If someone else made a FF digital RF?

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Lss

It is however very relevant to those who need it.

to those who want it...

[Lss]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

to those who want it...

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

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Lss

To want is to feel a need.

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.

[hteasley]

Originally Posted by dct

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.

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

[Dante_Stella]

Originally Posted by hteasley

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

[hteasley]

Originally Posted by Dante_Stella

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

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

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Ken Ford

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.

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.

[ramosa]

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.

[LCT]

Originally Posted by semilog

...The RF focusing mechanism is not a big deal...

There is no rangefinder in digital Fujis.

[semilog]

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

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by LCT

There is no rangefinder in digital Fujis.

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

[krötenblender]

Originally Posted by semilog

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

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.

[LCT]

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

[Bike Tourist]

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.

[krötenblender]

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.

[Lss]

Originally Posted by semilog

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

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.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by krötenblender

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.

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.

[krötenblender]

Originally Posted by semilog

Some here would apparently seek to stifle discussion of any answer to the poll that is not "yes." Why they would feel impelled do that, is between them and their psychiatrists.

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...

[semilog]

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

[Ken Ford]

<walking up to bucket of crap, kicking>

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

</kick>

[krötenblender]

Originally Posted by semilog

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

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.

[PHAROLDO]

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)

[semilog]

Originally Posted by krötenblender

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

Sounds good.

[hteasley]

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.

[tom.w.bn]

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.