whats my camera worth?

Nikon made a series of rangefinders from the late 40s through to 1960, they are now real cult items and command insane prices on the second hand market. Some pics and info here: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/rangefinder.htm (the www.mir.com.my site I have linked to is superb and well worth exploring).

Tony.

 

Theoretically, Canon or Nikon (or Minolta or Pentax for that matter) could make a prime SLR lens the equal of a Leica SLR lens - in fact in an old AP test, the Pentax 43mm F1.9 outperformed their previous best standard lens - the Zeiss Planar 50mm F1.4.

However, when it comes to the Leica M rangefinder lenses none of them - including Leica, can make an SLR lens as good because of the design constraints.

Matt.

 

Well, everyone seems to be saying that but I'd love to see an explanation of what those constraints are and why an SLR lens can't be as good as a rangefinder lens. I know there's a difference between the distance from lens to film but to me (who knows not a great deal about optics) I don't see why that should necessarily be a constraint.

If anyone has any useful links......

Of course if it's true then digital cameras have the chance to square the circle here. In a non-SLR digital you can have the lens as close to the sensor as in a rangefinder but with an electronic LCD viewfinder you still have all the "WYSIWYG" advantages of an SLR.

So far, I haven't come across a digi-camera electronic viewfinder (EVF) that I've found to be remotely as nice to use as looking through an SLR optical viewfinder but eventually they will do it and that may spell the end of SLRs if the disadvantages of SLRs are really as big as some people here are claiming

Michael.

 

In a rangefinder the optics designer can stick the rear element wherever it works best, in a SLR they can't as they have to ensure clearance for the mirror and then optically compensate for focusing error. I believe it's one of those 'simple is best' things – a SLR lens tends to be a more complex optical device.

I was once told that the superiority of rangefinder bokeh was down to this rear element design which also allows a different relative size, design and logical position of the aperture blades.

Tony.

 

Michael - I'm not sure the advantage is that big. I've done a quick search though and found the following:

"A significant advantage of rangefinder camera design for the optical engineer is the elimination of the mirror box and the resulting shorter flange focal distance which permits placing the rear lens element close to the film plane. Various other restraints on lens design are also removed, providing far more versatility in coming up with a lens composition that approaches ideal optical theory. For just one example, lens groups can be positioned in near perfect opposition, doing away with almost all problems of spherical or chromatic aberration."

Source: http://www.maxwell.com.au/photo/mamiya/mamiya7/lenses7.html

I'm sure there's more out there but this seems a reasonable starter for ten.

Matt.

 

Thanks Matt - I'll take a look.
Michael.

 

Michael,

there are many links tbh,its easier to use a search engine i think.

I have lost all my links with a system crash,but I think i can remember some of the better ones and will post them up when i find them

also,Canon and Nikon might not want to make comparable lenses,the market is small compared to digital and SLRs in general.Manual rangefinder cameras are now a very small niche market,for fans of a particular style of picture taking.

I am aware of those cult Nikons Tony,just stupid,crazy amounts of money when you consider a spanking new 45mm Planar is only £200

btw,if you really want to see what all the fuss is about,you can get a Contax G1 with a Planar 45mm lense for less than £200 in Ebay,which is nothing in the grand scheme of things.Use Reala 100 or beter still Neopan B&W in good light and see for yourself,that image will compare at 7x5 to any Leitz image

 

If rangefinder lenses are better than SLR lenses because the rear element can be closer to the film, can anyone explain why in Canon's pro SLR 'L' lenses, the rear element is further away from the film than in Canon's standard lenses? You'd think that if that was so important, putting the rear element as close to the back of the lens as possible would be their prime concern.

Heath

 

its just an advantage of not having a return mirror in the way

 

Yes, I understand that rangefinders can place the rear element closer to the film plane than an SLR can because there's no mirror, but the consensus seems to be that this is the reason why rangefinder lenses outperform SLR lenses. My point is that Canon's 'L' series lenses are vastly superior to their standard lenses because of the quality of the materials and build, but Canon's designers choose to put the rear element even further away from the film plane than on the standard Canon SLR lenses. If putting the rear element close to the film plane was so important, why do Canon degrade their pro lens performance on purpose?

Heath