Other brand digital rangefinder

Hi,

 

Leica M6 and above are way out of my budget.

 

I have this thing knowking on my head: existing a significant market for digital rangefinders, why is there only one

(m8) out there? Once R-D1 is no longer produced.

 

Contax? Voigtlander? Nikon? Canon? ...

What is everybody waiting for?

 

I don't understand, do you?

 

Rui

<i>existing a significant market for digital rangefinders, why is there only one (m8) out there? </i>

<p>

Because there is no significant market for digital rangefinders.

I agree. You wouldn't think it would be that hard to put a chip in an RF behind the shutter... VC.

What's to understand? There aren't enough people who want one, at least in the eyes of the big boys. They must look at Epson and Leica struggling to sell their cameras and laugh.

 

Someday when digital R&D costs come down, there will be niche players in the photographic market again. But until then, get used to not having your needs met. Or, changing your needs.

Easy for you to say Josh; looks like you have both of them<g>.

Nope, I do not.

 

I had an R-D1 a few years back. But at the time, I couldn't afford to have that much money wrapped up in camera/lenses that I wasn't earning money with. So I sold it. And the M8 was a loan from Leica.

 

If I found one for a good price, I'd seriously consider picking up an R-D1 again. That was a fun camera in a lot of ways. If I had an extra zero on the end of my salary, I'd happily pick up an M8.

Ha! I think the Epson's are running more money than they cost originally. Yeah, it's hard to get that extra zero behind the our salaries by using a digital rangefinder too, but boy they're fun.

1.1 million M and M compatibles were manufactured by Konica, Minolta, Leica, Zeiss, Voightlander. Most of these cameras are still in usable condition. Many owners have heavy investment in very very expensive lenses and want to get a digital camera to put them on.

 

I think the problem is there is no Henry Ford of DRF. Ford made a basic car the T that sold at an everymans price. We don't need a FF camera a 5:4 (direct to 8x10) would be equivalent of a 3:2 and cropping down.

This is a 1.2x crop factor, which also eliminates edge of frame issues, lowers cost of sensor with minimal change in lens effective focal length.

 

I say a $1500 DRF with a EVF viewfinder like the G1, live view, and no auto focus is what we want. The optical VF lenses and brightframe systems cost a lot more and now can be eliminated with todays technology by high def EVF lcd displays.

 

There are a lot of new buyers out there also who would be attracted to a smaller lighter camera than the big Dslr's with their large battery packs. A lot of people don't need a complicated DSLR with a 400 page owners manual, They know they can focus a lens themselves, they don't need focus tracking, and if the camera can turn in good high iso shots they don't even want to carry a separate flash.

 

I think new blood is out there for a camera made in a country with lower wages, not Germany, where cost of manufacturing is low enough to bring a realistically priced camera to market, There is a pent up demand for it just read how many posts this subject has gotten.

Personally I don't think 1.1 million is that much. Nikon makes 4 times as many bodies in just 1 year.

 

The G1 has an even shorter flange to sensor distance. I've seen multiple threads about people wanting an M to Micro 4/3 adapter. The G1 crop ratio is 2X though.

 

The Epson RD-1 sells for $1500-2000 now. When they came out the price was just under $3000.

I have been reading and contributing to this forum for a few weeks now and this topic and related theses have been examined in depth...repetedly.

 

If the industry collectivly felt that money could be made by producing a D-RF of any kind they would do so. If "they" thought that any of the current AF-P&S platforms would be successful with full manual controle, they would do it.There are many companies that could produce an M compatable digi camera that haven't and won't. That Leica has put their time, talent and treasure into the S2 says that the M system has a low commercial priority.

The market was tested with a lower end DRF; its the Epson RD-1. As David mentioned "<I>Because there is no significant market for digital rangefinders.</i>. Younger folks dont have boatloads of lenses; one can buy several drebels for the price of a M camera; M8 or even a Epson RD-1. The same thing happened with the old D mount 8mm movie camera lenses; some of us had high end Switars suchs as the 13mm F0.9; 5.5mm F1.8; 12mm F1.5, 36mm hoped, waited that somebody would make a super-8 in D mount. It never happened. Many folks are today weaned on pop-up flashes, a giant menu tree; a screen like a blackberry/phone; they want a zillion dodads. Here I would buy a full frame M3D thats got simple controls; and even NO LCD; but its not going to happen; the market is too small. <BR><BR>LEICA might consider a cost analysis of a simplified M8 version. A stripped down variant of the M8 could be studied; ie a Plymouth Fury I instead of a Fury III; ie a Chevy Belvedere instead of an Impala; a M2 instead of a M3; a Nikkormat instead of a Nikon F. I am afraid that some many folks have been weaned on features, do-dads, knobs, menus/software that their is little to strip out; versus the added tooling costs of the variant. Still If I was CEO of Leica I would explore an alternate; but there is probably zilch to stripe out. One gets a giant color LCD on a 6 Megapixel 120 buck digital camera today; or even a Blackberry; the LCD's cost is probably 20 to 50 bucks; thus dropping a LCD display from the M8 Fury I would make little change is cost; or maybe more!

Harvey :

 

>> 1.1 million M and M compatibles were manufactured by Konica, Minolta, Leica, Zeiss, Voightlander. Most of these cameras are still in usable condition. Many owners have heavy investment in very very expensive lenses and want to get a digital camera to put them on. <<

 

Fully agreed

 

But to which you conclude :

 

>> We don't need a FF camera a 5:4 (direct to 8x10) would be equivalent of a 3:2 and cropping down. This is a 1.2x crop factor, which also eliminates edge of frame issues, lowers cost of sensor with minimal change in lens effective focal length. <<

 

Which is in full contradiction with this part of your own statement : >> ... Many owners have heavy investment in very very expensive lenses and want to get a digital camera to put them on.<<

 

Who will seriously want to lose part of this investment in the tele-lens side (because such a rangefinder cmaera won't focus and moreover frame properly the "elongated" tele-lenses with the crop factor) and who will seriously accept to have to buy a very expensive multiple focal length lens or three or four brand new lenses to recover the all too important in rangefinder photography wide angle capabilities he or she had on the film cameras ?

 

Few people and certainly not the majority of these people, me included.

 

On the contrary we NEED a full format camera accepting our M mount lenses. Even if this camera is not cheap, it will permit us to dispense with selling our cherished lenses and have to pay for a complete DSLR system of another brand. The budget to consider to buy such a camera is to be considered as a whole and the choice is not only the rangefinder body price but the alternative between this rangefinder body (which if FF will be bought alone) and a DSLR body with all a range of lenses covering the same FOV once covered by the M-lenses. To put the thing squarely, in the present state of thing paying a full frame (and reliable, no IR problem, a.s.o...) "M9" $ 5000 will even be cheaper than buying a Nikon D700 with the necessary equivalent lenses. But to pay an M8 - M8-2 (even if it has no IR and reliability problem) $ 5000 with a tri-Elmar new at $ 4000 so $ 9000 is totally out of question for me. And I'm not the only one I think.

 

Kelly :

 

>> The market was tested with a lower end DRF; its the Epson RD-1. As David mentioned "Because there is no significant market for digital rangefinders.. Younger folks dont have boatloads of lenses; one can buy several drebels for the price of a M camera; M8 or even a Epson RD-1 <<

 

I have to disagree. The RD-1 was even more overpriced for the segment of the market it was destined to than the M8 is !

 

You need some experience with photography and more precisely small format photography to fully appreciate the advantages of a rangfinder camera over an SLR system. people with such experience will look for an all other level of IQ the Epson was ever able to deliver.

 

People who might have a real inerest in buying a rangefinder camera are professionals or advanced amteurs. These people won't pay the price of a Canon 5D MkII or a Nikon D 700 for 6mpex low technology cropped sensor camera... And the market for lower priced digital camera is fully satisfied for what they do with their camera by a far more polyvalent APS-C sensor amateur DSLR and will never want a DRF.

 

Pros and amateurs already loaded with M-mount lenses would be the first customers for a really high end full format "viceless" DRF and any advanced amateur or pro buying such a body without already having the lenses in his (her) bag will be able to resort to second hand market for ALL the necessary lenses or to good if not spectacular lenses from Cosina-Voigtländer to begin with.

 

The problem with younger, less experienced phtographers is not only the price but also the total ignorance of what a rangefinder can bring an SLR can't and the fact to many pros and advanced amateurs a RF system is only a complement to an existing SLR system for sake of polyvalence. Only if many pros and advanced amateurs buy again a RF system, this handicap will be partly overcome. Then and only then, the problem of a cheaper entry level body will be in the order of the day.

