Full Frame X Trans M Mount with Rangefinder. What if? Would you buy?

[eleskin]

I do not know if we will ever see this, but what if Fuji made a full frame M mount X Trans sensor camera with offset lenses for M mount complete with a mechanical optical rangefinder with the form factor similar to the new M and or X Pro 1? This is all pie in the sky but what if? And for lets say $2500. Would you buy one? I would!

 

[bobbywise]

For sure I'd buy one.
In fact, I'm currently dreaming of a Full Frame X-Trans design body with Olympus OM Mount and Minolta MD/MC Mount 🙂

 

[Lss]

Absolutely.

 

[eleskin]

The big advantage!!!!!

The big advantage!!!!!

Well we all know Fuji designed X Trans to perform as well if not better that full frame. Knowing this, a full frame X Trans sensor should blow away most full frame sensors offered today. Add to that the capability to mount M lenses and the use of a traditional rangefinder and you have everyone beat. This will not diminish X Pro sales in that not everyone will lay out $2500 for a body. People who have Leica and Zeiss lenses might, and they might also buy new Fuji lenses too in that Fuji will price them below Zeiss and Leica. This would be a win win for Fuji. Leica probably would hate this, but so what. Competition is healthy!

 

[Godfrey]

No.

From what I've seen, read about, and experienced in processing, there is no hard evidence to support saying that the Xtrans sensor is any better than a standard Bayer mosaic at producing excellent quality images. And there is plenty of evidence to indicate that processing raw data from an Xtrans sensor is quite a bit more challenging and prone to more issues than processing raw data from a standard Bayer mosaic.

On that basis, there's nothing to motivate me to be interested in a camera simply because it has a bigger version of this sensor technology at its heart, and such a camera is otherwise a purely speculative unknown as to how it would perform against other cameras of similar specification.

G

 

[aeturnum]

Finances allowing, yes.

I rented an RX1 last weekend. It's a good camera, and can really produce some great images, but the IQ (especially the high-iso) out of the X-Pro is equal or better. I'd be very interested in a FF x-trans, though it wouldn't be using X-mount lenses (they're only aps-c sized).

 

[jsrockit]

Yes, of course I'll take one of these fantasy cameras. Just like I'd take the fantasy voigtlander version, and the fantasy zeiss version, and the fantasy Leica digital CL version. 🙂

 

[NicoM]

No.

From what I've seen, read about, and experienced in processing, there is no hard evidence to support saying that the Xtrans sensor is any better than a standard Bayer mosaic at producing excellent quality images. And there is plenty of evidence to indicate that processing raw data from an Xtrans sensor is quite a bit more challenging and prone to more issues than processing raw data from a standard Bayer mosaic.

On that basis, there's nothing to motivate me to be interested in a camera simply because it has a bigger version of this sensor technology at its heart, and such a camera is otherwise a purely speculative unknown as to how it would perform against other cameras of similar specification.

G

I think that the general consensus is that the X-Tran technology is capable of matching the quality that comes out of full-fram cameras, both in detail, dynamic range and high ISO performance. There are a lot of side by side comparisons that are only a google search away. I presume that a FF version would be even better.

The RAW processing is still an issue, but only because it is new. With progressive updates, like yesterdays LR 4.4, Fuji users are slowly getting the processing power they need.

Another presumable benefit would that it would be a lot cheaper than a Leica M.

 

[semilog]

The RAW processing is not an issue unless you use Aperture. Silkypix, Capture One, RPP64, and -- as of yesterday -- Lightroom all provide superb quality.

With respect to FF, I am still skeptical. This is simply because the size, weight, and price of the current x-cameras is near the Mandleresque sweet spot. Bigger and heavier has no appeal whatsoever. If it did, I'd be shooting a 6D or a D800. But I'd rather shoot with a Fuji 645Wi and Provia, to tell the truth...

 

[back alley]

there is the fantasy of full frame...but i think the rx1 has shown that it isn't the be all end all we had hoped for...the xp1/xe1 are pretty fantastic cameras as they are...i finally feel ok with what i have and am satisfied to just try to create a few great images...

 

[edge100]

Maybe. I love the idea, but they'd really have to get it right to make it something I would consider.

It would need to work well with wide angle lenses, without too many kludges to get rid of smearing and/or colour shifts. It would need to have an excellent focus confirmation system, to compensate for the fact that DoF will be lower than with an APS-C camera. And it would need to be reasonably priced such that I'm not tempted by a used M9.

To be honest, I'm shooting so much film these days that FF digital is less of an issue for me now as it was about a year ago. Plus, the APS-C Fuji's are pretty stellar as it stands (as is the XF glass).

It would be a tough call.

 

[redisburning]

no.

would change my mind if it were a Fovean set up though.

the Fuji sensor is certainly nice but the D800 and 1DX are in a different world from what I've seen.

 

[splitimageview]

For that price, yes it would be a hit, with or without Xtrans. Would I buy one? No. The APS-C Fuji and the Fujinon lenses are that good; buy an entire kit for significantly less than a 35/2 Leica ASPH, or the $2500 body only, for that matter.

 

[jsrockit]

the Fuji sensor is certainly nice but the D800 and 1DX are in a different world from what I've seen.

Isn't that to be expected based on the price difference, etc?

 

[kbg32]

All sky, no pie.

 

[djonesii]

getting close in any case

getting close in any case

From what we have seen in the Fuji X100s ....

Add an M mount adapter to the X Pro 1s ( or whatever they call it) , and with the focusing aids from the X100s, and you are VERY close to a range finder way of working ..... Just add a bit bigger field of view and an electronic frame line to the EFV, or maybe some clever way to overlay the focusing aid to the OVF.

As for full frame .... for ME most of the time, never miss it. Plenty of DOF control in APS-C, and the IQ is down in the pixel peeping range, since I print very few over 8x10 anyway.

Dave

 

[Jamie Pillers]

We're not that far away. The split-screen focusing coming in the X100s may portend rangefinder-type experience in future X cameras. And full frame may not even be necessary if you believe everything metabones is saying about their new Speed Booster adapters. It sure is a fun time to watch camera development! 🙂

 

[redisburning]

Isn't that to be expected based on the price difference, etc?

expected but rarely delivered.

the D800 was the first CMOS based digital camera where I looked at shots and the only thing that came to mind was "wow".

 

[semilog]

...Yet, looking side-by-side at 48" wide prints, I still prefer the look of a Mamiya 7's output to that of the D800.

 

[redisburning]

...Yet, looking side-by-side at 48" wide prints, I still prefer the look of a Mamiya 7's output to that of the D800.

well I do too. I also favor nearly any 4x5/8x10/other LF shot.

but when I look at D800E files, I mean I still recognize immediately that they are digital, but they do look fantastic as long as they are used in the same sorts of contrast ranges that slide film excels in.