willie_901
Veteran
Addendum: A Different M Possibility
Addendum: A Different M Possibility
After thinking about this for a while, I like the idea of Fuji using the X100 platform to produce a M42 screw-mount body.
Why? Because I predict a significant population of M-mount lens owners will never purchase a non-Leica camera body. So, why go after such a relatively small market share? Fuji seems to have abandoned their Nikon F mount DSLR because Canon and Nikon dominate the DSLR market. There is no compelling reason for Fuji to use Nikon's F-mount.
At the same time huge numbers of M42 lenses are available. Fuji could market their own line of high-quality, compact M42 lenses as well. The Fuji M42 lenses and on-camera image processing engine would be optimized for this new system. Again, a significant number of M-mount owners will never purchase a non-Leica lens; Zeiss and CV already sell excellent Leica alternatives, so why would Fuji invest in their own M-mount lens line?.
Problems:
The OVF design will still be more complex compared to the X100.
The camera body will be larger than the X100 smaller than most DSLRs. (But focal length specific, post-acquisition artifact correction may not be necessary.)
While some M42 lenses are mediocre and some are excellent, M lenses quality is more consistent and M lenses are more compact.
Some M42 lenses could produce inferior results and people would incorrectly blame the Fuji body.
I suspect some camera companies subsidize a small portion of their body R&D, materials, manufacturing and marketing costs with profits from lens sales. Fuji may have to charge more for a M42 body because many customers don't need to buy Fuji lenses. This would also be true for a M-mount body.
Addendum: A Different M Possibility
After thinking about this for a while, I like the idea of Fuji using the X100 platform to produce a M42 screw-mount body.
Why? Because I predict a significant population of M-mount lens owners will never purchase a non-Leica camera body. So, why go after such a relatively small market share? Fuji seems to have abandoned their Nikon F mount DSLR because Canon and Nikon dominate the DSLR market. There is no compelling reason for Fuji to use Nikon's F-mount.
At the same time huge numbers of M42 lenses are available. Fuji could market their own line of high-quality, compact M42 lenses as well. The Fuji M42 lenses and on-camera image processing engine would be optimized for this new system. Again, a significant number of M-mount owners will never purchase a non-Leica lens; Zeiss and CV already sell excellent Leica alternatives, so why would Fuji invest in their own M-mount lens line?.
Problems:
The OVF design will still be more complex compared to the X100.
The camera body will be larger than the X100 smaller than most DSLRs. (But focal length specific, post-acquisition artifact correction may not be necessary.)
While some M42 lenses are mediocre and some are excellent, M lenses quality is more consistent and M lenses are more compact.
Some M42 lenses could produce inferior results and people would incorrectly blame the Fuji body.
I suspect some camera companies subsidize a small portion of their body R&D, materials, manufacturing and marketing costs with profits from lens sales. Fuji may have to charge more for a M42 body because many customers don't need to buy Fuji lenses. This would also be true for a M-mount body.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Charlie,
Dunno, but I don't think they do.
Bessas are a (relatively) short step from the film SLRs on which they are based.
A Bessa-digi would require a LOT more R+D, and besides, Kobayashi-san has never made much secret of the fact that he much prefers film. The RD-1 wasn't his, remember.
If there's enough money in it, he might change his mind (or he might very well not), but is there enough money in it?
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
I don't think we'll see an EVF capapble m-mount body, with an optical RF coupled VF anytime soon. Here is why:
The accuracy in digitally magnified TTL EVF is so much higher than a .5 to 1x VF RF, that most owners would be sending either their camera, or their lens back, as the focus would not match.
With my NEX and a short throw lens (e.g. 120 deg. close to infinity) at 7x, I can just breath or move the camera a mm or two back and see the area of precise focus change.
To see the same changes on an optical RF, I can move several cm forward or backwards, and still not see the change of accurate focus.
On an RF, even the best aligned, you would have a couple of degrees lens barrel movement each way, before anything changed in the image in the RF/VF mechanism.
I'm basing this on .72 , 1:1 RF's, and with 1.25x magnifiers. I realize there are 1:1 and 1.35 magnifers out there, but that setup rules out wide angles.
The accuracy in digitally magnified TTL EVF is so much higher than a .5 to 1x VF RF, that most owners would be sending either their camera, or their lens back, as the focus would not match.
With my NEX and a short throw lens (e.g. 120 deg. close to infinity) at 7x, I can just breath or move the camera a mm or two back and see the area of precise focus change.
To see the same changes on an optical RF, I can move several cm forward or backwards, and still not see the change of accurate focus.
On an RF, even the best aligned, you would have a couple of degrees lens barrel movement each way, before anything changed in the image in the RF/VF mechanism.
I'm basing this on .72 , 1:1 RF's, and with 1.25x magnifiers. I realize there are 1:1 and 1.35 magnifers out there, but that setup rules out wide angles.
Last edited:
deirdre
Well-known
Maybe we should wait and see how badly damaged their Sendai facilities are before speculating.
dap
Established
Sheesh...I hope not. That would be the nail in Fuji's coffin. There is a reason that there is no current camera system that utilizes a screw mount lens design instead of a bayonet mount.
Pentax's delay in moving to a bayonet system cost them in the long run (they went from 1st to "also ran"). Fuji's own M42 mount system from the 70's was a dud. Even Voigtlander's recent M42 camera never took off.
Don't ge me wrong, M42 mount lenses are fun to play with on occasion, but I sure wouldn't build an entire modern camera system around them.
bigeye
Well-known
Roger: I was thinking more in the vein of Cosina's Zeiss Ikon body (M7 clone) and the line of Zeiss ZM lenses that sits at the higher end of the market.
The Bessa bodies and the Cosina lenses at the low/mid-end of the M market show a substantial plan and commitment to M. They would be in the best position to extend their past lines with a M9 clone body.
So much for dreaming. All roads lead back to the M9...
- Charlie
Contarama
Well-known
When Leica puts a full sized sensor in a compact body that takes M mount lenses then and only then will you have a M10...
Come on gentlemen the X100 is just a Compact Fixed Lens unit with a DSLR sensor...I mean even the Samsung NX10 is all of that!
It is just the beginning...
Let's wait and see what Nikon (or Leica FWIW) does...if they decide to skip micro four thirds and APS-C format for the full frame kahuna then I think we have a neat digital camera coming some day...
Come on gentlemen the X100 is just a Compact Fixed Lens unit with a DSLR sensor...I mean even the Samsung NX10 is all of that!
It is just the beginning...
Let's wait and see what Nikon (or Leica FWIW) does...if they decide to skip micro four thirds and APS-C format for the full frame kahuna then I think we have a neat digital camera coming some day...
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
And ladies ... political correctness is everything you know!
I thought the M9 was a compact body ... how compact do you want it?
Contarama
Well-known
Yeah I guess you are right about that...I'm just wishing, hoping, and praying for one of those full frame sensors around M9/X100 size with a compact price!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
watanabe
Newbie
I was very excited about the x100 as well, but decided to go for an NEX5 + a set of 28/45/90mm brand new contax g lenses for $1k on ebay. Chose this route as I used to shoot a hasselblad and I love the look of zeiss glass. $333 a lens was a bargain. Threw in a 15mm cv and I'm pretty much set for my walkaround camera.
Using MF lenses on this body is great as I get what I wanted out of the X100: an aperture ring on the lens and a shutter speed dial on the back. Live view focusing is just as sharp as I get on my large format gear, except I don't need a loupe.
To stay on topic: I would love a more traditionally styled camera a la x100 with a short flange distance. Fuji could make whatever lenses they wanted (would consider buying them to, love their LF lenses) but the market will take care of adapting M/ltm/etc lenses to the mount.
Using MF lenses on this body is great as I get what I wanted out of the X100: an aperture ring on the lens and a shutter speed dial on the back. Live view focusing is just as sharp as I get on my large format gear, except I don't need a loupe.
To stay on topic: I would love a more traditionally styled camera a la x100 with a short flange distance. Fuji could make whatever lenses they wanted (would consider buying them to, love their LF lenses) but the market will take care of adapting M/ltm/etc lenses to the mount.
Mister E
Well-known
I think what Stephen is saying is now Kobayashi is taking notice.
gekopaca
French photographer
+ 1 IMHO it's more probable than an eventual Fuji's marketing decision.
Voigtlander/Cosina could make a R-D2 (Bessa clone) or Digital Zeiss Ikon, and now there's two good reasons to do this :
1) with an APS-C sensor it was too a "niche", but with a Full-Frame sensor it will be a commercial success.
2) with the earthquake I was thinking first it will be too difficult for Japanese firms, but in fact they need now to push up their profits, particulary with the help of their manufactures in foreign countries (south-east Asia…) - so we could see new products sooner than expected.
But a FF Zeiss Ikon or R-D2 will certainly be expensive…
But why not? I'm waiting for something around 3000$.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Several times over the last few years, I have discussed this with Zeiss. The Party Line is that (a) the market is too small and (b) they couldn't make an FF digi that was enough cheaper than an M9 to lure people away. It would need to be a LOT cheaper, or people would just find the extra for an M9, and that ain't gonna happen. Remember that the R&D has to be amortized over as many cameras as they can actually sell. The same is true of Fuiji or anyone else.
Of course things change, but equally, they don't always change in favour of new RF cameras.
Cheers,
R.
Of course things change, but equally, they don't always change in favour of new RF cameras.
Cheers,
R.
Mister E
Well-known
I'd pay the cost of the M9 if it did what I wanted. The problem is that it has 10 year old digital equipment in it.
I don't want a junk battery or shoddy shutter. I especially don't want all the other issues it has. In addition to this I want some of the nice creature comforts like weather sealing, etc. All these could be offered by Zeiss for still less than the Leica and I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
I don't want a junk battery or shoddy shutter. I especially don't want all the other issues it has. In addition to this I want some of the nice creature comforts like weather sealing, etc. All these could be offered by Zeiss for still less than the Leica and I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
Sparrow
Veteran
.. he could start with a digital L, just to test the water that is ... cheap, simple and basic
willie_901
Veteran
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding
Ladies and Gentleman, we have a winner.
Mister E succinctly and accurately describes the Emperor's nakedness.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If you don't want an M9, fine. But this is a frankly feeble and elderly attack on the only camera in its class, and surely, one that we have all heard too often.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited by a moderator: