sojournerphoto
Veteran
I discussed with the, refreshingly open, Zeiss chaps and they said the issue was finding a suitable sensor partner. The quality would need to be very high and the sensor is specialist - i.e. the short registration means that you can't simply drop in a canon, nikon or sony ff sensor, even if they'll sell you one and provide the support hardware. That conversation led me directly to my M9.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
In my conversations with them (around the same time, by the sound of it) I also gained the impressions that (a) they couldn't make one significantly cheaper than Leica and (b) they were not sure that the market was big enough at any price at which they could realistically make it.
In other words, there was no sense in making a cheap, crop camera, and unless their camera was significantly cheaper than an M9, and as good, why would anyone buy their camera instead of an M9?
We didn't discuss 'significantly' but I had the impression that in their view that sales would be marginal even at 30% cheaper, which was not a realistic price point.
Cheers,
R.
Adanac
Well-known
I guess I'm in the never say never camp.
Some say the rangefinder coupling and viewfinder mechanism is too costly to build and thus a barrier to entry for any other maker, yet a complete Zeiss Ikon rangefinder costs ~ $1600.00 and competes well with film Ms.
Cost of the RF mechanism and finder isn't a barrier either. When the Zeiss Ikon first came out wasn't there a version that did not include the finder mechanism? It was about $500 less. Today it might be $1100 instead of $1600.
For a full sized sensor, I'd prefer a rangefinder camera, but if it were the only way to get the sensor in a form my M glass can use, I'd be perfectly ok with an electronic finder 36x24 mm digital sensor non-reflex non-rangefinder camera. It may be that there is more demand for RF lenses than for RF operation.
As for the hardware and software - here in 2011/2012 why can't we assume it already exists today? We see the GXR M mount handle lenses with aplomb that prove somewhat ornery even on the M9. Is the crop accountable for all of the improvement noted, or is a slightly newer sensor/filter pack implementation to be thanked? I shoot a GXR and can't tell you the answer so I'm not going to guess.
Near as I've been able to determine it is the removable of the AA filter which accounts for most if not all of the performance improvement of symmetrical rangefinder glass over say a NEX-7. The same is probably true of the digital Ms.
In addition to removing the AA filter, there may be new approaches that work for the benefit of M lens users. Fujifilm's new sensor/colour filter implementation has the potential to open up new doors for RF glass devotees. Could it scale to FF? Why not?
Software correction need not rely on a patented 6 bit painted code or electrical contacts. What's to stop Ricoh, as an example, since they already have optional correction built in to their M mount camera unit, from coming out with an updated M Mount that has a sensor which detects lens changes?
Make the lens-change detection trigger, optionally, a simple "choose your lens" user interface upon detecting a lens change or power up from "off". Voila, you have correction, if you need it, and some basic EXIF data you wouldn't have otherwise. Even on the M9 not all lenses require correction. The same holds true on the GXR.
The real question is whether there is a big enough market for higher end compact rangefinder mount lenses to warrant more digital cameras. Ricoh thought so and produced their M mount camera unit for GXR. The implementation is quite successful; only Ricoh knows if sales are as well but judging by the regular out of stock situation around the world, it seems as if uptake may have exceeded their initial estimates and if so that would bode well for them coming back for a second kick at the can.
As I think was mentioned earlier in this thread, non-reflex interchangeable lens cameras now occupy 50% of the Japanese interchangeable lens camera market and its a strengthening trend there and elsewhere in the world. Once upon a time SLRs were the upstart - maybe we've come full circle where compacts, including rangefinders, will garner more of the demand.
Sony and Fujifilm are producing higher end compacts than they probably imagined they would a couple years ago. Interest in manual focus glass has been growing over the years thanks to simple dumb metal adapters. Who knew?
Sony made a camera, the NEX-7, with RF lenses as something of an afterthought it seems; Fujifilm has made a camera that can also accommodate full frame RF lenses and looks like it could do demonstrably better in supporting those lenses. It'll only be a matter of time before someone leapfrogs the other. Maybe Sony will leapfrog themselves. They need to.
Sales of Zeiss, CV, Leica and legacy rangefinder lenses seem brisk enough. Is it a stretch to believe that the shift to compact cameras has extended the potential market size for high quality RF lenses?
You may be right - perhaps the market potential for even a $3,000 electronic finder camera isn't large enough for anyone to produce one.
But I have a hard time accepting that and keep coming back to Ricoh - was the market potential for a M8 competitor too small to bother with? Apparently not - they produced a crop camera for a fraction of the cost of a M8.
Pardon the lengthy musing... I've no answers but my gut tells me that the pieces are there and I think the demand is there too. Usually when the two coincide someone steps in and makes a product.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes... They produced a crop-sensor 'competitor' to an obsolescent Leica model. And they made it cheaper still by using an even smaller sensor (16x24mm instead of 18x27mm -- still less of a problem with the corners) and not fitting an optical rangefinder or viewfinder.
You can see why I put 'competitor' in quotation marks.
Cheers,
R.
dave lackey
Veteran
Why does a Leica anything new cost more than a Nikon anything new? It is obvious when comparing a small niche market to a huge mass market.
There is really nothing in the production of a Leica M9 or lenses than can be done to lower the costs. A full discussion on this was in LFI magazine over a year ago. At the end of the day, Leica is doing quite well with their niche market over the past few years making very good profits.
So, why ask the question about the D800 or any other DSLR? apples and oranges... If I am unable to afford an M9, I will wait until I can. Those who can afford an M9 and want it, can buy it now and I am very happy for them and for Leica.
If another FF RF camera were to come to the market, nothing wrong with competition but I wouldn't hold my breath.:angel: Niche markets are niche for a reason.
There is really nothing in the production of a Leica M9 or lenses than can be done to lower the costs. A full discussion on this was in LFI magazine over a year ago. At the end of the day, Leica is doing quite well with their niche market over the past few years making very good profits.
So, why ask the question about the D800 or any other DSLR? apples and oranges... If I am unable to afford an M9, I will wait until I can. Those who can afford an M9 and want it, can buy it now and I am very happy for them and for Leica.
If another FF RF camera were to come to the market, nothing wrong with competition but I wouldn't hold my breath.:angel: Niche markets are niche for a reason.
BobYIL
Well-known
Being a niche market product may not necessarily justify the overly high pricing. Once the initial investment has been amortized, it is then up to the understanding, philosophy, policy - or even mercy - of the manufacturer to review their pricing structure. Here's an example of a very high end analog SLR from Nikon we all know: The F6... While the D800/800E production was planned to run at 30.000 units/week "It also assembles every single F6 film SLR, the production line of which is staffed by two, yes two, people. This admittedly means only turning out 50 a month, but it’s still a big responsibility for just two people."
50 units/month = 600 units/year; a real niche product by all regards. FYI, the F6 is still sold for $2.499, not so different than their introduction price way back in 2004.
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Gallery/291358,factory-tour-inside-nikons-camera-plant.aspx/1
50 units/month = 600 units/year; a real niche product by all regards. FYI, the F6 is still sold for $2.499, not so different than their introduction price way back in 2004.
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Gallery/291358,factory-tour-inside-nikons-camera-plant.aspx/1
Well part of the problem is that would anyone pay more for the camera? Leica can charge what it wants and people will still pay. I think a fairer comparison would be the M7 which is twice the cash.
The F6 is a legacy product for Nikon which makes dozens of models. Leica makes 3 M cameras... a lot smaller company, different wage structure, etc.
johne
Well-known
The Samsung NX 100 has a CMOS sensor and can adapt Leica lenses [as well as many others.] See my facebook page for samples.
Johne
Johne
Adanac
Well-known
They are two different cameras to be sure. But from an image quality perspective I doubt anyone could argue the M8 produces results appreciably different than the GXR M mount other than the minor difference in crop factor.
That the M8 is "obsolete" is irrelevant.
The argument that no one would choose to compete with Leica for the digital high end the M9 represents can only be solid if some assumptions are made:
- That a rangefinder focus and compose system is the overwhelming preference of all rangefinder camera users, as opposed to the lens selection and camera size for a given image quality being the dominant factor in shaping their choices
- That there isn't a big enough high end compact market to support competition for the M9's current slice of the interchangeable lens camera pie
- That the technological demands on a maker are too high to compete with Leica.
My sense is there is a larger pool of rangefinder lens fans, and fans of small but high IQ cameras, than there are a pool of rangefinder-or-die fans. I could be wrong but anecdotal evidence seems to point in this direction. If this is so, there is opportunity to bring out cameras that offer some of the rangefinder attributes if not the focus and compose system.
Fujifilm's success with the X100 and apparent success with the X-Pro1 seem to back up the notion that there is a market for cameras that are rangefinder like but not rangefinders. Sony's success in attracting rangefinder lens users - virtually by accident - also supports the contention that there has been heretofore untapped demand for cameras that could access rangefinder lenses. The first stepping stones by both companies have led to higher end cameras. Price points are going up. The X-Pro1 is not an inexpensive system for what it is.
All I can say is that the available evidence seems to support the case that there is a market for higher end compact bodies that can host rangefinder glass. If so that will push the makers to deliver bodies that will do a proper job of it. Sony has been following the haphazard approach; Fujifilm looks to be a little more serious. Ricoh clearly is more serious about it, being the only one of the three to intentionally design a camera unit with M lens support at its core.
As for technology, aren't we there yet?
I'm using the GXR merely as an example of what can be done given today's technology. We'll have to assume based on Ricoh's pricing for the M module that it wasn't technically all that demanding for Ricoh to take a commonly produced Sony 12.3 megapixel sensor, found in many contemporary cameras in the past few years, and adapt it such that it could properly support close back focal distance rangefinder lenses. The camera is entirely successful in this regard. To me that seems like a very good outcome especially for their first go at it, even if they did have some clues on how to proceed based on Leica's example.
Extrapolating that success leads to less certain ground to be sure, but a first success (Leica's own M8) could be (and in Leica's case, was) a stepping stone for a next step? I fail to see why that wouldn't be the case.
I'm not suggesting that you can simply take the GXR body + M mount + EVF costs ($349 + $649 + $200 = $1198) and add another $500 or so to approximate what Ricoh might have looked for at retail for a camera that actually was a rangefinder. Maybe a little more, but the Ricoh and Zeiss Ikon camera examples do suggest you could produce a ~ $2,000 retail rangefinder with a crop sensor. Probably no one will do this because, at one point in the past, they figured there was no market for this.
Could "they" be wrong? There seem to be plenty of former film shooters (I am one... processed my last dozen rolls over Christmas after 35 years of photography and darkroom work) who are excited about the possibilities of using their rangefinder (and SLR) lenses on compact digital cameras of all sorts, including the M9 but clearly also there is strong interest in mounting these lenses on compact crop cameras.
Will there be a $3,000 full frame rangefinder not made by Leica? Maybe never, but perhaps a less emphatic forecaster put it a different way: maybe not until the next evolutionary step is made by one or more vendors.
The next evolutionary step for Ricoh or some other company is to produce a full frame $3,000 EVF based body that properly supports M glass and other short back focal length lenses. The technology exists today. The only question mark for a vendor is whether demand is there for such a body.
Will Leica make it or will someone else?
I've said all that can be said in support of my thesis - that there is a market, and that there is technology available to produce a $3,000 M lens compatible full frame camera. Or $4,000 if it must be a rangefinder.
If there was a choice of both, I'm truly unsure as to which I'd pick. I like a rangefinder for certain reasons, but an electronic finder camera does open up some doors too. It would not be an easy decision for me.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I'm not in your group. My preferences for focussing
A) manual focussing with a rangefinder patch
B) af (dslr or system camera with native af lenses)
C) manual focussing with a dslr and a special focussing screen
D) manual focussing with a system camera and attached manual focus lens.
E) manual focussing with a dslr and a standard focussing screen (standard canon screens are lousy for manual focus).
If there is no A) anymore then I'd stay with my DSLR or I might get something like a X pro 1 with native AF-lenses. That means throwing out all M-lenses of course. No lens on the planet is so good that I'd bear that quirky focussing.
hteasley
Pupil
But... But... The "focus and compose system" IS the rangefinder. And this thread is titled "If someone else made a FF digital RF?" so if you're abandoning the rangefinder, then the goalposts have truly moved, and this is an entirely different discussion. It's now, "Is there a market for non-pro (meaning "affordable") FF cameras?" Because RF cameras are about shooting with a rangefinder.
I'd answer "no". Most folks are happy with smaller aps-c cameras, which are loads easier and cheaper to produce. Get yourself a Nex-5n and an m adapter, and enjoy yourself. You'll get some great pictures.
jarski
Veteran
well, Zeiss kinda promised full frame digi when they announced ZI.
so Zeiss, how much longer ? (above text is from ~2007)
so Zeiss, how much longer ? (above text is from ~2007)
Adanac
Well-known
Are EVF based camera focusing system deserving of the label quirky? Or are they just different?
You'll get no argument from me that today's EVF cameras do not yet approach the simple utility of an SLR | TLR | rangefinder with a good optical focus system, or maybe it is better to say that today's EVF cameras don't compare well to optical focus systems across a broad range of conditions and lens focal lengths. Optical does well or better in many use cases, and less well in only a few. Low light is one use case where a good EVF system could have an advantage. Macro photography the SLR and EVF systems have an advantage over rangefinder focusing.
But I wouldn't call EVF based focus system - it is a through the lens focus system after all, different from our SLRs but similar in some respects - quirky, although getting focus set can be slower at times. It can also be faster at other times too.
When light is decent and the subject isn't a sea of low contrast elements without an edge in sight, usually I can focus an EVF camera about as fast as I can focus a rangefinder or film SLR. I find focusing the 6008 with WLF is actually slower or at best comparable to using an EVF camera in most situations. I'd not thought of that until just now ... maybe that's why adopting an EVF camera as an alternative, for me, has worked out well - I've been shooting manual focus medium format film for many years.
Probably there is room for improvement in EVFs and focus aides. I'd love to see a Ricoh come out with an EVF comparable to the Sony EVF, with sensors that also deal with gain better than their current - the combo would likely deliver a big boost to focus usability on the GXR, which is already decent enough.
But as I said up thread a post or two, for a full frame M lens compatible compact, if a choice was available to me - RF or EVF focus, I'd have to think about it a bit before selecting. My strong inclination would be to go with RF focus for the full frame camera and retain a crop camera with EVF for photographic tasks better suited to a through the lens focus system.
You'll get no argument from me that today's EVF cameras do not yet approach the simple utility of an SLR | TLR | rangefinder with a good optical focus system, or maybe it is better to say that today's EVF cameras don't compare well to optical focus systems across a broad range of conditions and lens focal lengths. Optical does well or better in many use cases, and less well in only a few. Low light is one use case where a good EVF system could have an advantage. Macro photography the SLR and EVF systems have an advantage over rangefinder focusing.
But I wouldn't call EVF based focus system - it is a through the lens focus system after all, different from our SLRs but similar in some respects - quirky, although getting focus set can be slower at times. It can also be faster at other times too.
When light is decent and the subject isn't a sea of low contrast elements without an edge in sight, usually I can focus an EVF camera about as fast as I can focus a rangefinder or film SLR. I find focusing the 6008 with WLF is actually slower or at best comparable to using an EVF camera in most situations. I'd not thought of that until just now ... maybe that's why adopting an EVF camera as an alternative, for me, has worked out well - I've been shooting manual focus medium format film for many years.
Probably there is room for improvement in EVFs and focus aides. I'd love to see a Ricoh come out with an EVF comparable to the Sony EVF, with sensors that also deal with gain better than their current - the combo would likely deliver a big boost to focus usability on the GXR, which is already decent enough.
But as I said up thread a post or two, for a full frame M lens compatible compact, if a choice was available to me - RF or EVF focus, I'd have to think about it a bit before selecting. My strong inclination would be to go with RF focus for the full frame camera and retain a crop camera with EVF for photographic tasks better suited to a through the lens focus system.
Lax Jought
Well-known
I agree with this. If only slightly cheaper, it had better have outstanding IQ and other features not available on the M9.
I also agree with this, if it's no larger. 1.3x crop is fine by me too. If APS-C 1.6x crop then I'd expect it to be significantly less in price, significantly less before I'd consider it.
True rangefinder is important to me.
I think the success of the X100 is due to the retro look, purely for the coolness factor that distinguishes it from the more common modern design of other cameras (as well as IQ).
I'll hazard a guess that a vast majority of X100 users don't really know what a rangefinder is, nor do they have an interest in rangefinder photography, and are likely not to be impressed with a rangefinder's limitations like lack of macro, video etc.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I prefer to compose through a glass window, and I want accurate and fast focus, in that order. I don't care much whether the focus is automatic or manual, so long as it's well-implemented and allows me to accurately scale focus.
I would prefer that the focus sensor be TTL (phase or contrast) rather than an optical rangefinder -- optical rangefinders are too susceptible to mechanical misalignment, missed lens or mount tolerances, and focus shift.
At the moment, the approach being taken by fuji is the one that makes me most optimistic. But I think it most likely that in the next year I'll buy a µ4/3 camera for compactness and versatility; for me digital is still an adjunct to film. Probably a GH2. Maybe an OM-D. Possibly an XPro. Not in a hurry.
I would prefer that the focus sensor be TTL (phase or contrast) rather than an optical rangefinder -- optical rangefinders are too susceptible to mechanical misalignment, missed lens or mount tolerances, and focus shift.
At the moment, the approach being taken by fuji is the one that makes me most optimistic. But I think it most likely that in the next year I'll buy a µ4/3 camera for compactness and versatility; for me digital is still an adjunct to film. Probably a GH2. Maybe an OM-D. Possibly an XPro. Not in a hurry.
NickTrop
Veteran
I don't see this happening, personally. Might be wrong, though. Camera manufactures can do this faster and cheaper with electronics. Nobody (cept us) bothers with manual focus these days. High quality RF with good contrast is expensive to manufacture, and most see no benefit in it. That is (like it or not) it's an obsolete mechanical method of focusing a camera. Me thinks Leica is it if you want a pure version of this kind of camera.
Cyriljay
Leica Like
I don't need another body, or M9 as i own a M8u . but I said yes it is worth a high pixel camera.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly. Once it's non-RF, it's a different sort of camera. I doubt I'd be happy with it. Some might. Best of luck to 'em.
Cheers,
R.
This is spot on... and you didn't even have to mention a low-end APS-C Nikon with 35mm lens!