I haven't paid attention to photo stuff for the past 5 years
did anyone make an affordable full-frame digital rangefinder yet?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 500 Image Height 375 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:29 10:22:53 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 500 Image Height 375
>>2828511
Fuji X100 series or Fuji X-Pro series.
>>2828521
>full frame
Oops, I forgot about that part. There's only APS-C as of right now. Only Leica does FF
>>2828559
Alright wise one, what's the difference? It tells me how far away my subject is in meters.
Is that not what a rangefinder is/does?
>>2828593
If that's literally exactly what you mean as "rangefinder" then every modern digital camera is a rangefinder.
>>2828597
pls quit photography forever. we have enough autismos here as is
>>2828609
Huh? Seriously, that guy (you) defined a rangefinder as something that tells range/distance. That information is provided by basically every single digital camera through the focus system. You've got to go a little deeper to differentiate rangefinder cameras from nonrangefinders than "it provides distance to subject", and whether or not something like an X-E2 is a "rangefinder" hinges on how you understand/define the term.
>>2828593
I am god damn sick of you fucking pedants making this dumb fucking argument every time this subject comes up.
The shape of a camera does not make a "rangefinder camera". The presence of a distance scale or mechanism to indicate distance does not make a "rangefinder camera". Even though when you google "define: rangefinder" you get: "an instrument for estimating the distance of an object" this does not mean any camera which judges distance is a rangefinder.
A rangefinder, as it has been used in basically every fucking camera publication besides forum shitposting, is a camera with a mechanical rangefinder which uses a patch to align images to determine focus.
While you can perform pedantic gymnastics to call virtually any camera a rangefinder, it is customary to refer to cameras with a mechanical RF mechanism and split image patch a rangefinder. This means Fuji X cameras are not rangefinders, which is why Fuji, a company well versed in making true rangefinders, calls these cameras "rangefinder-styled" in their marketing materials. Not rangefinders.
To answer OP, no one has made an affordable digital RF, let alone full frame, depending of course on what you define as "affordable."
>>2828636
For most people, rangefinder means a tunnel viewfinder on the left shoulder, no mirror, and no prism hump. Just tossing that out there.
You're not wrong about what it means, but you're wrong about what people mean.
>>2828511
Leica type 262 is the closest thing you will get to a digital FF actual rangefinder.
Just over $5000 on B&H
>>2828539
>>2828593
>>2828609
Using your logic, a rabal with ML will so the distance to the focus point, does not make the rabal a fucking rangefinder
>>2828641
>so the distance
kill me
Also leica M9s are cheaper used.
>>2828639
A rangefinder is a camera with a viewfinder that's on the left side? Most people don't know what the "SLR" in DSLR stands for, nor do they know what a mirror is. They would still be wrong calling a bridge camera, which has a VF in the middle and prism-like hump, a DSLR. These camera's are marketed as "DSLR styled" as the X series is marked as "RF styled". Neither is DSLR or RF.
I've never heard anyone make your definition. If someone thinks that and you ask them what a rangefinder is, it sounds like their answer will be "it's a rangefinder because it looks like a Leica," in which case we probably don't need to ask them in the first place.
Take the Olympus XA series. They all have tunnel VF's in the center. Yet, only the first XA is considered a rangefinder because it's the only one that uses a mechanical RF and patch to attain focus.
>>2828639
Yes, well this is the photography board where people should know what the fuck a rangefinder is
>>2828653
And yet here you are. It's okay. We accept you anyways. Take a deep breath.
>>2828636
You can always buy any FF camera and have a lab put in a split-image screen in there. Or do it yourself if you're willing to take a risk.
>>2828654
I'm not even sure what you're trying to imply with this. Are you suggesting I don't know what a rangefinder is because I stick to the standard definition of what mechanism the camera uses instead of just what it looks like?
>>2828636
Homie, you can't be overly pedantic and call others pedantic.
Also,
>my idiosyncratic definition is more correct than yours!
>>2828657
>I stick to the standard definition of what mechanism the camera uses
You've not once mentioned parallax, coincidence, or stereoscopic so I'm pretty sure that you're dropping spaghetti over something that you don't actually even know what you're talking about, because homie, the "mechanical system" isn't what's important about rangefinder cameras.
>>2828656
>You can always buy any FF camera and have a lab put in a split-image screen in there.
Again, not the same thing.
No one in the days of SLR vs. RF would say all cameras are rangefinders, although SLRs have the split image glass in them. It may be colloquial, but the RF is the camera with the separate mechanical RF window and image patch.
I don't know why anyone needs to be so contentious on this. It's why the wiki article on "focusing screen" only refers to rangefinder to remind you that cameras with this screen are different than RF cameras.
>>2828660
>You've not once mentioned parallax, coincidence, or stereoscopic
Why would I need to?
>"mechanical system"
I said mechanism because I figured you wouldn't just assume I meant it had to be mechanical but obviously you did anyways. I never said it had to be mechanical. I'm not the guy saying digital rangefinders are not rangefinders. I'm saying the presence of a rangefinder makes a rangefinder a rangefinder not just how it looks i.e. XA
>>2828658
I'm not being pedantic at all. I'm saying that while you can find some definitional gymnastics to argue an RF is "a camera which tells distance" i.e. basically every camera, in photography there is a well accepted colloquial notion of what it is. Which is the mechanical RF mechanism with a window and split image patch. You move a lever and two images align.
And my definition is hardly idiosyncratic, it's the most commonly accepted notion of rangefinder referred to in photography. When a card on the side of a museum photograph says "he skillfully navigated the streets with his rangefinder" 99% of people with any photography knowledge understand what the fuck the card is implying and we all know it.
>>2828674
Ah, sorry for that bit of confusion.
>>2828667
>I said mechanism because I figured you wouldn't just assume I meant it had to be mechanical but obviously you did anyways. I never said it had to be mechanical. I
HOLY FUCK, do you not know how language works?
>it's a "let's argue about the definition of rangefinders again" episode
wew lad.
>>2828678
you're right I should have said 'rangefinder thingamabob' so there was no misunderstanding
>>2828681
So I deal with making stuff hot for a living. In my field, there are three different ways to tell if there's a flame somewhere:
>mechanical
>electromechanical
>electronic
If I'm talking about ways to tell if there's a fire and I want someone to think about all of them, I'm not going to fucking specify one of them because that, in the way language works, means just that one kind, not all three kinds.
This thread is the reason /p/ is shit.
Why the fuck cant you just agree that a RF is an RF and stop making up bullshit reasons why something is *technically* a RF.
lol @ all the fujifags trying to change the definition of a rangefinder camera.
Look at this fine rangefinder with an ovf on the side!
>>2828687
Mechanism doesn't just refer to non electric mechanics. It's used a broader term than mechanical.
>>2828693
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO PHOTOGRAPHY. WHETHER OR NOT A PICTURE IS TAKEN ON A TRUE RANGEFINDER IS IMPERATIVE TO IT'S QUALITY AND AESTHETIC VALUE. THOSE WHO DISAGREE ARE NOT PHOTOGRAPHERS.
>>2828693
Because it's elitism vs autism, whoever wins, we lose.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>but it doesn't have a mirror
>but it tells me how far away my subject is
>but it has a viewfinder in top left
unless it has a rangefinder window for an rf patch it is not a rangefinder
although it may walk and quack like a duck it's actually an olympus trip 35
an xpro2 isn't a rangefinder like a car with paddle shifters isn't a manual
2 pedals? not a manual, 1 window? not a rangefinder
no ones out here saying an em5 is a dslr just cause it looks like one, everyone knows thats retarded and this discussion is equally retarded.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:01 15:18:21 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1487 Image Height 991
Here you go op....a full frame rangefinder camera.
>>2829098
>1 window? not a rangefinder
Ah but this is where you're wrong.
The second window is dual-function. It's the lens and sensor, always active.
The definition of rangefinding is down to triangulation and not the mechanical actuation. The canon AF35M was technically a form of af rangefinder, though functionally a point and shoot.
A Fuji is not a rangefinder-focusing mechanism camera, but it does use a range finding equation based on triangulated information to feed you information like parallax corrected frames.
In other words, the x100 and xpro are technically rangefinders, moreso than the XE2, XT10, and XT1 are technically not.
Yall have fun arguing with this concretely objective post.
>>2829124
Literally has also come to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means, but that doesn't make it "right" or a useful definition. Split image viewfinders and phase detection are both rangefinders as well. Doesn't make it particularly useful to call them that, though.
>>2829124
God damn it, I knew you were going to come to this thread and make this dumb fucking argument that paralax correction makes a rangefinder.
There's nothing special about paralax correction. Any camera with AF that requires it can do it. It says focused at X point, move a line Y amount. It has nothing to do with the focusing mechanism. So every camera is a rangefinder then.
But no, it isn't. This is just dumb pedantry. >>2829128 is right, you can nitnpick to a point where your autism can wrangle the X pro into a rangefinder, but that doesn't mean you're making a point worth making. For useful language, it's retarded to call the X series a rangefinder, which again is why Fuji, a company well versed in making real rangefinders, calls these cameras "rangefinder styled."
>>2829124
no, the AF35M uses ir to focus, so its not a rangefinder
holy fuck the fuji doesn't use a rangefinder to focus, it uses a different system off the sensor, just because it can tell you how far away the subject is doesn't mean its a rangefinder
you're using the word rangefinder in it's literal term
everyone else is referring to the style of focusing using an rangefinder patch
oh i just realized you're that same bitch that posted those awful photos of the hippies, stick to landscapes you dolt
>>2829159
>>2829154
>>2829128
If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and is perceived by most people to be a duck...
Rangefinder didn't mean a camera at all before the Leica. Definitions shift to encompass new technology. Mirrorless is a shift in technology more historic than anything since the move from rf to slr in the first place.
Get over it nerd.
>>2829154
>Any camera with AF that requires it can do it.
But that's wrong and you don't even know what parallax error is.
You need to have it to correct it. Live-views don't have it, ttl viewfinder don't have it. Most tunnel finders don't correct for it.
>>2829167
>Rangefinder didn't mean a camera at all before the Leica.
And it still doesn't have to. Yes, there are many rangefinder devices which are not cameras. That doesn't mean "rangefinder" in the context of cameras doesn't have a meaning.
>If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and is perceived by most people to be a duck...
Except what it looks like is irrelevant. None of the XA cameras look like leicas. Yet one is a rangefinder and the rest aren't. It doesn't act like a duck either, since if you've used a real rangefinder you know they don't act alike at all, other than the fact that they take pictures (so were back to all cameras are RFs). And it sure as hell isn't perceived by most people as RFs considering the companies that fucking make these cameras are very careful NOT to call them RFs.
>Definitions shift to encompass new technology.
But there's no new tech were talking about. According to you every camera ever made is somehow a rangefinder. Youre wrong, and you ways make the same, wrong arguments when it comes to this.
>Mirrorless is a shift in technology more historic than anything since the move from rf to slr in the first place
Probably true and yet completely irrelevant.
>>2829170
>Most tunnel finders don't correct for it.
So a rangefinder is a camera which needs paralax correction and imementd it? A tunnel VF isn't a RF but as soon as a bit of code moves a few lines according to the AF system it's a rangefinder? So the actual system that makes it a rangefinder has nothing to do with rangefinding? This is really fucking retarded and you are trying to wrangle together a definition which is wholly unecessary for the purpose of pedantic masturbation.
>>2829183
*implemented
OP here.
are you all fucking retarded?
how do you not know what a rangefinder camera is?
