kshapero
South Florida Man
With Nikon soon announcing a lower cost (rumored to be in the $1500 range) Full Frame digital DSLR, why can't somebody do the same with a Rangefinder format? it would be peachy.
hteasley
Pupil
There's already a big thread on it elsewhere. The upshot: not enough people care about full-frame (most consumers have no idea what you're even talking about when you talk about full-frame); rangefinders are a niche product, being mostly manual cameras, when everything else is going towards auto-everything; the new mirrorless cameras like the NEX series and the Fuji X cameras are awesome; APS-C sensors are so much cheaper to produce. The topic has been beat to death in that thread, pretty much.
gb hill
Veteran
Because the masses won't buy one. They want DSLR's.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I disagree. We yelled for smaller formats. Got NEX, M4/3, etc. So how hard would it be, if Nikon can do it?
wafflecakee
Well-known
Rangefinder coupling seems to be the expensive part.
BobYIL
Well-known
It's not.
Remember decades long we had series of Canonets, Olympus 35's, Yashica Electro's etc., all gone for a fraction of Leicas, Nikon RFs.. Before the SLR was the "expensive" design.. evolving through decades and finding use from professional down to grandmother hands, the sales of reflex cameras (DSLRs in our day) has reached to some 12 millions. Compare this to the only real rangefinder(digital) of today: Leica.. selling about 16.000 rangefinders a year.
The result of this evolution: An APS-C size DSLR with 24MP sensor and together with a zoom is selling for $699 whereas any m43 body near to its specifications was selling around $850-900 (without lens..) What does this tell you?
It tells me one thing: For Nikon and Canon the only expansion possibility left is to initiate a production series in the "mirrorless" branch. It's there where the "new turnover", larger profit margin and future developments are; for the DSLR market is about to reach stagnation as far as the overall sales volumes are concerned wheraes the mirrorless will keep on surging..
Nikon's $1.600 full-frame is a sign for what could come in the very near future. The major issue with the mirrorless is the preparation of a new array of lenses for nobody should expect the major players to come up with the M-mount. Even they could adapt it for AF, they would never do it..
The first company to produce a mirrorless, full frame camera wins. Think of a high-spec Sony NEX for example.
Why no one did until now is beyond me. Maybe the Japanese are squeezing as much as possible out of the APS-C market before upgrading to larger sensors for everyone. Pretty much what has happened to Nikon in the transition from APS-C to FX.
Imagine how many Nikon cameras would have NOT been sold if there were an early, affordable FX product at the time of the D2X / 200.
Why no one did until now is beyond me. Maybe the Japanese are squeezing as much as possible out of the APS-C market before upgrading to larger sensors for everyone. Pretty much what has happened to Nikon in the transition from APS-C to FX.
Imagine how many Nikon cameras would have NOT been sold if there were an early, affordable FX product at the time of the D2X / 200.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Hell I would even applaud a full frame mirrorless rig. And I think Sony will do it first. That NEX 7 form factor would work quite nicely.
DNG
Film Friendly
If Sony, does it 1st... maybe they should re-think their lens line and offer a WIDER and BETTER consumer line that can resolve what the sensor can handle. Unless they think their market is mainly dumb newbees that REALLY don't have a clue that IQ can be much better with better consumer lenses. (Exclude the EXPENSIVE ZIESS LENSES) And rely on the SONY brand to sell cameras. But, how long will that last until they wise up and DEMAND decent (really decent) lenses... I mean, Really, M4/3 has a better lenses line up in consumer and higher quality lenses.
So, Back on topic... I think Nikon or Canon would be a better bet on a FF mirrorless, since THEY already have a decent FF lens line already, both consumer and pro level.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I don't think anyone else will bother now that mirrorless is taking hold ... and the next big thing will obviously be a full frame mirrorless.
Then we can all sit back and watch legacy lens prices really go through the roof!
Then we can all sit back and watch legacy lens prices really go through the roof!
cosmonaut
Well-known
Sony will most likely make the first mirrorless FF camera if I had to bet. Affordable that is, excluding the M9.
I doubt it will be called a rangefinder though. A few consier the E-M5 full frame since their lenses are designed for the entire sensor.
I doubt it will be called a rangefinder though. A few consier the E-M5 full frame since their lenses are designed for the entire sensor.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
With Nikon soon announcing a lower cost (rumored to be in the $1500 range) Full Frame digital DSLR, why can't somebody do the same with a Rangefinder format? it would be peachy.
Conversely ... why can't M9s just fall from the sky so we can all have one?
I think the full frame rangefinder craving we experience is driven largely by the fact that the M9 has been priced just out of our reach. If a full frame RF did appear on the market for less than half the price of the M9 we at RFF would all wet ourselves without doubt ... but would the rest of the camera buying public be as excited?
Aristophanes
Well-known
The E-mount is FF in image circle diameter.
Monochrom
Well-known
i don´t think such a low cost ff ragefinder can exist...not even in the theoretical world...
rf´s are expensive...
rf´s are expensive...
froyd
Veteran
But who's going to make one that is designed to work primarily via an optical viewfinder? Will Fuji continue to be the only player that understand the appeal of OVF?