They're not rangefinders. They look retro, which indicates that the market appreciates a little retro design. But they're not rangefinders.

True, but a rangefinder is just one type of direct view camera. I think many people like the DV experience more than the RF part - I know I do.

Fuji has a two year road map for xpro lenses... don't think full frame is coming next year.

Yeah I'd have to agree with this, they're selling far too many X-Pro1s at the moment to worry about releasing a FF version. They're more likely to wait until the cycle comes around before introducing a new product.

Sure, no problem. But when someone observes, "Leica's apples are selling like gangbusters, clearly there's a market for apples, someone else should try to sell cheaper apples," it's not germane to say, "Yeah, people buying these apple-shaped oranges proves that that market exists." No, it doesn't. It proves there's a market for oranges.

Why Leica charges such exorbitant price? Sure the luxury pricing is pretty much a Leica practice, but it's more due to (like people had been repeating for a thousand times) although the market exists, it is so small that it's pretty much limited to the people posting in this thread that are "looking for an (uncompromising yet cheap) alternative".

It's also because since the demand is so small, there's no competition, and there won't be any - why should anyone bother when they can simply make a very junky P&S swivelable and sell it for $800? (google Casio TR100/ Tryx if you don't know what I'm referring to)

The Fujis are the closest we could get..well...

Actually, it simply tires me each time seeing this thread (and its "uncompromising alternatives") shows up on the front page. The head bartender really could create a new forum just for this..

Totally agreed. With the whopping 31 million euros profit in the year 2011 after having lost money at least since 2006, no wonder no other company is interested in this sector.

Only if you're method-centric instead of experience-centric. To me the actual method used to focus is far lower in importance than the direct view aspect.

That's cool, too, but really, I think the type of camera is important for this discussion. Leica is selling a very particular kind of camera with the M system, and the amount of competition in the space (manual-focus, manual-aperture rangefinder cameras) is ridiculously low, and absent when it comes to digital. The Fuji cameras have much more in common with the NEX and MFT cameras out there, and only share a body style with Leica.

For all the comments about how Leicas are now purely fashion items for the wealthy, it seems to me that it's actually Fuji that is trading on style. Their cameras are thoroughly modern mirrorless designs, made to look retro-cool. There's nothing the least bit necessary about their retro design, given the camera functions.

To be honest I think the number of people who actually want rangefinders as in "cameras with rangefinder focusing" is very small, and is dwarfed by the number of people who want rangefinders as in "compact cameras with retro styling, direct view, and classic exposure controls".

Rangefinder focusing is probably pretty irrelevant except to a tiny minority of buyers.

I agree with you *mostly.* If the Xpro1 had some better manual focus controls -- IE actual MF lenses and not fly-by-wire-- I would be all ears. I like a little bit of a tactile feedback.

I use a Leica camera for the OVF and the ergonomics. Focus tabs are awesome. I could care less that there's an RF inside. In fact, I love the Fuji hybrid ovf/evf way better. I can snap a picture and tell right away if something went awry. It helps a lot!

And I was talking to a camera shop guy today and he was saying that Fuji would have to make a separate lens set/size in order to work with a full frame sensor, and the current fuji lenses for the Xpro1 wouldn't be able to be used on a full frame sensor.

Don't think I don't know that, too. Just don't call them rangefinders, is what I say. They are totally legit cameras, can take great pictures, and they're awesome. I love my NEX-7, which I use with a Hawk adapter and my M lenses.

But it's not a rangefinder. It solves picture-taking problems in a different way. When the title of the thread is "If someone else made a FF digital RF?" then that means a particular thing. If anyone should not be so sloppy about camera terminology as to call something a "rangefinder" when it is "not a rangefinder", it's a bunch of camera enthusiasts on rangefinderforum.com.

I agree Fuji is also playing with style, helping the X line to sell also (not only) for retro attracted buyers. But still, most of the forms follow only function, as they did many years ago. And were forgotten by a playstation interface approach of many manufacturers:
- Starting from the OVF, which looks like a - well - any optical tunnel VF (is this fact already yelling retro?).
- Then the right-eye-optimized corner positioning of the VF. It looks like a ... you know, the expensive one. But: Is this retro because it is in exactly this corner of the camera which is simply the best for a compact VF based camera?
- And the shutter speed and exposition control dials: This is also not retro but one of the best ergonomic positions agreed since decades on various 35mm film cameras of any kind.
- I could add the flash socket (also exactly in this position for most cameras)
- The threaded shutter release: It is not retro only because many camera manufacturers forgot this feature in the last 15 years.

What remains on retro styling only for the fancy look? I would rather say: Form follows function. Every VF centered mid sized camera (RF or not) will look similar to the classic ones. Like all the (D)SLR: They look very similar because they share the same optical approach.

It is however very relevant to those who need it.

to those who want it...

To want is to feel a need. No focusing system whatsoever is needed to take a photograph.

I'd say to want is to feel a desire. But of course everybody is free to decide whether they need or want or just would like to have or can't live without something. Doesn't make the minority who need (want, desire, can't live without, ...) rangefinder focusing any bigger though.

Some of it. But they could have made the X100 look like a G690 instead of an M.

The X-Pro1 is styled after the G690. Right down to the fragile black paint...

Dante

Fragile black paint? It's copying the M9, surely. I can scrape it with a fingernail...

Exactly right.

I shoot an X-Pro for many of the same reasons I've shot an M for over 15 years: compactness, direct view finder, great lenses, and direct manual exposure control.

