Contarama
Well-known
And isn't the titanium version 20K? They are selling those too!
Would it really have been that much more difficult and costly for Fuji to have went FF?
Would it really have been that much more difficult and costly for Fuji to have went FF?
Last edited:
gekopaca
French photographer
Leica cameras are always great products, sometimes the best ones, but in passed times other brands showed they could make something equal (or about equal) but less expensive.
Maybe we can hope for a M9 alternative for about 3000-3500$?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes. But why do you think no-one is flooding the market with cheaper ones?
I can think of only two reasons. One is that they can't get the price down appreciably, and the other is that the market is pretty tiny. Combine the two and it's quite a convincing argument. It may of course be wrong, but the fact that there aren't any competitors suggests otherwise.
Cheers,
R.
ZeissFan
Veteran
It's easy to say that "Zeiss can do this," or "Cosina can easily build one."
But these are business decisions and are not made to cater to a few hundred people on Internet forums. The reason the RD-1 no longer is in production is that it didn't make enough money. If it was hugely profitable, it would still be around.
As much as I'd like to see a full-frame digital Zeiss Ikon for $2,500, I don't see it happening in the near future. I could be wrong.
Passion is great. But in the business world, it's all about turning a profit.
But these are business decisions and are not made to cater to a few hundred people on Internet forums. The reason the RD-1 no longer is in production is that it didn't make enough money. If it was hugely profitable, it would still be around.
As much as I'd like to see a full-frame digital Zeiss Ikon for $2,500, I don't see it happening in the near future. I could be wrong.
Passion is great. But in the business world, it's all about turning a profit.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
methinks, the properties of the X100 that make this camera so attractive can finally be related to the basic design of a _fixed lens_ camera.
attractive as an interchangeable lens body might be, its construction by far goes beyond what is possible while concentrating on a single lens design. as a consequence, i hope that fuji does not go the way of developing a body with interchaangeable lens mount. instead, i hope that they'll expand the line of the X100 by similar fixed lens bodies featuring other primes, like a 74degree lens and a 46degree lens (equivalent to 28mm and 50mm focal lenght on 135 format).
other bodies, like a 90degree (eqiv. 21mm) or 30degree (equiv. 85mm) may also be interesting, but probably meet too little demand to initiate production.
just my few cents.
s.
attractive as an interchangeable lens body might be, its construction by far goes beyond what is possible while concentrating on a single lens design. as a consequence, i hope that fuji does not go the way of developing a body with interchaangeable lens mount. instead, i hope that they'll expand the line of the X100 by similar fixed lens bodies featuring other primes, like a 74degree lens and a 46degree lens (equivalent to 28mm and 50mm focal lenght on 135 format).
other bodies, like a 90degree (eqiv. 21mm) or 30degree (equiv. 85mm) may also be interesting, but probably meet too little demand to initiate production.
just my few cents.
s.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This certainly sounds like a better and more feasible approach. Like you, I doubt there is a big market for much longer lenses, but unlike you, I suspect that there may only be one other camera, a 21mm or (more likely, because it's easier) 24mm equivalent. A 28mm equivalent sounds too close to 35mm to me.
Cheers,
R.
bigeye
Well-known
Yes, that's why it was prefaced as not being a technical question, Cosina/Zeiss has the best market position as a Leica-alternative, etc...
The advantage of EVF (TTL viewing) with interchangeable lenses is that it is a functional hybrid and can be sold against both rangefinders and SLRs, a much broader market than just we RFF weenies.
Nikon and Canon have sold sophisticated FF cameras for several years now at ~$2400. Figure that some supply/production efficiencies have resulted over the past 3-4 years; a SWAG of $2400 might be where you could bring in a lower volume FF rangefinder today (or soon).
Looked at another way, would adding $1200 to the price of an X100 allow you to build in a FF sensor and an interchangeable mount? Probably?
Which may be a problem for Cosina/Zeiss; I wonder if they have the desire or capability to build a good EVF to allow entry into the broader market. It might be that they can only provide a traditional VF, which would constrain them to their traditional market.
It's a matter of when pricing (cost/volume) and the 'will' to do it are right -- inevitably, it will happen.
Complete speculation, but entertaining.
- Charlie
Last edited:
Paul T.
Veteran
However much we might like our FF rangefinder for $2400 it is not gonna happen.
It's the lower volume part of your logic that's the flaw. A rangefinder body will achieve 1/10 or 1/100 or maybe 1/1000 of the sales of the Canon FF. It won't come in anywhere near that price within the next two or more years.
I believe, depressingly, Roger is probably right, the most likely next model is a WA Fuji. But a successor model with interchangeable lenses would almost certainly outsell something like the Contax G2, because there's nothing else on the market quite like it.
Contarama
Well-known
This thread makes me want to go out and buy a Fujica Compact Deluxe... 
Wadcha
Member
fair point
I guess I should elaborate: DRFs are fussy designs because of the short lens distance to sensor. There are no cheap and easy solutions, it would require a fair bit of R&D, they would possibly need to outsource the sensor thus adding to their costs, and then try to recover all these costs by selling to the small RF market which is relatively allergic to buying expensive toys that dont say Leica or Zeiss on them.
I'm not saying it's impossible or I wouldnt want it to happen, but my guess is it would require a fair amount of sake to sell this business case to the Fuji bosses. Leica went for it, but Leica knew a good DRF would boost their lens sales. Fuji would only be boosting somebody else's lens sales.
I don't think I agree. Witness the NEX platform. Steve Huff is over there doing frequent comparisons of the M9/M8 and the NEX systems with M-mount adapters and the results are very close. I have a $300 NEX 3 body that takes beautiful images with my M lenses on a camera that was not designed specifically to be an M-mount platform.
It just can't be that hard...
Mister E
Well-known
Nearly everyone outsources the sensor, that makes things CHEAPER than developing a sensor in house!
Spyro
Well-known
I agree that a run of the mill DSLR sensor is probably cheaper to outsource, but what about asking for a new design and a small production run for an APSC mirrorless sensor with offset microlenses and all that jazz? Sounds like a special order to me, and these are usually priced accordingly.
You are right, but I was not thinking of yet another viewfinderless camera.
You are right, but I was not thinking of yet another viewfinderless camera.
dave lackey
Veteran
I would rather see a film version....
Wadcha
Member
Why would the viewfinder technology have anything to do with the sensor tech?
It seems to me that the sensor is not the issue as was postulated but rather the R&D would need to go into making the proper R/F interface. The current Fuji hybrid finder wouldn't be the solution to the cheap M9. Fuji would need to install a proper R/F but I could see them one upping Leica and making it an EVF hybrid with AF as well.
Wadcha
Member
Those offset microlenses you refer to were tailored specifically to the Fuji 23mm lens. If they came up with a true system camera there would be no need for such customization since the user would have a variety of lenses to choose from.
loquax ludens
Well-known
I would rather see a film version....
You mean a compact fixed lens RF film camera? Olympus, Yashica, Konica, Canon, et. al., did that back in the '70s.
dave lackey
Veteran
Yeah, but there are not any NEW ones around are there?
Actually, I would like to see a comparison be the Fuji X100 and the Fujica Compact Deluxe! Come to think of it, I would like that Fujica for a knockabout camera... back in the 70's I had the Nikon and Canon versions.
Last edited:
Mister E
Well-known
Mirror or no mirror, focusing methods, etc matter not to the sensor...
Fuji is most certainly using an off the shelf Nikon sensor, probably the same or similar one as is in the D90. I'm not sure I buy their offset micro-lenses BS. You'd think if the sensor and lens was so well matched you wouldn't have all these goofy reflection issues from point light sources at night.