pico Posted April 13, 2011 Share #61 Posted April 13, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've yet to read any suggestions in this thread for new rangefinder-like technology. EVIL is beyond consideration to me. I've used it and it sucks, and besides it is not a rangefinder. So let us consider new ideas that failed and put them behind us. Look to Linhof who invented an electronic rangefinder for their Super Technika large format cameras. It was such an abysmal failure that it is practically impossible to find one today; it had good ideas, but not the type that can be brought to Leica cameras. Linhof has reverted to a no rangefinder at all standard camera after generations of different approaches to precision rangefinder focusing, all based upon the classic standard optical rangefinder that in later versions required one-of-a-kind custom ground cams to match a lens to an individual camera (with serial number of camera and lens engraved in the cam.) Then in their latest revision, no such matching was necessary. Frankly, I think they just plain gave up. Back to zero. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Hi pico, Take a look here The limits of the Optical Rangefinder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Xmas Posted April 13, 2011 Share #62 Posted April 13, 2011 Now, Paul, I didn't suggest removing the rangefinding device, did I? I suggested that it might possibly be replaced with another form of distance meter using an alternative technology. A manually controlled range measuring device doesn't necessarily have to be an optical one, nor should it have any impact on the simpicity of operating the camera. The 're-invention' of the camera to which I referred has nothing to do with its operating concept but with the possible substition of one technology for another in its construction - as with the shift from film to digital image recording in the M8. Hi You are not identifying the requirement, it is a usable focus system, that is required not an accurate rangefinder. The Contax G series had two accurate rangefinders but failed to make either usable. So they designed the ZM with a copy of the Leitz M rangefinder/viewfinder. I suggest your thought experiment is failing, that is you are trying to sell us a Contax G, which bombed, it would still not sell with a M body shell. You need to forget about the rangefinder and devise a focus confirmation mechanism at least as good as the M. If you could do that then you can ask Leica to do it. If is an operating concept that we want/need, not rubbsh sexy high tech... With a Leica you can focus on a eyelash in poor light, if your lens is not a 'shift ' lens the photo will have a sharp eyelash. You could try for a job with Zeiss... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted April 13, 2011 Share #63 Posted April 13, 2011 I used Contax SLRs for years. I still think that the RX has no equal. I also used G1 and G2 with 35, 45 and 90mm lenses. The AF drove me spare. The G2 was an advance on the G1 but nothing to compare with the results I was getting with my (then) M6. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scsambrook Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share #64 Posted April 13, 2011 ... What on earth is the practical difference between "removal" and "replacement" anyway? Well, quite a bit. Let's imagine a table with a vase of flowers in the centre and nothing else on it. If we remove that vase from the table, there will be nothing on the table - except possibly a mark where it was standing. If we then replace that vase with a bowl of pot pouri, there will be something else on the table. We will have replaced one form of ornament with another. In the case of the camera, one form of rangefinder might - I emphasise might - replace another. Someday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted April 13, 2011 Share #65 Posted April 13, 2011 Well, quite a bit. Let's imagine a table with a vase of flowers in the centre and nothing else on it. If we remove that vase from the table, there will be nothing on the table - except possibly a mark where it was standing. If we then replace that vase with a bowl of pot pouri, there will be something else on the table. We will have replaced one form of ornament with another. In the case of the camera, one form of rangefinder might - I emphasise might - replace another. Someday. Great analogy. Except of course, if you want a vase of flowers on the table...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scsambrook Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share #66 Posted April 13, 2011 Hi You are not identifying the requirement, it is a usable focus system, that is required not an accurate rangefinder. The Contax G series had two accurate rangefinders but failed to make either usable. So they designed the ZM with a copy of the Leitz M rangefinder/viewfinder. I suggest your thought experiment is failing, that is you are trying to sell us a Contax G, which bombed, it would still not sell with a M body shell. You need to forget about the rangefinder and devise a focus confirmation mechanism at least as good as the M. If you could do that then you can ask Leica to do it. If is an operating concept that we want/need, not rubbsh sexy high tech... You could try for a job with Zeiss... Noel I'm not quite sure where you're getting some of these ideas, Noel. I've never even handled a Contax G, let alone promoted its rangefinding system as applicable to the Leica. I'm not in the business of designing anything or trying to sell any idea to Leica Camera - do I need to repeat yet again that I'm neither an engineer or a scientist? I started a discussion based on the notion that the some other technology might eventually replace the optical rangefinder as the means to focus the Leica M camera - in particular, one that might be still more robust and perhaps less costly to make. And why on earth would I try for a job with Zeiss? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 13, 2011 Share #67 Posted April 13, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've yet to read any suggestions in this thread for new rangefinder-like technology. EVIL is beyond consideration to me. I've used it and it sucks, and besides it is not a rangefinder. So let us consider new ideas that failed and put them behind us. Look to Linhof who invented an electronic rangefinder for their Super Technika large format cameras. It was such an abysmal failure that it is practically impossible to find one today; it had good ideas, but not the type that can be brought to Leica cameras. Linhof has reverted to a no rangefinder at all standard camera after generations of different approaches to precision rangefinder focusing, all based upon the classic standard optical rangefinder that in later versions required one-of-a-kind custom ground cams to match a lens to an individual camera (with serial number of camera and lens engraved in the cam.) Then in their latest revision, no such matching was necessary. Frankly, I think they just plain gave up. Back to zero. The Linhof Technikas (and other MF and LF rangefinder cameras they made) were used by some hand held as a press camera, for weddings and events, and even some times for sports, but that day passed quite a while ago. (There are exceptions I'm sure.) I think it was quite a long time ago when most Linhof Technika users stopped using the rangefinder and began using only ground glass focusing. It probably is mostly landscape and architectural shooters who use these cameras now and they won't have any reason to want to use rangefinder focusing. Many use the Technikardan models instead of the Technika now. So it is no wonder the expensive and bulky electronic one didn't catch on and why Linhof stopped development on the RF and many other items they used to make. The removable Linhof optical zoom viewfinder was very handy for previewing images to be shot with almost any camera. I don't think you can compare the Linhof to the Leica as the Leica is still being used primarily as a hand held camera. So it would make sense for Leica to continue to think of ways to make it work better or faster for hand held shooting of action where accurate focus is required. If Leica put its minds to it, they probably could think of quite a few ways to improve the rangefinder/viewfinder of the M. After all they have had more than 60 years to think about it and surely have drawn up some ideas. It just may not be that necessary for the intended use of the camera. But things can always be refined and improved... although maybe not without compromising something or adding to the cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted April 13, 2011 Share #68 Posted April 13, 2011 Hi Alan, It may well be that those who pooh, pooh any innovation in the rangefinder are correct, but discussion is always interesting. Having had a few cameras with optical viewfinders (not through the lens), I'd have to say I was a bit surprised when I got my M9 that it had this complicated and precise cam system, but did not have a view finder with an optical zoom that automatically gave the field of view for the chosen lens. Is it because some one at Leica, long ago in the mists of time, came to the view that you need to see the entire scene through the view finder without magnification? It does not seem a very elegant solution to me. Why change something that is not broke? Well, it is in some ways - many of us make errors using the framelines, and I would dearly love to do away with my 21mm external viewfinder (I keep forgetting to put it on). To look through the viewfinder and see your field of view would be helpful. It also helps with focussing longer lenses. The current system seems cumbersome to me. Before anyone chimes in - I happily accept that I make focussing errors, I will get used to the framelines (I just don't see the positive benefit in them) and no I'm not suggesting an electronic view finder, zoom, flash, video function or doing away with the view finder/rangefinder, red dot on the front or anything else you might have a particular passion for. Change can be good if it makes it easier for us to do what we do. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 13, 2011 Share #69 Posted April 13, 2011 Hi Alan, It may well be that those who pooh, pooh any innovation in the rangefinder are correct, but discussion is always interesting. I'm sure if SLRs had never been invented and if almost all serious 35mm cameras still used rangefinders, the competition between, Leica, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon and others would have led to quite a few improvements by now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 14, 2011 Share #70 Posted April 14, 2011 I did a bit of research and it seems that Nikon was still working on developing rangefinders after the SP and S3 models. They made a model called the SPX but never released it due to the success of the F system. The SPX had TTL metering and a 35-135 zoom viewfinder. I haven't seen any reports on how well this viewfinder worked but it had the eyepiece in the center of the body. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/RF_images/Nikon_SPX.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted April 14, 2011 Share #71 Posted April 14, 2011 Hello Everybody, I think the soloution to the problem presented falls into 2 separate areas: 1. A range/viewfinder to accurately track the focus of a lens mount. This is already here. There is a constant relationship, defined by a differential focussing helical appropriately moving a lens head @ a rate reflective of its focal length while @ the same time moving an actuating mechanism @ a constant rate. This actuating mechanism is in constant contact w/ a roller which is the interface w/ the range/viewfinder which always reads the same ammount of movement by the roller as covering the same distance in the scene being photographed regardless of how much more or less the differential focussing mount has moved the lens head. 2. Lens designers Worldwide currently cannot design lenses w/o significant focal shift as apertures are changed while being focussed. Until this problem is dealt w/ in the optics & mechanics of the lens unit before it comes in contact w/ the differential focussing mount there needs to be another actuating mechanism keyed by a combination of the rotational position of the focussing helical & the position of the aperure blades so that as the focal point of the lens shifts & the aperture changes an appropriate actuating mechanism biases the input to the range/viewfinder to correct for the unwanted shift. Best Regards, Michael BTW: The current rangeviewfinder is not so bad keeping in mind: 1. It works pretty much OK w/ lenses w/o too much focal shift during change of aperture. 