 

What we really need and what will probably be a true commerical success is an M-mount, weather proofed full format DRF, built like a rock with no IR filter problem, high ISO performance in the 12 to 16 Mpx range which is priced at the level of a Nikon D 700 with its additional handle, have matrix metering in AE mode and a variable magnification high point finder. I personnally don't care if it will be branded by Leica or any other one, look exactly like a Leica M and if the body will be traditionally built in metal or covered with composite material over an armature like modern pro DSLR's. What it should not have in any occasion is a fully removable baseplate to load the card(s) ! ...

 

FPW

 

 

The vast majority of people want to be able to use zoom lenses.

 

Even if they wanted rangefinder viewing/focusing, the simple lack of a zoom lens solution means that the market is minuscule.

François`; I think my demo RD-1 with -S upgrade was about 1700 via ebay from the M store in Japan to the USA. For all practical purposes it is brand new; all wrapping, boxes, bags, cords etc. When I got it a 1.5 years ago one could get more bang for the buck out of a dslr; but here I also have many RF lenses too. These units sat on ebay with no buyers many times; with a low risk seller; thus most folks really didnt want a 6 megapixel 1700 buck cropped camera with no lens. <BR><BR>With younger folks I have noticed that they are less hung up about the full frame 35mm film format; many never even have shot with this format anyway. Thus a camera maker could bypass all this "clinging to the past" old lenses issue; a create a smaller "4/3's like" RF thats small.<BR><BR> Many camera makers use to use the camera body as a sales vehicle to sell lenses; thus an all new body with a new mount locks in lens sales. <BR><BR>The entire "35mm" RF arena rose out of the funk/mire/zombie/sleeping mode about say 10 to 15 years ago; before that time one could by a nice Canon 50mm F1.2 for 85 bucks; a 35mm lens for 40 bucks; scads of 135mm F3.5 LTM's for 20 to 30 bucks; or a complete Zorki with Jupiter-8 5cm f2 with case and shipping for 14 dollars .<BR><BR> I just wonder if the recent RF excitement in the last 10 to 15 years is more like a bubble; or old folks buying the gear they wanted long ago. <BR><BR>Some of the giant Nikon and Canon dslrs with zooms news photographers used remind me in size like the old Pentax 6x7 slr; beasts. A lower cost full frame digita M9 would be fine; I just wonder how one could make them at a lower cost without going broke.

Francois,

 

You can continue to write five hundred word posts on the subject all you want. It's not going to happen. Probably not ever. But at the very least not until the R&D costs of digital reach such a low price that niche players can enter the game again. By then though, rangefinders may just be a distant memory.

 

I love RF photography, but the industry has passed RF cameras by. The golden years aren't coming back. The best anyone can hope for is that one of the "micro" formats comes out with a compact camera with a set of dedicated fast primes.

<i>The vast majority of people want to be able to use zoom lenses.</i><BR><BR>Thats why the old zoom P&S 35mm cameras and typical Canon kit 35mm cameras marketed at Wallyworld 10 to 20 years ago were the staple of the masses. Even in sports, news and wedding work the pros often use the better ; ie faster zooms. The old zoom back in the 1960's was just mediocre lens often with a 35mm camera; like the old 43 to 86mm Nikkor. When the 80 to 200 Nikkor came out it raised the performance bar; before that lens many primes were radically better than a zoom. Today even an Olympus 35mm P&S has a decent zoom; but often they are a tad slow. Many pros would probably require some coaxing or a cattle prod to remove a modern canon L zoom; or fine Nikkor zoom to go back to all fixed primes.

<i>"The best anyone can hope for is that one of the "micro" formats comes out with a compact camera with a set of dedicated fast primes".</i>

<p>

Amen. Hard to believe that no one can come out with an affordable, compact body to take LSM and LMM lenses. something like the Leica CL/Minolta CLE. But anyone building something new, always wants to include everything, including the kitchen sink.

How about an APS sized sensor in a camera like the Canon G10? How hard can that be?

