What about a Fuji with M-mount?

What about a Fuji with M-mount?

  • Yes, I'll definitely buy it, it's a great news!

    Votes: 74 35.2%

  • Yes, I might get it, it might be cool

    Votes: 101 48.1%

  • No thanks / Useless / Not interested

    Votes: 26 12.4%

  • Other (pls explain)

    Votes: 9 4.3%
  • Total voters
    210
  • Poll closed .
I've been waiting for and expecting this ever since that moment when, in the enthusiasm following the announcement of the X100, the headbartender consulted people on RFF about their openness to digital.

I'm committed glass-wise to M-mount, but like others above, cannot follow Leica. By the time the Fuji comes out I'll be ready for a new body. But I still have hopes that an alternative "mid-priced" dRF will come out. A Fuji-Cosina (Zeiss) partnership would be ideal.
 
Tom A said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dear Tom,

This makes far more sense than sticking with a 'legacy' mount and crop factor, but since when has sense counted for much in these threads?

I suspect that such a camera might sell quite well, and could be made at a reasonable price. There might even be a demand for it, unlike some of the fantasy 'designs' that are periodically floated here and elsewhere.

Leica lenses probably wouldn't perform very well on the adapter, because it's a lot easier to design an new, limited line of telecentric lenses than to 'fake out' the inherent problem of short flange-to-sensor distances with existing lenses, some of which antedate anything remotely resembling modern colour films.

Cheers,

R.
 
One of the, at time of posting 7, who voted other- explain.

I fall into the yes I might buy but not for cool reasons.

Caveats, how is the viewfinder configured ? Electric/framelines/rangefinder/lots of flashing lights?
No experience of the X100 as after the Ricoh GRD I promised myself never to buy another fixed lens camera.
What is it going to offer that an M9 won't? (Cost aside) The M XX may have focus confirmation 😱
 
Now speculating even further here! A APS-C sensor is pretty close to a 1/2 frame. An adapter to use Pen F lenses would be nice!
There could also be a matching 1/2 frame film body for people like me who hates pushing buttons on inexplicable menu's etc. What the hell is "white balance' - in bl/w it means open up a stop or stop and half to get that white wall white!!!!!
The advantage with a smaller format (C type) is that the lenses can be correspondingly small and even faster lenses are modestly sized. There are also potential for vario focal lenses, a 15-25/28-50 and even though they might be a f4 or f3.5 - better high iso performance would help there.
Roger, I agree that adapting M or LTM lenses to a "new" digital sensor can be fraught with problems - but the choice would be nice - and as you would only be using the center portion of he lens anyway - some of the edge fringing would be less of a problem.
Oh hell, it is all speculations anyway - but IF they do one - have some actual photographers use it in Alpha and Beta testing stage and lock up the engineers somewhere where they cant add more features - just because the processor has space for them. If the manual is more than 15 pages/language - it s a bad design in my opinion.
 
I would seriously consider an exchangeable lens Fuji and be happy if it had a proprietary mount (disclosure - I have an X100). Anything else would most likely be a compromise.
 
Not unless it were full frame and very cheap. All the Fujifilm cameras I've had (and I write as a Fujifilm *film* fan) have been a POS, literally falling apart without any abuse.
 
Tom A said:
If the manual is more than 15 pages/language - it s a bad design in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of.your post, but this last bit is a pretty hard-to-meet criterion - for comparison, the manual for the Leica M3 has 24 pages, which would make the M3 a badly-designed, overly complex camera 😉

I guess complexity is here to stay.
 
rxmd said:
I agree with most of.your post, but this last bit is a pretty hard-to-meet criterion - for comparison, the manual for the Leica M3 has 24 pages, which would make the M3 a badly-designed, overly complex camera 😉

I guess complexity is here to stay.
Click to expand...

The old M2/M3 manuals were fun. They struggled to fill the pages with pictures. Remember that old ford Taunus that was in many of them.
Modern manuals mostly show buttons and how to attach strap-lugs and change batteries etc on top of the digital mumbo-jumbo.
Complexity might be here to stay - which is why i stay away from some of the modern "wonder" cameras. A friend has a couple of the Nikon D3S - the manual is 100's of pages - the size of a paperback block buster! I dont have enough time left to spell my way through that - however spectacular the camera's performance is!
I was a technical writer for some years, wrote instructions for large scale plants (Pulp and Paper/Oil and gas etc). The trick was to talk to the people who were operating this equipment and find out what they really wanted to know. Manuals were divided in two sets. One was a basic operational manual for the user and the 2nd one was for process engineers. Maybe 50 pages for the basic and, yes, binder after binder filled with Tech-Spec's for the engineers!
 
Full frame doesn't matter if they make good enough lenses that work great with the cropped sensor. Full frame only matters for legacy lenses. APS-C is actually very capable.
 
jsrockit said:
Full frame doesn't matter if they make good enough lenses that work great with the cropped sensor. Full frame only matters for legacy lenses. APS-C is actually very capable.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% - I'm happy with aps-c AS LONG as the lenses are designed for it. The fujfilm x100 is a great example - I love the 23 (35mm) f2 lens on that camera.

Even better though would be aps-h (1.3x) sensor with lenses designed for it. They'd be able to make the package smaller than a full frame camera, but it would be so close in how it renders to not really make a negative difference in IQ.

I'd still put my money on aps-c though.
 
fdigital said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is not true for the GXR Mount and the NEX-5N.
I have the latter and my M-Hexanons produce outstanding resolution, no color drifts, etc.

I can send you a few RAW files if you want to examine them 🙂
 
I would think that the F-Mount would make the camera/lens somewhat large. What is the purpose of mirrorless if not to eliminate the mirror and the area that the mirror occupied?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom