From: RichA on
On Mar 31, 1:59 pm, "steph...(a)yahoo.com" <steph...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

The G1 is still the best of the micro 4/3rds bunch for price/
performance and the GH1 still has the best sensor.
The Olympus stuff is too compromised. Slow focusing, lousy LCD
screens and no EVF avail for the E-P1.

From: stephe_k on
David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
>> Because the beam was dispersed.
>
> So build a unit that does the same dispersed-beam thing and reads out a
> distance. Not a problem at all, if it were actually something enough people
> wanted to make it a viable product.
>

Yeah, I'm sure the camera makers have no interest in a faster, more
accurate focusing system that would work on a blank wall, in the dark
etc. Obviously it must be a slight problem given there isn't anything
like this being made.

Stephanie

From: stephe_k on
RichA wrote:
> On Mar 31, 1:59 pm, "steph...(a)yahoo.com" <steph...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The G1 is still the best of the micro 4/3rds bunch for price/
> performance and the GH1 still has the best sensor.
> The Olympus stuff is too compromised. Slow focusing, lousy LCD
> screens and no EVF avail for the E-P1.
>


The deal killer to me is the slow focusing on the OM E-P and the G
models aren't enough smaller than the E410 to give up the optical SLR
viewing and zero shutter lag.

Someone needs to just forget changing lenses and go with a fixed to the
body lens like a lot of the old range finders did and use a decent zoom
range (P&S collapsing into the body style?), a zooming optical finder
and a 4/3 or larger sensor for the IQ. They need to make it compact
enough where people who are looking for a COMPACT camera with higher IQ
will be interested. If it's not much smaller than an e-410/pancake
combo, why would you want to lose the SLR part of the camera?

Stephanie
From: J. Clarke on
On 4/1/2010 12:53 AM, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>>
>>> Because the beam was dispersed.
>>
>> So build a unit that does the same dispersed-beam thing and reads out
>> a distance. Not a problem at all, if it were actually something enough
>> people wanted to make it a viable product.
>>
>
> Yeah, I'm sure the camera makers have no interest in a faster, more
> accurate focusing system that would work on a blank wall, in the dark
> etc. Obviously it must be a slight problem given there isn't anything
> like this being made.

The existing systems work well enough and don't have to have a focus
table for every lens used.

From: Ray Fischer on
J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:
>On 3/31/2010 3:11 AM, Matti Vuori wrote:
>> Michael<adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> wrote in

>>> 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?

There are some problems:
1) It would only measure distance to one, very small spot unless you
used multiple lasers/sensors
2) It would be hard to determine what exactly the camera was focusing
on unless you used a visible-light laser, which would mean
3) You have the problem of blinding people with the laser beam in the eye
4) Dealing with reflective, transmissive, or dark objects would be
problematic.
5) People don't hold cameras all that steady and a laser beam jumping
all over the place would be difficult for the camera to lock onto
and for the user to know what the focus target was.

Laser distance measuring is usually used under controlled
circumstances. Photography isn't. It's an interesting idea
but not without serious difficulties.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net