View Full Version : New digital rangefinder
Hultstrom
07-19-2008, 02:06
Sorry guys and girls, it is not a real camera or any kind of heads up. It is what I did this morning because it is Saturday, it is raining and I should get to work.
It is the new and improved digital rangefinder camera as I would like it. Obviously it is full frame, I don't know how they solved it, but they did. It works as good as film for those wide angles.
It has got a manual shutter lever, but has a live view function where you could reasonably take lots of pictures in a row, quickly, and completely noiselessly (it is a word, possibly mine though).
I have attached a novel artwork so you can share my vision (it is novel because that is what the copyright law says about re-using elements from others copyrighted works).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2681292571_1bc5c0f572_o_d.jpg
And yes, I put a summilux on there. It is among the things I would like to have on my rangefinder of the future.
So that's what I would like to see. What would you like to see on the new and improved rangefinder of the future?
Yours,
Michael
Looks good, but the battery/frame lcd is behind the shutter finger, so that should be replaced on the left side imo.
Hopefully you have just scooped the M9! :p
A nice game Michael. Ok - lets play on this rainy day.
I would prefer a modular design of a digital rangefinder where the screen (or some kind of electronic viewfinder) is only an option.
So my basic digital rangefinder should be like my Leica M6. Perhaps some kind of signals for last five pictures and battery low.
No buttons, displays and other "enhancements".
Regards, Axel
sweathog
07-19-2008, 02:53
To some degree I agree with Axel.
That screen is far too big. What do you need it for? Setting up your 'film' parameters? Then we don't need it so large. Reviewing shots? That's what the PC is for. Any other reason? No.
I would HATE manual cocking. It would actually be a no-no for me. It would make shooting with the Visoflex, especially with long lenses unnecessarily complicated. I always used my film cameras with a winder with long lenses. And I agree, the big LCD is unneccesary. Better one that reverses to disappear. And I see no need for "live View" Who would hold an M camera at arms length?
sojournerphoto
07-19-2008, 02:58
An Ikon with a full frame sensor - ideally the sony 25mp or the canon 1Ds3 sensor (some hope!!) would be good. Obviously the issues with wides solved. No motor drive. An lcd would be useful to view an rgb histogram based on the (non-white balanced) raw data. Raw only will be fine for me. If the shutter can be made to go to 1/8000th without being noisier that would be a nice to have, but not required.
sojournerphoto
07-19-2008, 02:59
Looks like the theme is full frame with a 1Ds3 sensor - Canon are you listening?
I would HATE manual cocking. It would actually be a no-no for me. It would make shooting with the Visoflex, especially with long lenses unnecessarily complicated. I always used my filmcameras with a winder with long lenses. And I agree, the big LCD is unneccesary. Better one that reverses to disappear.
I totally agree with that ... manual cocking would be a big step backwards IMO.
Auto focus .... nahh not yet. My eyes are reasonable still at this stage but if they could make the finder as big and bright as my Ikon ... that would be nice! :)
As for full frame ... if they could give the camera high ISO performance to match the new Nikon SLR's I could live with the crop factor!
sojournerphoto
07-19-2008, 03:05
I totally agree with that ... manual cocking would be a big step backwards IMO.
Auto focus .... nahh not yet. My eyes are reasonable still at this stage but if they could make the finder as big and bright as my Ikon ... that would be nice! :)
As for full frame ... if they could give the camera high ISO performance to match the new Nikon SLR's I could live with the crop factor!
I don't know how high iso you want to go, but the current Canon's are actually better than the internet chatter would have you believe. Have a look at the B&W conversion tools thread - there is an iso3200 image in there from a 1Ds3. 21Mp is to me preferable to 12 and slightly lower per pixel noise.
Hultstrom
07-19-2008, 04:46
Hello,
I enjoy seeing so many answers. I did make some controversial additions.
I did consider that the frames/battery dial is behind the trigger finger, but put it where it usually is on the classic models. It is not something I look at often, while the exposure/WB is something I work with more closely and want as clean as possible. Observe that it is not an LCD, it is a physical dial, or rather two.
I knew the large screen would get its ears flogged, let's say it is an option. Personally I like it because I review quite a lot, especially with flash. I wouldn't want it flippable, while it may look good it is obviously a weak point, and I am always a bit scared for the screen on my R-D1.
Live view, is ofcourse another controversial idea. As I see it, it is something easily implemented on the software level, and to make the camera without would just be silly. I do not want it for shooting at arms length as if it was a point and shoot. I want it for macro and for ultra wide, in essence creating a miniature view camera. I find I often shoot nature/landscape shots that way, but now I have to review afterwards. A bonus is that with live view you just disable the shutter and you can thereby shoot with very high frame rates when that is called for. It should be possible to turn the screen off and just have continous capture. This would also make the camera very usable tethered in a studio or remote setup.
Now, finally, manual cocking. I knew you would hate it, some of you at least. After getting the R-D1 though, I think it is brilliant, it is more quiet, and it is quite fast enough. In addition you get the very restful thumb hook. If you for some reason need higher frame rates just turn on the continous capture =).
/M
... Now, finally, manual cocking.... I think it is brilliant, it is more quiet...
Yes - there are a lot of things that work better with manual cocking. In portraitsessions, for example, you sometimes get a rythm that helps to relax the model while taking the camera a bit down, cock and prepare the next shot.
Obviously manual cocking should be just an option to choose.
Live view and display or electronic viewfinder as option in a digital rangefinder can be useful in some situations where you are using exotic lenses (the short base allows to adapt nearly every lens in the world!) for framing an focusing and/or tripod-work.
Regards, Axel
dazedgonebye
07-19-2008, 07:26
I like the manual cocking.
The screen is too big, if for no other reason than the fact that it extends so far to the right that I'm afraid my hand will be all over it as I hold the camera.
I like the RD=1 screen idea. People who don't want to be tempted to chimp or who want to shoot as they did with film can turn it around and pretend it's not even there. It also remains protected that way.
tmfabian
07-19-2008, 08:27
Full frame 21mp sensor in an M8 body with autofocus. Keep the bright finder, keep the selectable frame lines, just drop the RF and make it autofocus.
Oh for the love of GOD NO. If it was autofocus there would be 0 chance of me buying that thing. I use these cameras BECAUSE they are manual focus, I HATE autofocus....not because of all the jib jab of nonsense that you're letting a computer decide focus....but because I work faster with the RF focusing than with AF.
tmfabian
07-19-2008, 08:29
I knew the large screen would get its ears flogged, let's say it is an option. Personally I like it because I review quite a lot, especially with flash. I wouldn't want it flippable, while it may look good it is obviously a weak point, and I am always a bit scared for the screen on my R-D1.
/M
I always thought just build in a little slide down protector, solves problem of it being visible as well as retaining durability.
35mmdelux
07-19-2008, 08:32
your hired!
tmfabian
07-19-2008, 08:33
hehe...i'm just having fun with this one BUT
no ttl flash I see...haha.
Hultstrom
07-19-2008, 08:41
tmfabian: Indeed, you are the first to notice, that's why I need to chimp. Congratulations, you have won the option to go and buy a green toaster.
/M
tmfabian
07-19-2008, 08:48
tmfabian: Indeed, you are the first to notice, that's why I need to chimp. Congratulations, you have won the option to go and buy a green toaster.
/M
hahaha...sweet
on a serious note though...anyone think that taking the ttl out would save space on the innards for something else? I mean the m6ttl and m7 are both that itty bitty bit bigger than the others. Perhaps you are on to something with that no ttl.
mariusnilsen
07-19-2008, 08:56
now thats beautiful!
i heard the retail price would be around 5000$, including a black paint noctilux!!
sign me up please.
JohnnyRangefinder
07-19-2008, 16:49
I have a bunch of these design studies as well... All full-frame...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnyrangefinder/sets/72157605853812452/
Mostly Nikon-inspired...
Here is a RF design...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/2683918286_8a3a2aa703_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2683918158_a616b516c9_b.jpg
And my personal favorite, a modern Nikon 35Ti...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2644410235_194b8d0ab8_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/2644410037_8064a941f1_o.jpg
Cheers,
S.G.
Looks like the theme is full frame with a 1Ds3 sensor - Canon are you listening?
I hope not - the 1Ds3 sensor would be a disaster on a rangefinder....
tmfabian
07-20-2008, 02:08
"Oh for the love of GOD NO. If it was autofocus there would be 0 chance of me buying that thing."
But it would be much more likely that enough other people would buy the camera for Leica to thrive and keep making cameras.
