damien.murphy
Damien
A silly discussion, who knows why Nikon do what they do, as aside from Nikon. I'll leave that to Thom Hogan/ et al.
It does seem there is a disturbing attitude here among digital shooters to spend considerable time second-guessing what Leica can & can't do. It's amusing for a while (the former business analyst in me), but it seems more and more photographers these days seem to be acting like shareholders of Nikon/ Canon/ Leica/ et al.
Anywho, I'm off to more amusing pastures/ threads. There's no profit in it for me to speculate on low cost digital rangefinders
Nokton48
Veteran
Oh, Crap. I thought this was a thread about Pink Floyd. I just took my Boys to see "The Wall" LIVE with Roger Waters, they tell me they were in tears during the performance.
wgerrard
Veteran
You misunderstand, perhaps. I see the m4/3, and similar cameras, as steps on the road to newer designs that will attract customers aways from both RF and DSLR users.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
michaelshane
Well-known
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine..." -- RFC 1925
This quote has been in my email .sig for about a decade now.
j j
Well-known
Roger
Market size for micro4/3 was tiny until someone decided to take a punt. Now they take a significant proportion of camera sales. These are not so far from a rangefinder in concept (so long as you leave aside the idea that a rangefinder patch has to be small).
Direct competitors to the X1 include (soon) Fuji X100, Ricoh modular, Samsung NX100, Sony NEX, micro4/3 cameras and Sigma DP cameras. And there will be more.
Tech that exists for other cameras and can be adapted, which brings down the price of manufacture. Micro4/3 cameras share a sensor. Samsung and Sigma (and previously Epson) use sensors developed for SLRs. And Cosina re-used a film SLR for their rangefinders.
John
Market size for micro4/3 was tiny until someone decided to take a punt. Now they take a significant proportion of camera sales. These are not so far from a rangefinder in concept (so long as you leave aside the idea that a rangefinder patch has to be small).
Direct competitors to the X1 include (soon) Fuji X100, Ricoh modular, Samsung NX100, Sony NEX, micro4/3 cameras and Sigma DP cameras. And there will be more.
Tech that exists for other cameras and can be adapted, which brings down the price of manufacture. Micro4/3 cameras share a sensor. Samsung and Sigma (and previously Epson) use sensors developed for SLRs. And Cosina re-used a film SLR for their rangefinders.
John
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"Market size for micro4/3 was tiny until someone decided to take a punt. Now they take a significant proportion of camera sales."
Do they? I wonder what proportion of camera sales are M4/3? You can't buy one at Wal-Mart or Target.
Do they? I wonder what proportion of camera sales are M4/3? You can't buy one at Wal-Mart or Target.
bigeye
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear John,
We are however looking at very different things here. Using a new technology in new cameras is one thing: 'reverse engineering' to fit a new technology into an old body is another matter, especially when you want a big sensor close to the lens flange. With a crop sensor, it's just about feasible to recycle an SLR sensor (RD-1). With full frame, you need either microlenses or a LOT of post-processing to get the edges bright enough.
At photokina I tried most of the cameras you mention, and a lot depends on what you call 'competitive'. I mentioned traditional layout in an earlier post (which I freely admit narrows the market still further) and really, I didn't see anything that I would regard as competing with the X1/X100 in that sense. Those who are happy with the cameras you cite will no doubt be happy, but if I were in that market, I think an X100 would be my first choice assuming it works. Even then, I think I'd like to try it next to an X1.
Cheers,
R.
j j
Well-known
Hi Roger
I think I see similarities where you see differences; by competitive I mean a similar camera that makes similar pictures.
Will there be a digital Leica M9 copy complete a sensor the same size as 35mm film and trad interface? Highly unlikely. Will there be a camera in a similar form that does a similar job? Highly likely.
Do I recall correctly that at one time or another Leica and Nikon both said there could be no full frame sensor in their digital cameras?
John
Hi Pickett
Yes. More than 10% of interchangeable lens camera sales in Japan last year from a standing start and 20% by December. Sales in Europe seem pretty [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']high, too[/FONT].
John
I think I see similarities where you see differences; by competitive I mean a similar camera that makes similar pictures.
Will there be a digital Leica M9 copy complete a sensor the same size as 35mm film and trad interface? Highly unlikely. Will there be a camera in a similar form that does a similar job? Highly likely.
Do I recall correctly that at one time or another Leica and Nikon both said there could be no full frame sensor in their digital cameras?
John
Hi Pickett
Yes. More than 10% of interchangeable lens camera sales in Japan last year from a standing start and 20% by December. Sales in Europe seem pretty [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']high, too[/FONT].
John
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Seven months ago there was zero market for tablet-based computers. Now the iPad is a 2+billion dollar market. Some follow while others lead.
Yet I can't help but think that manual cameras will always remain a niche market, if for no other reason than price; the average consumer is mainly concerned about cost.
~Joe
Yet I can't help but think that manual cameras will always remain a niche market, if for no other reason than price; the average consumer is mainly concerned about cost.
~Joe
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Joe,
I think this is the point, essentially.
A new technology can conquer the world (for a given value of 'conquer the world').
