I was a bit afraid to submit something with "rangefinder" in the title, so I will take it upon myself to explain it.
"Rangefinder" is commonly used as a short form of "rangefinder camera". Back in the early 1900s you would most likely focus a lens using "zone focusing", which is pretty much a fancy way of saying "guessing the distance to the subject" combined with some understanding of how depth-of-field works in relation to the lens aperture.
There were also external rangefinders [1], devices that measures distance using techniques such as parallax. From a practical standpoint, you get two overlapping images and you adjust the rangefinder until the subject becomes clear [2]. You can then read the distance to the subject from the external rangefinder and transfer it onto your lens and take the shot.
Since this is not particularly, well, fast or convenient someone came up with the idea of combining the two and the rangefinder camera was born. Up until the days of auto-focus, single-lens reflex (SLRs) also used this kind of technique for focusing. However, SLRs and point-and-shoots with auto-focus and zoom lenses now dominate the digital market and most people never see or touch a rangefinder. They are still somewhat popular among street photographers though since they are significantly smaller and also since they are arguably more discreet in appearance.
> Up until the days of auto-focus, single-lens reflex (SLRs) also used this kind of technique for focusing.
Everything else is perfect, but this is incorrect. SLRs use focusing screens with split prisms and/or microprisms, not rangefinders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing_screen
The advantage of focusing through the taking lens is that unlike rangefinders this method works with telephoto lenses. It's very hard to use a rangefinder accurately with anything much more than 135mm (and even that's not easy.) Similarly with macro or close up shots. However, rangefinders have many advantages, the viewing image is never blacked out like a SLR does when you click the shutter, also you can see around the periphery of the area covered by the lens, seeing objects moving into the frame, also the two main advantages are that since there's no mirror the camera can be used at slower shutter speeds without getting moved around by the mirror slapping against its stoppers, and again because there's no mirror needed the back element of the lens can be very close to the focal plane (where the film or sensor is), this means smaller lenses can do the same job as much larger ones on an SLR - they are also sharper because of this, and suffer less distortion.
small additions.
1. there's also no such thing as zoom lens for rf.
2. i think you can avoid the 'seeing around the periphery' problem somewhat by shooting with both eyes open.
3. i always imagined smaller glass area is always a handicap. the bigger the glass the sharper it ought to be. works even better if there's bigger film to capture the bigger image. i.e. using ever larger format cameras...the larger the sharper...
3.1. larger glass is usually also brighter. i personally always wonder about people who care about sharpness..like unless they always shoot on tripod, how does it work? they get sharp motion blur?
Thank you very very much for correcting me, I learned something new today. Also, thank you for the focusing screen link, I may even consider buying one for my Canon DSLR.
I dream of the day when we will have a lot of options for small specialty digital cameras. You see a small trickle of them coming out(Ricoh GR, Fuji X100s, Sigma DP2), but no where near as many as in the old film days.
I could never imagine someone taking on this as a DIY project. I think it was a really cool decision to take a Sony NEX's components, which I always thought were lacking in ergonomics, and give it the feel of a classic rangefinder.
So, from my understanding, the camera you have currently only works in bulb mode. It would be interesting to see a post as to how you would even begin to tackle getting a predetermined shutter speed to work. Also more sample images would be great as well.
the NEX would have to be in bulb mode, the shutter is in the rangefinder's lens (it's a leaf shutter.) it's a little confusing because the author uses the word "trigger" instead of shutter, or shutter release, but regardless, as the shutter is pressed on the film camera's mechanical linkage the sensor in the NEX is switched to B(ulb) to turn on the sensor, then when the shutter button is released the NEX's sensor is switched off. Keeping it on all the time would cause it to overheat after some time.
The small camera market has gone the way of the Dodo thanks to wonderful smartphone cameras.
As someone who is into old analog rangefinders and 3d printing, this is absolutely amazing. I have a Canonet QL17 that I'd love to try to convert in this fashion.
Questions:
How did you adjust the location of the sensor in relation to the focal plane? Did you just measure and 3d-print, or did you have ways to calibrate it afterwards? Your photos are super crisp, which is really impressive.
I noticed that the digital camera screen is on bulb - I'm assuming that you're using the lightmeter / aperture / shutter controls of the rangefinder?
How do you tell the digital camera to finish taking the photo - do you have to start taking the photo with the digital camera, fire the physical shutter, and finish with the digital camera? Or have you automated that process somehow?
People with more money than time and hacking skills can also consider the purchase of something like a Leica M8 or M9 (the M8 is actually relatively quasi-affordable-ish when purchased used) and an old lens (right now I have my grandfather's 50mm/f1.4 LTM lens, which dates from the 1960s and fits with the simplest of adapters). It's a kinda cool combination. Not quite as cool as this hackery. But cool.
No need for much money. There are hundreds of adapter types available for most mainstream bodies. Cheap Canon or Nikon digital slr (used, old generation, etc.) and an adapter, you can use lenses from yesteryear.
I have my dad's Nikon F first gen 50 on an old Canon body and can switch it over to my Fuji XPro-1 as well, all with some $20 adapters off ebay.
