File :-(, x, )
Anonymous !!BUVmbS4PRcD
I want to get a digita rangefinder, but every last one of them is so goddamn pricey.

Are there any good digital rangefinders for <$1000?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Nope.

It sucks.
>> Anonymous
The market for these is very limited, yet demanding. High R&D costs + small production numbers = high prices.
>> Anonymous
>>150888
Only big players like Canikon can make a digital rangefinder affordable by reusing parts and technologies from their other cameras, but they have no incentive. And small companies have to build the camera from scratch, which leads to the final product being either extremely expensive (M8) or half-baked (R-D1).
>> Anonymous
Can someone explain when these rangefinders are actually useful? Wikipedia says they allow for measuring subject distance...I don't get it though. How is that a very useful thing? Especially when they're going for like $4000.
>> Anonymous
>>150905

easy to manual focus, discreet, smallish size

but it's mostly for pretentious faggots who can afford it

they don't do anything else special
>> Anonymous
>>150905
Look up a "rangefinder camera", not just a "rangefinder".

Rangefinder cameras are lighter, simpler to manually focus than a SLR even with a split focusing screen, lack moving mirrors and therefore are usually quieter, plus wide angle rangefinder lenses are easier to make due to smaller flange focal distance.
But there are also so many major disadvantages inherent to the rangefinder design (primarily the inability to use zooms, long telephotos and any specialized lenses and the principal lack of AF) that they've become a very niche product.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150909
>lack of AF
Minor point and doesn't really detract from your argument, but the rangefinder design doesn't explicitly disallow the possibility of autofocus. Just that all rangefinders currently in production are manual-focus-only.

(The Contax G-series was an autofocus rangefinder system, for instance)