2. Its not too different from the 53 year old lower cost replacement of a predecessor considered too expensive to continue producing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted April 14, 2011 Share #72 Posted April 14, 2011 I did a bit of research and it seems that Nikon was still working on developing rangefinders after the SP and S3 models. They made a model called the SPX but never released it due to the success of the F system. The SPX had TTL metering and a 35-135 zoom viewfinder. I haven't seen any reports on how well this viewfinder worked but it had the eyepiece in the center of the body. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/RF_images/Nikon_SPX.jpg I think the location of the eyepiece is to give enough distance (via a couple of prisms) between the eyepiece and the RF beamsplitter accommodate the moving elements of the zooming finder. That in turn suggests that the view through the finder would be dimmer than the SP's, which in turn wasn't as bright as the M's - and also that the magnification of the SPX finder would be much less than the M2's for wide angle lenses, though greater for 85 and 135mm. Are you certain that the pictures show a body with TTL metering? There's no sign of any way of setting the film speed, or of any window to illuminate the meter needle in the viewfinder (and even with one it would be very hard to incorporate the meter display in the zooming finder). But there is a lug on the shutter speed knob for an external meter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 14, 2011 Share #73 Posted April 14, 2011 Are you certain that the pictures show a body with TTL metering? There's no sign of any way of setting the film speed, or of any window to illuminate the meter needle in the viewfinder (and even with one it would be very hard to incorporate the meter display in the zooming finder). But there is a lug on the shutter speed knob for an external meter. Yes I am aware of this. But from what little I could find on it, Nikon says that the camera was to be made with TTL. Perhaps these prototypes do not have it. The window in front is quite big and the eyepiece is much enlarged too, so I don't know if we can assume it will have a dim view. Nikon was trying to compete with the M and already was behind in brightness, so I question if going dimmer would have been acceptable to them. The result of Nikon and Canon dropping out of RFs and the fact that most photographers moved to SLRs, is that Leica had very little incentive to consider alternatives to the design and still doesn't. After all, they are the only game in town. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted April 14, 2011 Share #74 Posted April 14, 2011 Maybe it's possible to make a rangefinder with two side by side sensors instead of prisms... Could be made where the sensors can be moved for closer up photography. Still a true rangefinder where images from each sensor are merged. There are possibilities whether the technology is there now or in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted April 14, 2011 Share #75 Posted April 14, 2011 I think it was quite a long time ago when most Linhof Technika users stopped using the rangefinder and began using only ground glass focusing. It probably is mostly landscape and architectural shooters who use these cameras now and they won't have any reason to want to use rangefinder focusing. Well, I really enjoy shooting a rangefinder 4x5 handheld, but not always.I built a little 4x5 P&S, too. But perhaps I am just too unconventional. See my idea of hearing aids here. (deaf and dim) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted April 15, 2011 Share #76 Posted April 15, 2011 The result of Nikon and Canon dropping out of RFs and the fact that most photographers moved to SLRs, is that Leica had very little incentive to consider alternatives to the design and still doesn't. After all, they are the only game in town. AlanG Something strange are you considering Konica and Cosina are non players, e.g. RD/1 Bessas and ZM. The Leica range finder is ok for accuracy and excellent for feedback, you need to better the system or make it cheaper, Leitz tried that (the latter) for the M6... I'm not sayig it is impossible for you to do but it is the feedback that is difficult... Noel P.S. The M2 and later rfdrs are cheaper M3s forgot that... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyril Jayant Posted June 3, 2011 Share #77 Posted June 3, 2011 M8 (which I do not see as a reinvention of the M camera at all). Remove the rangefinder and you no longer have an M camera so I don't believe that you could class a camera without a rangefinder as an M camera. No doubt we will see all sorts of technical innovations We've been over innumerable suggested modifications and alterations to the Leica M on the forum. What is it about the M's simplistic approach to image creation which is so difficult to accept I wonder? .............. I think , I don't have much expericece like you guys!!!! ...just about 15years ago I bought my first M6 and never came back seriously to the other SLRS. Although I have several different systems. But I am finding more problems mastering my M8 about a Year and how to do focusing correctly. I am confused if my Three Cron lenses need adjustments, or to know the basic to get the senser /lens focus issus /and the crop-factor and the finder relationsship work with the Leica's own philosophy around how they invent some thing without being in the field or in the boots of the photographers. Above stement dosen't help anyone in this matter but only a defencive talk about been a Leicasts. Or somewhere someone talk about << LEICA FISTAST (no such word exist) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 3, 2011 Share #78 Posted June 3, 2011 ...But I am finding more problems mastering my M8 about a Year and how to do focusing correctly. I am confused if my Three Cron lenses need adjustments, or to know the basic to get the senser /lens focus issus /and the crop-factor and the finder relationsship... You know the basic already if you've been using an M6 for years. There is nothing significantly different with the M8. What you need is probably a mere rangefinder adjustment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted June 3, 2011 Share #79 Posted June 3, 2011 Hello Cyril, This is a long thread so these thoughts might have been suggested before & I may have missed them: Do you still have your M6 & does it focus OK w/ the same lenses? Did you ever take your M8 to Leica in London & ask them if it is correctly aligned? Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.