kdriceman Posted February 26, 2015 Share #61 Posted February 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not sure why everyone thinks this is such an insurmountable technical task. I see startups every week that develop hardware/software integration challenges more difficult than this. They are apparently using an off the shelf sensor and perhaps a second sensor to emulate a rangefinder. A lot of developers out there can create the algorithms, firmware and software. I don't see the hardware and software integration as a huge challenge. Image quality in using M lenses with an off the shelf sensor could be problematic, but probably not so much with 35mm and longer lenses. In the end, if successful, it could be produced for a much lower cost than a mechanical rangefinder. However, the big problem, as I see it, is a limited, difficult to define, quirky and probably fickle market for an non-Leica M mount digital rangefinder, which means securing development funding will be a big challenge for Konost. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 Hi kdriceman, Take a look here Konost {merged}. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
nickdando Posted February 27, 2015 Share #62 Posted February 27, 2015 Some more on the Konost rangefinder. Konost wants to release a full frame digital rangefinder Nick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 27, 2015 Share #63 Posted February 27, 2015 Thanks. These mockup photographs show that this camera is utterly impossible. The lens would focus somewhere in thin air behind it... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted February 27, 2015 Share #64 Posted February 27, 2015 Thanks. These mockup photographs show that this camera is utterly impossible. The lens would focus somewhere in thin air behind it... ......maybe they are using a virtual sensor Wilson 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted February 27, 2015 Share #65 Posted February 27, 2015 There's no word on pricing for the cameras yet other than "competitive in the market," Well "competitive in the market," for this surely means competitive to another low production, low spec, no ones yet bought one camera? Thats A LOT of money. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 27, 2015 Share #66 Posted February 27, 2015 The lens would focus somewhere in thin air behind it... The design isn‘t finalised, or so they say. Obviously the finished camera would have to gain considerably more depth. But then, what are the prospects of that team ever building a finished product if they showcase a mock-up with an impossible form-factor? Do they really know what they are doing? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted February 27, 2015 Share #67 Posted February 27, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) There's no word on pricing for the cameras yet other than "competitive in the market," Well "competitive in the market," for this surely means competitive to another low production, low spec, no ones yet bought one camera? Thats A LOT of money. "Competitive in the market" is simply a placeholder comment while they gather market information. But, given the fact that the only other digital rangefinder camera in the market also has a limited feature set and sells for $7,000, it won't be hard to price this "competitive in the market". My guess is that this entire announcement and press event is a way to stimulate interest for funding purposes. You can bet that they go back to their backers and potential investors with a bundle of positive feedback after this. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 27, 2015 Share #68 Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Thanks. These mockup photographs show that this camera is utterly impossible. The lens would focus somewhere in thin air behind it... That's an easy fix. I'm thinking Argus C3. Edited February 27, 2015 by pico 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 27, 2015 Share #69 Posted February 27, 2015 Digital Rangefinder? The Selden Patent comes to mind. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rona!d Posted February 28, 2015 Share #70 Posted February 28, 2015 It might become pretty expensive for Leica if Konost get´s aware of the design copy "Leica T" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 28, 2015 Share #71 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) "Rather than using a traditional rangefinder mechanism, the camera instead features a secondary image sensor, the round window next to the lens. The image this produces is calibrated to the lens position and then electronically displayed as the rangefinder focus patch in the optical viewfinder... This approach cuts manufacturing and maintenance costs" This statement makes lot of perplexity to arise, for me... a 2nd sensor (ok.. surely "phone-camera size") and it MUST make an image at least decent (so a phone camera lens in front, ok, fixed focus, simple/cheap... but anyway a processor unit for it)... then some fine mechanics MUST be made anyway (the 2nd sensor image must MOVE on the main RF window) ; clearly they don't give other details... maybe the RF system is waiting for patenting... but I am not so sure that the final manufacturing costs will be SO cut in comparision with a traditional RF (which, ,at least, has not basic R&D cost to amortize, given its LONG history behind...) Let's forget for a moment the nicety of the Leica RF and their by-definition HIGH costs... CosinaVoigt with their Bessas (and even before, Russians with their Zorkys/Feds) have proved that decent RF mechanism can be built at acceptable costs... I am not so sure that the (smart at it can be) Konost system would be definitely cheaper... of course, can be "competitive" with Leica prices, but that's another matter... I wonder... (just to follow their dreams... ) if based on this idea of the "optodigital" RF thay could jump to the "Zooming RF".... put a phone camera zoom lens in front of the 2nd sensor, make a zooming OVF, couple the mechanisms... Edited February 28, 2015 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted February 28, 2015 Share #72 Posted February 28, 2015 the 2nd sensor image must MOVE on the main RF window Not necessary. This second sensor has to be wide, but not high. The interpretation of its output could be done electronically by the main processor. A part of its digital picture moves in the rangefinder window. More interesting would have been an EVF with rangefinder, instead of an OVF. Jan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 28, 2015 Share #73 Posted February 28, 2015 ...More interesting would have been an EVF with rangefinder, instead of an OVF.Jan Well... an EVF with a RF window ..at the end it would result in a sort of focus peaking function obtained in a different way... ... focus peaking imho is a technology that has lot of possible improvements in the near future, and is surely heavily developed from the current manufacturers... starting from zero with a different approach is very risky... I have the feel that Konost staff has decided to stick on the idea that OVF has a visual feel that is unique of it, trying to build something new on this assumption. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 28, 2015 Share #74 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) This statement makes lot of perplexity to arise, for me... a 2nd sensor (ok.. surely "phone-camera size") and it MUST make an image at least decent (so a phone camera lens in front, ok, fixed focus, simple/cheap... but anyway a processor unit for it)... then some fine mechanics MUST be made anyway (the 2nd sensor image must MOVE on the main RF window) This could be a fairly simple camera unit with a long and fixed focal length. As you suggest the focus may be fixed; a contrast-based AF would also be a possibility although it could be a bit awkward if the AF of the secondary camera unit was hunting for optimum focus while you were trying to align the optical with the digital image. Suitable camera modules are available off the shelf. Shifting the digital rangefinder patch would probably be achieved digitally – no moving parts required. They still need to measure the focus position of the lens, though. This might also require occasional recalibration but it could be a DIY affair I suppose. So in principle this could work, but there are a couple of obstacles to be overcome and so far there is nothing to suggest that the Konost team have a real handle on this. The prototype doesn‘t sport a viewfinder of any kind and what little they say about the proposed digital RF doesn’t inspire any confidence in me. Edited February 28, 2015 by mjh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted February 28, 2015 Share #75 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Well... an EVF with a RF window ..at the end it would result in a sort of focus peaking function obtained in a different way... ... focus peaking imho is a technology that has lot of possible improvements in the near future, and is surely heavily developed from the current manufacturers... starting from zero with a different approach is very risky... I have the feel that Konost staff has decided to stick on the idea that OVF has a visual feel that is unique of it, trying to build something new on this assumption. Hello Luigi No focus peeking. The two windows would stay. A rangefinder integrated in an EVIL camera. Only a company like Apple could produce such a combination: enlarging and reducing the RF view in the EVF depending on the focal length. Personally I don´t feel the uniqueness of an OVF any more. The introduction of the M3 was a milestone in comparison to the IIIf. But the life-size sight for the 50mm focal length was left already with the M4 (?). And the spectacles used for some focal lengths (35, 90, 135) were not very practicable. OK, with an EVF one has to switch on the camera to see something in the view finder. As with the Konost. The other advantage of the OVF is, that one sees somewhat around the future picture. Perhaps that is the reason, why I often crop my pictures. Jan Edited February 28, 2015 by jan_kappetijn addition Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 28, 2015 Share #76 Posted February 28, 2015 ...Shifting the digital rangefinder patch would probably be achieved digitally – no moving parts required. They still need to measure the focus position of the lens, though.... that's the question for I thought that somewhere, something of precision mechanics must be anyway present... expecially for they declare squarely that there is a M mount... with its historical limits on transmitting infos to electronics in general... the RF cam is all you have... . I wonder if, to achieve this "electronic RF patch" wouldn't it be simpler to have an electronic-only shutter (no curtains except for protection when camera is off), catching the small RF image from the central part of the sensor (managing electronically the focal-dependency) and use it to create and manage the RF image in the OVF... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 28, 2015 Share #77 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) I wonder if, to achieve this "electronic RF patch" wouldn't it be simpler to have an electronic-only shutter (no curtains except for protection when camera is off), catching the small RF image from the central part of the sensor (managing electronically the focal-dependency) and use it to create and manage the RF image in the OVF... In theory they could but then the base length – and thus focusing accuracy – would be severely compromised. At least with a body design looking anything like the mock-up they are showing. If the mount was moved a couple of centimetres to the right this might work, but then the increased parallax between viewfinder and lens would create issues of its own. Everything considered I don't think this would be practical. The camara-in-camera approach is pretty much a prerequisite for a hybrid optical/electronical rangefinder like the one envisaged for the Konost camera. Edited February 28, 2015 by mjh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted February 28, 2015 Share #78 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) http://www.betopcom.com/public/images/products//20131126175943.1.pdf?PHPSESSID=mse97nirl5c7lclml2rhfkvgs4 Another forum member passed a link to the full data sheet for the off-the-shelf CMOSIS sensor being used for the camera. 12-bit A/D onboard the chip, "typical CMOS" light fall-off with illumination angle, and states that an IR absorbing filter must be used in the optical path. Note the development version shown on the Konost website has an IR cut filter on the lens. The sensor would have to be supplied with an IR absorbing cover glass, and offset microlenses to accommodate the M-Mount. As per the data sheets, the CMOSIS sensor is down >1 stop at 40degree illumination angle compared with the M9 sensor. 12-Bits per pixel - that is considered Entry-Level DSLR, ~$400. It looks like they are taking the off-the-shelf sensor with evaluation board and building a camera body around it. I can't take this camera seriously given the lack of discussion regarding the sensor selected for use with an M-Mount. I think the engineering students have underestimated the task. Edited February 28, 2015 by Lenshacker 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted March 1, 2015 Share #79 Posted March 1, 2015 Thanks. Two points of interest, first overview. The sensor offers 5120 x 3840 pixels. A 4:3 relation, not 3:2. It features an HDR mode. There are two steps of comprising, giving three slopes of sensitivity. Jan 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 1, 2015 Share #80 Posted March 1, 2015 More interesting would have been an EVF with rangefinder, instead of an OVF. Unless they're planning to sell an accessory EVF as well. Failing which, telephoto lenses could be hard to focus above 135mm due to the baselength of the rangefinder looking similar to that of Leica Ms. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.