If someone else made a FF digital RF?

If someone else made a FF digital RF?

  • Yes, as well as an M9

    Votes: 16 2.8%

  • Yes, instead of an M9

    Votes: 201 35.3%

  • Maybe, depends on the body

    Votes: 248 43.5%

  • Probably not, but possibly

    Votes: 44 7.7%

  • No

    Votes: 45 7.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 16 2.8%
  • Total voters
    570
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.

So how's about a camera designed like the nex5n, with an apsC sensor or ff perhaps. A camera for the masses with the optional EVF. Volume sales assured, bean counters happy.
Now the 'weird' part. An m-mount adapter with an attached fully functional opto-mechanical RF assembly. Probably short base length, interfacing with the cameras electronics via the EVF port, to provide projected frame lines and other camera data in the optical viewfinder. This adapter assembly would provide full roller on cam manual focussing and add about an inch or so to the cameras height. This adapter would be a showcase for the engineering prowess of the company. A mechanical wonder of both fit and function.
 
Was thinking more about this today. A FF Ikon would certainly have appeal. What I disliked about the Ikon most was the wind-on, and as the M9 shutter is about as loud as the Ikon the improved ergonomics of the Ikon might swing me. Ideally? Leica VF & framelines in a Contax G2 type body. This pretty much describes an Ikon...
 
huntjump said:
not too many people on RFF who wouldnt want that ... but it just doesnt seem likely.

i'd pay up to $3,000 for an m9 alternative. otherwise i am forced to stick with my d700 for FF needs :/
Click to expand...

+1 (exactly)

Unless of course the 5DIII/X specs are real (22MP, 6.9fps, 61-pt AF) in which case if the image quality (DR, SNR, high-ISO noise, etc.) is at least equal to the D700 then I will completely "jump ship" and sell my D300, D700 and 7D since with the exception of a high-quality stabilized mid-range zoom, this one camera could take the place of all three. Which would be nice!

But back to the 135-format DRF... the only mfr I can see doing this might be Zeiss, and they would almost certainly have to collaborate with a Japanese company for the electronics to do a good job at an affordable price without any "idiosyncrasies". For a FF sensor that would mean Canon or Sony. Sony may have some kind of an exclusivity contract with Nikon but they do have a new FF 24MP sensor in the works for the A99 which is probably not going to appear in any Nikon bodies so that might work. Neither Nikon nor Canon have anything remotely like an M-body RF in their respective lineups so competition is not really an issue. Sony has the NEX-7 but they already work with Zeiss so that's my most likely guess of all the unlikely possibilities... plus, if they can fit all the electronics and battery in the NEX-7 they could absolutely do the same in the form-factor of the Ikon (with a FF sensor) with room to spare. We could also be assured of the latest, top-shelf monitor specs (not the dismal bottom-end-P&S unit on the M9), excellent battery life and film-camera-like responsiveness and operating speeds. I can dream...

Regards,
Scott
 
OT post but I had to reply to this

OT post but I had to reply to this

janosh said:
A photographer who prints his own or at least uses a high quality lab to print larger than snapshot prints. Or...a photographer who expects to be paid for his work. NOT somebody who simply loves cameras and makes snapshots.
Click to expand...

Even from a strictly film perspective I find this a narrow and elitist statement - I have never sold a photo in my life, nor do I plan to (though I've done some volunteer stuff), and I almost never print anything. However I am extremely picky when it comes to image quality. I like to be able to look at my digital captures and panoramas and negative scans on a large calibrated monitor and not get depressed when zooming in to 1:1 to explore the details. The fine-art print is all very well but it certainly does not need to be the defining end-product without which one is no longer "visually demanding". And as for getting paid - there are plenty of paid photographers whose work would not pass muster on a technical and/or aesthetic basis among a lot of "amateurs".

There is a vast gulf between "snapshots" and the necessity to print large/get paid to be "visually demanding". Just because one pursues photography in one's own way doesn't mean one's perception of image quality goes out the window. Otherwise you could go the next step and say anyone who doesn't shoot MF is not "visually demanding"... or 4x5... or 8x10... or that anyone who doesn't use a Phase One IQ180 is just a hack hobbyist (I can think of a couple of well-known individuals who have this attitude). Where does it end?

Regards,
Scott
 
My thought process went through several steps:

Leica lenses are expensive because they are optimized and optimal across a FF sensor (or 135mm film), even at the widest aperture. The Leica drawing style is contrasty and detailed. Leica lenses (and only a few others) can satisfy the latest high-resolution sensors like the Nikon D800. Only Zeiss lenses are in the same ballpark.

As someone said, I think it was Diglloyd (or also probably, Ken Rockwell), that the reason to shoot M rangefinders is about being able to shoot Leica lenses. We have a finite set of options for M lenses.

In crop format we have the M8 and adapters for M4/3 and Nex.

The only FF opportuniies to shoot Leica lenses are film rangefinders or the Leica M9. So, yes to the OP, it would be nice to have other FF leica options.
 
hteasley said:
Why? I get the impression that they'll be trying hard to keep up with D800 demand.

The camera market for rangefinders is a mature market, and it's owned today by Leica. It's not that amenable to disruption. The mature SLR market is split between Nikon and Canon. It's also not that amenable to disruption. At this stage, it's going to take a combination of serious missteps by one company, coupled with a significant achievement by another, to shift things dramatically.

With market leaders already in-place in these arenas, folks are left with inventing new categories, like m4/3 or EVIL, to attempt to own those markets. It looks to me like Sony will end up with the EVIL market, pumping out NEX cameras for a good while.

What incentive would Nikon have to go against Leica, in a tiny segment filled with price-insensitive Leica loyalists, when they already have a much bigger pool to swim in?
Click to expand...

Perhaps they see it the way you do.

Perhaps not. The limited edition modern SPs: what was the point?

It's not an either or proposition. Like Mercedes, Nikon is not constrained to a single market--obviously.

You post as if it is perfectly logical for Leica to have the only digital RF.

In fact it is entirely illogical, and as sensor technology improves, and costs come down, it is less and less likely.

Every pro knows the most prestigeous digtal camera one can own, and the Leica business is going very well. The press alone from a challenge to the M9 is worth a fortune for the entire line of whatever maker steps up.

A digital SP would be sexy as could be, but Leica's true vulnerablities, to my mind, are in the form factor. A digital CL--a true RF just a tad bigger than a nex-7 with M mount and a nice little live articulated LCD, so SLR glass would also be usable: such a tool would be highly desirable and grow the pie.

BobYIL said:
Look at the Zeiss Ikon, $1.618 body with an excellent rangefinder and a shutter of the same class as on the M9. Metal body, quality construction. Add to this a FF sensor with an unashamed cost of $2.000 (A900 costs $2.700 complete!) to end up with $3.618.00. This is the maximum retail price of a quality FF digital rangefinder. I am sure that if Sony or Canon (or even Nikon) had considered to introduce a FF optical or EVIL rangefinder, they would be aiming for a price not more than $2.700 while the X-Pro1 was going for $1.700.

Such a rangefinder will come, either this year or in 2013; and I believe it is on the drawing board of not only one manufacturer, for the lenses are readily available either for direct mounting on the M-mount or via adaptor to the specific mounts to come. Put the Leica lenses aside, there are a lot of amateurs and professionals who would love to use Zeiss, Voigtlander or similar lenses with reasonable costs.

(BTW, I am expecting any new FF or APS-C rangefinder to come out with a register distance of less than 28mm, otherwise they know that the project would be a gamble...)
Click to expand...

Well said 🙂
 
huntjump said:
Question is how big that market is. The huge upfront R&D to produce this "dream" camera will need a much more expansive market than the RFF community. Not to mention most of us just want to put our "M" glass on there anyway 😀
Click to expand...

So you might think. And yet, Ricoh has been able to deliver an M-mount aps-c module that has been optimized for rangefinder lenses at a cost of less than $1000. I don't pretend to know what Ricoh's sales figures or profit margins are like for this module, but I suspect that it has sold very well compared with their other standalone modules.

As long as we're dreaming:

- a body the slimness of the M7 but the weight of the Zeiss Ikon
- the controls of the Zeiss Ikon
- the speed of current DSLR's in terms of shutter lag, startup time, buffer clearance etc.
- long battery life
- liveview focusing ability
- quiet shutter a la the Ricoh GXR
- a sensor that is as good at high ISO as contemporary DSLR's, and yet with a unique and pleasant colour signature like the M9
- top build quality and weathersealing
- in-body image stabilization and dust removal

Give me this in an M-mount rangefinder body and I am sold. A camera like this would most likely cost a LOT, but heck, this is one version of my dream camera. If I could add 1080p 60p full HD video using AVCHD lite or even h.264 that would be great.
 
Established camera makers may have decided it wasn't worth the effort to take on Leica as film was on its decline, but maybe they might be unwilling to allow Leica to have its slice of the high end market completely unchallenged in the digital age.

Perhaps the real incentive for other camera makers to go after Leica's lunch is not just the high end but increased demand in the middle. Are we not there, now?

50% of all interchangeable lens cameras sold in Japan in the back half of 2011 were non-reflex cameras. If there truly is a seismic shift going on, who is to say that Nikon or others won't look to their past to innovate for the future?

