Groan.
How about a 'classic rangefinder format with AF and focus
confirmation'.
Yes I'd be happy with a G9 shape with interchangeable lenses and a
large sensor.
The only problem with the G1 was that the finder had no patch and you
could miss the point of focus.
There was an indication of focus distance but that was less than
useful except for MF.
In fact, as I remember, the G9 has something very similar.
The Contax even managed a (horrendously expensive) standard zoom.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 15/09/2008, at 7:46 AM, Moose wrote:
> Still trying to get this straight. So the RD-1s and M8 both use
> classic
> mechanical rangefinders for focus - and you had focus troubles with
> both.
>
> Then the Contax G1 isn't really a rangefinder, in the classic
> sense, as
> it has no mechanical rangefinder and uses electronic AF. You loved
> using it.
>> The advantage with a 4/3rd rangefinder would be live view for wide
>> and tele, obviating the need for auxilliary finders. It should
>> work really well as a Leica/Contax style AF RF. That's what I'd
>> queue up for, oh yes.
>>
> So it appears that you want a high quality digital camera with the
> form
> factor of a rangefinder, interchangeable lenses, AF, a high quality
> zooming optical viewfinder (I assume this from the G1) covering
> something like 28-135mm eq. and a live view LCD for all focal lengths.
>
> If that's correct, then I have been confused because, although you say
> you want a digital rangefinder camera, that is really a misnomer. You
> appear to be desiring a rangefinder-like AF camera.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|