Like dinousaurs, will rangefinders die out?

[Hookeye]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As all M8 users know, digital rangefinders offer advantages over digital SLRs in their compactness and unobtrusiveness. They may also be optically superior in wide-angle photography, where the mirror in SLRs limit how close the lens elements can come to the sensor. As they do not need to flip aside a mirror before opening the shutter, rangefinders are also quieter and quicker in terms of trigger-to-capture response time.

 

But it is likely only a question of time before SLR’s no longer need a mirror. In stead the viewfinder will be an ultra-high resolution LCD-type screen which displays the image captured by the sensor in real-time. Check out this link: http://www.digit.no/wip4/slr_cameras_without_mirror/d.epl?id=135245

 

Admittedly, it may take some years before suitable LCD screens are developed. But when it can, then surely all the advantages of a digital rangefinder dissappear like mist in the morning sun? And who on earth would then want to live with the shortcomings of a rangefinder camera, so well docmented in this forum; cost, need of readjustments and factory-repair, fragility, backfocusing, parallax and frame-to-image inconsistencies?

 

I am a keen user of rangefinders myself (M6, M8), but can sense the writing on the wall is emerging: Digital rangefinders will go down in history as a short lived curiosity.

 

Anybody else have any thoughts on this subject?

[joachimeh]

As all M8 users know, digital rangefinders offer advantages over digital SLRs in their compactness and unobtrusiveness. They may also be optically superior in wide-angle photography, where the mirror in SLRs limit how close the lens elements can come to the sensor. As they do not need to flip aside a mirror before opening the shutter, rangefinders are also quieter and quicker in terms of trigger-to-capture response time.

 

But it is likely only a question of time before SLR’s no longer need a mirror. In stead the viewfinder will be an ultra-high resolution LCD-type screen which displays the image captured by the sensor in real-time. Check out this link: http://www.digit.no/wip4/slr_cameras_without_mirror/d.epl?id=135245

 

Admittedly, it may take some years before suitable LCD screens are developed. But when it can, then surely all the advantages of a digital rangefinder dissappear like mist in the morning sun? And who on earth would then want to live with the shortcomings of a rangefinder camera, so well docmented in this forum; cost, need of readjustments and factory-repair, fragility, backfocusing, parallax and frame-to-image inconsistencies?

 

I am a keen user of rangefinders myself (M6, M8), but can sense the writing on the wall is emerging: Digital rangefinders will go down in history as a short lived curiosity.

 

Anybody else have any thoughts on this subject?

 

Well, the VLux 1 has already an EVF. Good stuff, especially its electronic magnifier when manually focussing. However it's still a long way to go to become a professional standard. It needs improvement in resolution and noise reduction at lower light.

[Laki]

I am a keen user of rangefinders myself (M6, M8), but can sense the writing on the wall is emerging: Digital rangefinders will go down in history as a short lived curiosity.

 

Anybody else have any thoughts on this subject?

 

hm, according to your logic rangefinders wouldnt exist long time already, because of the slr's. but as we all can see they are still alive, maybe even more than in the past 3 years.

 

as long as companies like leica will exist i guess rangefinders will develop but will still be here (at least i hope so). what else should they do with all that lenses? or would m-lenses fit a dslr body? i'm technically not skilled enough too judge that.

[sean_reid]

An LCD screen is very different from a rangefinder. No other type of camera offers quite the same way of viewing the subject...and the way in which one sees the subject can be very important to serious photographers. No, rangefinders will not die out. In fact, there's a bit of growth in the RF market that has come with the R-D1 and M8.

[GarethC]

What Sean said.

 

The other thing to bear in mind is that while many view manual focus as an encumbrance some (myself included) view it as liberating and an asset.

 

The M8 has been quite an eye opener for me (literally) in terms of the method of viewing the subject, both putting the subject in context as well as using focus more thoughtfully.

[Bill W]

If rangefinders die out, it will not be in our life time. This is based on the number of people that follow this and other forums related to them. Film versions may suffer some as it becomes harder to get processing done efficiently depending on where you live. The M8 has given them a re-birth of sorts. Have you tried to buy that new favorite lens lately, even a non-Leica model?

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't see how viewing the world through an EVF could ever compare to viewing directly in terms of clarity, immediacy and colour. Granted, the Digilux 2 is an old camera now but its EVF is an abomination.

 

The problem with the RF viewfinder is the accuracy of the framelines and the knock-on-wood focussing method, "the images are aligned in the viewfinder, I sure hope it's in focus".

 

Before the M8 was launched and we still called it the Digital M, I was hoping for something radical, a variable magnification finder with accurate framelines projected into the finder based on the lens mounted. I also hoped for the sort of eye comfort we see in the Frankenfinder. It wasn't to be, Leica played safe and the development budget stretched only so far.

 

Unfortunately, the slaveish adherence to supporting things like goggled lenses and the Visoflex constrained their room for manoeuvre, quite irrespective of that budget.

 

My hope is that when the M9 is in the frame, they will do something radical to update the rangefinder concept to address its inherent problems. If they don't, it might very well die.

[larry]

Looking at an electronic version of reality (LCD screen) rather than seeing the actual scene through a viewfinder window hardly seems to be an advantage. If you've used an SLR-style point-and-shoot, you'll know how disorienting an LCD viewfinder can be. Just because a device employs so-called advanced technology doesn't make it better, more desirable or easier to use. I think I'll stick with simplicity.

 

Larry

[jaapv]

Dinosaurs are still around - birds Rf will stay as long as there are folks using them - and that is a long time.

[Guest]

Hello

I used to have an SLR about 40 years ago which did not have a moving mirror.It was made by Canon and called the Pelix.The problem was the loss of one stop on maximum lens speed due to light having to pass through the mirror.The camera did not sell well and I finished up with a Canon 7.

[Kent10D]

My two cents -- I seriously doubt it.

 

A rangefinder is more than just a means to frame your subject and focus, it defines an entire approach to photography that should remain valid. It may not be photography for the masses, but it is a choice that a significant number of photographers make for a variety of reasons. In short, as long as there are photographers who want to shoot with a rangefinder, there will be rangefinder cameras.

 

Count me in.

[Guest sirvine]

LCD's require complex electronics to operate properly. They have a lifespan, too. No match for an optical rangefinder in the long run.

[AlanG]

I am a keen user of range finders myself (M6, M8), but can sense the writing on the wall is emerging: Digital range finders will go down in history as a short lived curiosity.

 

Anybody else have any thoughts on this subject?

 

I have a Konica Minolta A2 which has a 1 mega pixel EVF, so that is pretty high resolution. There are still many things about that type of viewfinder that are deficient compared with an optical or SLR viewfinder. Although there are numerous advantages too.

 

What is your time frame? Considering all of the advances in digital photography and AF in recent years, it is really only a matter of time.

 

Look at the quality one can get with a tiny pocket size camera today. Don't you think that in ten years we'll have similar size cameras that shoot and focus much better than an M8 does? (Regardless of whether it has an optical viewfinder or an EVF.) And they'll have many other interesting and useful features too - hi def video, sound recording, extreme low light capability, digital lens and image optimization, and who knows what else?

 

Ten years is a pretty long time when it comes to technology.

 

I can't see the current mechanical range finder being very popular in ten years but maybe some kind of electronic variation will work well. I'd like to see a good zooming optical finder with a high quality AF system that can lock on to a subject and follow focus accurately. If it gives good focus feedback through the viewfinder it will be far superior to the one in the M8. An added benefit is that it will be possible for it to compensate for any focusing peculiarities of each lens. (e.g. focus change when stopping down.) All of this will really just be a matter of demand not technology.

 

If you go out 20 to 50 years, I can't even imagine.

[Philinflash]

I'm a dinosaur, so what's the problem?

[Jlondon53]

As long as there are still usable M lenses out there, there will be a rangefinder camera (or desire for one) out there to accomodate them. The only way the rangefinder will die is if they come up with a new kind of interchangeable M lens camera. My personal wish would be for a live view LCD on an M camera with or w/out rangefinder but that's beside the point (I can just see all the Leicaphile purists clutching their chests over that one).

I agree with another in this thread that if SLR was going to kill the rangefinder, it would already have done so. Actually, I've been quite shocked (but happy) about the response to the M8. I knew it would be a 'must-have' for existing Leica M camera owners, but I never expected the newly resurrected 'lure' the M8 has had with the newbies to rangefinder photography. While my lenses have appreciated in value, people who know practically nothing about them are bending over backwards to purchase 2 and 3 bodies and an arsenal of lenses. Granted it was a mistake (trend) for some - but for the others, it is a new shooting style that they will never be able to completely let go of.

It took me 4-5 months to get my M8 for Pete's sake. I'm glad I already had my lenses. People are laying down thousands of dollars for lenses that after months they still haven't recieved and no definate date in sight. Rangefinder a dinasaur - "Ha - I don't think so".

[RSL]

"Hookeye;313482

 

But it is likely only a question of time before SLR’s no longer need a mirror."

 

 

The Olympus E-10 and E-20 had no mirror. Those two DSLRs substituted a prism, which caused a relatively small drop in effective ISO. At the time they were quite effective cameras. I have hundreds of good photographs from the E-20. Some are in local galleries.

 

But have you ever been in a situation where you couldn't depend on autofocus with your DSLR? For instance, say you're shooting something that's behind a chain-link fence and you know that autofocus will focus on the fence links instead of the subject. You want the chain links soft and the subject sharp. The problem you face is this: If you shoot at, say, f/8, the links will be relatively sharp and a slight error in focussing on the subject won't show. But if you shoot wide open, even though the links may be soft, the subject may be soft too because it's VERY difficult to focus a DSLR accurately when you're doing it manually.

 

Most of the time I use my rangefinder on the street at f/8 and hyperfocal distance, or some subset of that. The result usually is a little less accurate than the kind of spot-on autofocus I get with my D2X, but it's well within the satisfactory range. But when it comes time to focus accurately in a visually complicated situation, the rangefinder has no peer. Until someone comes up with a solution to that problem, the rangefinder -- digital or film -- will be king of the hill for many situations.

[Guest stnami]

.

. Why did I respond................. because me and me mate Mick love responding to dumb threads

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

./

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..............

 

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

This thread is like fishing in a bucket! The question is posed to a group that has recently spent thousands on a digital rangefinder, of course the overwhelming result will be that the rangefinder survives for a long time to come. "Blind Freddy" can see that..........Why

[Kent10D]

This thread is like fishing in a bucket!

 

Welcome to the bucket!

You have been officially ensnared.

 

Cheers,