ottocrat Posted November 11, 2009 Share #101 Posted November 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) that means, of course, you need to use an electronic viewfinder if you like bringing it to your eye (which i do) and i'm not so sure i'm sold on these... i know it's the wave of the future, but i'm much happier with my old rangefinder patch silly, isn't it? the modular, lego, bit doesn't phase me at all. it's the stupid viewfinder when i want to nail focus that is worrying me... That's not silly, I think that's absolutely spot on. I also hate electronic viewfinders. I want to see what I'm shooting at first hand. It's ridiculous that for all our progress we are not able to put proper viewfinders in cameras that compare with the viewfinders in consumer cameras thirty or forty years ago. My Dad's Pentax when I was a kid had a better viewfinder than my Nikon DSLR; and at least that actually has a viewfinder! I want a compact digital camera with aperture and shutters speed dials à la X1 and with an optical viewfinder that allows me to focus manually, whether using a dial on the lens itself or somewhere else on the camera body does not bother me that much, as long as it is straightforward and intuitive. It can have all the auto modes it likes as well, but I want to be able to do that please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Hi ottocrat, Take a look here The ricoh rival . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mjh Posted November 11, 2009 Share #102 Posted November 11, 2009 APS-C is OK with a 50mm (aka 75), i would just need a 21(32) and a 28 (42). Actually Ricoh’s “50 mm” module has a 33 mm lens; 50 mm is the 35 mm equivalent focal length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted November 11, 2009 Share #103 Posted November 11, 2009 That's not silly, I think that's absolutely spot on. I also hate electronic viewfinders. I want to see what I'm shooting at first hand. It's ridiculous that for all our progress we are not able to put proper viewfinders in cameras that compare with the viewfinders in consumer cameras thirty or forty years ago. My Dad's Pentax when I was a kid had a better viewfinder than my Nikon DSLR; and at least that actually has a viewfinder! I want a compact digital camera with aperture and shutters speed dials à la X1 and with an optical viewfinder that allows me to focus manually, whether using a dial on the lens itself or somewhere else on the camera body does not bother me that much, as long as it is straightforward and intuitive. It can have all the auto modes it likes as well, but I want to be able to do that please. i just pulled my old Nikon F (inherited from my dad) off the shelf -- now THAT is a viewfinder! i honestly wish manufacturers would realise that those dinky on-cam flashes are ridiculous (no matter how sexy looking -- like the X1) and that anyone serious about photography would not consider using it if they needed a flash (this brings to mind a previous grouse about having only one hot-shoe for either a flash or a VF). if they used this space to bring back a proper OVF, i'd be ecstatic! sure it would cost more money but i, for one, would be willing to pay it. how much are companies charging for the new EVFs? $200? $300? as for space, i'd honestly accept a smaller screen and possibly larger body to get a decent OVF. and, yes, i'd also be willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay even more than the standard EVF or external VF from Leica/CV. perhaps some manufacturer will actually have the guts to make that an option one day. do they not realise that sight is kind of important in photography??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speenth Posted November 11, 2009 Share #104 Posted November 11, 2009 i just pulled my old Nikon F (inherited from my dad) off the shelf -- now THAT is a viewfinder! I'd honestly accept a smaller screen and possibly larger body to get a decent OVF and, yes, i'd also be willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay even more than the standard EVF or external VF from Leica/CV. perhaps some manufacturer will actually have the guts to make that an option one day. do they not realise that sight is kind of important in photography??? This is an interesting observation. I still have the beloved Pentax Spotmatic I purchased in 1968. Its viewfinder is simply fantastic compared to contemporary offerings (optical or electronic). Its bigger and brighter. Its incredibly easy (and satisfying) to manually focus with great precision. So the technology existed back then. What collective decisions in the boardrooms of the camera makers determined that in the 40 years since the Spotmatic, viewfinder performance should be so diminished? I assume market research has shown we know longer want to see what we're taking photos of .... Like you, I'd pay over the odds for the best optical view. It is one of the reasons I use a Leica rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 11, 2009 Share #105 Posted November 11, 2009 T...I assume market research has shown we know longer want to see what we're taking photos of .... Like you, I'd pay over the odds for the best optical view. It is one of the reasons I use a Leica rangefinder. In an article on the originall GRD Ricoh stated that they did not include an internal optical viewfinder because they could not build on into the camera that would have as good quality as an external optical viewfinder without increasing the size of the camera to a size larger than they wanted. And, indeed, the viewfinder in the popular Ricoh GR1 film camera was pretty poor. But, on the Ricoh GRDx cameras there is also the LCD on back, which is what I prefer using for street photography: I use the LCD for establishing the edges of the frame and look directly at the subject when pressing the shutter, which encourages the loose and fluid style that I like. The last thing I would want is a crummy built-in optical viewfinder that would, in any case, increase the size of the camera. —Mitch/Bangkok Walks in Bangkok (GRD3) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted November 11, 2009 Share #106 Posted November 11, 2009 I The last thing I would want is a crummy built-in optical viewfinder that would, in any case, increase the size of the camera. Mitch, i know how you like to shoot. and that is a great way to do so with a wide angle lens and small sensor. but for an APS-C and 50mm? i think not. nor do i fancy it for an APS-C with the 35mm, if we are talking about manual focus. the issue we are discussing is the desire for a good optical viewfinder, not a crummy one. and i, personally, would prefer this to an external (even if it meant a larger body) so the damned thing would stop getting caught as i pull it out of my pocket. i am not like you. i don't go out in "shooting" mode. i take my camera everywhere, even in the rain. that sometimes means it gets regulated to the pocket or the purse. i do not think it is too much to ask that a company bring back the glory days of beautiful built-in OVFs. and, to be honest, that may be a better fit for Leica (rather than Ricoh -- though it seems they could come out with an optional "body"?) when/if they come out with an X2 with interchangeable lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 11, 2009 Share #107 Posted November 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Cam: Yes, I've been thinking about the GRX 50mm module and focur. The best would be if the autofocus would be as fast as on the Nikon D3 or D300, but I doubt that would be the case. And I don't think that focusing on the LCD or with the EVF, although I don't know about the latter, can be fast enough for street photography, That leaves pre-focusing, which can work with a 33mm lens (50mm EFOV). To have an accurate rangefinder like a Leica-M would mean the size of a Leica-M. —Mitch/Bangkok Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 11, 2009 Share #108 Posted November 11, 2009 This is an interesting observation. I still have the beloved Pentax Spotmatic I purchased in 1968. Its viewfinder is simply fantastic compared to contemporary offerings (optical or electronic). Its bigger and brighter. Its incredibly easy (and satisfying) to manually focus with great precision. So the technology existed back then. What collective decisions in the boardrooms of the camera makers determined that in the 40 years since the Spotmatic, viewfinder performance should be so diminished? I assume market research has shown we know longer want to see what we're taking photos of .... Like you, I'd pay over the odds for the best optical view. It is one of the reasons I use a Leica rangefinder. Look through a 1968 Leicaflex SL viewfinder and it is even brighter than the Spotmatic's - and has not been bettered in over 40 years. Cheers dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted November 11, 2009 Share #109 Posted November 11, 2009 To have an accurate rangefinder like a Leica-M would mean the size of a Leica-M. viewfinder, not rangefinder... either way, i'd be happy if it was the size of my M2 or (even better) the Leica CL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted November 11, 2009 Share #110 Posted November 11, 2009 okay... just got a huge lecture on how it was physically impossible with a mirrorless camera... sigh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 11, 2009 Share #111 Posted November 11, 2009 i do not think it is too much to ask that a company bring back the glory days of beautiful built-in OVFs. Totally agree with you. The problem with the X1 is, use the optical finder and you can't use a powerful flash. The Ricoh, use the EVF and you can't use a powerful flash. I do the odd event, parties that sort of thing for friends etc., and something like the X1 would be great if it had an optical finder and a flash connection. What makes these camera designers think that no one will want to use the hot shoe for an actual flash? I wonder why they even bother with the shoe at all, just have some accessory clip instead for their finders It's even worse that a camera such as the M8/9 doesn't have a pc flash socket. How about a compact large sensor digital camera like an X1 but with an optical finder, a flash shoe that can be used for flash or to connect an off camera flash, a lens with a focus ring and shutter and aperture dials or rings ? Is it really that hard to do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted November 11, 2009 Share #112 Posted November 11, 2009 What I'd like to see is a return to more control for the photographer and away from full automation of everything. You can get this from high end DSLRs and of course digital rangefinders but not so much from smaller pick up and go cameras. That's why the X1 looks so great, but we have to wait and see how it works with the OVF and manual focusing. A compact camera that nails manual focusing would be wonderful. I agree... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
strugatzki Posted November 11, 2009 Share #113 Posted November 11, 2009 okay... just got a huge lecture on how it was physically impossible with a mirrorless camera... sigh. you need not despair, because technically it is possible to have a rangefinder-like manual focusing system with a mirrorless compact camera, but of course only if you do it completely electronical. rangefinders essentially work by mixing two optical images from two spatially separated POVs; it is the difference that tells you where the focus is. on a mirrorless compact camera with an internal EVF (instead of the flash, i hear you ;-), all you would need is a second simple optical sensor without a dedicated lens, eg. like the advanced autofocus mini-lenses you find in mobile phones, placed at the brink of the body, away from the main lens. in this EVF, both the image from the actual camera lens/sensor and the mini sensor would be combined in a meaningful way, et voilà, you have some sort of a digital rangefinder. it is only a matter of time before EVFs approach a quality that will be on par with an optical viewfinder, but don't ask me how many years. big L of course already indicated (in the interview with LL) that they won't go down that way; it would cannibalise the M because it would be much cheaper than a opto-mechanical system and it would be of inferior quality to optical for the next couple of years or so. perhaps somebody else will do it, because actually, speaking in terms of mere hardware costs (software engineering not included), it would be way cheaper than an optical system. you even could make the mini-sensor show a bigger field of view than the camera lens, therefore recreating the coveted see-around-the-target-effect M aficionados like to point out... just my two cents yours, dominik ps. naturally, I assume most people still will prefer autofocus. ps2. just as much as ricoh could produce e.g. a stereo slide in for the GXR, it could produce a rangefinder slide in, i guess ps3 if somebody builds a camera like the one i proposed, please give me one for free because i had this wonderful idea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 11, 2009 Share #114 Posted November 11, 2009 What I'd like to see is a return to more control for the photographer and away from full automation of everything. You can get this from high end DSLRs and of course digital rangefinders but not so much from smaller pick up and go cameras. That's why the X1 looks so great, but we have to wait and see how it works with the OVF and manual focusing. A compact camera that nails manual focusing would be wonderful.The Ricoh GRD3 can be used with both manual focus and manual exposure, for which the controls are excellent. —Mitch/Bangkok Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted November 11, 2009 Share #115 Posted November 11, 2009 How about a compact large sensor digital camera like an X1 but with an optical finder, a flash shoe that can be used for flash or to connect an off camera flash, a lens with a focus ring and shutter and aperture dials or rings ? Is it really that hard to do? i would be fighting you for first place in line! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottocrat Posted November 11, 2009 Share #116 Posted November 11, 2009 The Ricoh GRD3 can be used with both manual focus and manual exposure, for which the controls are excellent. But the visual feedback would be via the LCD or an electronic viewfinder, though, right? (And on an X1 only on the LCD.) What I'd like to see is an OVF which connects to the camera via the hotshoe and which has onboard electronics which would let you manually focus, or failing that set autofocus points; that ought to be possible even in a mirrorless camera given modern electronics surely? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 11, 2009 Share #117 Posted November 11, 2009 Dominik has a great idea for an electronic RF and a similar though more complex system could be done with optical with a drive motor in the camera that moves the prism as the lens is either manually or electronically changed for focus and a mirror reflects the dual images on to a phase focus detector to electronically tell you when you are in focus. Essentially, this is a closed loop servo system. As to physical camera size, here are the dimensions for the CL 121x76x32 mm and the CLE 124.5x77.5x32 mm. I could live with those dimensions which are only slightly larger than the X1 or GRX or GF1. If the tradeoff were a smaller LCD that is a tradeoff I would gladly make. Change it to an OLED and the smaller size becomes less significant due to the better image quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khanosu Posted November 11, 2009 Share #118 Posted November 11, 2009 In making comparisons between the GXR and X1 DPR galleries we should keep in mind that while all the X1 pictures were converted using ACR, only eight (out of 26) of the GXR pictures went through ACR. Many pictures of GXR that people are commenting about (such as the London Bridge) picture are straight out of the camera jpeg which have not passed the ACR converter and have been processed and optimized by the GXR itself. None of the X1 pictures are straight out of the camera jpegs so there is some very important information about X1 that is missing. Furthermore ACR has different profiles for different cameras therefore the X1 ACR images have been processed differently than the GXR images and to some extent we are really comparing the quality of the converters here. I have no idea why straight out of the camera jpegs were not included in the X1 gallery but most of the pictures in the GXR gallery (18 out of 26) are straight out of the camera jpegs. Note: The pictures that have passed through ACR have the string "acr" present in the name. Take care! Furrukh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 11, 2009 Share #119 Posted November 11, 2009 What you say is correct; however, most of the high ISO 1600 were ACR conversions and therefore comparable where the GXR wins and the poor bokeh of the X1 images is not something the JPEG engine or ACR can fix. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted November 11, 2009 Share #120 Posted November 11, 2009 and the poor bokeh of the X1 images is not something the JPEG engine or ACR can fix. Did you really expect a great bokeh from a f/2.8 lens on a small camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.