The RF focusing mechanism is not a big deal, IMO. Take it or leave it.

If Canon or Nikon came out with one (which is highly unlikely), I would definitely check it out. I'd still keep my Leica glass, though.

There is no rangefinder in digital Fujis.

^--- Is that supposed to be new information? Or are you trolling?

I don't think he said there was either...

I do not think, it's trolling. He is just repeating a fact, that is repeatedly ignored in this thread by different users, who all claim, that RF-focus is not important to them (or in some cases at all). I read this and it annoys me - because this thread is about speculation of RF from other companies.

Constantly stating that the Fujis (no matter, if they are in certain aspects the better cameras) and some other cameras try to resemble the look of a RF misses the point. So it is good to remind us from time to time, that this is about real RFs and not lookalikes.

I was just upset to read statements like that on a forum called RFF i guess. Not a "big deal" either though. :rolleyes:

Not to get to philosophical on you, but those who lament the inaccurate label of "rangefinder" applied to some Fuji models might be consoled by the fact that language is always fluid. A moving target. It changes.

Case in point: People my age remember the phrase, "I couldn't care less". Younger people often now say, " I COULD care less", meaning just the opposite of what they think they mean.

In ten years I'll bet "rangefinder" is generally used to mean . . . what? I don't know, but it won't be pleasing to purists. Might as well try to stem the rising tide.

Mirrorless EVF cameras advertised as DSLRs... I know, what you mean. Having studied linguistics (and philosophy, so I appreciate a little bit philosophical talk) for some time and long ago, I know and like, that language is living culture. But not all changes make sense to me, and as well as some people do try to equalize different things (and in my opinion often accepting the side effect of loosing expressivity), I can try to keep different things different in language.

That's your truth. Please also accept the truth of those for whom it is a very big deal - or something between a no big deal and a very big deal. How the focus operates and gives information to the user is a major usability factor. Then you have preferences on top of that. It is fine not to care about rangefinders but this thread is about full frame rangefinder cameras.

Re-read the thread title, and the title of the poll.

If you would take the trouble to do that, you would discover that the subject under discussion is not whether the X-100 or X-pro are rangefinders -- no one here thinks they are (at least, sensu stricto) -- but whether the thread participants would personally buy a DRF from a manufacturer other than Leica.

For many of us, the most salient characteristic of the Leica M is not its rangefinder per se, but its lenses, its form factor, its direct viewing, its relatively quiet shutter. For these people*, the answer to the original question -- a poll, recall -- is maybe not, because other companies are already making cameras that have the (to us) most salient operational characteristics.

The point of the thread is presumably to discuss and explain our various responses to the poll. A poll which has more than one possible answer. Some here would apparently seek to stifle discussion of any answer to the poll that is not "yes."

In any case, it is not the job of others to justify or explain your preferences.

*Also note that many of the people answering "no" are in fact longtime and current Leica M users. I first held and used my father's M3 (under his close supervision) at the age of 5 and my primary camera is an M6. My relationship with these cameras spans almost my whole life. We do not insult your preferences -- they are yours, after all. Kindly do not insult ours by implying that we don't understand what these cameras are about.

My preferences were not in discussion, since you do not know, how i voted. Also my post was about me thinking, that another post was not trolling.

Nevertheless, there might be truth, in what you were writing, but how you wrote it (see quoted part), disqualifies it for being considered. Which might be sad...

The offending line is deleted. I stand by the rest.

<walking up to bucket of crap, kicking>

I could argue that the X1 and X100 use a "digital RF" to focus.

</kick>

:D

I get the feeling, that you think, my post was related to one of yours before. It was not. At least in question of the RF-focus-mechanism. It was related to the trolling accusation of another post.

And to another part of your post, which seems to implicate, that I'm am kind of a radical purist, not letting others having their preferences: I'm using EVFs, RFs, (D)(S|T)LRs all in parallel. Whatever fits your needs is okay for me. I think, you misinterpreted my post. Maybe, I did not express myself good enough, not being a native speaker.

I suggest we go back to the interesting parts of the thread, instead of making accusations to one another.

Sorry for posting something completely diffrent...
but i would love to have a digital back for my electronic rangefinder camera ;) contax g2!!!

i think it would be possibel, to be made ,because the camera can communicate with the databack...

this would be my dream!!!
i realy cant stand to have to buy always a new camera when i like a newer sensor! (i think this is a old topic, but still relevant to me)

greetings

(sorry for my english)

Sounds good. :o

The argument, at this stage, seems to be between folks that say "rangefinder means rangefinder" and folks who say "rangefinder can mean simply direct view". The thread title talks about rangefinders, mentions other rangefinders in the opening post, and doesn't say anything about EVF or mirrorless cameras.

Some folks here are saying that the Fuji cameras aren't rangefinders because they don't have those things which, through ~80 years of photographic history, have been called "rangefinders". Some folks are saying, "Meanings change, big deal."

I'm on the side that says, "It sort of is a big deal to be deliberately sloppy with definitions." I'm not a hard-core prescriptivist with grammar, but I don't think a loss of real meaning is an awesome thing, especially when it's not really necessary. Why don't we just call the X-Pro 1 a DSLR? Or a TLR? Call it a Neofocal Platypus. I mean, what's the harm? They're all wrong, so what's one wrong description over another?

Rangefinder means something. To say that it doesn't really mean what it means is to obliterate it as a useful descriptor.

If XPro or X100 are rangefinder cameras because the definition changed then the Hexar AF has to be moved out of the Point & Shoot forum into something more serious.