Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?  (Read 7537 times)

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« on: May 06, 2010, 08:11:19 pm »

In the distant past I had a Leica CL. It was a great street camera but it wasn't compatible with wide angle lenses.

What I want is a 2010 remake of my Leica.

I know some people are thinking that there is the M9. Lets face it, if I had the money to buy one and a few new manual lenses, I would buy a new car!

I was thinking who should make this new camera when I remembered that my Leica CL body was manufactured by Minolta, now Sony.

What would the Sony equivalent be? With Sony's relationship with Zeiss I was thinking the lenses could be by them but would have to be autofocus, then the Contax G2 lenses came to mind.

The Sony DCR1 (digital compact rangefinder):

• Compact body shape
• 25MP
• On chip stabilisation
• 3" LCD
• zoom telescope ranefinder – modern day equivalent of Contax G2's rangefinder.

Autofocus lenses by Zeiss – modern equivalent:

• 21mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss lens
• 28mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss lens
• 35mm f/2.0 Carl Zeiss lens
• 45mm f/2.0 Carl Zeiss lens
• 90mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss lens
• 35-70mm f/3.5~5.6 Carl Zeiss zoom lens.

A great little street camera with technology that exists and just needs to be updated.

Who would make your new CDR and what features would it have?

Cheers,








Logged
Tom Brown

Dave Gurtcheff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 696
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2010, 12:42:23 pm »

I WANT ONE.  
Dave
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2010, 01:04:15 pm »

Yes.

There is an empty space now that I do not consider is filled by any MFT or the M9.

We need something cheap: less than 2000euros, powerful: 20MP minimum, Full frame, NO AA filter, small, light weight, good lenses and with a great viewfinder (electronic).

A street killer.

Pentax could do it, they have a lot of modern pancackes and K mount is one of the most versatile.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2010, 02:50:16 pm by fredjeang »
Logged

JohnBrew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
    • http://www.johnbrewton.zenfolio.com
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2010, 10:53:49 am »




We need something cheap: less than 2000euros, powerful: 20MP minimum, Full frame, NO AA filter, small, light weight, good lenses and with a great viewfinder (electronic).
[/quote]

Ah, we're dreaming big aren't we? I'm sure this will come to pass in the future, but I agree, I'd like one now, please   .

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2010, 11:47:51 am »

I take it that you mean a true rangefinder, with split image focusing, plus Contax style AF and limited to the narrow focal length range of true rangefinder system?

If so, I doubt you will get much more than the Leica M9, and maybe another boutique M-mount digital rangefinder body from Epson, because rangefinders are now a tiny and shrinking niche in digital photography, with little hope of justifying the expense of developing the array of new AF lenses that you propose.

Let us balance our dreams against the evidence: RF's were already reduced to a small niche and abandoned by most makers  by the rise AF film SLR's, with only the Leica M system surviving, and its survival probably dependent on "subsidies" in the form of purchases by collectors who never actually use their shrink-wrapped trophies. And now RF's are being made even more marginal by the new wave of mirrorless interchangeable lens digital camera systems (MILC) that use live view rather than an optical rangefinder for composition, and so offer a wide array of modern conveniences like: better AF; a WYSIWYG VF image that allows the user to see and check focus at off-center points, to preview DOF, and to zoom to check details far more accurately than any OVF; accurate parallax-free framing; a far wider range of focal lengths than any RF has ever offered; and the ability to use zoom lenses over that wide range of focal lengths. Digital rangefinders instead exist mainly to offer backward compatibility with existing RF lens collections.

Compared to DSLR's with continuing enhancement of their Live View options, which could in the future include adding options like an electronic shutter and an accessory EVF, other digital camera alternatives will rely heavily on a size and weight advantage, and that is squandered by moving to an unusually large sensor format like 36x24mm, which I will remind people again requires longer, wider, larger, heavier lenses to get almost any advantage  over a smaller, more mainstream format.


I must admit that my "mirrorless camera system" format size hopes are in the opposite direction: that Nikon delivers what a bunch of 2009 lens patents suggest with a compact MILC system in roughly 17mm diagonal (1") format.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2010, 11:49:35 am by BJL »
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2010, 09:50:17 pm »

Quote from: BJL
I take it that you mean a true rangefinder, with split image focusing, plus Contax style AF and limited to the narrow focal length range of true rangefinder system?

If so, I doubt you will get much more than the Leica M9, and maybe another boutique M-mount digital rangefinder body from Epson, because rangefinders are now a tiny and shrinking niche in digital photography, with little hope of justifying the expense of developing the array of new AF lenses that you propose.

Let us balance our dreams against the evidence: RF's were already reduced to a small niche and abandoned by most makers  by the rise AF film SLR's, with only the Leica M system surviving, and its survival probably dependent on "subsidies" in the form of purchases by collectors who never actually use their shrink-wrapped trophies. And now RF's are being made even more marginal by the new wave of mirrorless interchangeable lens digital camera systems (MILC) that use live view rather than an optical rangefinder for composition, and so offer a wide array of modern conveniences like: better AF; a WYSIWYG VF image that allows the user to see and check focus at off-center points, to preview DOF, and to zoom to check details far more accurately than any OVF; accurate parallax-free framing; a far wider range of focal lengths than any RF has ever offered; and the ability to use zoom lenses over that wide range of focal lengths. Digital rangefinders instead exist mainly to offer backward compatibility with existing RF lens collections.

Compared to DSLR's with continuing enhancement of their Live View options, which could in the future include adding options like an electronic shutter and an accessory EVF, other digital camera alternatives will rely heavily on a size and weight advantage, and that is squandered by moving to an unusually large sensor format like 36x24mm, which I will remind people again requires longer, wider, larger, heavier lenses to get almost any advantage  over a smaller, more mainstream format.


I must admit that my "mirrorless camera system" format size hopes are in the opposite direction: that Nikon delivers what a bunch of 2009 lens patents suggest with a compact MILC system in roughly 17mm diagonal (1") format.

Niche, yes, but I'm sure there would be a market for a small 35mm camera with good glass and an optical viewfinder. My Nikon 990 had an optical viewfinder that zoomed with the lens. The coverage wasn't great but the technology was there.There are solutions out there and and a large number of people who want to see information in a viewfinder when they take a picture. The Pentax 645D article shown recently shows that manufacturers can use existing technologies in the development of new cameras.

Live view and electronic viewfinders are just a poor substitute for looking through a viewfinder.

I own a Canon 5D MkII and it's great, but I didn't take it with me when I went into the city recently because it was just a bit too big. I recently organised a an 8km bushwalk and I balked at carrying it all day along with food and water. It would be nice to be able to get the same quality images with a smaller camera. Compact rangfinders allow that with the added advantage of removing the mirror slap. Is that too much to ask for?

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

ziocan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2010, 03:30:52 am »

Quote from: tom  b
Niche, yes, but I'm sure there would be a market for a small 35mm camera with good glass and an optical viewfinder. My Nikon 990 had an optical viewfinder that zoomed with the lens. The coverage wasn't great but the technology was there.There are solutions out there and and a large number of people who want to see information in a viewfinder when they take a picture. The Pentax 645D article shown recently shows that manufacturers can use existing technologies in the development of new cameras.

Live view and electronic viewfinders are just a poor substitute for looking through a viewfinder.

I own a Canon 5D MkII and it's great, but I didn't take it with me when I went into the city recently because it was just a bit too big. I recently organised a an 8km bushwalk and I balked at carrying it all day along with food and water. It would be nice to be able to get the same quality images with a smaller camera. Compact rangfinders allow that with the added advantage of removing the mirror slap. Is that too much to ask for?

Cheers,
Sony will be announcing something very similar to a 35mm range finder tomorrow.
It will be called Nex 5. it will be APSc size, 15mp and will carry Alpha lenses including Zeiss via an adapter.
They will costs few hundred bucks.
I think is a first good step on that direction.

If they are using an upgraded version of the alpha 550 sensor, image quality will be awesome.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2010, 11:52:05 am »

Quote from: ziocan
Sony will be announcing something very similar to a 35mm range finder tomorrow. ... NEX 5 .... I think is a first good step on that direction.
The expected NEX 5 (and NEX 3) are hardly the first step in this direction (unless having the Zeiss brand on some lenses is mandatory) since Panasonic, Olympus and Samsung already have products of this type out there (and Panasonic offers some lenses bearing the Leica brand and Samsung offers some bearing the Schneider-Kreuznach brand, for what any of that is worth). But it is significant that the number 3, 4 and 5 makers of interchangeable lens digital cameras (Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony in some order) will soon be offering this more compact type of camera, as will all three of the electronics giants active in the camera market (Samsung, Panasonic, and Sony).

Perhaps the fact that none of those big three electronics companies has managed to establish a profitable DSLR division is a motivation for trying this new "more electronic, less optical" approach!


P. S. The first reviews and real photos on the NEX 3 and 5, from countries where it is already tomorrow:
http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/sony-ne...entacion,1_6329 (in Spanish)
http://digital-photography-school.com/sony-nex-3-review (in Australian)
The styling to give the appearance of a very thin body (with a deep bevel and a lens mount that looks like part of the lens rather than part of the body) ends up making the kit zoom lens look huge in comparison. And at 62mm in diameter, the lens is surprisingly large.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 07:39:54 pm by BJL »
Logged

MarkL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 475
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2010, 12:30:33 pm »

The digital rangefinder market is tiny and not best suited to digital in the first instance anyway, not many people want manual split image focusing and dodgy frame lines so no camera maker is going to go through the r&d costs and pain leica did to get a usable camera. The future are the m4/3 cameras like the Panasonic G1 and Olympus EP-1 whether rangefinder fans like it or not.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 12:31:39 pm by MarkL »
Logged

jzzmusician

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2010, 09:39:05 pm »

Here are the NEX 3/5 specs with pictures.  

I like it.

(google translated)

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...sl=es&tl=en
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2010, 10:02:20 pm »

I started this thread because I would like to have a small 35mm camera that gives me the ergonomic and quality rewards that I get with my Canon 5D Mk II.

That is to see shutter speed, aperture, ISO etc in the viewfinder. To be able to turn a zoom lens or have manual or autofocus lens. To have better quality images than what APS sensors have to offer.

Yes there are compact camera out the that are small and have reasonable quality but their ergonomics are horrible and hey I want better quality.

Too many people get stuck on the word rangefinder. Perhaps I should have said high quality optical viewfinder. There is so much money spent on researching how to make another cheap low quality compact camera. How come someone doesn't bite the bullet and give us something that can compete with the 35mm DSLRs.

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

ziocan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2010, 01:51:24 am »

Quote from: BJL
The expected NEX 5 (and NEX 3) are hardly the first step in this direction (unless having the Zeiss brand on some lenses is mandatory) since Panasonic, Olympus and Samsung already have products of this type out there (and Panasonic offers some lenses bearing the Leica brand and Samsung offers some bearing the Schneider-Kreuznach brand, for what any of that is worth). But it is significant that the number 3, 4 and 5 makers of interchangeable lens digital cameras (Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony in some order) will soon be offering this more compact type of camera, as will all three of the electronics giants active in the camera market (Samsung, Panasonic, and Sony).

Perhaps the fact that none of those big three electronics companies has managed to establish a profitable DSLR division is a motivation for trying this new "more electronic, less optical" approach!


P. S. The first reviews and real photos on the NEX 3 and 5, from countries where it is already tomorrow:
http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/sony-ne...entacion,1_6329 (in Spanish)
http://digital-photography-school.com/sony-nex-3-review (in Australian)
The styling to give the appearance of a very thin body (with a deep bevel and a lens mount that looks like part of the lens rather than part of the body) ends up making the kit zoom lens look huge in comparison. And at 62mm in diameter, the lens is surprisingly large.

It is definitively a step on a new direction and very likely, on term of view finder, much better than any traditional range finder camera.
One of the main reason we mostly like range finder cameras is their compact format. what really sucks on a range finder, is exactly the view finder: hard to focus and need to rely on marks when using telephotos or other lenses different from the 'normal'.

Honestly, as long the quality of the lenses is good and the bhoke is smooth, who cares about the name on it.
Again, if I'm not wrong, only samsung has and apsc size sensor on their cameras, the other two brands you mentioned got a small one, and their image quality reflect that.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/NEX5A.HTM

Apparently the sony got the best image quality among the price rance of those little thingies.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 03:05:00 am by ziocan »
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2010, 03:44:02 am »

I fully support the Sony's NEX proposal.
This is smaller than MFD, better sensor,
Low light, as expected is way better.

Frustrating is the fact that again, mount is different and an adpter is required.
Gosh! Is it not unbeleivable that with the tech available they could not produce a small FF camera body
with the same mount than the Alpha line?

What's wrong with that???!!!!
Why another adapter? Is it pure marketing or technologically impossible?
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2010, 04:17:00 pm »

The difference in lens design between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera is based on registration distance.  The lens registration distance for the NEX is 18mm, while it is 44.5mm for Alpha.  So, no matter how big or small Sony made the E mount's diameter, you would still have to use an adapter to extend the distance between the sensor and the lens.  For me, none of it really matters, because I have no intention of mounting giant DSLR lenses, which will stick out another inch and a half from the NEX camera body.
Logged

schrodingerscat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 374
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2010, 11:38:43 pm »

Quote from: fredjeang
I fully support the Sony's NEX proposal.
This is smaller than MFD, better sensor,
Low light, as expected is way better.

Frustrating is the fact that again, mount is different and an adpter is required.
Gosh! Is it not unbeleivable that with the tech available they could not produce a small FF camera body
with the same mount than the Alpha line?

What's wrong with that???!!!!
Why another adapter? Is it pure marketing or technologically impossible?

It's the way it's always been, going back to the film days. The only real exception was the Pentax K mount, which they licensed to various aftermarket camera manufacturers. The camera makers are also in the lens business, though they do license their mount technology to Sima, Tamron, and the like.

Any lens designed for a dSLR will require an adaptor if used on a body with a shorter lens flange to sensor plane distance. That is also why only certain combinations of cross brand adaptors work. They become a spacer between the body and lens, frequently making infinity focus impossible.

Look what Leica went through to make a FF sensor work in the M9, and it's pushing the limits as it is. Something smaller and cheap is probably quite aways off.

It steam engines when it's steam engine time.
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2010, 06:05:34 am »

Quote from: schrodingerscat
It's the way it's always been, going back to the film days. The only real exception was the Pentax K mount, which they licensed to various aftermarket camera manufacturers. The camera makers are also in the lens business, though they do license their mount technology to Sima, Tamron, and the like.

Any lens designed for a dSLR will require an adaptor if used on a body with a shorter lens flange to sensor plane distance. That is also why only certain combinations of cross brand adaptors work. They become a spacer between the body and lens, frequently making infinity focus impossible.

Look what Leica went through to make a FF sensor work in the M9, and it's pushing the limits as it is. Something smaller and cheap is probably quite aways off.

It steam engines when it's steam engine time.
This, I understand it perfectly.

But what about that? these are FF lens design:
[attachment=21936:41910205...d002cf07.jpg]
[attachment=21937:SMC_Pent..._Pancake.jpg]
[attachment=21938:Z40MM.jpg]
[attachment=21939:pannyL1_21mm.jpg]
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2010, 01:07:10 am »

I just took a look to see what 35mm compact film cameras are out there and I came upon this link:

http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews...1200sb_compact/

As the price of chips come down I can see a 35mm camera of this size hitting the market.  

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2010, 11:52:59 am »

Quote from: fredjeang
Is it not unbeleivable that with the tech available they could not produce a small FF camera body
with the same mount than the Alpha line?

What's wrong with that???!!!!
Why another adapter? Is it pure marketing or technologically impossible?
I vote for "technologically impossible".

An essential advantage of mirrorless systems (either old-fashioned film rangefinders or new-fangled all-electronic EVILs) over SLRs is their compactness, which is closely related to greater flexibility in lens designs allowed when the back-focus distance (rear lens-element to focal plane) is significantly less than allowed by the mirror box of an SLR. To realize that advantage, the lens mount needs to be significantly closer to the focal plane than it is in an SLR ... so there goes Alpha mount.

Further, when the sensor is in a mainstream format like APS-C or 4/3, (which it is and always will be except in a small, expensive, high-end product sector), the depth of a 35mm film SLR lens mount recycled for use with APS-C format DSLRs is even more excessive.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2010, 12:11:54 pm »

Quote from: fredjeang
But what about that? these are FF lens design:
[attachment=21936:41910205...d002cf07.jpg]
[attachment=21937:SMC_Pent..._Pancake.jpg]
[attachment=21938:Z40MM.jpg]
[attachment=21939:pannyL1_21mm.jpg]
Those Pentax pancake lenses go on the K-mount which is about 45mm deep, so the total camera depth is not so compact. It is the opposite extreme to Sony NEX where the mount is shallow but the lenses are longer. Also, as has been said many times before, not all lens designs that work well with 35mm film also work well with 35mm format sensors, with the problems being towards the edges of the frame. As far as I know, none of those Pentax pancakes has been tested for edge performance on a full 36x24mm sensor.

Not surprisingly, propaganda emphasizes images of the Pentax lenses (but not the 35mm-film format bodies they go on) and the Sony bodies (but not the zoom lenses that will mostly be used on them). And indeed you are doing exactly this: selectively emphasizing the NEX body size and the Pentax pancake lens size!


But yes, if all you care about is a small number of mostly slow and wide focal lens choices, a newly developed compact 35mm-film format kit is technically possible, but probably not commercially viable. But if the lenses are slow, how much advantage is there to to the big, expensive sensor?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 12:14:21 pm by BJL »
Logged

AlanG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 195
    • http://www.goldsteinphoto.com
Where are the compact digital 35mm rangefinders?
« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2010, 06:36:26 pm »

If you use a standard APS lens design on the NEX, the lens mount will have to be longer to compensate for the short registration distance.  (Lenses will have a longer lens barrel to make up for the thin body.)  And of course non-retrofocus wide angles could be pretty small but present issues of vignetting and color shifts towards the corners.

However, if you look at how large the diameter of lens mount is, the lack of a mirror will allow for radically different lens designs (compared to SLRs) that could have a rear element that is larger than the sensor itself and could be located very close to the sensor.  I can't think of any other reason why they would have made such a wide lens mount in such a tiny camera.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2010, 06:41:03 pm by AlanG »
Logged
Alan Goldstein
[url=http://www.Goldstein
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up