BillBingham2
Registered User
Angel Capitalist please. Venture folks want money too quickly.
B2 (;->
B2 (;->
nextreme said:
That person already exists, and he has access to the brand name and engineering too.
Will he do it, is the question...
ferider
Veteran
I do, Dave. 
The question is not if the camera will compete with the huge brand SLRs.
The question is if you can satisfy a niche market with a limited run profitably. Like the
Nikon RF remakes that were profitable in the end. Or the (film) Bessas and CV lenses.
There is a niche market for sure. There is RFF after all
To be affordable, you need a sensor that is mass-produced.
Any custom-made sensor is too expensive. Few people know this,
but chips get MUCH cheaper with high fab throughput. As soon
as you do something specific (like leave away the IR filter layer
as Leica/Kodak did, together with their manufacturer),
it gets very, very expensive. Because for a few thousand chips you
have to configure an entire manufacturing line ... I am sure the
M8 sensor was US 1k or more, just the die, not integrated in the
camera yet.
So to have an affordable camera, you need a sensor that is manufactured
in large quantities.
To build an M-mount RF, your sensor needs at least 16bit per color, per pixel,
to be able to correct vignetting.
Put this together and you'll see: these chips did not exist before,
but do since recently.
Roland.
The question is not if the camera will compete with the huge brand SLRs.
The question is if you can satisfy a niche market with a limited run profitably. Like the
Nikon RF remakes that were profitable in the end. Or the (film) Bessas and CV lenses.
There is a niche market for sure. There is RFF after all
To be affordable, you need a sensor that is mass-produced.
Any custom-made sensor is too expensive. Few people know this,
but chips get MUCH cheaper with high fab throughput. As soon
as you do something specific (like leave away the IR filter layer
as Leica/Kodak did, together with their manufacturer),
it gets very, very expensive. Because for a few thousand chips you
have to configure an entire manufacturing line ... I am sure the
M8 sensor was US 1k or more, just the die, not integrated in the
camera yet.
So to have an affordable camera, you need a sensor that is manufactured
in large quantities.
To build an M-mount RF, your sensor needs at least 16bit per color, per pixel,
to be able to correct vignetting.
Put this together and you'll see: these chips did not exist before,
but do since recently.
Roland.
Last edited:
BillBingham2
Registered User
That's not innovation on any scale
That's not innovation on any scale
With all due respect, that's not innovation, that's execution. Microsoft is very good at execution, but out side of the fact that one division writes the OS and Messaging that is utilized by another in this application IMHO does not qualify as innovation. SAP and others have much the same function, not the flexibility, higher price point, several other PAINFUL parts too. Even they are standing on the toes of MacPac (AA&Co manufacturing package from years back) and JD Edwards. RFID, they just set a standard and push it to squash everything else.
Being the 800 pound guerilla warrior helps win, not innovate.
B2 (;->
That's not innovation on any scale
cmedin said:
With all due respect, that's not innovation, that's execution. Microsoft is very good at execution, but out side of the fact that one division writes the OS and Messaging that is utilized by another in this application IMHO does not qualify as innovation. SAP and others have much the same function, not the flexibility, higher price point, several other PAINFUL parts too. Even they are standing on the toes of MacPac (AA&Co manufacturing package from years back) and JD Edwards. RFID, they just set a standard and push it to squash everything else.
Being the 800 pound guerilla warrior helps win, not innovate.
B2 (;->
Ferider: Exactly.
I'm designing a product as we speak using a single-sourced semiconductor component, but it's also a component that is manufactured for Dell.
Ergo: we can piggy-back off Dell's production.
If we couldn't do this, there is no way we could build a product at the price the market would bear.
Ditto for the theoretical $2K modern digital RF.
I'm designing a product as we speak using a single-sourced semiconductor component, but it's also a component that is manufactured for Dell.
Ergo: we can piggy-back off Dell's production.
If we couldn't do this, there is no way we could build a product at the price the market would bear.
Ditto for the theoretical $2K modern digital RF.
aizan
Veteran
you'd think leica could survive off of their fervent believers, but it doesn't look like that's the case.
ferider
Veteran
I never said it would be Leica Only that the opportunity existed.
Think about BMW building a few thousand Z8. This is how you
should look at it. Profitable niche market, prestige, and technical
feasibility will make it happen, IMO.
Let's just say either Canon or Nikon came out with a digital FF RF,
IN ADDITION to their flagships. Would it add to their competitive edge ?
Roland.
Only that the opportunity existed.Think about BMW building a few thousand Z8. This is how you
should look at it. Profitable niche market, prestige, and technical
feasibility will make it happen, IMO.
Let's just say either Canon or Nikon came out with a digital FF RF,
IN ADDITION to their flagships. Would it add to their competitive edge ?
Roland.
BillBingham2
Registered User
No, but it might keep some engineers busy during a slow time. It might help the workers pride in Nikon. It might break even at first, but lens sales would help make a profit.
The Mercedes G500 is another example. More sold around here than anywhere else, pure prestige.
B2 (;->
The Mercedes G500 is another example. More sold around here than anywhere else, pure prestige.
B2 (;->
infrequent
Well-known
i am not quite sure that kaufman is investing in leica out of sheer benevolence. he is interested in profits as well. for leica that means selling more bodies. hence lee getting the boot with his "perpetual" camera idea.
if leicasonic can't do it, and nikon is not interested, then sony / zeiss are another bet. the best chance of such a joint venture would have been konica minolta / sony. alas the Hexar DRF will never see daylight.
i would be quite happy with 1.5 crop factor (maybe the D300 sensor) + m mount for 2000 usd or so. maybe it will sell, maybe not. we won't know unless someone tries.
if leicasonic can't do it, and nikon is not interested, then sony / zeiss are another bet. the best chance of such a joint venture would have been konica minolta / sony. alas the Hexar DRF will never see daylight.
i would be quite happy with 1.5 crop factor (maybe the D300 sensor) + m mount for 2000 usd or so. maybe it will sell, maybe not. we won't know unless someone tries.
aizan
Veteran
how do profit margins in the high end camera market and high end auto market differ?
infrequent, the r-d1 fits that description fairly well. i personally don't want a crop sensor in an interchangeable lens camera, especially if it's a rangefinder where you can only get prime lenses.
infrequent, the r-d1 fits that description fairly well. i personally don't want a crop sensor in an interchangeable lens camera, especially if it's a rangefinder where you can only get prime lenses.
Last edited:
This would fit the bill.
"The low end FX camera is supposed to come in at around $3000, using the present D3 sensor. Its cost means the cost of the body has had to be severely restricted - but Nikon has taken a radical solution to this to meet the price restraints without compromising quality - the camera is not an SLR, it’s a ‘digital rangefinder’. AF uses contrast detection off the sensor, so there’s no mirror or AF assembly. Metering is also off the sensor. The direct view finder has an overlaid internal QXGA LCD which displays variable frame lines (thus allowing zoom lenses) and, if MF is selected, a ‘digital rangefinder spot’ in which the rangefinder image is taken off the image sensor, and thus operates with a diagonal split. It shares the XGA rear LCD of the D3/300, which is the preferred mode of operation for macro work and non AF lenses. This is not an F-mount camera. Originally it was to use an updated Nikon S-mount, but will actually use an electronic M-mount. This has no mechanical couplings, so although standard M-mount lenses will operate, focus and diaphragm are uncoupled. It will be released with a remounted version of the 45/2.8 pancake, and other ‘NM’ mount lenses will become available, perhaps modernised version of classic S-mount lenses. An adapter allows mounting of F-mount lenses, with full function only for AF-S lenses. The lens mount decision has been made to allow the camera to be very slim, and it is somewhat smaller in size than a Leica M8, but styled after an SP."
http://nikonwatch.com/?p=186
"The low end FX camera is supposed to come in at around $3000, using the present D3 sensor. Its cost means the cost of the body has had to be severely restricted - but Nikon has taken a radical solution to this to meet the price restraints without compromising quality - the camera is not an SLR, it’s a ‘digital rangefinder’. AF uses contrast detection off the sensor, so there’s no mirror or AF assembly. Metering is also off the sensor. The direct view finder has an overlaid internal QXGA LCD which displays variable frame lines (thus allowing zoom lenses) and, if MF is selected, a ‘digital rangefinder spot’ in which the rangefinder image is taken off the image sensor, and thus operates with a diagonal split. It shares the XGA rear LCD of the D3/300, which is the preferred mode of operation for macro work and non AF lenses. This is not an F-mount camera. Originally it was to use an updated Nikon S-mount, but will actually use an electronic M-mount. This has no mechanical couplings, so although standard M-mount lenses will operate, focus and diaphragm are uncoupled. It will be released with a remounted version of the 45/2.8 pancake, and other ‘NM’ mount lenses will become available, perhaps modernised version of classic S-mount lenses. An adapter allows mounting of F-mount lenses, with full function only for AF-S lenses. The lens mount decision has been made to allow the camera to be very slim, and it is somewhat smaller in size than a Leica M8, but styled after an SP."
http://nikonwatch.com/?p=186
ferider
Veteran
Yep.
What really struck me about this is the RF built via overlay of viewfinder
and LCD. The PERFECT EVF ! Somebody else commented in this or another thread how
this is already typical technology in military applications. Makes total
sense in a Digital RF camera.
One can hope ...
Roland.
What really struck me about this is the RF built via overlay of viewfinder
and LCD. The PERFECT EVF ! Somebody else commented in this or another thread how
this is already typical technology in military applications. Makes total
sense in a Digital RF camera.
One can hope ...
Roland.
Last edited:
infrequent
Well-known
@digitalintrigue - that must be the "shaft leica" gameplan...if it actually is more than a rumour.
Interestingly the concept is not only a modern rangefinder (digital instead of optical) it also obsoletes the 50 year old slr design. Could it be done witn an electronic shutter? If so, it would be silent, too. Or one could digitize an M7 shutter 'snip' and use it.
infrequent
Well-known
@digitalintrigue - maybe its nikon's way of showing what they are capable of...kind of a concept camera? might not make any money but more of a "fcuk you" to canon and sony?
Olsen
Well-known
nextreme said:
I agree with this. There is a black hole in the market for a cheaper M compatible digital camera. I am repeating here, over and over again, that if Leica does not see this and does something about it, then others will.
This 'hole' is so obvious that I can't think of any other so obvious market segment that hasn't been covered. - Except for a FF-Pentax D-SLR, perhaps.
slm
Formerly nextreme
Olsen said:
It's funny that you mention Pentax, cause they come to mind as a company to build this camera. Here's my reasoning. They seem to be positioning themselves strongly in the entry (K100D) and enthusiast/prosumer (the new K20D) market segment. It doesn't seem like they want to fight it out in the pro market (I could be wrong). I think they are the size of company where the additional revenue from a small digital RF market (compared to the dslr market) would be welcome, would make a difference to their bottom line. I dunno, but it seems like a good strategy and good product fit for their line. I think their weakness though, is they have never made RF's though, right ? I mean, historically ? Does that matter ?
nextreme said:
I woudn't think so. It's more computer than rangefinder.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Didn't hurt Cosina, so no, it does not matter.nextreme said:
Given that Pentax has promised a 645 Digital for years and never delivered, however, I wouldn't bet on them delivering something they haven't even promised.
To be honest I wouldn't bet on seing another digital rangefinder at all in the future.
Philipp
zhang xk
Well-known
Leica can make a high quality lens element to add to its M mount optics so that they can be used on other systems. I mean a kind of extender coupler.
Leica shines in optics, so that it can still make top grade lenses.
Or contract another company to make a low cost M mount DRF to use M mount lenses. There are a few fixed lens digital P/S with APS sensor size that can be converted to a M mount digital camera with LV finder.
Few people will take DRF as a luxry precsion camera, or as a lifetime investment, so these kind of cameras should be priced accordingly.
My 0.2 euro.
Leica shines in optics, so that it can still make top grade lenses.
Or contract another company to make a low cost M mount DRF to use M mount lenses. There are a few fixed lens digital P/S with APS sensor size that can be converted to a M mount digital camera with LV finder.
Few people will take DRF as a luxry precsion camera, or as a lifetime investment, so these kind of cameras should be priced accordingly.
My 0.2 euro.
Last edited: