Would you buy a 1.3 crop digital rangefinder with superior ISO at a better price?

semilog said:
Lower heat dissipation. Less power consumption. Smaller batteries. Smaller lenses. Lower weight. Better price-to-performance. Greater depth of field for a given shutter speed, especially in low light. In SLRs, less mirror mass and faster shot-to-shot time and a smaller/lighter armature and vibration canceling assembly. Same for the shutter. In cameras with sensor-based IS, you get better IS performance because there's less sensor mass to move. You also get sensors that are not stitched together from multiple smaller sensors, as most FF sensors are.

These are just a few of the advantages of "crop" sensors.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I wonder how many of these translate into real world advantages for a user. Speaking personally, only the depth of field aspect is a consideration, and for my type of shooting, it is a wash - sometimes welcome, other times unwelcome.

semilog said:
Note that not one of the new mirrorless systems (Samsung, Sony, Panasonic/Olympus, Fuji, and Canon) utilizes a "full frame" sensor. The engineers in these companies know exactly where the sweet spot is. "Full frame" is a compromise format that exists because of the legacy of 35mm film cameras and lenses.

In my opinion.
Click to expand...

Very much agree there, the size of the sensor has the biggest impact on systems with legacy lenses, as we all just want our lenses to work like they always have.
 
jtm6 said:
How does cropping magnify? A crop sensor doesn't change the focal length of the lens. It only crops the image.
Click to expand...

I don't really care for the semantics of it, was simply referring to the fact a wildlife photographer gets the same image on his sensor using a 600mm lens on a full frame camera, as a 400mm lens on a 1.5x APS sensor camera. That was all I meant by magnification, whether that is found to be the right turn of phrase or not.
 
To answer the OP: wholeheartedly yes!!! I would really like to see this exact camera: basically an M8 with upgraded sensor and internals. 'twould be a beautiful thing!

1.3 crop is a good size for me, and mechanical rf fits my style.

Basically, I'd prefer this camera over a used M9.
 
I can't imagine anyone other than Leica making a camera with a true rangefinder focusing system for manual-focus lenses.

And I also can't imagine Leica killing their rangefinder market niche by producing a "similar" but cheaper, lower-spec camera. They already have a cheaper line of digital cameras.
 
I agree wholeheartedly.

Anything less than a Speed Graphic simply shouldn't be taken seriously. Kids today!
 
semilog said:
Given what I've said above, I will now say that I may well be wrong. Or, at least, I may be right today and wrong a year from now.

Falk Lumo has a typically thoughtful and detailed analysis of what this might mean.

Time will tell...
Click to expand...

Time surely will tell, however JUST the contrary of what Falk Lumo tries to point out with faulty depiction of the realities and trends with this chart and questionable predictions...

7772391366_0016c17aa6.jpg


The D3200 with 24MP sensor and zoom lens costs $699. What is the lowest cost of a FF body with 24MP lens without any lens?

Everything aside, assuming all the other parameters being the same including the processing unit and the WHOLE BODY, the costs of the FF-size sensor equipped bodies are tremendously higher compared to the ones of the APS-C size, not even related per millimeter-square of the surface by far!.. Out of any silicon disc of any size, the yield for FF sensors has never reached even half of what the yield of APS-C size sensors do regularly with left hand. This is physics, should not be handled through coffee table fictions.
 
ChrisN said:
I can't imagine anyone other than Leica making a camera with a true rangefinder focusing system for manual-focus lenses.

And I also can't imagine Leica killing their rangefinder market niche by producing a "similar" but cheaper, lower-spec camera. They already have a cheaper line of digital cameras.
Click to expand...

Well, market segregation is a real thing, although whether Leica are capable of it, is another thing. Cheaper digital Leica's do exist, but think Leica are deluding themselves if they think they have anything special on their hands aside from the rangefinder..
 
eleskin said:
Would any of you buy a digital rangefinder camera that had the 1.3 crop of the M8 with superior high ISO and excellent resolution (16 MP) and sharpness? If it were priced at $3,500 would you rather buy that than the rumored 10K M10?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would, but Leica doesn't do budget M stuff that will cut into its high end sales.
 
^--- Correct. Leica have stated that they intend to be a "luxury brand" like Rolex or Hermes. For such a brand high price is a mark of exclusivity i.e., in Leica's view high price is not a bug, it's a feature.
 
semilog said:
^--- Correct. Leica have stated that they intend to be a "luxury brand" like Rolex or Hermes. For such a brand high price is a mark of exclusivity i.e., in Leica's view high price is not a bug, it's a feature.
Click to expand...

It's true... But in that recent Stefan Daniel interview he did acknowledge that the price gap between the x2 and the m9 was pretty huge, and indicated that they were likely to fill it.

If the m10 is $9k-$10k, I wouldn't be surprised to see a $5k camera from Leica. I hope it will be an updated M8, really hope it will be $4k, and am currently exercising my right to keep my hopes aloft, with full expectation of having them completely dashed in the not too distant future. But I would very possibly be willing to spend $5k for it, which is what I do expect it would cost.
 
Please an upgraded M8!

Please an upgraded M8!

I really hope Leica fills the gap between an M10 and an X2. 5k would be fine. Why not take the M9 body and offer a 1.3 sensor with better high iso? Maybe full frame with less megapixels.
 
Leica, alas, doesn't have the capital to invest in developing more camera systems than they have now. So the camera in question would have to be a joint venture. Then people would complain about paying for a camera that's not really a Leica.
 
PS The company that is, in terms of market, positioned to make the camera you're looking for here is Cosina. Apparently committed to film only, or so I've read in forums such as this.
 
I expect the capital investment would be lower for a 1.3x sensor simply because of the issues with RF lenses and digital sensors. Plus with higher yields for smaller sensors, they're just less expensive to produce... So it might be significantly cheaper to develop the smaller sensor camera.

I think we're probably going to be disappointed, but I'm happy to hope until then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom