Sam N
Well-known
I wouldn't mind a 1.3x crop if it were affordable, but it's still far from ideal. Many of the pros who use Canon 1D 1.3x cameras use zoom lenses or superteles, so it's less of an problem for them.
Are you talking about Leica factory wages vs. Cosina factory wages, or average German wages vs. average Japanes ones? I am pretty confident that workers in Leica's factory make considerably more than those in Cosina's.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I think we are much closer than 2 years away from 24x36 sensors. The Canon D5 started putting the pressure on, the D3 from Nikon is surrently the champion ( at the moment Nikon outsells Canon in the DSLR market!) and Sony's 24MP for the fall is showing the way.
The DSLR market is very much technology driven. The latest technology sells!!! In practical terms it does not really matter if you have 16-21-24 MP - image quality is soft ware driven more than "optically" driven.
Anyone thinking of a DRf has to be planning for a full size sensor with the low noise capability of a D3 (or the new D700) and a M-mount compatible body.
Epson could get away with a 1.5 sensor for the moment, up the Mp and upgrade processing software and put a $2500-3000 tag on it. It would sell!
Anyone else,Nikon,Canon,Sony and Pentax would have to be a bit ahead of the pack to cash in. A full frame DRf with the features of the ZM, as in finder, body size and a modest 16Mp would be less than a M8, but more than a new RD camera.
Most of these speculations will be answered at FotoKina in September -
it will be fun to see what shows up!
The DSLR market is very much technology driven. The latest technology sells!!! In practical terms it does not really matter if you have 16-21-24 MP - image quality is soft ware driven more than "optically" driven.
Anyone thinking of a DRf has to be planning for a full size sensor with the low noise capability of a D3 (or the new D700) and a M-mount compatible body.
Epson could get away with a 1.5 sensor for the moment, up the Mp and upgrade processing software and put a $2500-3000 tag on it. It would sell!
Anyone else,Nikon,Canon,Sony and Pentax would have to be a bit ahead of the pack to cash in. A full frame DRf with the features of the ZM, as in finder, body size and a modest 16Mp would be less than a M8, but more than a new RD camera.
Most of these speculations will be answered at FotoKina in September -
it will be fun to see what shows up!
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I doubt that if Nikon is making an RF, that it is M mount.
For one thing Nikon wants people to buy Nikkor lenses, not glass from Leica, Zeiss, VC.
Second, Nikon has some of the most fanatical users out there, who would be the first in line to buy a digital SP, even if it ended up in a glass case.
Can you imagine the reaction from Nikon RF owners, if they could not mount their precious Nikkors on the camera?
Olsen
Well-known
The M8 has a 1.3 crop.
I'd would have loved a digital RF, but the RD-1 was too risky and the M8 too expensive. So for now it's the ZI and scanner.Such hardship!
Leica M8 has a crop factor of 1,33.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
If Nikon made an M-mount camera and lenses, the camera could offer an Orion-type adapter and still have a story for folks with their classic lenses. And if they came up with new lenses, special editions at the time of release for the S-mount could serve that market.
peripatetic
Well-known
LOL, I stand corrected. Have you looked up the measurements and calculated that it's precisely 1.33? Is it perhaps 1.333? Are you rounding too? How many decimal places will satisfy you when it comes to crop factor.
Last edited:
jwhitley
Established
If it were a Zeiss project made by Cosina, in Japan, then obviously its nick should be the "daIkon".
:bang:leafy
Established
D700
D700
Has anyone heard the Nikon D700 rumor? I see it as a sign that FX sensors are starting to become popular (or companies are working hard towards utilizing FX sensors in non-pro bodies). The FX RF is just not too far away now.
We should start a poll on "How much would you shell out for a FX RF body?"
D700
Has anyone heard the Nikon D700 rumor? I see it as a sign that FX sensors are starting to become popular (or companies are working hard towards utilizing FX sensors in non-pro bodies). The FX RF is just not too far away now.
We should start a poll on "How much would you shell out for a FX RF body?"
Sam N
Well-known
That would also depend on other factors like build quality, image quality, RF baselength, and - for some - little red dots.
Avotius
Some guy
I think the DRF market continuing to go on in a sure thing, while it will be slow to mature and have product updates I am optimistic that it will not be ignored. If Nikon or Zeiss or someone came out with a good DRF that does not need IR filters and can take it like the rest, then count me in. I would stick my credit card down for a m mount Nikon DRF without a second thought. By the way, if Nikon does it, I hope they do the smart thing and also make a Nikon RF mount to M mount conversion adapter so people can mount their Nikkors.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
The Nikon SP-D digital prototypes all have an M-Leica mount.
I seriously doubt Epson will get back in the rangefinder game. The R-D1 was a pet project of a single employee and he has moved on.
I seriously doubt Epson will get back in the rangefinder game. The R-D1 was a pet project of a single employee and he has moved on.
actually, nikon is making a - not only a full frame rf, but a larger than full frame - m-mount. with a curved sensor, that gives you a circular image limited only by the coverage of the lens you use. this new technique will allow for a whole new approach on focusing too. i know this is true because i have this from a friend of a friend who's a bartender somewhere in the pacific and if anyone should know it's her cause she was having a thing with this high profile nikon engineer who ....
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
B&W DRf
B&W DRf
My perfect DRf:
- M-mount
- 8 MP B&W-only sensor (for the logic of this, read Mike Johnson's recent piece at theonlinephotographer.com or in the lastest "Black & White Photography" magazine)
- RAW only... so no need for complicated menus to adjust white balance, etc.
- No LCD screen... I didn't need one on my film cameras, so why now?
- Dials on top: shutter speed, ISO, +/- exposure
- Great TTL meter
- zooming viewfinder to match attached lens (like my Canon G9)
- body shape... Leica/Voigtlander/Zeiss-like (but don't let CV design the strap lugs!)
Cost - Under a $1000.
My guess as to the likely manufacturer: Sigma, Ricoh, or Epson. Everyone else seems to be held down by the inertia of their existing lenses.
B&W DRf
My perfect DRf:
- M-mount
- 8 MP B&W-only sensor (for the logic of this, read Mike Johnson's recent piece at theonlinephotographer.com or in the lastest "Black & White Photography" magazine)
- RAW only... so no need for complicated menus to adjust white balance, etc.
- No LCD screen... I didn't need one on my film cameras, so why now?
- Dials on top: shutter speed, ISO, +/- exposure
- Great TTL meter
- zooming viewfinder to match attached lens (like my Canon G9)
- body shape... Leica/Voigtlander/Zeiss-like (but don't let CV design the strap lugs!)
Cost - Under a $1000.
My guess as to the likely manufacturer: Sigma, Ricoh, or Epson. Everyone else seems to be held down by the inertia of their existing lenses.
JTK
Established
A smarter idea, and better for middle-aged eyes (Leica buyers), would be a G9 using Canon L glass and "tri-elmar" concept along with bright frame finder...would terminate Cosina/Zeiss/Leica forever.
It's a stretch to claim Cosina lenses rival Leica. They are incapable of a 21/2.8 or 35/1.4 that's smaller than a cabbage. My 25/4 and 50/1.5 are good lenses, but...
It's a stretch to claim Cosina lenses rival Leica. They are incapable of a 21/2.8 or 35/1.4 that's smaller than a cabbage. My 25/4 and 50/1.5 are good lenses, but...
JTK
Established
...and Cosina has nothing smaller than a cabbage to rival Canon 35/2 LTM.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I beg to differ! A/ CV makes a 35f1.4 and though it is bigger than the old Summilux 35f1.4 - it is considerably better than it.
The reason CV does not make a 21f2.8 is that they make one for the Zeiss line of lenses. Obviously they are not going to make a lens that will compete directly with something that they make for another company!
As for performance - I have a full complement of CV lenses and most of the ZM lenses (not the 15f2.8 or the 85f2. The 15f2.8 is too big, too expensive and for that kind of money I want it coupled to the rf. The 85/2 is nice enough, but I rarely use anything longer than 75 - and the image quality of the 85f2 is similar to the 90 Apo-Asph Summicron and I got rid of that one, because I never used it). The image quality of the various CV/ZM lenses rivals what Leica does today. They have two lenses that are currently without "peers" in their line up- the 50f1.4 Asph and the 75f2 Asph. For the rest, I have them or have tried them and found them wanting, either because of performance, size and lately- price!
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Any decent, modern lens will be better than the old 35mm f/1.4 Summilux; nobody disputes that. It is much better than the other 35mm rangefinder lenses in the f/1.4 - f/1.5 of the same era it was designed.
Mine's coming back from a long journey from Norway to Minneso-tah to Nu Yowk to Solms to Nu Yowk and back here. Can't wait to test it out now that it's been (I believe) overhauled.
Tom A said:
I probably have nothing at the moment to trade, but if you are ever thinking of getting rid of the 85mm f/2 Sonnar ZM, I'd be more than happy to snatch it up. I love Sonnars. Hard to find a nice one at a decent price.
infrequent
Well-known
@olsen - no dRF from nikonsonyzeiss is going to cost like the M8. that much is a given.
sam_m
Well-known
LOL, I stand corrected. Have you looked up the measurements and calculated that it's precisely 1.33? Is it perhaps 1.333? Are you rounding too? How many decimal places will satisfy you when it comes to crop factor.
36/27 = 4/3 = 1 + 1/3 = 1.333333333333333333 etc
There is a small difference, eg. 75 x 1.3 = 97.5, 75 x (4/3) = 100