rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Sevo's argument was about parallax correction and framelines in a hybrid viewfinder. For that to work well, the camera needs to know the specifics of the lens. On that, Leica has patents.
The three-position encoding used for selecting framelines is available patent-free, but under that a 35 and a 135, or a 28 and a 90, are encoded identically in spite of behaving substantially differently. Given how people complained about lack of autofocus precision close up on the X100, it is reasonable to assume that they will complain about a lack of framing precision, too.
The GXR M-mount module is unconcerned with framing, so they don't have to bother.
Harry S.
Well-known
I care. I think youre deluded thinking people dont, too.
Youre talking about an expensive camera with a wavering reliability record, mediocre sensor performance and most likely without warranty.
Its like buying a cheap old Porsche thinking its a bargain and having to pay current-price Porsche maintenance fees.
Im a firm believer that a Japanese firm could make a high quality, FF digital rangefinder for under five thousand dollars.
Last edited:
randomm
Well-known
+1 and some more characters...
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well, I guess then we should all care about what M2s and M4s cost new, too, when making our buying decisions.
I'd presume it's rather like buying a 2005 Porsche instead of a 2011 Porsche.
Firstly $5000 and $2000 are in entirely different leagues.
Secondly the nice thing about your firm belief is that it either confirms or invalidates itself, just by waiting. If said Japanese firms think they can do it and that it is worth doing it, they will do it. So far they haven't done it. And if in the meantime you need a digital rangefinder, you can always buy a $2000 M8, no matter what they cost new.
Last edited:
bfffer
Established
why not? competition usually bring out better products.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not always. Sometimes it just brings out cheaper products. Cheaper with the same quality is good. Cheaper but inferior, isn't -- especially if it promotes a race to the bottom, as with the abandonment of pentaprisms on low-end DSLRs.
Cheers,
R.
pvdhaar
Peter
And same price but inferior is downright criminal..
What's meant here is cost cutting to increase profit margins by lowering quality standards and then giving the end-customer none of the benefits..
Paul T.
Veteran
I think there's no chance whatsoever of Fuju using the M mount. Why sell lenses for Leica, when they could sell Fuji ones?
If they used the M mount, they would also be the ones fielding all the moans if it doesn't perform well with any old lens the customer happens to have in the bottom of his/her drawer. Also, I reckon whatever they do will be APS-C, to avoid stratospheric pricing.
I do like the idea of a cool, multi-lens system though - especially when you consider how good the Xpan was. And I'm sure someone in China will produce an adapter, if it happens to be compatible with the M mount.
If they used the M mount, they would also be the ones fielding all the moans if it doesn't perform well with any old lens the customer happens to have in the bottom of his/her drawer. Also, I reckon whatever they do will be APS-C, to avoid stratospheric pricing.
I do like the idea of a cool, multi-lens system though - especially when you consider how good the Xpan was. And I'm sure someone in China will produce an adapter, if it happens to be compatible with the M mount.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
That's what you get when you buy low-end. Pentamirrors, for example, were introduced in low-end film SLRs long before the race to the bottom in DSLRs really began.
If you compare today's low end with something, compare it with yesterday's low end. Nowadays you can get a new SLR with lens for $450. In, say, 1980 dollars, that's $165. Now if you had spent $165 on a new SLR with lens in 1980, would you have expected a quality product?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Is that really happening or is that just an illusion?
Competition in the SLR market is so fierce that you simply can't afford keeping benefits to yourself.
gavinlg
Veteran
As far as I can tell, M lenses suck on digital camera bodies that aren't digital M's.
Zeiss and leica lenses on m4/3 and NEX are worse than the mounts native lenses.
Zeiss and leica lenses on m4/3 and NEX are worse than the mounts native lenses.
Odmit
Member
if photorumors is right, the new interchangable fuji system will probably have their own proprietary mount
http://photorumors.com/2011/11/03/f...oming-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera/
not sure if this has been posted before
http://photorumors.com/2011/11/03/f...oming-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera/
not sure if this has been posted before
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
It hasn't been posted before, and nothing of value was lost.
Don't bother to read it. The link contains no information at all, except random speculation by random people with nothing to back it up, and two unrelated Twitter posts that have nothing to do with it either.
It looks like we're back to the high times of the X100 hype, when meaningless Twitter posts got reposted all over the WWW and discussed at length, by people who had absolutely nothing to say except how excited they are, and nothing to add on the subject except the content of the same Twitter posts they were discussing.
I have no issue at all with this camera have its own proprietary mount. I have to get away from Leica eventually... since I cannot keep buying its digital Ms. A nice Fuji system sounds perfect.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
NLewis
Established
We now have a splendid M-mount body, the Sony NEX7, with a top-quality EVF and focus peaking which is not really that much different than an optical RF. Plus, with the EVF, you can use a full range of lenses without extra viewfinders. So I don't know what all the complaining is about. What I would like to see is the NEX7 body/EVF with a 12MP sensor, for less noise and better low light performance. Then, I would like to see an NEX7 body with a full-frame sensor. I'm sure they could do it for under $2000.
With a few software tweaks, they could change the focus peaking system and make instead a center focus patch, with some sort of indicator showing too close/too far/in focus. You could even use this with an OVF like the Fuji switchable VF.
With a few software tweaks, they could change the focus peaking system and make instead a center focus patch, with some sort of indicator showing too close/too far/in focus. You could even use this with an OVF like the Fuji switchable VF.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
A proposal for a camera that is incompatible with all existing lenses, AND that only appeals to a small minority of buyers that has no interest in buying the manufacturer's lenses anyway, AND at an arbitrary-but-unrealistic price point? Sounds like a winner.
Paul T.
Veteran
Someone's in a receptive, cheerful mood today!
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Speculating here! A small, compact Fuji APS-C format (almost 1/2 frame anyway) and with the bright lines done as on the X100 (LED). Proprietary mount is OK - as long as they allowed a mount that could use adapters for other lenses. Some form of focus confirmation (red dot changing to green or what ever). A full fledged Rf patch is of course ideal - but complex in a small body. Have the LED framelines stepless so that you can code in whatever frame you want.
Also have them make a series of proprietary lenses for it , a wide ( 15 mm), mount the current 23f2 in same mount and a 40/50mm lens.
It could be the digital version of a CLE or CL.
Minimalist "button frenzy" at the back, manual controls on top (X 100 style). High iso capability and the rest.
Would be nice and once I used up my film (12-15000 ft of it) I might consider it.
Also have them make a series of proprietary lenses for it , a wide ( 15 mm), mount the current 23f2 in same mount and a 40/50mm lens.
It could be the digital version of a CLE or CL.
Minimalist "button frenzy" at the back, manual controls on top (X 100 style). High iso capability and the rest.
Would be nice and once I used up my film (12-15000 ft of it) I might consider it.
I'd be satisfied with 21mm, 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm equivilent lenses for a Fuji rangefinder style body. All could probably be had for less than a used M9 if they release it.