Can we expect an M8 competitor anytime soon?

sitemistic said:
VC entered the film rangefinder market at exactly the right time, while film still dominated the market place. Would he enter
that same market for the first time now? Interesting question.
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to guess that the answer to your question is "NO". Maybe even "Heck NO".
 
sitemistic said:
VC entered the film rangefinder market at exactly the right time, while film still dominated the market place. Would he enter that same market for the first time now? Interesting question.
Click to expand...
Zeiss did that though.
 
Fill the gap, long live the next digi RF! All someone has to do is put together a Zeiss RF and fill that gap. Nikon could do this and why not? It didn't make sense for Epson to do it and they did. I'm sure Nikon could whip up a few RF lenses in no time.
 
sitemistic said:
I don't think there is any incentive for Nikon to do a RF. There is no substantial base of existing Nikon film RF users, they don't make RF lenses that they need to sale. Unlike Leica, they stopped making RF's years ago. They would pretty much be starting from scratch in the market, something Leica didn't have to do. It just doesn't seem to make economic sense for Nikon to do it.
Click to expand...

But what if Nikon were to make an RF body for their SLR lenses?

-- I don't know whether the distance encoders in the current AF-D Nikkors are accurate enough for focusing (they may just supply an approximate distance measurement for flash automation etc.) If they are, or if they could be upgraded, they could easily supply the distance input for an RF system driven by a stepper motor, rather than fragile, expensive mechanical couplings. Presto, an all-digital RF system that could be mass-produced and calibrated on automated equipment, rather than requiring the expensive hand finishing that goes into Leica Ms.

-- The latest Nikon DSLRs, e.g. the D300, can focus in their "live view" mode via contrast signals from the sensor. While this is slow when used as the only focusing system, it might be more acceptable if all it had to do was fine-tune focus achieved by a separate RF system.

-- Live view means the camera wouldn't necessarily be limited to a small range of lenses; it could use the electronically coupled RF for certain lenses and live view for all the others, including zooms and extreme teles.

-- A Nikon SLR body is fairly thick, while an M body is thin; this opens up the possibility of having a thin body with an M-mount flange, plus an electronically coupled adapter that would accept Nikkor DSLR lenses.

-- Presumably this body could use many of the internal subsystems and accessories of a D300 or D3 SLR, so the fact that it wouldn't be a high-volume seller wouldn't necessarily be a handicap.

And there you'd have it: a "niche" camera that would fit right in with the rest of the Nikon system, offering unique benefits not available from competitors, and compatible with Nikkor SLR lenses as well as M-mount lenses. It wouldn't sell in huge numbers, of course, but since it would be based on existing engineering it could well be a nicely profitable specialty item.

If this sounds a lot like some of the "D3x" rumors circulating a few months ago, well, there you are. Most pundits at that time dismissed those rumors as impractical and crazy. I admit it's unlikely that Nikon would make such a camera, but I hope I've demonstrated that it would be neither impractical nor crazy!
 
Yes, I understand that it was basically Epson's idea when they saw what Cosina could do as a partner, and that Cosina handed over the chassis and mechanical parts on contract to Epson for the addition of electronics and final assembly. Mr K, as said, is on record as not interested in making digital cameras, but he's in the business of camera gear on contract, so their role in the project made sense.

I think Epson had some good ideas and design sense, but didn't have camera-related expertise to make sure the Cosina-made bits were adjusted properly.

Likewise, it would seem to make equal sense for there to be a digitial Zeiss-Ikon, with Zeiss doing the electronics on the Cosina-produced chassis. Zeiss has made comments about the ZM lenses being digital-ready, and that they might find a digital body interesting when the available technology meets their standards. That might mean a 24x36 sensor, or maybe something else, but I'd expect it to be uniquely attractive in some way.

