, an M9 with three lenses even of moderate speed -- and also easier to carry around and handle. I accept that today it makes little sense to demand film rather than digital: so I should say "a 'full frame' camera similar to an M Leica."</p>

<p>What lens speed would you be willing to accept? I have a feeling that such a lens, if it had an aperture greater than f4 at any of the three focal lengths you mention would be quite heavy and large, especially so to meet Leica's high standards for lens preformance. Certainly more convenient than carrying and changing lenses but at a size and weight (and cost) penalty. </p>

<p>It's certain that a lens of this kind will be relatively large unless it is slow. That's a compromise we routinely accept in photography. I had in mind f/4 at the long end and a stop wider at the wide end, like the better "standard zoom" lenses for digital SLRs: but even that may result in unacceptable bulk, given the size of the image circle that must be cast. All will then depend on how many buyers are willing to accept size and weight as the price of convenience. I am aware that the Tri Elmars have not been roaring successes.</p>

<p>Contax G2 has Vario-Sonar lens, f3.5 - 5.6/35 - 70mm. Very suitable combination for traveling with high quality camera and lens. </p>

<p>You're right, Esko -- and this makes my question just about pointless. Sorry, friends, for being ignorant. Incidentally, the specifications of this Vario Sonnar (limited range and slow) confirm what John said above.</p>

<p>Here we are: http://www.photo.net/filters-bags-tripods-accessories-forum/00DOUV contains high praise.</p>

<p>No reason why the lens has to be fixed. Sony NEX 6/7A6000 and the Fuji X series are prime examples.</p>

<p>No reason why it has to be RF style either. Olympus had a series of ZLRs more than 20 years ago.</p>

<p>Not precisely what you are looking for, and not on the level of either a Leica or a Contax G2, but you might try looking for an older Canon Sure Shot 85 Zoom camera with a 38-85 multifocal lens. You might also consider a Canon Sure Shot Owl, which had a fixed 35mm f/4.5 auto-focus lens, but had such a large and bright viewfinder that it was a pleasure to use. There are examples of both currently available for reasonable prices on a well-known auction site. Not exceptionally durable or high quality cameras, but surprisingly good for "cheap and cheerful" use, and fun to use if you accept them for what they are and don't judge them by the same standards as much more expensive equipment -- in the same way that one might appreciate dinners in exceptionally fine restaurants, but still enjoy a cold drink and something from a food-cart vendor on a warm summer day.</p>