would you buy a D rangefinder camera?

[moxi1]

Hi all,

I forever wonder why no manufacturer has produced a good quality digital range-finder camera for a decent price?

Leica stands alone, but who can afford it?

Seeing the popularity of the Canon G series I ask why no one addresses the shortcomings of the G (like shutter lag and small sensor)

Some small cameras with a larger sensor are now produced, but for me they are missing the (for me) important viewfinder.
LCD screens might be great in a certain light, and good for those youngens of you, for me oldy - by the time I put on my glasses - the show is already over!

My question: would you buy a digital range-finder as a second quick-shoot camera, and what would be your requirements?

Cheers Moxi1

[mikman]

I have a Fujifilm 6500fd that has a digital rangefinder and is pretty much like a digital SLR. The image quality isn't great but acceptable. The rangefinder itself is irritating because the resolution is too low. My Nikon D90 is simply superior in all ways, shutter lag and image quality naturally being two areas where the 6500fd doesn't stand a chance.

The Lumix GF1 is also new and apparently provides some good results, and it has exchangeable lenses. The rangefinder is an accessory that you can buy, it's not part of the starting kit. The problem here is the amount of money you have to spend, you get an SLR for the same price. Also, the rangefinder is digital, although it does have quite a high resolution.

I suppose the popularity of the Canon G series is partially due to the fear of buying an SLR that people have. They reckon they're not ready to get an SLR yet and opt for an expensive digital camera instead. I think most people would be better off with a Nikon D40 for the same price. People often don't realize that an SLR also comes with an Auto function for people that are just learning.

[tomrit]

If my ancient Oympus C-5050z had an optical rangefinder and could pop off a single frame, say, every 1/3 of a second or so, it would be near perfect. If it had interchangeable lenses it would be nirvana. As it is, I curse it's almost unuable manual focus mode and slow auto-focus frequently. I do not need a bigger or more sensitive sensor, in fact I love the ASA 64 base mode, and 400 is fast enough with the f/1.8 lens.

A digital version of the old Canonet GIII would be nice too. Say, maybe I should dig the GIII out of the drawer and run some film through it.

Unfortunately, decent optical rangefinders are expensive to manufacture, and most people would not pay extra for one.

[Narsuitus]

I use a digital SLR and a Canon G5. I wish my G5 had a rangefinder for manual focusing but I will have to live with the Canon G series until a digital rangefinder is produced that meets my needs. Here are my specifications:

• Built to withstand daily usage.
• Body and controls are ergonomically designed.
• Has wide rangefinder base like the Zeiss Ikon
• Has user interface similar to Nikon SP, Leica MP, or Leica M6 rather than relying only on menus, toggle switches, and fly-wheels
• About the size and style of a Leica MP or M6
• Manufacturing quality of the Leica MP or M6
• High quality, fast, interchangeable lenses
• Live-view LCD screen
• Ability to hide the LCD screen so that is not visible.
• LCD screen swings and rotates (similar in design to the Canon G5)
• Choice of built-in matrix, center-weighted, and spot meter
• Manual and auto focus control
• Manual and auto exposure control
• Offers shutter priority, aperture priority, manual, and program exposure modes but no scenic modes like portrait, landscape, etc.
• Minimum of 5 megapixel resolution
• Offers resolution equal to or greater than 35mm film
• Creates RAW and standard jpeg image files
• Image quality of the Fuji S2 or S3 or S5
• Uses CompactFlash and/or SD memory cards
• Uses standard-sized generic batteries rather than proprietary batteries
• Uses rechargeable batteries that can be recharged outside of camera body
• No built-in flash
• Uses a digital sensor that allows the user to select a horizontal rectangular format, a vertical rectangular format, or a square format.
• Digital sensor is user upgradeable.
• Camera software is user upgradeable.
• Body cost $600 or less
• Digital sensor is protected from dust.
• Provides “B” (bulb) and “T” (timed) exposure options.
• Provides custom white balance control.
• Provides custom contrast and color saturation control.
• Has totally silent mode (no beeping or whirling sounds during picture taking).
• Has both hot shoe and PC flash connection for standard flash units.
• Minimal warm-up time when unit is turned on.
• Minimal delay when shutter is pressed
• Ability to shoot at least 2.5 images per second
• Ability to shoot at least 24 consecutive images
• Minimal ISO light meter settings from 50 to 3200.
• Camera does not have stupid sounding name like “CoolPix” or FinePix.”

[cyclohexane]

My question: would you buy a digital range-finder as a second quick-shoot camera, and what would be your requirements?

No. I need more DSLR bodies to help make me more money first. Maybe when I have the disposable income to afford a third, fourth, and fifth body? =)

Actually, at the moment my answer is still no, but mostly because I have enough money invested in my 135 film rangefinder. I shoot with it so little anyways that I probably should have just kept the money, but I really like the thing, and I have a rather copious amount of film I'd rather shoot than sell or give away.

Narsuitus pretty much described what I'd be interested in as a rangefinder, but I'd be down with paying more than $600 for the body.

Some small cameras with a larger sensor are now produced, but for me they are missing the (for me) important viewfinder.

Not to mention, somewhat difficult to operate efficiently (based on my experience with the Olympus EP1)

[Ed Shapiro]

My theory is that the results certain camera, lens. film. processing and printing combinations can not easily be replicated (if at all) in digital photography and that is why still use film for certain assignments- not because I am a reactionary, false nostalgia, or die hard kinda guy- that's just what I see it in the actual and end results- others may disagree.

Heres my case- At one time I had contracts to produce images of top Jazz Musicians while they were preforming in various small club venues. My trusty Lica M-3 was my weapon of choice because of its noiseless shutter operation, lack of "mirror slap" which enabled me to hand hold the camera steady even at slow speeds such as of 1/4 sec., compactness and light weight and its remarkably accurate range finder system which enabled my accurate focusing in very low light situations such as musicians performing under dark blue theatrical spotlights. With my f/1:1 Noctolux lens, this was the ideal "black cat in a coal mine at midnight" camera system. In the darkroom I would process films such as Tri-X Pan in D-76 (pushed to 1200) or Ethol UFG or Acufine at ISO 800. This process yielded images with amazing shadow detail under those dark smoky shooting conditions. The lens gave me great selective focus control when I needed it. I could get portrait-like quality with amps, wires and lighting grids all out of focus and yet still retain the "atmosphere" of those old jazz clubs. If I were called upon to do a similar kind of work, I would simply dust off the old M-3 system and use it. Even if I were to purchase a new D-RF Lica, I don't know if I could simulate that uniquely film look as I had established with visible but tight grain structure and great dynamic range. This is not even a matter of economy because in the BUSINESS of photography, investments in equipment are justified by the work you are enabled to do and have good tax advantages as well. It is a matter of using the right gear for the right job.

Somewhere n my "junk" collection, I have a copy of the 1957 Popular Photography Director and Buying Guide (that is, if my good wife has not surreptitiously slipped it into the recycling box) which lists and shows at Leta 50 manufacturers and their product lines offering range finder cameras in an enormus spectrum of models and price ranges with, of course, Lica and Alpa at the top of the entire rang with their cameras costing at least 500 pre-inflation dollars. I think the Exacta (form East Germany) was the only SLR in the 35mm format. There were also medium and large format range finder cameras including the venerable line of Speed Graphics and other Graflex (brand) models although the original Graflex line cameras were originally giant SLRs- believe it or not!

Lica had a contraption that allowed the photographer to see through the lens as pictures were being taken with the F and M series cameras but of course this was replaced with there Licaflex or "R" series of cameras. The idea of seeing through the lenses became so alluring to so many photographers that in a short time after SLRs became available, most of the RF cameras fell out of favor and disappeared from the general consumer marketplace.

Except for very specific requirements, the RF cameras have no big advantages over SLR or DSLRs and that is probably why there are few of them still being manufactured- Lica being the prime purveyor of that kind of product. Let's face it- with auto focus systems- who really cares? Some older photojournalists would give their eye teeth for a clean working Nikon S- but to what advantage?

Ed

[tomrit]

At least us ignorant fools know how to spell Leica.

RF's I have owned over the years (multiple cameras were replacements for lost, sold, or worn out working cameras, not collector items):

Canonet GII 1.7 3ea
Mamiya Universal Press 2ea
Pacemaker Crown Graphic 2ea
Linhof Super Technica 1ea
Kodak 35RF
Kodak Retina IIa

Lusted for but never owned:
Leica M2; a Canon P, or Nikon S3 would be a satisfactory substitute.

I currently still have one of the Graphics, and one of Canonets. I do admit the Kodak 35 was pretty awful, but I only had it as a gift. Now if I could get a Mamiya Universal with a full frame digital back to replace the Polaroid back. Actually, the Mamiya Universal Press with the 100mm f/2.8 is probably my favorite camera of all time.

So, of course, I have no idea what an optical RF is like, or why I would want one...

Yep, SLR's only took 30+ years to become more popular than RF's, they weren't even considered suitable for general photography until Pentax invented the instant return mirror and BTL meter. Then the Nikon F became popular because all the Vietnam War Photojounalists were using them. They were using them because EPOC the US distributor gave the cameras and lenses to them free. When Canon decided they wanted to take over the professional market they did the same for sports photographers, all those guys were using those big white lenses, so they must be the best, or was it because they could stop at the Canon truck and borrow a 300/2.8?.

OTOH, up until 1955, or so, 90% of the professional photographers in the US used a Speed Graphic. Today 90% of the photographers in the US will tell your there was not way those old time photographers could have taken those photos with a Speed Graphic. They will also tell you how ugly on camera flash is: Using A Speed Graphic

[xxloverxx]

I would…but I have a few very…strange requirements:

Built like a Leica MP
Mechanical shutter - (re)winding lever is present
Interchangeable backs - between film and digital (think Leica R8/R9 with DMR) - so if I run out of batteries, I can switch to film & go all mechanical
No LCD necessary - lack of LCD discourages chimping & forces you to focus more on the photography side.