Holding one's breath might be premature.:bang:
 
Nikon's FM3a is holding value rather well in spite of being a film slr. This body is basically the slr equivalent of the MP. To be in such demand must mean that a digital version would sell rather well, mustn't it?
It probably wouldn't be cheap to produce, but there are a lot of people asking for such a thing...
As for Mr. Kobayashi's comments about digital cameras, those words were spoken some time ago. Changes have happened in that time, and the changes each year are slower than the last. If this weren't true the now 4 year old RD-1 design would be hopelessly obsolete and it isn't; it still produces half respectable images by present standards. A sensor of today's standards will not be as obsolete in 4 years as that one is now.
I'm not trying to say there will be tons of choices in this part of the market next week, but it does seem like it could happen.
Time will tell.
 
sitemistic said:
Despite our own fanatic love for RF's, there are relatively few photographers with any interest in rangefinders, film or digital. For a large company to really make money requires economy of scale or incredibly high prices.
Click to expand...

Yeh... I have yet to run into another RF shooter outside of a camera shop. Surprising since I live in one of the most populated states in the US.

I'm not holding my breath...
 
Still Dreamin'

Still Dreamin'

I don't know that a digital CL or CLE would kill M8 sales that much if the camera were made of polycarb around an aluminum frame with frame lines for the new Summarits. It would possibly depend on the timing of its marketing. If it were introduced when M8 sales started to decline it might make more sense than an M9 in the $7-8,000 mark. Maybe a Leica Mr. K collaberation? I don't see anyone else producing a D rangefinder unless an existing body can be adapted to a sensor and existing parts can be used as the R&D versus the return on investment is presently not great enough in the rangefinder market. If someone does produce a compact digital rangefinder with M mount I want one.:eek:
 
Repeating an idea i mentioned in another thread - do we even need a removable lens ? A digified tri-elmar and a full frame sensor, maybe with a non-optical manual rangefinder to reduce tooling costs in the tricky bits of the camera. How would that work ? Well, there are focus-assist indicators in some dslr's for when using manual lenses, so how about five (or seven, or a moving arrow) indicators showing how far out the lens image is ? The sensor could be combined with a movable metering arm, although now I think of it, the precision might not be enough for a contrast based system. Ideas based on an existing, small dslr could be interesting . . hallo Pentax/Samsung ?
 
MartinP said:
Repeating an idea i mentioned in another thread - do we even need a removable lens ?
Click to expand...

Yes, we do. I'd find it hard to rationalize a four-figure price tag on a fixed-lens camera, regardless of what the lens was. And at the sub-four-figure price point, there's already a lot of competition from fixed-lens "prosumer" compacts, so an expensive me-too design would have a hard time making headway.
 
The really, really, i mean really good solution would be a sensor+electronics module that would fit the size and shape of a regular 35mm film cartridge and could be used in any 35mm camera.

Hey. I'm running to the patent office right now!

(I suppose this is a very difficult engineering task, but maybe some day, in 15 years or so...)
 
HELL! too late!

My million-dollar-invention seems to be around for some time...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0102/01021201siliconfilmefs1.asp

http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/imagek.html

http://www.dcviews.com/_siliconfilm/1.htm


sf_1f.jpg





I hope someone gets it done!
 
Last edited:
How small is small? Nikons D40 and Canons 400 look realy small to me.

A RF camera using SLR lenses? Like a Canon 17-40? Or a 24-70? Even a 50 is a big hunk today.

Exchangeable electronics? When the electronics are the most expensive part of the system?

Fuji fitted digital sensors etc.pp into Nikon F60 and F80 cameras, I think they could do it with a FM3, too. Instead they rebuild D200s with their own sensors.

Come to think of that, nobody ever mentioned a Cosina Fuji joint venture. Fuji has to buy cameras somewhere and has the know how to build digital cameras on film bodies. They produce their own sensors as well.

And for Zeiss lenses being digital ready, I think they are quite happy to sell those to Leica owners like they sell to Nikon and Pentax and Sony dSLR owners.
 
monkeypainter said:
The really, really, i mean really good solution would be a sensor+electronics module that would fit the size and shape of a regular 35mm film cartridge and could be used in any 35mm camera.

Hey. I'm running to the patent office right now!

