Ultra high end rangefinder coming?

On 2010-03-30 18:32:16 -0700, RichA said:

http://43rumors.com/jeff-ascough-is-...-microfourthir
ds-or-not/

This is interesting.
The Canon wedding shooter Jeff Ascough just revealed that he is
testing a brand new rangefinder. I highly doubt that he is talking
about a Canon camera. Not one of our sources ever heard something
about it. It could be everything but it is a good moment to remind you
that Panasonic is working on a “digital rangefinder� model!

UPDATE: According to photorumors “The standard lens is suppose to be
35mm f/1.2 and there are two more lenses. The rangefinder is full
frame with magnesium alloy electronic shutter and supposedly with
very good AF�

Reading all of the posts, the consensus of opinion seems to indicate an
elaborate April Fool's prank.

Not long to go, to discover if that is true.

If it turns out to be true, it would be a pleasant surprise.
A modern version of something like my old Yashica Electro 35 would be
nice, regardless of the manufacturer.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-03-30 21:49:44 -0400, Savageduck said:

On 2010-03-30 18:32:16 -0700, RichA said:

http://43rumors.com/jeff-ascough-is-...-microfourthir
ds-or-not/

This is interesting.
The Canon wedding shooter Jeff Ascough just revealed that he is
testing a brand new rangefinder. I highly doubt that he is talking
about a Canon camera. Not one of our sources ever heard something
about it. It could be everything but it is a good moment to remind you
that Panasonic is working on a Òdigital rangefinderÓ model!

UPDATE: According to photorumors ÒThe standard lens is suppose to be
35mm f/1.2 and there are two more lenses. The rangefinder is full
frame with magnesium alloy electronic shutter and supposedly with
very good AFÓ

Reading all of the posts, the consensus of opinion seems to indicate an
elaborate April Fool's prank.

Not long to go, to discover if that is true.

If it turns out to be true, it would be a pleasant surprise.
A modern version of something like my old Yashica Electro 35 would be
nice, regardless of the manufacturer.

The closest I've seen to something like a high end digital rangefinder
is the Olympus Pen EP series, at least in size and look. But it is a
micro 4/3 not a full frame. And the EP 1 has only a live view LCD
screen. The EP 2 has a plug in EVF that in my opinion makes the camera
somewhat clunky and unwieldy. To qualify as a high end digital
rangefinder (i.e. digital Leica M series type camera) would require an
integral EVF, at least an APS and preferably a full frame sensor, and a
line of good lenses. That and the compact, trim package that makes the
Leica M series so desirable. Super quality Leitz or Zeiss lenses
wouldn't hurt.

IMHO, that is.
--
Michael

Michael wrote in
news:2010033100220748664-adunc79617@mypacksnet:
To qualify as a high end digital
rangefinder (i.e. digital Leica M series type camera) would require an
integral EVF,

Guess what? To qualify as a rangefinder, the camera would need to have a
rangefinder, not an EVF.

On 3/31/2010 3:11 AM, Matti Vuori wrote:
wrote in
news:2010033100220748664-adunc79617@mypacksnet:
To qualify as a high end digital
rangefinder (i.e. digital Leica M series type camera) would require an
integral EVF,

Guess what? To qualify as a rangefinder, the camera would need to have a
rangefinder, not an EVF.

Wait a minute, if you're talking Leica, they make very good very
expensive laser distance measuring devices, so why not use one of those
to determine the distance to the subject instead of a conventional
coinciding frame type? Would still be a rangefinder, just an electronic
one. Then an EVF would potentially, if all its other problems could be
resolved, be workable.

Michael wrote:
On 2010-03-30 21:49:44 -0400, Savageduck said:
If it turns out to be true, it would be a pleasant surprise.
A modern version of something like my old Yashica Electro 35 would be
nice, regardless of the manufacturer.

The closest I've seen to something like a high end digital rangefinder
is the Olympus Pen EP series, at least in size and look.

My main issue with the EP is slow focusing.

Also I think they missed the boat by not adding a zoom/optical finder in
the corner of the body like film P&S had. They clearly have the
technology for this. With good autofocus, I could live without a "SLR
view" on this type of camera and just depend on the autofocus, which I'm
willing to bet 99% of photographers today do anyway.

I don't like -only- having live view as it forces you to use a shake
prone "hold the camera away from your face" technique, plus is a problem
in certain lighting etc. And as someone else said, when you add the
finder, then the camera really isn't much different in size than the
E410/pancake combo which I already have. That camera will already fits
in my purse but isn't something I would carry everyday/everywhere. I
still have a smaller P&S for that.

