| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/06/2005 03:54:26 PM · #1 |
| yes, can someone experienced please answer why is rangefinder cameras so expensive. what are they use for that is so specialty? they looking so tiny yet packing big in the pricing departments, i wonder why? thanks ok for inputs! |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 03:59:51 PM · #2 |
Expensive rangefinder cameras have really, really good optics. They are solidly built with very fine mechanical components. This costs money.
They are very quiet, a plus for inobtrusive candid photography. There is no delay between shutter trip and image capture, assuming you are referring to film cameras.
I have no experience with rangefinder digital cams, but film cameras like Leicas are an absolute joy to use. It's kind of like driving a Porsche; expensive, but pure.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:13:22 PM · #3 |
The market isn't very big either, so you have less benefits from economies of scale. This is especially the case with the Epson RD-1 rangefinder. That thing has cost a lot of money to develop, but I have heard that they are building only 15,000 ever. Compare that to the Canon 20D of which are at least 30,000 build per month.
Same example can be used for film rangefinders and film SLR's.
The Leicas are also expensive because of their name, but to be frank, there is not much that beats Leica glass.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:28:10 PM · #4 |
| When working on the set of a movie or backstage at a play they are essential. There is no mirror so there is no loud click when the shutter is tripped. In low light especially when AF fails they are much easier to focus. They make sound proof boxes for SLRs, but they are expensive, bulky, and greatly limit use of many of the camera's controls. Plus they are smaller and less intrusive than SLRs. They have a niche. |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:28:59 PM · #5 |
| The range finders have another big advantage over SLRs, because they donĂ¢€™t use a mirror between the lens and the film they can have the back of the lens much closer to the film, this makes it much easier to design a really good wide angle lens for them. In general you want to be able to have glass very close to the image plane when designing a lens, you simply can not do this for an SLR. |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:39:49 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
The range finders have another big advantage over SLRs, because they donĂ¢€™t use a mirror between the lens and the film they can have the back of the lens much closer to the film, this makes it much easier to design a really good wide angle lens for them. In general you want to be able to have glass very close to the image plane when designing a lens, you simply can not do this for an SLR. |
From what I understand this is not a plus in a digital camera. What causes problems in many DSLRs with wide angle lenses is that the sensor has problems correctly registering light coming in at extreme angles. This is magnified in the case of the DRF camera just because the lens is closer to the film plane, thus the angle more extreme. |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:43:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
The range finders have another big advantage over SLRs, because they donĂ¢€™t use a mirror between the lens and the film they can have the back of the lens much closer to the film, this makes it much easier to design a really good wide angle lens for them. In general you want to be able to have glass very close to the image plane when designing a lens, you simply can not do this for an SLR. |
Check out this RD-1 lens review. Wideangles are a problem on the Rangefinder, 28 and 35mm vignettes like hell, even with the APS-sized sensor.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 07:06:00 AM EDT.
