Why not just build a digital rangefinder ?

Why did camera manufacturers with the exception of Leica not just build a digital range finder instead of the power hungry mirror-less cameras with EVF we have today ?

The demand is probably too low to attract major manufacturers. Interest in rangefinder cameras tanked in the early 60's when the Nikon F was introduced. A few journalists (including me) stuck with Leica for the size, build quality, discreteness, and lens quality. The vast majority were on the SLR bandwagon by 1964, and Nikon was their choice. I bought my first SLR, a used Nikon F3, in 1999. By 2003 I had gone digital, with a Nikon D1x, which used the lenses I had acquired seamlessly.

 

If you want a digital rangefinder, Leica M8 and M9 cameras are readily available, and nearly affordable. Lenses are getting picked over, but Leitz is not the only option. Zeiss makes excellent (arguably better) M mount lenses, followed closely by Voigtlander. I bought an M9 in 2014, partly out of nostalgia, but with my eyes wide open. Having used Leica's for nearly 40 years, I was familiar with the operation and limitations of the camera. For me it was a hammer, not jewelry. However if you want eye-candy, and can afford it, I don't see anything wrong with that either.

 

My "power-hungry" Sony A7Riv gets about 600 shots on a charge, far more than my power-hungry F5 (8x36), or Leica M9 for that matter (about 400 shots).

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.

Why did camera manufacturers with the exception of Leica not just build a digital range finder instead of the power hungry mirror-less cameras with EVF we have today ?

Because, with the exception of Leica*, no camera manufacturer had a rangefinder model in their line-up** by the end of the film era.

 

 

* There was effectively a digital version of the Voigtlander Bessa - the Epson R-D1

 

** Nikon's limited editions of old models don't really count.

 

So there have been digital versions of all the film rangefinders that were in production around the turn of the century.

Yes , but the battery problem ? , one can no longer rely on owning a good camera for an extended period of time :D.

Yes , but the battery problem ? , one can no longer rely on owning a good camera for an extended period of time :D.

What problem? Define extended period?

Why did camera manufacturers with the exception of Leica not just build a digital range finder instead of the power hungry mirror-less cameras with EVF we have today ?

Simple while a few who bought the Leica love the rangefinder aspect of it. Most people love the EVF because of its WYSIWYG aspect of the EVF. Citing power hungry for not having the EVF is the wrong reason. You just need to make better battery which they are doing that.

Besides rangefinder is expensive. You would have to make a line of lenses that couples with the rangefinder. This has to be very precise. Even then they are not very good for long lenses and the viewfinder isn't good for long lenses and no good for macro.

It's a good reason to have the rangefinder for nostalgic reason like the Leica M10-D with no LCD alt all but to save battery no. It's a bad reason.

Besides question for the OP? Are you willing to pay for such a camera? Making somethng that you can't sell a lot would be expensive per unit. Are you willing to pay the price?

Edited July 5, 2021 by BeBu Lamar

Because, with the exception of Leica*, no camera manufacturer had a rangefinder model in their line-up** by the end of the film era.

 

* There was effectively a digital version of the Voigtlander Bessa - the Epson R-D1

 

** Nikon's limited editions of old models don't really count.

 

So there have been digital versions of all the film rangefinders that were in production around the turn of the century.

There's also the Pixii, a french APS-C camera with M-mount, optical rangefinder and no LCD:

 

Pixii's 12MP display-less M-mount rangefinder is now available to order

 

https://www.35mmc.com/08/06/2020/pixii-model-a1112-a-primer/

What problem? Define extended period?

 

20 to 50 years ????.

My viewpoint is that GOOD cameras should last at least this long , many old film cameras do :D :D :D.

20 to 50 years ????.

My viewpoint is that GOOD cameras should last at least this long , many old film cameras do :D :D :D.

Yesterday I was in Henry's Outlet store, they have bins of old digital cameras. I seen Canon 20D for $30, its still working,

20D was introduced in 2004, it was17 years ago, it may be working for another 30 years.They also have Nikon D70, still working :)

There's also the Pixii, a french APS-C camera with M-mount, optical rangefinder and no LCD:

 

Pixii's 12MP display-less M-mount rangefinder is now available to order

 

https://www.35mmc.com/08/06/2020/pixii-model-a1112-a-primer/

What's the price of this Pixii? I don't think it's less than $1000.

A rangefinder mechanism is a fussy thing that has to track correctly. It doesn't have any inherent relationship to the sharpness of the image on the sensor. It's only by the cleverness of the designers that it works as well as it does. I agree that, as far as the eye is concerned, it's a great indicator, but as a system it's an inferior method.

The rangefinder is a cool thing to have. But using a rangefinder because the EVF consumes too much power is a very bad reason.

What's the price of this Pixii? I don't think it's less than $1000.

No, it costs €2,900:

 

PIXII SAS

No, it costs €2,900:

 

PIXII SAS

 

That's why I asked the OP would he be willing to pay for it. I knew such a camera can't be cheap. A lot of people asking for camera in a certain way thinking it would be less expensive but didn't realize that it would be a lot more expensive.

ne reason Leica has survived is the robust construction of its rangefinder mechanism. The follower arm is a casting (or forging), not a stamping. Adjustment and calibration is relatively straightforward. The main reason I set my M9 aside for Sony was physical. I had cataracts which resulted in double images in fine detail. That obscured the "pop" my younger eyes found when the images aligned in the finder.

 

For nearly 40 years I was satisfied with three lenses, 35, 50 and 90. Then I reveled with three overlapping Nikon f/2.8 zooms, 16-35, 28-70, and 70-200. Now I often take a single, prime lens when out and about, EVF notwithstanding. Yesterday it was a Zeiss Batis 40 f/2 (and the day before, and many days to come). It's my hammer and I spend my time looking for the right nails.

 

This thread inspires me to strap on the M9 again, and probably a Summicron 50. It looks old-fashioned, and totally appropriate for someone my age, and it never had a big red dot.

 

@Ed_Ingold have you had cataract surgery yet? I did a while back and probably see better than when I was a teenager. Purity of colors is much better too. That said, I find modern cameras with continuous diopter adjustments are great, old SLRs and rangefinders, not so much. I could have a pair of glasses set up for those, but otherwise, their focus points just aren't where I need them. Diopter lenses for my F3HP seem to be hard to find and I don't know if I'd hit the correct one first time around.

Why? It would cost a whole lot more to add rangefinder mechanicals (that most manufactures haven't used for about 60 years). Rangefinders would not provide AF, and you really need TTL viewing for effective use of zooms, superwide angle, telephoto, and macro lenses, which people seem to like using. Carrying an additional battery or 2 solves most power issues. Edited July 5, 2021 by Ken Katz

After reading a little about Range Finder camera's since I don't own one (yet ) , they do have certain limitations. They are not very good with long lenses, because those lenses might block the Finder. They are not good with Macro lenses or Macro photography since what you see in the Finder is separate from what the lens sees. And they are not so good with Zoom lenses. The Range Finder mechanism is expensive to build and must be maintained regularly to keep its accuracy. I wonder why Leica M9 owners are not complaining though ?

Leitz was almost the first to sell a 35 mm slr camera when they introduced the Visoflex. They introduced a reflex finder because rangefinders do a very poor job with lenses longer than 1.5 to 2 times standard 50 mm focal length.

They are fine, yes, with short lenses. So if you want to confine your photography to wide angle photography, they will do. If not, you really do not want a rangefinder. You really don't. Which, by the way, is made clear by how rangefinders did during the evolution of cameras.

 

Ever since AF took off, reflex viewfinders have become rather poor thingies too, only suitable for framing and displaying far too much information that apparently we should find usefull.

And reflex finders too already had their shortcomings. Too dim, mainly, so very hard to judge focus when there isn't enough light. And that also means that judging depth of field is rather difficult. But still infinitely better than rangefinders. Framing? The optics of a rangefinder does not adjust to the focal length of the lens. So we have limited sets of frame lines for a few focal lengths, and add on finders for focal lengths the rangefinder cannot accomodate. And depth of field is absolutely impossible to judge using rangefinders.

 

Rangefinders really are very poor tools, that offer only one thing (range finding), and do that one thing only reasonably well within a small range of focal lengths and distances. And these silly things need the help of lenses to steer them, so you cannot put on just any lens on a rangefinder camera, but are limited to those lenses made to work correctly with a particular embodiment of the rangefinder idea.

Mostly, they are useless contraptions, that cost too much to make, are not very robust, and do a bad job.

After reading a little about Range Finder camera's since I don't own one (yet ) , they do have certain limitations. They are not very good with long lenses, because those lenses might block the Finder. They are not good with Macro lenses or Macro photography since what you see in the Finder is separate from what the lens sees. And they are not so good with Zoom lenses. The Range Finder mechanism is expensive to build and must be maintained regularly to keep its accuracy. I wonder why Leica M9 owners are not complaining though ?

Every camera design is ultimately a compromise between cost, size and weight, durability, etc. Leica has prioritized relatively small size and weight and optical excellence and more or less ignored cost. For some people Leicas and their excellent lenses are the answer to their photographic needs; for others, this is too expensive and limited a system. Much as I enjoy using my 1930's and 1950's Contax rangefinder cameras and their Zeiss lenses, I wouldn't pay the price for their modern digital equivalent if Zeiss suddenly got back into camera manufacturing at the level that they did in the 1930's. I don't expect that many other photographers would either when newer designs offer so many conveniences over older ones at such a lower cost.

After reading a little about Range Finder camera's since I don't own one (yet ) , they do have certain limitations. They are not very good with long lenses, because those lenses might block the Finder. They are not good with Macro lenses or Macro photography since what you see in the Finder is separate from what the lens sees. And they are not so good with Zoom lenses. The Range Finder mechanism is expensive to build and must be maintained regularly to keep its accuracy. I wonder why Leica M9 owners are not complaining though ?

The reason they are no good with long lenses is not that those block the finder, but because the rangefinder base is too narrow for accurate focus (triangulation) at long distances. Doesn't matter much with short lenses, because their DoF masks the inaccuracy. But with longer lenses it does. Just not good enough.

After reading a little about Range Finder camera's since I don't own one (yet ) , they do have certain limitations. They are not very good with long lenses, because those lenses might block the Finder. They are not good with Macro lenses or Macro photography since what you see in the Finder is separate from what the lens sees. And they are not so good with Zoom lenses. The Range Finder mechanism is expensive to build and must be maintained regularly to keep its accuracy. I wonder why Leica M9 owners are not complaining though ?

They like it both good and bad things about it. That why they bought Leica. And they were willing to pay for. So really my question to the OP would he be willing to pay the price for a rangefinder digital camera?

have you had cataract surgery yet?

I did, going on two years now, and it made all the difference in the world. I can use the M9 effectively, but haven't much incentive to do so compared to the size and flexibility of my Sony A7's.

 

I'm prepared to bring it out any day, having added shorts, sandals and white socks to my wardrobe ;)

Leitz was almost the first to sell a 35 mm slr camera when they introduced the Visoflex. They introduced a reflex finder because rangefinders do a very poor job with lenses longer than 1.5 to 2 times standard 50 mm focal length.

They are fine, yes, with short lenses. So if you want to confine your photography to wide angle photography, they will do. If not, you really do not want a rangefinder. You really don't. Which, by the way, is made clear by how rangefinders did during the evolution of cameras.

 

Ever since AF took off, reflex viewfinders have become rather poor thingies too, only suitable for framing and displaying far too much information that apparently we should find usefull.

And reflex finders too already had their shortcomings. Too dim, mainly, so very hard to judge focus when there isn't enough light. And that also means that judging depth of field is rather difficult. But still infinitely better than rangefinders. Framing? The optics of a rangefinder does not adjust to the focal length of the lens. So we have limited sets of frame lines for a few focal lengths, and add on finders for focal lengths the rangefinder cannot accomodate. And depth of field is absolutely impossible to judge using rangefinders.

 

Rangefinders really are very poor tools, that offer only one thing (range finding), and do that one thing only reasonably well within a small range of focal lengths and distances. And these silly things need the help of lenses to steer them, so you cannot put on just any lens on a rangefinder camera, but are limited to those lenses made to work correctly with a particular embodiment of the rangefinder idea.

Mostly, they are useless contraptions, that cost too much to make, are not very robust, and do a bad job.

 

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

 

Canon's Canonet Rangefinder Does the Impossible - A Canon Camera That's Not Boring

Edited July 5, 2021 by hjoseph7