Stephanie

On 10-03-31 9:36 , J. Clarke wrote:
On 3/31/2010 3:11 AM, Matti Vuori wrote:
wrote in
news:2010033100220748664-adunc79617@mypacksnet:
To qualify as a high end digital
rangefinder (i.e. digital Leica M series type camera) would require an
integral EVF,

Guess what? To qualify as a rangefinder, the camera would need to have a
rangefinder, not an EVF.

Wait a minute, if you're talking Leica, they make very good very
expensive laser distance measuring devices,

Entirely different, separate company.

They also make very good, very inexpensive laser measuring devices (
$230 for a carpenter laser, accuracy of +/- 1.5 mm to 60m - indoor claim
alas ).

They share the logo/brand via legacy agreement. Though I'd guess both
would be pleased to cooperate.

so why not use one of those
to determine the distance to the subject instead of a conventional
coinciding frame type? Would still be a rangefinder, just an electronic
one. Then an EVF would potentially, if all its other problems could be
resolved, be workable.

That's a thought. Though laser reflectivity on some surfaces is less
than ideal esp. in bright daylight.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-31 9:36 , J. Clarke wrote:
On 3/31/2010 3:11 AM, Matti Vuori wrote:
wrote in
news:2010033100220748664-adunc79617@mypacksnet:
To qualify as a high end digital
rangefinder (i.e. digital Leica M series type camera) would require an
integral EVF,

Guess what? To qualify as a rangefinder, the camera would need to have a
rangefinder, not an EVF.

Wait a minute, if you're talking Leica, they make very good very
expensive laser distance measuring devices,

Entirely different, separate company.

They also make very good, very inexpensive laser measuring devices (
$230 for a carpenter laser, accuracy of +/- 1.5 mm to 60m - indoor claim
alas ).



Are these OK to be aiming at humans? Just wondering..

Stephanie

On 10-03-31 16:52 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-31 9:36 , J. Clarke wrote:
On 3/31/2010 3:11 AM, Matti Vuori wrote:
wrote in
news:2010033100220748664-adunc79617@mypacksnet:
To qualify as a high end digital
rangefinder (i.e. digital Leica M series type camera) would require an
integral EVF,

Guess what? To qualify as a rangefinder, the camera would need to
have a
rangefinder, not an EVF.

Wait a minute, if you're talking Leica, they make very good very
expensive laser distance measuring devices,

Entirely different, separate company.

They also make very good, very inexpensive laser measuring devices (
$230 for a carpenter laser, accuracy of +/- 1.5 mm to 60m - indoor
claim alas ).



Are these OK to be aiming at humans? Just wondering..

Good question esp. if one shoots a lot of portraits...

Most commercial rangefinder lasers are rated as eye safe - meaning a
brief flash at an eye should cause no lasting damage. Golf range
finders (for example) fall in this category as do the pointers people
use in meetings. They can still cause permanent damage if a deliberate
effort is made (it's so uncomfortable that people will blink and look
away, however). These are the same, BTW, as at the grocery store
checkout scanner.

There are some commercial easily available lasers in the green spectrum
that are very dangerous (compared to red) but they are rated "eye safe"
just the same. Presumably people will react quicker than damage will occur.

Other lasers (lab) are sold with the condition that they be operated
with everyone using appropriate goggles.

There is a table here that's ... eye opening.
http://www.wickedlasers.com/

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-03-31 16:52 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-31 9:36 , J. Clarke wrote:
On 3/31/2010 3:11 AM, Matti Vuori wrote:
wrote in
news:2010033100220748664-adunc79617@mypacksnet:
To qualify as a high end digital
rangefinder (i.e. digital Leica M series type camera) would require an
integral EVF,

Guess what? To qualify as a rangefinder, the camera would need to
have a
rangefinder, not an EVF.

Wait a minute, if you're talking Leica, they make very good very
expensive laser distance measuring devices,

Entirely different, separate company.

They also make very good, very inexpensive laser measuring devices (
$230 for a carpenter laser, accuracy of +/- 1.5 mm to 60m - indoor
claim alas ).



Are these OK to be aiming at humans? Just wondering..

More to the point, see the yellow warning:
http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/E...Pro-81-37.html

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-31 16:52 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

They also make very good, very inexpensive laser measuring devices (
$230 for a carpenter laser, accuracy of +/- 1.5 mm to 60m - indoor
claim alas ).



Are these OK to be aiming at humans? Just wondering..

Good question esp. if one shoots a lot of portraits...

Most commercial rangefinder lasers are rated as eye safe - meaning a
brief flash at an eye should cause no lasting damage. Golf range
finders (for example) fall in this category as do the pointers people
use in meetings.

Doesn't seem like using a laser for camera focus would be a good idea
given that many people are taking pictures of other people and you
really wouldn't have much control about hitting their eye with it or
not. All it would take is one direct hit and even if it didn't do
"lasting damage", it wouldn't be pleasant.

Stephanie