M8 (and RD1) niche untouched

[Lss]

I also understand that Nikon, Epson, and the rest stand to gain very little by introducing such a thing; manufacturers make most of their money on lenses and accessories, so building a camera that consumers would mount other lenses on makes no sense.

Regarding Epson, I have already given them a lot of extra business as a thank you for the R-D1. I believe there is a strong potential for goodwill effect when a company does something truly extraordinary, although it is difficult to see and measure, and honestly it is often pretty irrational from the customer's point of view. Anyway, when the difference between products is not significant to me, I now buy Epson (and will continue to do so until I get a reason to change that behaviour).

 

[mike_j]

The company that I don't see mentioned is Cosina. I should think that they have most to benefit from a reasonably priced digital rf to add to the Bessa range. They have the lenses, both as Voigtlander and Zeiss, they have the experience of building the Epson and they certainly have the capability.

 

[aldobonnard]

The company that I don't see mentioned is Cosina. I should think that they have most to benefit from a reasonably priced digital rf to add to the Bessa range. They have the lenses, both as Voigtlander and Zeiss, they have the experience of building the Epson and they certainly have the capability.

Good point. It wouldn't be a massive step.
Many times said, but... a digital ZM, likewise a modernised "R-D2", would be both massive winners

The main thing in using a RF is simplicity, straight to the point, cut through the cr-p. That is where the Fuji X-..., albeit incredible achievements, are not for me. Too many functions, to my taste. My old R-D1 is used with manual exposure (classic method: metering the palm of hand, +1/2 stop), and that's all. Like the M.
Producing a basic digital RF with the minimum of embedded software would also help reducing the development costs.

 

[albygentle]

All of you that talk about simplicity in cameras and how you like back to basics..I wonder if you know about the M mode in SLR.

When I shot a Nikon D300s, In Manual, I would set shutter speed in camera.

I use AI lenses (Noct 58mm and a 100mm Zeiss Planar). Aperture is then set in lens and focus is done with lens.

ISO and EV are buttons in hand so no need for menus. And thats it...

I was using a DSLR in full manual mode. Its funny how you hear people complaint on how cameras today are fully automated...yes they can be, but it is not forced upon either if you know what you are doing.

 

[semordnilap]

All of you that talk about simplicity in cameras and how you like back to basics..I wonder if you know about the M mode in SLR.

When I shot a Nikon D300s, In Manual, I would set shutter speed in camera.

I use AI lenses (Noct 58mm and a 100mm Zeiss Planar). Aperture is then set in lens and focus is done with lens.

ISO and EV are buttons in hand so no need for menus. And thats it...

I was using a DSLR in full manual mode. Its funny how you hear people complaint on how cameras today are fully automated...yes they can be, but it is not forced upon either if you know what you are doing.

Of course, but manual focusing a crop dslr is no dream! Do-able, but not my favorite by any means.

 

[flyalf]

The RD-1 is a great camera, no doubts. For me the nicest digital rangefinder. But for me the NEX-5N has taken this niche. A great camera, except that its not a rangefinder, its lack of dedicated manual controls and no optical finder. And the pleasure of photography is not in the same league as the RD-1 nor the Ms. Come to think of it, I really want a RD-2 with a new sensor .

I recently made some large prints (up to 100 x 70 cm), and the RD-1 files showed their age compared to the M9 and NEX-5N.

 

[willie_901]

Of course, but manual focusing a crop dslr is no dream! Do-able, but not my favorite by any means.

In my experience focusing the D300 (and D700) using manual focus lenses is pretty easy. Of course action shots are another story. I do agree that manual focusing is not my favorite method either. I prefer to focus and recompose using the AF system manually and this is how I focus most often.

 

[MCTuomey]

Sean Reid says it well: the M8/8.2 is a great option when an M9 isn't in reach. Nit-picking aside, given Leica's continuing support for the M8, I'd happily own and shoot the heck out of one. Great files that process well and print beautifully. Jon's spec for a crop-factor replacement is a spot-on wish list, however. But I don't think Leica will listen as long as it can sell $7K+ new cameras, leaving most of us to glean digi M's from the used market. Which isn't a bad place at all.

 

[Viktor Sebastian]

True. At the time of the their release, both the M8 and the R-D1 represented considerable R&D that had to be recuperated.

But nobody today is going to believe the argument that significant R&D costs could still be involved in the design and bringing to market of an updated APS-C model.

I don't see why an M8 to make now would be much cheaper than an M9. Sure the sensor is a little bit cheaper and it has one less processor, but that would be a marginal expense compared to the cost of making the parts and assembling them by hand in portugal.

 

[jsrockit]

I don't see why an M8 to make now would be much cheaper than an M9. Sure the sensor is a little bit cheaper and it has one less processor, but that would be a marginal expense compared to the cost of making the parts and assembling them by hand in portugal.

I have to agree. It's wishful thinking (and thinking I can share).