But what most people ask for, when they say, "Why don't they make...?" is NOT a new idea. It is not something hitherto unthought of. It is a cheaper (and usually nastier) version of something that already exists, such as a $2000 M9, or a continuation of something where the pitiless laws of the market have already cast their verdict, such as Neopan 1600.
In other words, most if those who say, "Why don't they make...?" are NOT leaders, but followers who don't actually understand the technology they are following, and want to keep an old technology alive -- cheaper.
Of course there are exceptions, whom God preserve. But read the vast majority of "Why don't they make...?" on RFF and elsewhere, and you will search in vain for traces of original thought.
Cheers,
R.
ederek
Well-known
John Camp
Well-known
People didn't adapt rangefinders out of fondness for the rangefinder mechanism, IMHO -- they did it because it was the best way to focus, until SLRs came along. After that, some people stayed with rangefinders because they were relatively compact and they simply liked them better. Between the two types, there really wasn't much difference in image quality, because they used the same films.
But SLRs and then DSLRs got the bloat. There's really not much difference in frontal area between a Nikon D3/Canon 1Ds and a big fat Speed Graphic...and with lenses, the Speeds were probably lighter. (I'm writing this off the top of my head, so I'm not sure about those weights.)
At a time when the Speed Graphics ruled, photographers, and especially war photographers and then other journalists, went to "miniature cameras' i.e. 35mm, because they were light and handy. And, critically, the IQ was "good enough" for magazine and newspaper purposes.
It seems to me that the same thing is happening all over, in a somewhat more complicated scenario, because there are three contestants, rather than two.
Against rangefinders, M4/3 offers the small-size advantage, and also offer modern focusing and viewing systems, including autofocus and image stabilization, and the possibility of genuinely long lenses. The KEY in this competition is the modern features offered by m4/3.
DSLRs have better IQ than m4/3, just as a good 4x5 Speed had better image quality than an early 35...but, the DSLRs are big and fat and bloated, and not too much can be done about that. To some extent, body size and, importantly, lens size, is determined by sensor size. I have a Pentax K-5, which has a very small body for a DSLR. It dwarfs my GF1. The KEY to m4/3 versus DSLRs is size -- just as it was in 35mm vs. Speeds. I can carry my complete m4/3 system -- two bodies, several lenses, four batteries, chargers, etc., and Mac Air (and accessories) in a Pelican briefcase.
The m4/3 also offers image quality that is "good enough" for most purposes -- all purposes on the net, and good enough for most magazine and newspaper work.
Like most people here, I have a bunch of different cameras, including a Leica M7 and M8 and several lenses, which may be on the way out; a Nikon D3 and D300, which I may also be phasing out, depending on my experiments with the K-5; a Panasonic GF1 and GH1, my current go-to system; and the K-5. I generally want three camera systems, I think -- a pocket camera, like the Canon S95; a travel and street set, which is where the m4/3 cameras shine; and a heavy duty, APS-C or Nikon full-frame system.
But, if Panasonic comes up with a sensor that matches that in the K-5, I may stay with any new heavy system at all. The m4/3 will simply be good enough for me.
JC
But SLRs and then DSLRs got the bloat. There's really not much difference in frontal area between a Nikon D3/Canon 1Ds and a big fat Speed Graphic...and with lenses, the Speeds were probably lighter. (I'm writing this off the top of my head, so I'm not sure about those weights.)
At a time when the Speed Graphics ruled, photographers, and especially war photographers and then other journalists, went to "miniature cameras' i.e. 35mm, because they were light and handy. And, critically, the IQ was "good enough" for magazine and newspaper purposes.
It seems to me that the same thing is happening all over, in a somewhat more complicated scenario, because there are three contestants, rather than two.
Against rangefinders, M4/3 offers the small-size advantage, and also offer modern focusing and viewing systems, including autofocus and image stabilization, and the possibility of genuinely long lenses. The KEY in this competition is the modern features offered by m4/3.
DSLRs have better IQ than m4/3, just as a good 4x5 Speed had better image quality than an early 35...but, the DSLRs are big and fat and bloated, and not too much can be done about that. To some extent, body size and, importantly, lens size, is determined by sensor size. I have a Pentax K-5, which has a very small body for a DSLR. It dwarfs my GF1. The KEY to m4/3 versus DSLRs is size -- just as it was in 35mm vs. Speeds. I can carry my complete m4/3 system -- two bodies, several lenses, four batteries, chargers, etc., and Mac Air (and accessories) in a Pelican briefcase.
The m4/3 also offers image quality that is "good enough" for most purposes -- all purposes on the net, and good enough for most magazine and newspaper work.
Like most people here, I have a bunch of different cameras, including a Leica M7 and M8 and several lenses, which may be on the way out; a Nikon D3 and D300, which I may also be phasing out, depending on my experiments with the K-5; a Panasonic GF1 and GH1, my current go-to system; and the K-5. I generally want three camera systems, I think -- a pocket camera, like the Canon S95; a travel and street set, which is where the m4/3 cameras shine; and a heavy duty, APS-C or Nikon full-frame system.
But, if Panasonic comes up with a sensor that matches that in the K-5, I may stay with any new heavy system at all. The m4/3 will simply be good enough for me.
JC