Once upon a time Japanese camera makers made cameras compatible with Leica lenses. Could it be that this will happen again? It already is, to some degree (Ricoh GXR M Mount aside), through camera bodies that can take adapted M lenses. Pursuing a native/adapted lens strategy lets a maker pursue profit off its own lens line up, hit the road running by levering off existing glass, and also pull those existing RF glass users in. Everyone's happy.

Who knows, maybe some lab geeks at Nikon or Canon (or Ricoh) have perfected a digital range finder patch focus system. 😀

I sure hope one of them is planning on going down this road, with gusto.
 
tstermitz said:
My thought process went through several steps:

Leica lenses are expensive because they are optimized and optimal across a FF sensor (or 135mm film), even at the widest aperture. The Leica drawing style is contrasty and detailed. Leica lenses (and only a few others) can satisfy the latest high-resolution sensors like the Nikon D800. Only Zeiss lenses are in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...

I'd presume that the main reason they're expensive is because they are hand-made in small quantities to a relatively high mechanical standard.

Your statement about Leica lenses and D800 sensors sounds a bit like you're talking out of the blue. You can't put Leica lenses on a D800. Nobody has tried them on a 40-ish something MP sensor just yet. The best Leica cameras have 18 MP and film doesn't really go higher either. They'll probably be quite OK, but if mainstream manufacturers are serious about taking another round in the megapixel race it won't be long before Canon and Nikon have lenses that will satisfy the sensors in their own cameras, too.

Some of the mainstream manufacturers' lenses are are already there. My main lens on the Canon easily delivers the best image quality in that focal length (24mm) that I've seen so far, including in comparison with Leica, Zeiss etc.
 
Adanac said:
Once upon a time Japanese camera makers made cameras compatible with Leica lenses. Could it be that this will happen again? It already is, to some degree (Ricoh GXR M Mount aside), through camera bodies that can take adapted M lenses. Pursuing a native/adapted lens strategy lets a maker pursue profit off its own lens line up, hit the road running by levering off existing glass, and also pull those existing RF glass users in. Everyone's happy.
Click to expand...

I'd rather say it's a nice side benefit of making cameras with a short lens register and not much more. If threads like this have shown one thing, it's that RF lens owners, particularly Leica, are really picky and capricious about the cameras they use. I don't think they're a very rewarding target audience all by themselves.
 
DougFord said:
An m-mount adapter with an attached fully functional opto-mechanical RF assembly. Probably short base length, interfacing with the cameras electronics via the EVF port, to provide projected frame lines and other camera data in the optical viewfinder. This adapter assembly would provide full roller on cam manual focussing and add about an inch or so to the cameras height. This adapter would be a showcase for the engineering prowess of the company. A mechanical wonder of both fit and function.
Click to expand...

That would be weird, and probably terrible looking, but if you cut out the electronics aspect and add manual selection of framelines, more likely than an optical rf! Expensive and delicate, I would expect, too.
 
rxmd said:
I'd rather say it's a nice side benefit of making cameras with a short lens register and not much more. If threads like this have shown one thing, it's that RF lens owners, particularly Leica, are really picky and capricious about the cameras they use. I don't think they're a very rewarding target audience all by themselves.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And frankly, I think that while there may be a lot of internet chatter about using M and legacy glass on these short register-large sensor cameras, most people buying a NEX are using the zoom and maybe buying the 16. A lot of people have asked me about my NEX 5n... a lot more than about my M8. And all of them (save at RFF events) are buying them without any idea of what a 'legacy lens' is. That's the economics behind all of these cameras, except for the ricoh, and I do wonder if/how ricoh makes a profit on the gxr.

Aside: I would love the above suggested digital ikon with d700/5dmkii equivalent sensor.
 
Of course you can't put the M lenses on a Nikon D800 CAMERA; The interesting question is how well Leica lenses would do on the D800 SENSOR. The stupid question is why do we have to carry such a huge camera and huge lenses in order to get the D800 sensor. The technological question (in 2012) is why do we have to pay $8,000 to use leica M-lenses on a FF sensor.

In the end, the camera is just a box that allows the sensor to sample the image created by the lens. I really like the rangefinder design, and the M9 simplicity of use. 18M is pretty useful for me, but I have to admit I would trade that for a FF NEX-10 with the D800 sensor, live view and focus peaking.

Read Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers) on the difficulty of getting sharp, in-focus images in general, and the 36M resolution specifically. He believes that few Nikon lenses will be up to the task of resolving across the full sensor of the new D800. His reference lenses will be a few Zeiss and Leica-R manual-focus, prime lenses.

For that matter, Chambers says that Leica M lenses out strip the M9 sensor, and that the lack of live view means precise focussing is the major short-coming of the M9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom