First "true" digital rangefinder camera

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:05:10 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Eric Stevens:
For my part, I would love my SLR to have available some
variation of an old-fashioned split-image ground glass for
precision manual focussing.

nospam:
what for, when live view is *far* more accurate and *far* more
flexible??

Eric Stevens:
Either you have never used such a screen or you are joking.

wrong on both.

manual focus with live view is so much better it's not even funny.
there's *no* going back.

On a SLR, using live view for focusing is a very cumbersome process, where
you have to remove the camera from your eye, press a live view button, then
use the magnifying button to zoom in on the live view, all the while holding a
heavy camera with maybe a heavy lens almost at arms length.

he wants to use it for 'precision manual focusing' which means on a
tripod, otherwise there can be no precision.

usually this is done with macro shots, and live view is *perfect* for
that, especially with an external display.

nobody is suggesting live view for handheld shots (although it can work
in some cases).

It is possible on the Nikon D750. Push the 'Lv' button and it goes
into Live View mode with the image on the rear screen. Push the
shutter release button and, after an old fashionedly long period of
focussing it takes the photograph. It then comes back to Live View.

I haven't tried it yet but I plan to use it with the adjustable rear
screen so that the camera can be use for street photography as though
it were a waist-level view finder.

The only time I use live view for focusing is when I record video using a
tripod (in the studio). Otherwise, I always use the optical viewfinder and
the focus indicator. A focusing screen would be quite helpful at times.

waste of time.

plus, if the camera has a tilt/swivel display and/or the ability to
use an external display, it's even *more* powerful. macro work does
not often offer comfortable vantage points and not being restricted
to the viewfinder is fantastic.

Sure, there are places where the live view is awesome, but for most shots -
at least for me - it isn't.

Now, the EVF in my Sony A7 is pretty awesome in this regard, since it also
has focus peaking, which is really accurate. And the EVF is currently one of
the best ones, even though I still prefer a OVF.

focus peaking is yet another advantage.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:05:03 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

For my part, I would love my SLR to have available some variation of
an old-fashioned split-image ground glass for precision manual
focussing.

what for, when live view is *far* more accurate and *far* more
flexible??

Either you have never used such a screen or you are joking.

wrong on both.

manual focus with live view is so much better it's not even funny.
there's *no* going back.

Not so. It hasn't got the acuity.

nonsense. it has far, far more acuity than ground glass ever could,
especially with a hidpi display and because it can be zoomed. it's no
contest. it's in another league entirely.

I had that 12 years ago in the old Sony F707 and I didn't like it. You
could either see the whole frame or you could see whether or not it
was in focus. You couldn't do both at the same time.

plus, if the camera has a tilt/swivel display and/or the ability to use
an external display, it's even *more* powerful. macro work does not
often offer comfortable vantage points and not being restricted to the
viewfinder is fantastic.

not only that, but because it's focusing off the actual sensor that
will be taking the photo, there will *never* be alignment issues. ever.

But a suitable ground glass screen will tell you more about whether
things are in focus or not than any rear display will show.

nonsense. you can zoom in to where one pixel on the sensor is one pixel
on the display.

See above.

nevertheless, there are such screens available for some slrs.
unfortunately, there are significant drawbacks with modern lenses.

Not for the D750 I understand.

d1, d2h/hs/xs and d3 could:
https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9288#D3

Not to mention http://www.focusingscreen.com/work/d800en.htm and
several others.

well there you go. however, it's a complete waste of time and money.

That's why people buy them.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-02-26 18:48:01 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article ,
Sandman says...

Konost is going to release a full frame digital rangefinder camera in 2016

http://konost.com/?page_id=6654

Dubbing it the "The World?s First True Digital Rangefinder", which
seems to be in
relation to the rangefinder is also a digital sensor.

It looks a bit neat, and will take Leica lenses, so.. your move, Leica?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xCskVNOZQ

Wha can't they add autofocus? Either contrast based or on-sensor phase
AF.

Rangefinder is a thing of the past, when autofocus wasn't possible in a
non-SLR camera.

It's pretty clear that in order to add autofocus, they'd have to use
some solution such as that which the Contax AX used. Move the sensor
in the body.

I still occasionally use my Epson R-D1 even now. It is a great camera
and the battery seems to outlast the other digital cameras that I own.
It's also an *actual* rangefinder and it's *actually* digital.

This new fangled thing is not interesting to me.

nospam wrote:

aperture rings are either 1 stop clicks or 1/2 stop clicks, depending
on the lens. there's also a small amount of mechanical play.

control wheels are 1/3 stop (or optionally 1/2 stop), but it actually
can be anything. for instance, if you have the camera in shutter
priority and if f/5.3978 or f/8.222 is what's needed, that's what you
get, just as you would get 1/297th or 1/108th second if you have the
camera pick the shutter speed.

1/2 or 1/3 stop increments were of actual use with transparency film,
but for digital photography exposure increments of less than a stop
should be as pointless as they were for negative film.

Peter.
--

On 2015-02-26 22:33:02 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:48:01 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article ,
Sandman says...

Konost is going to release a full frame digital rangefinder camera in 2016

http://konost.com/?page_id=6654

Dubbing it the "The World?s First True Digital Rangefinder", which
seems to be in
relation to the rangefinder is also a digital sensor.

It looks a bit neat, and will take Leica lenses, so.. your move, Leica?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xCskVNOZQ

Wha can't they add autofocus? Either contrast based or on-sensor phase
AF.

Rangefinder is a thing of the past, when autofocus wasn't possible in a
non-SLR camera.

For my part, I would love my SLR to have available some variation of
an old-fashioned split-image ground glass for precision manual
focussing.

There are several different aftermarket screen makers who provide
screens for a great variety of cameras. I had my old 10D fitted with a
split-image screen in about 2004 or so.

On 2015-02-26 22:29:38 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On 26 Feb 2015 16:02:41 GMT, Whiskers
wrote:

On 2015-02-26, Sandman wrote:
Konost is going to release a full frame digital rangefinder camera in
2016

http://konost.com/?page_id=6654

Dubbing it the "The World?s First True Digital Rangefinder", which
seems to be in relation to the rangefinder is also a digital sensor.

It looks a bit neat, and will take Leica lenses, so.. your move,
Leica?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xCskVNOZQ

Certainly interesting. Any camera that returns the controls to the
fundamental basics is to be encouraged.

Not clear whether or not there is a mechanical link between the camera's
focusing electronics and the focusing mechanism of the lens; if there
is, then the cost of making and calibrating the system may not be
significantly less than Leica's wholly optical/mechanical rangefinder.
If the connection is electronic, then lens interchangeability with
existing rangefinder lenses will be limited.

The problem with traditional range finder cameras was that they did
not change the field of view in the eye piece with a change of lens.
This gave rise to attachments such as
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Leica_IIIf_50mm_f1.5.jpg
Taking a photograph with anything but a standard 50mm lense became
that much more complicated as a result. I would hope a modern camera
could automatically make the necessary compensation electronically
through the view finder.


The immediate competition for this project may be the likes of the
Fujifilm X100T rather than the Leica M series.

I have a couple screw on adapters for my Epson R-D1 that provide this
functionality.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

For my part, I would love my SLR to have available some variation of
an old-fashioned split-image ground glass for precision manual
focussing.

what for, when live view is *far* more accurate and *far* more
flexible??

Either you have never used such a screen or you are joking.

wrong on both.

manual focus with live view is so much better it's not even funny.
there's *no* going back.

Not so. It hasn't got the acuity.

nonsense. it has far, far more acuity than ground glass ever could,
especially with a hidpi display and because it can be zoomed. it's no
contest. it's in another league entirely.

I had that 12 years ago in the old Sony F707 and I didn't like it. You
could either see the whole frame or you could see whether or not it
was in focus. You couldn't do both at the same time.

a lot has changed since then.

In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:

aperture rings are either 1 stop clicks or 1/2 stop clicks, depending
on the lens. there's also a small amount of mechanical play.

control wheels are 1/3 stop (or optionally 1/2 stop), but it actually
can be anything. for instance, if you have the camera in shutter
priority and if f/5.3978 or f/8.222 is what's needed, that's what you
get, just as you would get 1/297th or 1/108th second if you have the
camera pick the shutter speed.

1/2 or 1/3 stop increments were of actual use with transparency film,
but for digital photography exposure increments of less than a stop
should be as pointless as they were for negative film.

nope.

nospam wrote:
In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:

1/2 or 1/3 stop increments were of actual use with transparency film,
but for digital photography exposure increments of less than a stop
should be as pointless as they were for negative film.

nope.

Why?

It doesn't seem to me to make any sense that if you have more
than 10 stops to work with that a half stop exposure should make
a meaningful difference.

Peter.

In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:

1/2 or 1/3 stop increments were of actual use with transparency film,
but for digital photography exposure increments of less than a stop
should be as pointless as they were for negative film.

nope.

Why?

It doesn't seem to me to make any sense that if you have more
than 10 stops to work with that a half stop exposure should make
a meaningful difference.

while it's true that digital has more dynamic range than film, still, a
difference of 1/3 stop is noticeable.