Well, they'd loose me and at least three other friends of mine...not that that's a huge number, but we all switched to leicas because they were manual focus RF. If they want to introduce a camera designed for the legally blind or what have you fine, but I certainly won't buy it, and everyone here on RFF would be seing a ton of equipment up for sale as I switch over to zeiss.
Leave AF for the DSLRS with the ginormous LCD screens that those users are soooo intent on using every chance they get.
Personally I'd like to see the m9 not have any rear LCD screen at all, just a screen to display WB, ISO, Battery life and what not. The manual cocking thing excites me, as does recessed buttons (tonight I was in a drunken stooper wandering around the city like a retard, and finally I discovered the much discussed random button pushing....and it is irritating.)
sojournerphoto
07-20-2008, 03:14
I hope not - the 1Ds3 sensor would be a disaster on a rangefinder....
Why? Assuming the issue of lens to sensor distance was solved...
I would prefer manual focus, but suspect that Leicasniper is right. RFs are a tad old fashioned and I certainly cannot focus as accurately and as quickly as my dslrs. In terms of where the foucs spots are the slrs also let me choose something nearer the edge of the fov. Still like using an old rf thought:)
Mike
Yup, I can still focus a camera manually. But why?...
There is certainly no competition between "manual focussers" and "AF-useres" ;)
I think its a question what to prefer and when. If I can live with the automatic decision of a camera there is no sense to do all settings myself and get the same picture.
When I dont want the camera to focus crude patterns in the background and/or change all values between the shots I do it the manual way.
Depends on many things. Sometimes its simply one own´s taste...
Regards, Axel
sojournerphoto
07-20-2008, 05:09
It's not a decision between allowing a "mindless" camera to make random decisions and my doing everything manually.
I also don't allow the camera to focus on patterns in the background. I have as much control over where my DSLR focuses as someone with an RF has over where it focuses. I guess this idea that autofocus cameras focus where they want to comes from people who've only used cheap P&S autofocus cameras.
Ultimately, it's a matter of preference. I'm all for anything, though, that allows me to concentrate on the photo. I'll let the camera take care of purely mechanical operations like changing shutter speed and turning the focus ring.
I completely agree. My dslr's focus where I want, and if I'm using a zf lens I have to do it for them, otherwise it's usually on auto, but not unthinking auto. Similar with exposure - usually aperture priority and thoughtfully managed via exposure compensation. If conditions are such that I want consistency shot to shot then I'll use manual, but with the camera's meter, not one in my pocket.
Incidentally, I just shot a roll of film in my Zorki and didn't use a meter. everything turned out OK, so clearly I'm not too far off:)
...
I also don't allow the camera to focus on patterns in the background...
To do so I had to control the camera´s decision. Some times a step to much.
I have as much control over where my DSLR focuses as someone with an RF has over where it focuses...
How can you realize this? I tried a lot but now I am mostly back to manual focusing.
I guess this idea that autofocus cameras focus where they want to comes from people who've only used cheap P&S autofocus cameras...
May be so. My main experiences rely on using my EOS-(D)SLRs.
Regards, Axel
mabelsound
07-20-2008, 06:05
Good AF is a wonderful thing, when stuff is happening in a hurry in front of you. Bad AF is far worse than having to manual focus...this is why I sold my Contax G system...I was never sure if I was getting the picture or not. (Usually I did--but the uncertainty was driving me bananas.)
There's no reason an RF camera could be designed to allow AF or manual, just like a DSLR. I recently got a Pentax DSLR, and it seems designed specifically for people who want AF but also want to use their old MF lenses. A digital RF designed with this philosophy in mind would be wonderful.
There isn't anything artistically superior about focussing manually. In most circumstances, I find it more fun, but that's it really. I think the art of it is 75% in the framing of the scene, and 15% in depth of field and how you expose.
The last 10% is in developing/printing or digital post-processing...
dazedgonebye
07-20-2008, 08:19
I add this to every thread, in vain hopes....
Digital Hexar AF
Ok, make the lenses interchangeable if you must.
I'm with Leicasniper on the AF thing. Even with the relatively unsophisticated AF system on the Hexar, I seldom miss my focus mark.
sevres_babylone
07-20-2008, 08:48
So I think the point is really moot. Leica's greatist triump, the M3, has become an albatross around it's corporate neck.
That's why DRF rumormongers, of which I am proudly one, look towards Nikon for redemption.
The fly in the af digital RF prospects is that current M and LTM lenses can't be autofocused...
Thats true. Comparsions with DSLR-autofocussystems are only theoretical because of the practical impossibility to place an autofocus-sensor in the short base of a rangefinderbody.
The only result today could be something like the contax G or one of the contrast-detection-AFs of digital compact cameras.
The last attempt to combine an APS-sized-sensor and contrast-AF was Sony´s DSC-R1. A (compared to rangefinders) heavy and bulky photomachine with a relative slow autofocus.
Same problems with the live-view-AFs in current DSLRs.
Regards, Axel
mabelsound
07-20-2008, 09:31
Thanks, that's very informative...
Why? Assuming the issue of lens to sensor distance was solved...
That is why.....
sojournerphoto
07-20-2008, 10:33
That is why.....
Fair enough, but that would appear to apply to any current full fframe sensor. One day, maye it will be achievable, but whether there's enough market I don't know. Hence the hope that someone will be able to adapt a major manufacturer's tech to doit
POINT OF VIEW
07-20-2008, 12:48
I saw your camera at the OC Fair this week. The problem is it is about the same size as the average DSLR. Bill
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3004/2685761243_e3fa90ca7a.jpg?v=0
POINT OF VIEW
07-20-2008, 13:40
Yup, I can still focus a camera manually. But why? Yes, there are situations where you need to focus manually. But not most of the time. It's just like aperture priority automation. I can set aperture and shutter speed manually. I've been using cameras for 40 years. But why not let the camera do the job of setting the shutter speed when it's going to set it the same place I would? Equally, I can focus manually. But for most photos, I focus using the RF and shoot when the RF says the image is in focus. Why turn that focusing ring manually when the camera can do it faster and more accurately?
( My ultimate goal is to get the photo, not reinforce my manhood to my friends.)
WOW, I never would have thought manual focus affected my manhood. One more good reason to stay with the M8. Bill
Please Leicasniper, if you want AF P&S, the Sigma DP is >>> that way. Most of the folks here wouldn't have signed up for this forum if they wanted no rangefinder or manual focus.
POINT OF VIEW
07-20-2008, 14:25
Please Leicasniper, if you want AF P&S, the Sigma DP is >>> that way. Most of the folks here wouldn't have signed up for this forum if they wanted no rangefinder or manual focus.
My sentiments exactly.
tmfabian
07-20-2008, 14:55
Please Leicasniper, if you want AF P&S, the Sigma DP is >>> that way. Most of the folks here wouldn't have signed up for this forum if they wanted no rangefinder or manual focus.
While I certainly don't agree with leicasniper on all things, this being one of them, he certainly has the right to voice his opinion here. And while I would absolutely HATE an AF leica M, it's not something that's unheard of in the rangefinder world and it is certainly something worth discussing since many people equate manual focus with nostalgia.
He is of course absolutely correct that todays AF mechanisms are quick, simple, and totally under the users control, so any other jibber jabber here about how AF lets the computer decide what to focus on need not be mentioned.
I of course prefer the manual focus mechanism that RF's provide, in particular Leicas....and it's not because it's better, or quicker, or easier under low light...but because I prefer the tactile quality of focusing manually, and for me that's what makes me ENJOY using these cameras over AF DSLRS.
POINT OF VIEW
07-20-2008, 15:18
While I certainly don't agree with leicasniper on all things, this being one of them, he certainly has the right to voice his opinion here. And while I would absolutely HATE an AF leica M, it's not something that's unheard of in the rangefinder world and it is certainly something worth discussing since many people equate manual focus with nostalgia.
He is of course absolutely correct that todays AF mechanisms are quick, simple, and totally under the users control, so any other jibber jabber here about how AF lets the computer decide what to focus on need not be mentioned.
I of course prefer the manual focus mechanism that RF's provide, in particular Leicas....and it's not because it's better, or quicker, or easier under low light...but because I prefer the tactile quality of focusing manually, and for me that's what makes me ENJOY using these cameras over AF DSLRS.
I find it strange that fat camera ( DSLR) people spend there time in a RF thread trying to convince me that I’m missing out on the wonderful world of Blasto 8000 technology. I’ve never visited a DLSR thread to postulate a RF. The Guy has rights, but his mantra is old and weird.
mabelsound
07-20-2008, 15:24
I have (and really like) a DP1, but, go figure, I almost exclusively use it as a scale focus camera.
Also, for you SLR's-are-huge people, there aren't many interchangeable-lens cameras smaller than my Pentax ME Super. SLR's are great cameras, and some of them are quite handy to use. The ME rockin' a 50/1.4 and the Bessa R4A with a 21mm is my usual film rig these days, and both fit comfortably in the Domke F803 with room for a compact umbrella AND a paperback book.
Anyway, I like Leicasniper's posts. They seem sensible to me. Nobody's suggesting RF's aren't great cameras--it's a given we all dig 'em.
tmfabian
07-20-2008, 15:31
While i was in the bathroom something donned on me to make a GREAT digital RF.
The biggest problem with digital is of course battery consumption/dependence, so why not make a digital RF with a manual advance lever that instead of simply re-cocking the shutter, the mechanism also utilizes the friction and movement of the lever to generate a charge that can be funneled back into the battery, all the while making the sensor/lcd screen the only things dependent on the battery....could be cool.
sojournerphoto
07-20-2008, 15:40
While i was in the bathroom something donned on me to make a GREAT digital RF.
The biggest problem with digital is of course battery consumption/dependence, so why not make a digital RF with a manual advance lever that instead of simply re-cocking the shutter, the mechanism also utilizes the friction and movement of the lever to generate a charge that can be funneled back into the battery, all the while making the sensor/lcd screen the only things dependent on the battery....could be cool.
Excellent, like one of those swatches:)
tmfabian
07-20-2008, 15:45
Excellent, like one of those swatches:)
Yeah, you know people around here beat the whole leica's been riding the wave of the m3 thing to death, and I think Leica, being a non-mainstream camera company, has the unique opportunity to make a pass at this kind of innovation. The big 2 camera companies are too busy competing for megapixels and low noise to actually innovate anything cool like this and it's certainly the type of thing Leica could do to hop back on top of the market.
There really hasn't been any innovative ideas in the camera world since the advent of digital photography....all the cameras are basically the same design and offer the same features as they did 20 years ago (granted they've become a little better and faster, but nothing groundbreaking.)
POINT OF VIEW
07-20-2008, 15:48
While i was in the bathroom something donned on me to make a GREAT digital RF.
The biggest problem with digital is of course battery consumption/dependence, so why not make a digital RF with a manual advance lever that instead of simply re-cocking the shutter, the mechanism also utilizes the friction and movement of the lever to generate a charge that can be funneled back into the battery, all the while making the sensor/lcd screen the only things dependent on the battery....could be cool.
The technology is there, It’s been around about 12 years. I first saw it on safe / vault combination locks.
I serviced them for years on the El Toro Marine base. As you rotate the dial it would energies a DC generator that would charge a capacitor long enough to provide power to light the LED number ring. They are still used today manufactured by Hamilton. https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page?_pageid=181,5340829,181_5343999&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Bill
While I certainly don't agree with leicasniper on all things, this being one of them, he certainly has the right to voice his opinion here.
Yes, yes, inserting my P.C. boilerplate here. However what he suggests implementing (sans interchangeable lenses) already exists, and it sucks.
tmfabian
07-20-2008, 16:18
one other area Leica is in a unique position to innovate is the fact that since a rangefinder camera does not have any viewfinder blackout when the shutter goes off, they could quite easily adopt a sensor getup that captures a very high FPS by way of minor video capabilities. Also if you wanted a stealth mode they could simply have a shutter lockup and allow the sensor to be electronically controlled and act as the shutter...no sound at all for that shutter release.
There are alot of areas I think Leica could exploit based on rangefinder design to create a very new type of camera.
tmfabian
07-20-2008, 16:23
The technology is there, It’s been around about 12 years. I first saw it on safe / vault combination locks.
I serviced them for years on the El Toro Marine base. As you rotate the dial it would energies a DC generator that would charge a capacitor long enough to provide power to light the LED number ring. They are still used today manufactured by Hamilton. https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page?_pageid=181,5340829,181_5343999&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Bill
I just realized that they could also incorporate the cam/focusing mechanism to provide energy as well.
When will the fun ever stop.
The thread topic is "New Digital Rangefinder." If you don't want AF or AE, don't care about full frame or megapixels, which seems to be the case, then the world doesn't need a new digital rangefinder
I'm fine with digital rangefinders. THe keyword here is, rangefinders. What you suggest is simply not one.
Sure, it is possible Leica can do better by ditching existing user base and hoping for the best with a glorified P&S. Didn't work for Contax, doesn't seem to work terribly well for Sigma, but who knows. But would you bet your money on that?
POINT OF VIEW
07-20-2008, 18:13
Exactly. They need to keep making the M8. Changing anything will alienate their user base.
From the day the M8 was introduced , most all of this thread has been about is alienation.
POINT OF VIEW
07-20-2008, 20:02
The two suggestions for improving the M8 I've seen most on this and other forums, consistently, have been removing the motorized shutter cocking, returning to manual cocking and removing the LCD from the back so that folks aren't tempted to chimp. Perhaps these options will be part of a future downgrade program.
This is where the thread goes stupid, Next subject PLEASE.
JohnnyRangefinder
07-20-2008, 20:39
A great addition that could only improve Leica's cameras would simply be 'manual focus assist' via ir-lamp. A small 'in focus' LED in the viewfinder would be a great asset in accurate manual focusing, especially since ir assist is most beneficial on the wide to short tele subject distances. A small ir-emitter would be easy to implement and easy to integrate into the camera's systems, especially now that the M is digital...
2¢
S.G.
Well, I have a camera with AF assist right in my bag today: Contax RX. The problem with it is that even me, only a casual SLR user, can focus manually faster and better (just by using the normal visual aids) than the assist feature ever does.
If Leica decides to add assist in their camera they better make it really fast. If their R&D is up for the task is an open question. Traditionally, electronics hasn't been their strong point.
The technology is there, It’s been around about 12 years. I first saw it on safe / vault combination locks.
I serviced them for years on the El Toro Marine base. As you rotate the dial it would energies a DC generator that would charge a capacitor long enough to provide power to light the LED number ring. They are still used today manufactured by Hamilton. https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page?_pageid=181,5340829,181_5343999&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Bill
Ummm-yes. You might be able to fit one of these into one of the larger view cameras. It might be a bit problematitic to get them into anything smaller.:p
Well, I have a camera with AF assist right in my bag today: Contax RX. The problem with it is that even me, only a casual SLR user, can focus manually faster and better (just by using the normal visual aids) than the assist feature ever does.
If Leica decides to add assist in their camera they better make it really fast. If their R&D is up for the task is an open question. Traditionally, electronics hasn't been their strong point.
Well, yes. And what did digital and AF do for Contax as a company? ;)
The Olympus OM 40 had a pretty good focus assist ( small green square LED in the VF.) Worked quite well. Olympus is still around:rolleyes:
victoriapio
07-22-2008, 07:50
This is where the thread goes stupid, Next subject PLEASE.
Next New Digital Rangefinder
1) Weather sealed
2) Battery replacement without taking off bottom plate
3) Card replacment without taking off bottom plate
4) SDHC compatibility and/or use Compact Flash cards
5) Electonic shutter cocking motor that can be switched off for manual advance
6) Full frame sensor that is compatible with current M lenses (aaaah, the real problem ;))
7) Large LCD screen that can be switched off
8) Larger, faster buffer for RAW images
O.C.
Yup, I can still focus a camera manually. But why? Yes, there are situations where you need to focus manually. But not most of the time. It's just like aperture priority automation. I can set aperture and shutter speed manually. I've been using cameras for 40 years. But why not let the camera do the job of setting the shutter speed when it's going to set it the same place I would? Equally, I can focus manually. But for most photos, I focus using the RF and shoot when the RF says the image is in focus. Why turn that focusing ring manually when the camera can do it faster and more accurately?
My ultimate goal is to get the photo, not reinforce my manhood to my friends.
Turning your manhood to reinforce it? Seems a bit painful for an exercise.
POINT OF VIEW
07-22-2008, 11:58
Ummm-yes. You might be able to fit one of these into one of the larger view cameras. It might be a bit problematitic to get them into anything smaller.:p
The footprint for the Xo9 combination lock is 4in. x 1in. The generator is 2mm. The lock does not have any battery, that was a government requirement, for design. Bill
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.