Francois, thanks for your thoughtful post. The G1 I mentioned is a Panasonic the format is 4/3 but its not the format that I see as an answer to using our legacy M lenses its the electronic viewfinder they have substituted for the mirror box and mirror slr optical vf. Many have already said this would make a lot of sense in the M type camera. The same live view to electronic lcd eye level VF would eliminate the complex set of lenses, brightframes that make RF viewfinders costly, easy to get out of allignment, parallax close up, etc.

 

The legacy lenses are not necessarily good at edges since M lenses have short flange distance. I suggest the 5/4 ratio 1.2x crop because its a good compromise between FF and APS sized sensor the RD1 used.

 

Speaking of the RD1 it sold for over $2k years ago and was for its time very costly.

 

We still have not gotten a Model T type rangefinder that would attract new family digital buyers and legacy M users who don't want or can't afford an M8. I go on RFF and this subject is on there as much as its on here so many have been waiting for a decade for news of a reasonably priced RF,

 

Panasonic came close to the idea with their 4/3 interchangeable lens camera. There G1 would give it live view and the electronic lcd vf. Panasonic I am sure could get the price down to the right price point. Sony could do the same too.

 

Mr. K. of Cosina is a film hobbyest who could make a DRF but has no interest in the project. Zeiss has no production facilities and is not a chip maker so they are not capable without a partner and that raises the cost. Fuji would be interesting if Cosina would give them a body like Nikon did. My hope is that someone even a rich Leicaphile will do what Mr. K. did come out with a hobby DRF. If we write Panasonic we might interest them, their high end products were produced even though they were not high volume sellers.

 

My sense is that labor rates , the optical RF precision are the major costs that have kept the prices high.

Leica has little interest in affordable cameras since its customers actually feel insulted if the camera is not the most expensive around. Me I never liked overpaying for a mediocre camera or anything else.

The Epson RD-1 already has an APS sized sensor; it can take M and LTM with adapters. <BR><BR><b>So what features of the RD-1 would folks on this thread "give up" to make the camera smaller; lower in cost than 1700 bucks? and mold it into a make believe dream digital that accepts m lenses?</b> Or give up with the more expensive M8?<BR><BR>The TOOLING has to be paid for by the few folks who want a low production camera; its not a bubble pack Hannah Montana P&S digital made in the millions; but a old farts remember the past run of a speciality camera; maybe a few thousand if a hit. Its not that its a "hard thing to do"; its that the market is not there to support the tooling costs. Its a hard thing to make a project with a negative rate of return fly. Its like the electric car; folks want them to cost zilch; we are always around the corner wishing the batteries will magically drop in price. They were waiting too back with the Detroit electric car for better batteries almost 100 years ago. <BR><BR>Would folks here buy a Leica CL sized "Leica" if it had no LCD? Or if it was not full frame? What sized sensor would be OK/ What megapixel level?<BR><BR>Its all easy to dream up cameras if one ignores the cost of development and tooling; real cameras are made by muggles; not eye of newt and Hoggwarts waving of wands. Maybe in Hoggwarts Harry Potter will make a 500 buck full frame Leica thats 18 megapixel; and it will have a snap8 reactor to power the entire AC grid of ones town running on only leftover bellybutton fuzz?.

Another Idea would be to make a digital back for the Kodak Ektra; easy since the back is removeable; plus a dead shutter would not matter.:)

I think the answer to what we'd give up is that we just want to be able to shoot M lenses in digital:<br /><br />

 

10-12Mp <br />

M Mount<br />

CF slot<br />

White balance control<br />

Simple menu<br />

Chimping, playback<br />

Flash sync (maybe)<br />

Quiet: a must<br />

True, but simple rangefinder for 28, 35, 50, 75, 90 lenses<br />

Simple light meter. VC like metering would be great<br />

Simple software with RAW and JPEG, USB<br /><br />

 

That's really all we need.

<i>"That's really all we need."</i>

<p>

Yes, that and enough people who actually want to buy one. Which I think is the major sticking point, as always.

Michael's list looks like RD-1 with twice the megapixels; a CF card instead of a SD; maybe quieter; and with more RF viewfinder windowing ;ie the RD has a switch for 28,35 and 50mm.. Since a RD goes for 1700 bucks a better version would cost more. Would folks buy the 12Mp version for 2500 to 3000 bucks?

Rangefinder lenses are so close to the sensor that it is not a straightforward business to produce a digital rangefinder. Film can cope with the angle of light but not digital sensors. So one can imagine that demand had better be jolly high.