(I suppose this is a very difficult engineering task, but maybe some day, in 15 years or so...)
Click to expand...

That idea was tried years ago. The product was called e-Film and was supposed to convert any SLR into a DSLR. It consisted of a film-canister shaped unit with the electronics, a strip with the sensor on it, and a replacement back for your SLR with a tiny display. Was supposed to hit 2-3Mpix at about $999 but was superceded rapidly by P&S cameras with more MP and 1/3 the cost.
 
monkeypainter said:
The really, really, i mean really good solution would be a sensor+electronics module that would fit the size and shape of a regular 35mm film cartridge and could be used in any 35mm camera.
Click to expand...

Strikes me that the problem might be accounting for the different internal dimensions of cameras. Wouldn't the core pieces be a sensor, a place to store data, and the electronics to get that done? You don't necessarily need to include the electronics to offload data. That could be handled by a separate little widget into which you'd place the "cannister".

I suspect it's one more thing that's feasible, but unpitchable in a boardroom.

Meanwhile, anyone know of a digital that can grab onto a wireless connection and automatically send data back to any computer on the net, as the pictures are taken? Seems like something a PJ's editor would love.
 
wgerrard said:
Meanwhile, anyone know of a digital that can grab onto a wireless connection and automatically send data back to any computer on the net, as the pictures are taken? Seems like something a PJ's editor would love.
Click to expand...

Both Nikon and Canon have wireless for some of their dSLRs.

MF backs with wireless are available, too.
 
-kk- said:
As much as I would like to, I know i just cant justify the price of an M8, so im really looking forward to the day when someone else will come up with a digital rangefinder. question is, will this be anytime soon?
Click to expand...

I earnestly doubt it. The market is just too small for such a large bet. In Leica's case, a digital rangefinder was their only hope of surviving. But Zeiss, another company with significant investments in rangefinder cameras, has many other larger ventures. The camera world has long since moved past the relatively short-lived rangefinder camera design. Nostalgia is a short-term strategy.


But what really got me intrigued was the new Canon G9. I wonder if (and im sure there is a large dose of wishful thinking on my part here) Canon is capable/wants to go down this routeof a d-rf?? They already have the sensor technology, and i swear the 1st time i saw the G9 i thought it was a digital canonet. hey i dont even mind if its a fixed lens! I just need something digital for those long trips to refugee camps etc, something reliable and with good resolution (i work in poverty alleviation, carrying rolls of films through security or trying to store them for long periods in camps is not much fun).
Click to expand...

The G9 is an excellent camera. I use one (and a G7 before that) as my go-anywhere camera. As a small unobtrusive camera (which an M8 certainly is not today) that produces very good quality images the G9 stands at the top of the mountain today. For less than 10% of the price of an M8 you get 80-85% of the value of an M8 in a G9. I love my M8 but I love, and "date", my G9 just as much.

Donate the $5,000+ you'll save to buying food for the refugees of the world.
 
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is from Thom Hogans site ......

Fair enough, not a nikon range finder, but could be really fun to play with any way.

May not happen though ...

Coolpix:[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The P1 Pro (alternate name: Coolpix DX1 Pro): DX sensor, small zoom lens (2x-3x), 6-10mp. A longer range prediction: it will do well if it stays "pocketable" in size. [/FONT]
  • [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The P2 Pro (alternate name: Coolpix DX2 Pro): DX sensor, large zoom lens (3x-5x), 10-12mp. And the opposite prediction: a D40x with an 18-135mm VR lens will seem like a far better bargain, so this model will get a lot of press, but not much buying support.[/FONT]
This competes with the Ricoh/G9 quite well, depends on focusing model/ergonomics, let me upgrade to a MF/Focusing screen model and I'd buy one at 1K!

Dave
 
GRDII and LX-2 are excellent cameras. The GRDII is pro body with full manual control. Even has external OVF and adaptable lenses for 21mm and 40mm. A special "snap focus" mode makes focusing instant. But the best attribute for me is the fact that it has 4:3 and 6:6 modes. Similarly, I love the LX2 simply for the 16:9 mode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom