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
rxmd said:
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...

Yeah, who wants utterly obsessed customers who will pay 4k for a prime? Or people are will study a lens for a year and spend another to find one? Who are bored with 5Ds?

rxmd said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have shot that 24 elmar?

jaapv said:
If somebody brought out a Ferrari at 20.000 Euro I would buy it in a flash...🙄
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard? There's no "market" for fast cars 🙂
 
semordnilap said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apparently the GXR does very well in Japan, all modules. Japan also seems to be a hot bed of interest for non-reflex interchangeable lens cameras.

Maybe the Japanese demand in part explains why the M Mount module often is in short supply elsewhere in the world.

Oh and I'd also be interested in a digital Ikon even if it had a crop sensor, but not if a full frame version was known to be coming.
 
uhoh7 said:
Perhaps they see it the way you do.

<...>

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.
Click to expand...

I post what I believe to be the case. The RF market is a tiny market, and I don't see it getting big enough for a big player like Nikon to seriously care about. Folks like Zeiss and CV care, maybe Sigma could have a go, but really, there's not a lot of upside for Canon or Nikon to pursue this market anymore.

The RF market, to my mind, will be niche forevermore, simply because it is rooted in a mostly manual mode of shooting. At the very least, it is replete with all-manual cameras and lenses, with the only significant automation capability being shutter speed on a handful of cameras.

The mass market that Canon and Nikon pursue demands AF. The RF market is pretty immune to the siren song of AF. Canon and Nikon need to pursue opportunities that make sense at their scale, and RF cameras, I believe, do not offer such an opportunity.
 
rxmd said:
I'd rather say it's a nice side benefit of making cameras with a short lens register and not much more.
Click to expand...

It's back to the future. Registrations only got longer because viewfinder / focusing schemes for compact cameras decades ago were not up to the task of focusing macro and tele lenses, thus the SLR was born.

Half a dozen decades later new viewfinder/focusing capabilities thanks to electronics are enabling a return to shorter registration cameras.

Sure, it's a happy accident that short back focal lengths mean lenses from longer BFL cameras can be easily adapted, but the decision to design slim cameras isn't accidental and surely the designers were at some level aware that their cameras would be targets for enthusiasts and non native lenses - a good thing.

This all feels like a trend to me, one made possible by advances in EVF technology and in part due to acceptance of rear LCD only "finder" cameras.

Archiver said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not even that, $649 USD retail at authorized dealers. This pricing makes me hopeful that a full frame module from Ricoh could come in under $2,000. Bet they'd sell out quickly.

I'd be willing to buy such a module or a FX rangefinder-lens friendly compact from anyone, even if it were, M9-like, strictly focused on the needs of photographers and not videographers, especially if removing such features makes it possible to keep costs down. Might be nice to have in body stabilization though.
 
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...
Well Leica did.
 
AFAIC, the combined price of an M9 and its imminent replacement at the end of the year are what is keeping me from getting one. I am looking forward to getting the M10 and hoping in the meanwhile someone other than Leica would come out with a FF DRF or even mirrorless like the GXR in order to spare my bank account that big dent 🙂

Zeiss unfortunately seem to have completely ditched the digital ZI project. The most likely alternative will come from Cosina (RF) or Ricoh (FF GXR) or maybe Sony (Nex 9).
 
uhoh7 said:
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...
Yeah, who wants utterly obsessed customers who will pay 4k for a prime? Or people are will study a lens for a year and spend another to find one? Who are bored with 5Ds?
Click to expand...

If you're into making camera bodies, it doesn't really matter how much your users are willing to spend on lenses by other manufacturers. What does matter is that they tend to have ideosyncratic, divergent ideas what they expect from a camera body, and it's difficult to please them all at once. Together with the comparatively small numbers this makes them a bit of an unrewarding demographic.

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.
Click to expand...

You have shot that 24 elmar?
Click to expand...

Played around with it. It's clearly a very good lens, but it doesn't really fit into how I shoot. On RF I'm mostly shooting film and 21/50 lenses, and the SLR lens is so much more flexible to use that it's really a non-comparison. It's also a LOT bigger and heavier due to the tilt/shift mechanics, however. If one wanted to start pixel peeping and comparing "pure" image paramters, however, I think the Canon is in the same ballpark if not better.
 
What we really need is an NEX-9 with the new 36mp fullframe sensor, for about $2800. It would be compatible with about everything under the sun. Sony will release new FF SLRs this year, and maybe they'll announce something similar at the same time, just as they announced the NEX-7 along with the A-77 and A-65, all of which use the same sensor.
 
jaapv said:
If somebody brought out a Ferrari at 20.000 Euro I would buy it in a flash...🙄
Click to expand...



And if that Ferrari had drum rear brakes and points and coil ignition you'd buy it in a flash no doubt ... because then you'd a have a car to match your M9's level of sophistication! 😀
 
f6andBthere said:
And if that Ferrari had drum rear brakes and points and coil ignition you'd buy it in a flash no doubt ... because then you'd a have a car to match your M9's level of sophistication! 😀
Click to expand...

The only Ferrari I would like is a 1959 Ferrari 250GT SWB like this one:

1959_Ferrari_250GTSWBBerlinettaCompetizione3.jpg

Technologically, it makes my Leica M9 appear like a starship. But as a car ... feh, nothing else fit for the street has ever had that kind of soul. ];-)
 
The M9, Tom, obvious to me. Short battery life, too expensive, and by far doesn't handle as well as the classic it is based on (Lotus Elise = M6TTL ?).
 
ferider said:
The M9, Tom, obvious to me. Short battery life, too expensive, and by far doesn't handle as well as the classic it is based on (Lotus Elise = M6TTL ?).
Click to expand...

LOL. short battery life. Good comparison
 
jaapv said:
If somebody brought out a Ferrari at 20.000 Euro I would buy it in a flash...🙄
Click to expand...

While I think you're analogy utterly fails, there are sports cars as fast as Ferraris that cost a lot less, and while being well made do not match up to their exceptionally high standards. There is this though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancia_Thema 😛

I don't see the point in spending so much money on a body when its got computerized internals, for the same reason I wouldn't buy a gold plated diamond encrusted swatch, I could still put the latest Leica lens and Ektar into an M3 and get exactly the same result as an M7. Still A Bessa R4A still too expensive for me anyway, but I wouldn't mind forking out for a digital version of that if I had the money.
 
ajuk said:
I could still put the latest Leica lens and Ektar into an M3 and get exactly the same result as an M7.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, but point taken. But if one likes a meter, likes extreme precision in exposure and likes an RF body that is as quiet as can be then there isn't much "better" than an M7. It can certainly be more precise than an M3, or an MP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom