Sony "Digital Mamiya 7" Medium Format Mirrorless rumor...

An odd reference to bring up the Mamiya 7 when 645 would in all likelihood be a lot closer to reality. Isn't it true that no commercial MF digital sensor has exceeded the size of a 645 negative?
 
edge100 said:
I like digital, too. And it is interesting news.

But I just don't get the "digital M7" bit. It's nothing like a Mamiya 7.
Click to expand...

Again, I think it was just talking about the shape. I think it only annoys us at RFF when EVF cameras are compared to true rangefinders. :D
 
Noll said:
An odd reference to bring up the Mamiya 7 when 645 would in all likelihood be a lot closer to reality. Isn't it true that no commercial MF digital sensor has exceeded the size of a 645 negative?
Click to expand...

No. It depends on your metrics, but the resolution of a AA-less FF sensor can be on par with decent 645 file. The physical size may be smaller, but most MF digital sensor can outresolve their analog counterparts.

This is also the case with large format, scanning backs can compete with film on resolution, but they are many times slower and may not work for certain types of photography.
 
if Fuji does it, it will cost more.

Sony already sank the R&D. Sony already has the scale to deal with the yields (they aint 100%). Sony has the experience. Fuji has nothing like that. Fuji hasn't even made a 24x36mm sensor, much less a larger one.

Also, I highly suspect people paying near 5 figures for a camera don't want watercolors at 100%. They probably also don't care about the jpeg engine. It's much more likely they want a predictable sensor that works well with Capture 1 and Lightroom and ACR. You know, like Sony already makes.
 
Yes an alternative to the original Leica idea!

Yes an alternative to the original Leica idea!

edge100 said:
It's interesting that you refer to the A7r as an alternative to the M240. I don't see it that way at all. They are entirely different cameras where it matters: how the user interacts with the camera.

IMHO, the only thing the M240 and the A7r have in common is that they both use FF sensors and you put a lens on the front of them. Beyond that, they could not be more different.

The A7r is a mirrorless camera with an EVF, which has a very limited selection of lenses, and which handles 3rd party lenses with varying degrees of success. It has a mode dial, and very few dedicated knobs, buttons, or selectors. It is typical of most digital cameras; feature-laden, but correspondingly inefficient in use.

The M240 is a rangefinder camera (for better or worse), which has a massive selection of native lenses (and can handle 3rd party lenses, but why?!?). f/stop is selected by a dedicated ring on the lens, shutter speed by a dedicated dial on the body. It is, to the extent that any digital camera can be, the very model of efficiency.

The cameras could not be more different. You've reduced them to the sensor inside, which, I would argue, is one of the least important parts of a camera (but the one on which most people place the greatest importance), for all but a very few photographers. Who cares if you have 36MP if using the camera isn't a joy?
Click to expand...


If I remember my history of photography, the original idea behind the Leica camera was small size and very high quality photos. Here, Sony has taken that idea and applied it to a 21st century solution. Small camera, big clear sharp photos. Not only that, but Sony has priced that solution within reach of many photo enthusiasts and photographers financially. So it is an alternative to a Leica in this sense. Not an alternative for the so called rangefinder experience which seems to get more and more expensive every year which is unfortunate for people who like rangefinders but do not have unlimited disposable income. I have been using Leica since 1990 with an M6 and my last Leica was sand is the M8. I stopped after spending $4,700. I cannot go higher, so for me, the A7r makes perfect sense. Now a used M240 in a few years for $4000 would be ok. The Sony will fill the gap, but by that time Fuji will have a great surprise in the X Pro 2!!!!
 
eleskin said:
If I remember my history of photography, the original idea behind the Leica camera was small size and very high quality photos. Here, Sony has taken that idea and applied it to a 21st century solution. Small camera, big clear sharp photos. Not only that, but Sony has priced that solution within reach of many photo enthusiasts and photographers financially. So it is an alternative to a Leica in this sense. Not an alternative for the so called rangefinder experience which seems to get more and more expensive every year which is unfortunate for people who like rangefinders but do not have unlimited disposable income. I have been using Leica since 1990 with an M6 and my last Leica was sand is the M8. I stopped after spending $4,700. I cannot go higher, so for me, the A7r makes perfect sense. Now a used M240 in a few years for $4000 would be ok. The Sony will fill the gap, but by that time Fuji will have a great surprise in the X Pro 2!!!!
Click to expand...

I see the X-Pro1 as being far closer to the Leica gestalt than the A7r. And I'm not just talking about aesthetics. Real dials and knobs, a real optical viewfinder, etc. The fact that it's APS-C is a minor detail, to be honest.

The A7r is much more a D800/5DIII alternative than an M240 alternative.
 
Forgive me for I am still in the honeymoon phase of owning a new A7; I can't help myself from posting about it:

I almost didn't get it because of fuglyness... and "Sony". I almost went for Fuji instead (plus the Fuji's dedicated controls). BUT, I've found looks to be deceiving because the A7 does have prominently placed dedicated shutter, aperture, and exposure comp dials. Caveat being the dials are not labeled and their function can be re-assigned in the menus. Regardless, once assigned they do nothing else and are truly dedicated.

I've set & forget all the digital stuff on the A7, and I'm using manual focus lenses with dedicated aperture rings. I get a really clean experience with the Sony. It's no Leica though.

Regardless, I hope this mirrorless big-sensor trend continues!
 
Financially, this doesn't make much sense for Sony in that they would need to either produce another range of lenses for a limited market, or provide information so that others could make adapters to leaf shutter lenses. So, if this does happen, it will be a Zeiss designed leaf shutter lens permanently attached to a "MF" camera body. A 35mm equivalent lens package under $4K could sell, but still a limited market.
 
whited3 said:
Regardless, I hope this mirrorless big-sensor trend continues!
Click to expand...

me too. I wish Olympus would go full frame sensor.

I'd love to see a FF spiritual successor to the f2 OM macros. I very much like Olympus' lens design ethos, but to me any camera with a smaller than 35mm sensor is a non-starter. I've got lenses that have rendering styles that simply have not and probably can not been replicated with lenses that cover such tiny image circles and would want to use them in conjunction with new AF lenses.

Ive got legitimately zero interest in selling off my carefully accumulated collection of manual focus/aperture lenses to buy lenses for a system that is going to continue to get squeezed, too. Lenses that dont go with me if the mount is orphaned.

sensor yields improve every year. the cost of producing larger sensors goes down every year. cell phones creep up in quality every year. large sensor is the end game.
 
If it does end up existing and having a fixed lens and that lens was circa 80mm with at least have decent auto focus and non magnification focus peaking with say, an f/2.8 lens, I'd be in.

#NotAskingMuch
 
edge100 said:
I see the X-Pro1 as being far closer to the Leica gestalt than the A7r. And I'm not just talking about aesthetics. Real dials and knobs, a real optical viewfinder, etc. The fact that it's APS-C is a minor detail, to be honest.

The A7r is much more a D800/5DIII alternative than an M240 alternative.
Click to expand...

True. I do agree the Fuji is closer in spirit to the M240. But one thing is clear to me: As a Noctilux f1.0 owner, the A7r has been a GODSEND to me! I almost feel the rangefinder is the wrong tool for this lens! I had alot of missed shots with my M8 and it was somewhat better with the X Pro-1, but man, that full frame EVF and the ability to actually see exactly what the Noct is rendering is incredible! I actually got the A7r more as a digital back for my Noctilux than anything else. For street shots, my X Pro rules for now.
 
redisburning said:
if Fuji does it, it will cost more.

Sony already sank the R&D. Sony already has the scale to deal with the yields (they aint 100%). Sony has the experience. Fuji has nothing like that. Fuji hasn't even made a 24x36mm sensor, much less a larger one.

Also, I highly suspect people paying near 5 figures for a camera don't want watercolors at 100%. They probably also don't care about the jpeg engine. It's much more likely they want a predictable sensor that works well with Capture 1 and Lightroom and ACR. You know, like Sony already makes.
Click to expand...

1. Fujifilm uses sony sensors with their own colour array over it. I'm assuming fuji would use the large cmos sony with their own bits and pieces on it for a mf camera.

2. Sony has sensor experience and electronics experience. They don't have camera experience, and it shows. Their cameras are a gobbledygook software and hardware mismatches and ergonomic wtfs. Fuji on the other hand has decades of experience with camera design, ergonomics and lens design.

3. Sonys lenses suck. They have two good lenses and both are zeiss's. Fujifilm has some of the best lenses out of anyone, and at an affordable price.

4. I don't agree with your watercolors consensus sorry. x-trans is different to bayer, and in some situations it isn't quite as pixel sharp yes. But it makes up for it in other areas like colour, smoothness and high ISO capability. Oh, and the cameras themselves don't suck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom