lemos
Established
Nikon D3 has this:
- EXPEED image processing engine with 14-bit A/D conversion and 16-bit image processing for superb tonal gradation.
lemos
Established
Define what is a "FF" digital camera... (well, good luck).
a full frame camera? I'm lost
Anupam
Well-known
If they produce the camera you describe it won't be "competition" anymore - more like "demolition"
MikeL
Go Fish
You forgot Face Detection. Hello?
R
Roberto
Guest
javimm
Established
No, certainly not. What I mean is that technology is evolving so fast that image quality in digital cameras is improving daily. The Nikon D3 has better IQ than the Canon 5D, and the 5D was a huge leap forward from the cameras before it: low noise at high ISOs, etc. And in some months something will be on the market with better IQ than the D3. That makes a digicam outdated as I see it.
In the film world, it is/was very different. A new camera could have more features, but not better IQ as the IQ came from the lenses and film ONLY, and did not rely in a sensor that could be improved.
Not that you need the latest to take good pictures. I now use a '91 Leica M6 and a '80s 50 'Cron, and I know that it can't get much better than that (in terms of IQ, not lens speed).
I don't know if I've made my point clear. Another example: Does a Canon 10D take good pictures?. Sure. Is it outdated in terms of what you get in the market now?. IMHO, yes.
A friend of mine bought a Mavica digicam that took floppies a long time ago (about 8-10 years ago?) and it sure took good pictures then (or we thought). Well, any cell phone today has better IQ than the Mavica.
Edited to add:
No, in the Dslr world outdated means just technically superior enough to induce a severe case of GAS.
That isn't my case certainly. I've only owned one DSLR that I still have and only another digicam before that (a Nikon Coolpix 4500 that I sold), and I currently own only one film camera, being the M6. Not so many lenses either, and not the most expensive ones for sure. So no GAS attack for me.
Cheers,
Javi.
Last edited:
Athos6
Tao Master
Dang it!
Dang it!
Now what am I suppost to say?? It would be soo cool if Nikon put Leica out of its misery by puting out a quality digital rangefinder at a good price point. Heck at around 2k I'd buy a cropped sensored RF with none of the above options except the D3's high ISO performance. I'm thinking its time for the market to kill Leica, and Nikon and Cosina could do it.
Dang it!
Now what am I suppost to say?? It would be soo cool if Nikon put Leica out of its misery by puting out a quality digital rangefinder at a good price point. Heck at around 2k I'd buy a cropped sensored RF with none of the above options except the D3's high ISO performance. I'm thinking its time for the market to kill Leica, and Nikon and Cosina could do it.
BRNO
Member
What good would killing Leica do for you or anyone else?
Athos6
Tao Master
Its Capitalism at work! Those who don't adjust to the demands of the market die out. Its keeping failing companies around which is bad. Even the American auto makers are starting to come around to market forces, Cosina is to Leica as Toyota is to GM/Ford etc... I have faith that Leica could change its business to compete. Workers are workers, I'm sure some SE asian factory workers could piece together Leica's as well as a German worker and at 1/4 the cost. Where are the M8's put together anyway?
Leica needs to look at Cosina and figure out what it can do to compete in a new market. The old Leica business model is dieing with the babyboomers, Leica needs to court the 18 to 35 crowd like everybody else.
Last edited:
V
varjag
Guest
Why would Nikon need Cosina? They are certainly not equipped to make "Leica-killer" bodies. If Nikon had to set up production line they'd easily do it in house.
That said I still think Nikon couldn't care less about investing R&D into minuscule RF market, with total capacity of maybe 1 or 2 days worth of their normal sales. And they don't need to "win" here, they won the popularity contest with F on the verge of 1960s and it stayed like that ever since.
But of course it's your right folks to stay delusional.
That said I still think Nikon couldn't care less about investing R&D into minuscule RF market, with total capacity of maybe 1 or 2 days worth of their normal sales. And they don't need to "win" here, they won the popularity contest with F on the verge of 1960s and it stayed like that ever since.
But of course it's your right folks to stay delusional.
willie_901
Veteran
Just in case there is a 50/50 chance this (Nikon digital RF) may happen I'm going to start saving up.
I would also point out that the D300 sensor technology is a real step forward in low-noise images at ISO 800-1600. The D3 is so spectacular at high ISO that the low-light performance of the D300 is often overlooked. I used a D300 for 18 hours at an indoor sports photography gig, and if the D300 sensor was manufactured in 135 format (24X36mm), then we'd really have something.
I also think that a Nikon DRF would be somewhat thicker than the typical M camera. The extra distance between the sensor and the lens makes life much easier. I also predict the Nikon DRF would have conventional anti-aliasing and IR filters. The shutter wiil be quieter than the M8, but not by much.
If these predictions are right, then everyone would be happy. Leicaphiles would be able to criticize the non-traditional body thickness and feel good about the purity of their non-filtered images. Everyone else would be grateful to have an alternative to the M8 or a used RD-1.
willie
I would also point out that the D300 sensor technology is a real step forward in low-noise images at ISO 800-1600. The D3 is so spectacular at high ISO that the low-light performance of the D300 is often overlooked. I used a D300 for 18 hours at an indoor sports photography gig, and if the D300 sensor was manufactured in 135 format (24X36mm), then we'd really have something.
I also think that a Nikon DRF would be somewhat thicker than the typical M camera. The extra distance between the sensor and the lens makes life much easier. I also predict the Nikon DRF would have conventional anti-aliasing and IR filters. The shutter wiil be quieter than the M8, but not by much.
If these predictions are right, then everyone would be happy. Leicaphiles would be able to criticize the non-traditional body thickness and feel good about the purity of their non-filtered images. Everyone else would be grateful to have an alternative to the M8 or a used RD-1.
willie
willie_901
Veteran
This is an excellent question. I wonder myself.
At the same time, capitalism and modern business philosophy embraces the myth (I do not use myth in a derogatory manner but in a teleological sense) that the purpose of a business is to capture market share until one's competitors are dead. If anyone can explain how this is a good thing, I'm eager to listen.
Athos6
Tao Master
I think that Leica competes in the camera market not solely in the RF market, so the death of Leica wouldn't mean the death of all competition (a bad thing). Its the threat of death which is suppose to drive companies to innovate, something Leica doesn't seem able to do. Capturing markets and driving your competition out increases your sales and your profitability. I think Nikon or Cosina could come out with a quality DRF that would cut into M8 sales, or destroy them if they went all out. If I was someone at Nikon I'd bring out a DRF and keep my margins at ~1% and watch Leica burn. I'm not a Leica hater but they really need to wake up.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
Probably don't NEED Cosina, but they did work together in the past on the low-cost film SLR, the FM-10. And Cosina has experience in manufacturing DRFs from the Epson R-D1. So it seems plausible. Though not the only possibility.
ferider
Veteran
It will come. With M mount and Leica registration distance. And mixed optical/electronic rangefinder (an LCD sensor segment overlayed over the viewfinder optic).
But some (3-4 stops ?) of the (D300) sensor's sensitivity will be lost to correct for vignetting - with menu-driven lens coding.
And M-mount versions of the new 35/1.8 and 50/1.4 Nikkors.
And a Nikon RF to M converter.
I do hope so
But some (3-4 stops ?) of the (D300) sensor's sensitivity will be lost to correct for vignetting - with menu-driven lens coding.
And M-mount versions of the new 35/1.8 and 50/1.4 Nikkors.
And a Nikon RF to M converter.
I do hope so
Last edited:
ZebGoesZeiss
Established
Imagine Nikon, Zeiss and Cosina joining Leica in making digital RF's. Now, that would open the field up...
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I doubt tat anyone is out to "kill" Leica. Though being a small market, there is a lot of interest in it.
For Nikon/Zeiss/Kinolta/VC it is more of a "filling" up a product line. For Nikon it would to round off the D3 "platform" with the coming high MP D3X and the "super" speed 52000 iso that is supposedly coming at the end of the year.
The M-mount is getting to be the standard rangefinder mount - somewhat like the M42 Pentax mount in the 60's.
As the sales are small, I suspect that less than 25000 Drf's have been sold since the 2004 introduction of the RD-1 (10 000 Rd-1's and around 14-15000 M8's), it makes sense to make a high performance, higher priced Rf than one aimed at the "masses" who most likely will stick with the consumer DSLR's anyway.
CV is already making lenses for the Nikon SLR cameras, The ZF series as well as the 40f2 Nokton and the 58/1,4 Topcon version. In Japan there is much more co-operation between manufaturers than we think.
For Nikon/Zeiss/Kinolta/VC it is more of a "filling" up a product line. For Nikon it would to round off the D3 "platform" with the coming high MP D3X and the "super" speed 52000 iso that is supposedly coming at the end of the year.
The M-mount is getting to be the standard rangefinder mount - somewhat like the M42 Pentax mount in the 60's.
As the sales are small, I suspect that less than 25000 Drf's have been sold since the 2004 introduction of the RD-1 (10 000 Rd-1's and around 14-15000 M8's), it makes sense to make a high performance, higher priced Rf than one aimed at the "masses" who most likely will stick with the consumer DSLR's anyway.
CV is already making lenses for the Nikon SLR cameras, The ZF series as well as the 40f2 Nokton and the 58/1,4 Topcon version. In Japan there is much more co-operation between manufaturers than we think.
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
just came in on this thread. some six or more months ago i asked scott at mainlinephoto if he had access to an RD1S and his answer was "no" however ..."i might want to hold off because there just may well be something on the horizon..." or words to that effect. i didn't, though, as is my want, so i got one from matsuiya and am very happy with it. i have bought two bessa bodies and five CV lenses from mainline in these six months and find scott to be someone who is black and direct and not the chit-chat kind of gossip monger so i'd say he talks to people not everyone else does, given he is probably the main distributor here in Oz for bessa and related products. i trust him.
on the possible new camera side of things, i'm not sure 7-ish mps is really going to make a lot of diff for the on-the-ground user unless the DRF is CMOS based. i have the Digilux 3 and it is so much crisper at medium to close range my shooting distance) than the more recent Nikons and Fuji DSLRs i have tried out. this will spark untold arguments amongst other pros who use DSLRs but as i said before, it is the on-the-ground results for the individual user that is the real measuring stick, how it works for you. but if there is another DRF coming out i'll certainly give it a good look-in. i think the M8 was a good test run for this technology and format. my mum said, never take the first packet off the supermarket shelf, it might not be fresh. the M8 MachII will be the next measuring stick, i reckon....used one a lot and loved it but costs more than my pocket money. i use my film cameras mostly, because of the panoramic dynamic and tonal range of film, but the RD1S i have used a lot recently for State tourism brochures with no complaints and many repeated paycheques. it's a workhorse.
-dd
on the possible new camera side of things, i'm not sure 7-ish mps is really going to make a lot of diff for the on-the-ground user unless the DRF is CMOS based. i have the Digilux 3 and it is so much crisper at medium to close range my shooting distance) than the more recent Nikons and Fuji DSLRs i have tried out. this will spark untold arguments amongst other pros who use DSLRs but as i said before, it is the on-the-ground results for the individual user that is the real measuring stick, how it works for you. but if there is another DRF coming out i'll certainly give it a good look-in. i think the M8 was a good test run for this technology and format. my mum said, never take the first packet off the supermarket shelf, it might not be fresh. the M8 MachII will be the next measuring stick, i reckon....used one a lot and loved it but costs more than my pocket money. i use my film cameras mostly, because of the panoramic dynamic and tonal range of film, but the RD1S i have used a lot recently for State tourism brochures with no complaints and many repeated paycheques. it's a workhorse.
-dd
Last edited:
jwhitley
Established
Really short answer: maybe none. Current digital cameras have owned up to their potential in many ways.
Less short answer: If we allow that there's more potential to go... then probably several bits more are useful, measuring that number from the sensor through to the RAW file. From this page, "A scene showing the interior of a room with a sunlit view outside the window, for instance, will have a dynamic range of approximately 100,000:1." That's greater than 16 bits, for a not uncommon case.
IMO, this would be nice mostly so that a single shot and one RAW file captures all of this information, instead of mucking about with bracketing and the restrictions that entails. Such a camera would also produce better results in those modest-DR cases where the base exposure was off for whatever reason.