red dawn Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Hi<br><bR> not too sure if this has been posted anywhere here before, but i was reading the Rob Galbraith's website, and he stated a fact which eluded me and which i think has not been raised before....<br><bR> <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-6452-6743">Link to Rob Galbraith's article</a><br><bR> the main points of interests are in this statement:<br><bR> "It was possible to discern from the two bodies on display that it will accept Leica-M bayonet mount lenses, that it's a true optical rangefinder and that its rear LCD display can tilt, swivel and be turned inwards to the body, thereby masking the only obvious outward indication that the camera is digital."<br><bR> Assuming that is true, this would be quite a breakthrough - a camera with a real rangefinder for manual focusing as well as a tilt and swivel LCD for those times when we are too lazy to get down on the ground on our bellies. No idea how we are supposed to focus when the LCD is being tilted, but i am guessing we turn the focus ring and judge focus from the LCD display. This means we have a choice of real rangefinder focusing for when we want to remind ourselves of our Leica M training, and LCD focusing for when we just wanna have fun with different angles, discreet shooting from waist level etc.....<br><bR> am i hoping for too much?? :)<br><bR> boon hwee<br><bR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Yes. In this camera, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 But as long as we're guessing. The reason for the film counter and advance lever on the "Bessa-D" displayed at PMA (wasn't it?) is (my guess) this: The companies had only recently reached agreement on the idea. When some exec then suggested they announce it at the show, he heard the objection, "But we don't even have a mockup yet." To which he replied, "Sure we do. Somebody get me a screwdriver and some glue." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Boon, the LCD may have a magnification feature like many digitals, which would allow you to "zoom in" to check focus. But that is usually after the photo has been taken. Another technique available for focus would be in-camera focus confirmation (LED lights up to indicate focus, but I don't know if that is possible with a rangefinder) A third technique would be to use zone focusing (Hyper Focal Distance) like many already do with their M cameras. Personally, I could skip any fold out swivel LCD gimmick. Just something to malfunction or break on what promises to be a relatively expensive camera. The more junk they put into a rangefinder solution, the further away from a rangefinder camera it gets IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Personally, I find it difficult to believe that they're going to use this Cosina chassis as the basis for the camera and expect anyone to pay much more than $600-700 for it, even if it does take M lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_matsil Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Marc hints at something that comes up in my design of a digital M. I think the viewing system will be the thing that needs to be revolutionized in order to not only make a digital camera of this type but to advance both the concept of "digicam" and "M type" together. An electronic viewfinder that produces a f ast, real time, very high (optical) quality image, would be the key to success with a digital M. Imagine a light compact rangefinder-type camera where you can see exactly what the lens sees! No more parallax adjustments. And...as a sweet option...a rotating waist level (that fits in the hot shoe) that transmits the same lens image and rotates like an old Zeiss 436/8 finder! Leave the LCD off the camera back! The key is if an electronic viewfinder can be developed that allows manual focusing that the viewer can actually see and confirm optically (like an SLR). Of course, now that I think of it, this is not a rangefinder at all, which would save considerably on size and weight. Maybe what we will find out is that the day of the rangefinder has come and gone in terms of technological evolution (of course we can all keep our M's if we choose ;-). The rangefinder was developed as a mechanical solution for joining the viewing and picture taking elements of a small camera. If the lens's image can be electronically delivered to the viewing system without the mirrors and mechanics of an SLR...job done. Many of you will say that the Digilux 2 already does all of this. From reviews that I've heard, the electronic viewfinder is no where near up to snuff and requires an awkward magnification patch in place of a clear, bright rangefinder patch....but I have not used one myself. Thanks for indulging me o n this :-) Any other thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_matherson Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 My understanding is that the rear screan is for playback only after the photos are taken. With a traditional maechanical shutter in place the sensor is not exposed until the shutter is open, so the focusing benefits to which you are referring are irelevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elek Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 <i>Personally, I find it difficult to believe that they're going to use this Cosina chassis as the basis for the camera and expect anyone to pay much more than $600-700 for it, even if it does take M lenses.</i><p> Why not? Canon took a $200 body, converted it to digital and sells it for $900, and people don't seem to complain about that.<p> But I'm not speculating. Instead, I got out my Contax IIa and loaded it with some Ilford FP4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_rivera5 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I don't see how it will sell for much under $1k either at rollout. In fact, it'll be much more expensive for the 1st 6 months it's on sale than any other time. I'd guess $1500-2000 initially, with a $500 price cut in 6-8 months after rollout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 To the point of the Canon 300D ... Canon took a $300 film camera, stripped out all the film specific,non-essential bits, uprated the body and mirror mechanism a little, and added $600 worth of electronics to make a camera that sells at $900 list price. They're producing them on a vast high volume basis, driving the price down. I don't suspect that the Bessa Digital can be that much different, although projected sales volumes and production capacity will probably keep the price higher. APS-sized image capture sensors and supporting electronics are still very expensive. I think the guess of $1600 is pretty close to the mark, but it's only a guess. Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I thought I read that it would cost $2,600 somewhere... but that seems outrageous. I'm just glad that design/development/prototyping has begun. In a couple of generations, they/someone will get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles barcellona www.bl Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Whats that on the top cover? An instrument cluster!!! Lets see... Fuel gauge, altimiter, compass and airspeed. Neat! Seriously, thats one fugly lookin camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_anonymous Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 <p> <i> Assuming that is true, this would be quite a breakthrough - a camera with a real rangefinder for manual focusing as well as a tilt and swivel LCD for those times when we are too lazy to get down on the ground on our bellies. </i></p> <p>This won't work, assuming that the lever for cocking the SHUTTER. In other words, because the camera has a shutter, you aren't going to get a live LCD view.</p> <p><i>Personally, I find it difficult to believe that they're going to use this Cosina chassis as the basis for the camera and expect anyone to pay much more than $600-700 for it, even if it does take M lenses.</i></p> <p>The Bessa R2 already sells for USD$500 at BHPhoto...and people are buying them. For an APS sensor that takes existing lenses, I'm quite certain people will pay up to USD$1500 for it. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lacey_smith4 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Assuming this is indeed RF focussing, someone might bring up the difficulty of using our 75/1.4s or 90/f2s in this camera -- rangefinder limits already exceeded, then to admit an equivalent 75/1.4 becomes (say) an equivalent to 110/1.4, we will be focussing much more sloppily than before, unless we restrict to f4 or less. (actually, does the Cosina viewfnder enlarge for more effective base length?) On the other hand, a 50/2.0 might be equivlent to a 75/2.0, a nice combo requested often enough here. So, I would think an ideal set would be 21 (now a 30), a 35 (now a 52), and a 50 (now a 75). The 50/f1.4, becoming a 75/1.4, may well exceed rf accuracy. And, before someone says that the focus parameters do not change with format, indeed they do, as the acceptable out focus blur is enlarged more for smaller formats, and the percentage of full frame that any blur occupies is larger with smaller formats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 <i>Canon took a $200 body, converted it to digital and sells it for $900, and people don't seem to complain about that.</i><p> Right. But isn't it a different situation w/ Canon? Virtually every young photo hopeful in the world (and some not so young) has, or wants to have, Canon gear. They're seen as being innovators in digital photography, and as makers of reliable equipment. Cosina, on the other hand . . . .<p> I don't know. Maybe you're right. Maybe they can get $1500-2500 for a Bessa R2 with an Epson digiback glued onto it. But not from me. (Because I don't have thousands tied up in M lenses. Or thousands, period.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_schank Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 So if you put your 15mm on the camera, you use your 21mm finder. Your 90 needs a 135mm finder. At least a 24 X 1.5 is close to a 35, 35 X 1.5 is close to 50, and 50 becomes a 75, all built into the other Bessa bodies. Might be confusing at first. Be nice to be able to use the compact 50 Summicron as a short Portrait lens wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now