Nikon/Canon: listen up!

M

merciful

Guest
I want a small, fixed-lens RF with a full-frame sensor: all you have to do is pull apart a KHAF and rebuild it as a digi (but perhaps with a faster shutter). I don't want stupid, over-featured, micro-sensor, slow zoom lens crap like the G-series; and I don't want stupid over-featured, mini-sensor, no-VF crap like the GF-1. Get it?

(I figure if I go on about this often enough, someone might get the idea. And if I'm willing to pay real money for a pro camera like that, I'm sure others are, too.)

Goddammit.
 
I will, moi is a big fan of Nikon film cameras. And really this dRF marked is wide open for Nikon/Canon. And with mass production, money and technology those companies have they can even sell it at reasonable price like say 3000$... I'd definitely like to see some in the near future...

P.S. if they can make it an m-mount that would be just "dream come tru"
 
Do you know the old saying, "If wishes were horses, then beggars might ride"?

A small, 24x36 sensor camera isn't technically feasible just by pulling apart a DSLR (though I'm not sure what a KHAF might be). Leica needed a trick sensor with micro-lenses.

Cheers,

R.
 
The G11 would have been nice if not for the little sensor. On second thought wouldn't the lens have to be larger to cover the sensor size? Maybe that's why the EP-1 looks like the lens is just a tad too large for the body.
 
Thardy said:
The G11 would have been nice if not for the little sensor. On second thought wouldn't the lens have to be larger to cover the sensor size? Maybe that's why the EP-1 looks like the lens is just a tad too large for the body.
Click to expand...

Yes. And further away. The only way to turn a DSLR into a 'compact' is to remove the mirror and prism. It still won't be very compact...

Cheers,

R.
 
I don't buy that. Why should full frame sensor compacts be so hard to make. After all 35mm film cameras can be quite compact. A sensor not any thicker then the pressure plate + spring on a 35 mm camera. I think what makes them big is all the fluff electronics that marketeers make sure gets into compact cameras. The evidence of this is that cameras like the nikon d40 or the canon 400d are actually smaller than the film equivalents (OK they are not strictly full frame but not far in size). Please tell me to shut up if I am making no sense....
Gaspar
 
Gaspar said:
I don't buy that. Why should full frame sensor compacts be so hard to make. After all 35mm film cameras can be quite compact. A sensor not any thicker then the pressure plate + spring on a 35 mm camera. I think what makes them big is all the fluff electronics that marketeers make sure gets into compact cameras. The evidence of this is that cameras like the nikon d40 or the canon 400d are actually smaller than the film equivalents (OK they are not strictly full frame but not far in size). Please tell me to shut up if I am making no sense....
Gaspar
Click to expand...

Dear Gaspar,

Because sensors are MUCH more sensitive than film to the angle at which the light strikes the surface, and the closer the lens is to the sensor, the worse the problem is. This has been discussed ad nauseam. It's why Leica had to use microlenses, and why they used 18x27 before 24x36.

Cheers,

R.
 
"And with mass production, money and technology those companies have they can even sell it at reasonable price like say 3000$... I'd definitely like to see some in the near future..."

Repeat after me: There are no masses who would buy a DRF to entice Nikon or Canon to mass produce them. We are exceeding rare birds here.
 
But Leica is using 24*36 now, so there's no reason that the camera I want cannot be achieved, particularly as the Hexar is very nearly the same size as an M. I don't care if an engineering tour de force is necessary, I just need a digi that suits my life- (and shooting-) style.
 
jarski said:
is there reason why Canon/Nikon could not do the same ?

I agree with other points with OP, except the fixed lens.
Click to expand...

None at all, unless there are Kodak patents they can't overcome. Except that they'd need a special sensor just for their digi-compact, which probably has an even smaller market than an M-series Leica. Also, in compact terms, even 27.8mm is a long way from the lens flange to the sensor.

Cheers,

R.
 
not a simple task... given light angles mentioned above. But is exactly why I think Leica could be in a position to make such a camera, given all the research they've put into this (perhaps like the new X1?) that could a big success if they could keep cost down. Basically we're talking about a DP1-type camera...
 
Why should Canon or Nikon bother for a niche market ....... it makes no sense from a business point of view. They make a lot more money with any simple digital point of shoot with the right bells and whistles.
 
Siding with Pickett on this one.....

Siding with Pickett on this one.....

Pickett Wilson said:
"And with mass production, money and technology those companies have they can even sell it at reasonable price like say 3000$... I'd definitely like to see some in the near future..."

Repeat after me: There are no masses who would buy a DRF to entice Nikon or Canon to mass produce them. We are exceeding rare birds here.
Click to expand...

In fact, I will go one step farther into the Abyss that is rangefinderdom.

Based on the numbers needed to recapture R&D, for most manufacturers..... there is virtually NO market for a DRF, and particularly the DRF that most want to see.

The only company with the balls to ask the prices needed to make DRF cameras redeemable in the market, and then only in limited numbers, is Leica.

And regarding the post regarding which way the "new M9" will spur Zeiss Ikon with respect to a DRF?

I seriously doubt whether the prospect of a DRF at Zeiss has been more than idle chatter and chuckles during coffee breaks.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
"And with mass production, money and technology those companies have they can even sell it at reasonable price like say 3000$... I'd definitely like to see some in the near future..."

Repeat after me: There are no masses who would buy a DRF to entice Nikon or Canon to mass produce them. We are exceeding rare birds here.
Click to expand...
Or indeed anyone else. It's hard to say which makes less sense: 'I want it, therefore someone should make it' (even if hardly anyone else wants it) or 'I can't afford it, therefore they should lower their prices' (and sell at a loss).

Cheers,

R.
 
"Want" and "need" are two different things.

There are many people who "want" things but they don't "need" them. They just think they do.

Bottom line: It's capitalism and it's all about THE bottom line -- can it turn a profit? If it can, it will be produced. If it can't, it's unlikely that we'll see it.

Nikon would be better equipped to produce a digital rangefinder, having pushed out that rangefinder a few years back.

I'm not sure Canon could, because they've not been a company that spends time looking backward. Ask any FD users. And who knows if Canon has any tooling left to produce a rangefinder camera -- film or digital.

It's not as simple as deciding to make a rangefinder camera and then it's in production. It's a serious investment into design, creating a production line and then a line of lenses as well.

Easier said than done.

Leica already had expertise in rangefinders. They just had to figure out how to incorporate digital technology and modify the existing film camera. They didn't have to build from the ground up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom