hteasley
Pupil
Different sized companies targeting different markets. In general, you can target millions of people willing to spend tens, thousands of people willing to spend hundreds, hundreds of people willing to spend thousands, or tens of people willing to spend millions, as it were. Companies generally have to be smaller, the fewer potential customers they have.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Almost cheap. Ever held an Alpa Roger? I picture them as being like the most finely made woodworking planes. Precise, dense, and perfect.
seakayaker1
Well-known
. . . . . selected other . . . . .
depends on feature/functionality along with look and feel, quality build, sensor, it would not be price dependent however, perhaps price prohibited (as the M10 might be)
depends on feature/functionality along with look and feel, quality build, sensor, it would not be price dependent however, perhaps price prohibited (as the M10 might be)
damien.murphy
Damien
Would love a digital rangefinder I could afford, hell it doesn't even have to be full frame for me, although obviously full frame would be nice. Right now I could live with an APS-sensored rangefinder in or around the €1500 mark, but I am not plunking down that sort of cash for an aging R-D1/ M8 out of warranty. For a full frame rangefinder though, something minimal, perhaps even a manufacturer brave enough to drop the lcd, minimal controls (shutter speed, iso, and perhaps a mode dial to select between preset modes like colour/ b&w, etc), and of course a nice optical viewfinder. I could live with a digital full-frame bessa for in or around €2500, but even thats living in dreamland I suspect 
BobYIL
Well-known
Why would a FF rangefinder cost more than the D800?!?!
a FF rangefinder cost more than the D800?!?! rxmd
May contain traces of nut
BobYIL said:Why would
Because rangefinders
are niche items by niche manufacturers with far fewer numbers sold leading to much higher R&D costs per item and higher parts costs
BobYIL
Well-known
Because rangefinders
Then why
the X-Pro1 costs not much different than a top crop DSLR ??? (I purposely stated the D800 )
sepiareverb
genius and moron
This is one weird glitch going on here
one weird glitch going on here 
Then why
Mass produced and not a rangefinder...
krötenblender
Well-known
If there were a decent real optical RF with M-mount and a 35mm sensor which follows two design principles: form follows function and less is more - I would dump my R-D1 and my M9 in a blink for it. No matter which manufacturer, even Canon or Sony... (well, maybe there is a little bit self-respect left and I could wait a week before buying it)
But currently for neither of my two dRFs a considerable alternative exists (for me).
(well, maybe there is a little bit self-respect left and I could wait a week before buying it)But currently for neither of my two dRFs a considerable alternative exists (for me).
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Then why
Because it's a mass-produced item, by a mass manufacturer, who by now has a lot of experience mass-producing mass-market crop sensor cameras?
However, you're right that the D800 is pretty cheap for what it does; it helps that it has a mass manufacturer and a mass-production toolchain behind it.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The D800 body costs double what the X-Pro1 body costs. Of course the D800 is a 35mm sized sensor and th sensor accounts for a good deal of the manufacturing cost. The D7000 costs about on par with the X-Pro1.
The D800 leverages volume production techniques and a less costly sensor to keep its price down. SLR mechanicals are less costly to manufacture at the same quality level compared to RF mechanicals nowadays as there are fewer critical mechanical tolerances between body and lens required.
I don't think there are any mechanical components, and surely no rangefinder in the X-Pro. That said, you are correct that it is priced similarly to other top level APS-C DSLRs, I would think because that is the level of images it produces.
celluloidprop
Well-known
The engineering leap between APS-C and FF with the registration distances of mirrorless appears to be a big hurdle (digital sensors do not 'see' light coming from an angle very well). Leica makes it work with their microlens array and software. It's entirely possible that's one reason M9s are so expensive, on top of the Leica Premium.
Note that XPro-1 lenses appear to be quite a bit larger (relatively speaking) than legacy rangefinder lenses. I've read that all the lenses are telecentric in design in order to avoid color shifting and vignetting as much as possible - rangefinder lenses are not (generally) telecentric.
Note that XPro-1 lenses appear to be quite a bit larger (relatively speaking) than legacy rangefinder lenses. I've read that all the lenses are telecentric in design in order to avoid color shifting and vignetting as much as possible - rangefinder lenses are not (generally) telecentric.
Adanac
Well-known
Figuring out how to properly support RF lenses, particularly wide angle RF lenses with a relatively short back focal length camera (M Mount) must have taken Leica some time originally and for that charging a premium for a period of time should be expected.
But that was then and as of 2011, at least one other has done it - for a fraction of the price, so there's nothing in the basic sensor implementation and firmware that speaks to substantially higher prices.
The Ricoh GXR M Mount module and the base camera together cost far less than a new M8 would (both are crop cameras) and of course cost only a fraction of a M9.
The GXR's M Mount module has no anti-alias filter, like the M8 and M9, but does have an IR filter like the M9. It presumably has optimized microlenses, or stock microlenses do well enough if it doesn't, as the M Mount module handles every single lens thrown at it with aplomb.
The Ricoh M Mount module also has built in software correction for colour cast and vignetting although even with my ZM18 I personally do not believe the results warrant dialing the settings in.
GXR M Mount Module: $649.00 US, base camera $349.00.
No, it's not a rangefinder but it certainly is evidence that a compact M mount compatible camera can be produced relatively inexpensively and deliver excellent results.
Kent
Finally at home...
+1
And that is why an APS-NEX7 is good enough for me.
However, if there was a Bessa D3a for €700,- I would probably buy one.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Would love a digital rangefinder I could afford, hell it doesn't even have to be full frame for me, although obviously full frame would be nice. Right now I could live with an APS-sensored rangefinder in or around the €1500 mark, but I am not plunking down that sort of cash for an aging R-D1/ M8 out of warranty. For a full frame rangefinder though, something minimal, perhaps even a manufacturer brave enough to drop the lcd, minimal controls (shutter speed, iso, and perhaps a mode dial to select between preset modes like colour/ b&w, etc), and of course a nice optical viewfinder. I could live with a digital full-frame bessa for in or around €2500, but even thats living in dreamland I suspect
On a digital camera the lcd is a critical exposure component and cannot be dropped without creating real practical useage difficulties. I'm not really sure it adds much to the cost either. I turn the lcd off curing shooting and just use it to check exposure from time to time.
You don't need a mode dial giving colour/mono etc as you can do all of that seamlessly in LR if you want using import presets for the raw files.
So that's just an M9 really. But, unfortunately, it costs more than E2500...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yup. I have one (12 WA with 38 Biogon on 44x66). So does Frances (12 S/WA with 35 Apo-Grandagon on 6x9). There's a back story...
Dense, yes, but they're lighter than you might expect. But then, I suppose, so are the very finest woodworking planes.
Cheers,
R.
celluloidprop
Well-known
No one else has built a full-frame mirrorless, or even talked about plans for one.
The Ricoh is APS-C - which eliminate a large part of the corners that Leica had to engineer around. That the Ricoh still needs microlenses to work well with a wide variety of RF glass - where the NEX series does best with telecentric lenses - speaks to the problem of full-frame.
Any full-frame mirrorless body is going to require a system similar to that of the M9 with hardware engineering and software correction - which makes it somewhat more feasible in a form with lenses that have electrical contacts (new mount or old) than M-mount, as the correction can be built in easier.
My personal feeling is that everyone at RRF should stop dreaming - you will not see a 36x24 digital rangefinder from anyone but Leica. Ever.