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

[eleskin]

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? I know I would! Leica should revive the M8 and offer us a 1.3 crop sensor with the high ISO performance of the M10 without the live video stuff for under 5K. If they don't do it someone else should. I would even accept a digital CL with a 1.3 crop. That way, they still can charge a premium for full frame but have an option for people who do not have unlimited cash in their banking accounts!

 

[willie_901]

Sure, if it had a CMOS sensor. Any sensor with an area equal to or larger than an APC-C sensor works for me. The physics for the current methods of digital imaging tell us sensor area is critically important.

I find 16 MP to be useful, but 12 MP images from a high performance sensor make lovely large prints.

I think sharpness is more dependent on the lens than the camera body (as long as there's not a reflex mirror bouncing around). Contemporary cameras have minimal AA filters these days. I think the disadvantages associated with AA filters is a bit dated. Decent IR filters remain practical.

 

[johannielscom]

What, no poll?

😀

 

[filmtwit]

Being ableto use iso/asa above 600 would be nice.

 

[Ronald_H]

Not really. I am content with mirrorless APS-C and a Leica adapter. For many the classic RF experience is more important, but I enjoy the modern extras a lot. And the price difference is big enough for a kitchen upgrade, a nice holiday or a small second hand car. Although I do have the cash, it doesn't mean I'll spend it on a camera. Heresy, I know... As for the Leica experience, I do have a nice M2 and a DR Summicron. That will have to do.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

At the risk of needing asbestos undies: isn't the Fuji XP-1 exactly this? I use it and the M9 complimentarily as the XP1 excels at the high ISOs where the M9 is weakest.

Ben

 

[muser53]

Not to split hairs but the X Pro isn't technically a rangefinder. I think that is what the OP was getting at. That being said it seems (I haven't used one yet) to be as you have experienced a camera that in use basically handles like a rangefinder. When I'm finally in the market for such a camera it or whatever variant is current will certainly be something I look at.

 

[fotomeow]

At the risk of needing asbestos undies: isn't the Fuji XP-1 exactly this? I use it and the M9 complimentarily as the XP1 excels at the high ISOs where the M9 is weakest.

Ben

Benjamin, keep those asbestos undies on!
First, there was a scathing thread started yesterday by a "senior" RFF admin, condescending on those who call the Xpro1 a dRF.
Its not a big deal to me, but I guess it is to some. Apparently one of their pet peeves. Next, the Xpro has a 1.5 crop factor,
not 1.3 crop factor, which actually is important to me, since thats the only way I can afford to get close to a fast 35mm FOV.
E.g, with the M8, I could put a fast 28mm f2.0 and get a 37mm f2.0. However, with the 1.5 crop factor, that only gets me a 42mm f2.
Not a big difference from 37mm, but big enough to throw off from my goal of having a fast 35mm FOV.

That said, I would love another 1.3 crop factor dRF, but not an M8 reincarnation. the shutter atrocity, "CLICK!! WHIZZZZ! CLACK!!!" totally blows it for me. Anything but that damn shutter!

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Nope.

Phil Forrest

 

[back alley]

if i were to buy a new camera today, a system camera, then it would be something like the x-pro1...i want the af and made for lenses...no m mount on an adapter for a camera that really was not built for them.
i would keep my rd1 kit as is and just add another system...for now, it's the sony rx100 for me.

 

[semilog]

No, I wouldn't. 1.3 crop is an unhappy middle, which is why Canon has finally eliminated it from their pro line, leaving only 1.0 and 1.6 crop.

 

[kokoshawnuff]

I wouldn't mind a 1.5x or 1.6x crop factor if it was a CMOS sensor. But Leica won't revive the M8, similar specs will probably be part of the rumored mirror-less with an evf, not a traditional mechanical rangefinder

 

[---f]

Sure! Something that could shoot at 3200 iso with noise that doesn't exceed 640 and the software comes with pixel remapping so the camera doesn't need to go back to Leica.

1.3x crop works really well for me. My fave FOV has always been 50mm BUT, I would still always crop a bit, so my 50mm on my M8 is 66mm and it's almost perfect for my style of photography.

 

[jtm6]

I agree with JSU.

 

[BobYIL]

Two conditional answers:

- No, I won't buy.. I have the Nex-5N, 16MP with a fine EVF, offset microlenses so I can use all my Leica lenses, satisfactory "peaking" type manual focus, great CMOS sensor with ISO3200 just chicken-feed, the most compact body to occupy no room in bag, take the lens off put it into your shirt pocket, swivel type Screen use it hip-level or overhead level.. wonderful IQ with PP, better than the M8... Broken, damaged? Eh, I paid for the body less than $400 new, can buy another one.

- Yes, I will buy... Provided that it will be RELIABLE, I won't pay a DSLR body price for fixing a failure.. should use state-of-art CMOS sensor developed specifically for Leica with some features over the one in the Nex-7 and D3200. I expect pro-class lightning fast and precise AF too (not like the one on the X2) if the classical rangefinder would not be offered (can't imagine AF lenses from Leica even with the costs of the existing ones though...). Silent shutter! (kevlar-bladed if possible, not the one on the $700 DSLRs.) If it would still be classical rangefinder again with no automation then make it a robust, reliable and weather-proof camera so that we could use long years as we would be paying some pro-DSLR price for it (yeesss!) .. and not again a third-world LCD screen probably not employed in any camera since two years.. Short: We must not feel obliged to love it for having a red-dot on costing some half of the price tag of $3.500.

 

[Murchu]

Only benefit of crop sensors are for the bump in magnification for telephoto subjects, or if a manufacturer is going to design or base a new, smaller system around one, in my opinion. For legacy lenses, crop sensors are only a half measure, and provide no benefits over a full frame sensor, other than size and cost.

So, for me, no. Leica or whatever other manufacturer who dip their toe in the digital rf market, will have to earn my euro. I believe there is an opportunity to target all the existing film rf shooters and users to either switch to/ add a digital body, but €6k bodies or crop sensors are not the way to do it.

 

[semilog]

Only benefit of crop sensors are for the bump in magnification for telephoto subjects, or if a manufacturer is going to design or base a new, smaller system around one, in my opinion.

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.

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.

 

[BobYIL]

... 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.

Very true.. Soon the 1-micron technology employed in the majority of the P&S cameras today will be utilized in the APS-C format too, and this format will reach some 200MP, the FF half GP (waiting Fujitsu and others to introduce the new engines to cope up with the new processing requirements..) No more low-pass filters.. apply binning, reach over ISO 12.800.

The APS-C is the future full-format; enabling lower weight glass groups to move faster AF (means less battery power too), more compact AF lens dimensions (FF-AF lenses are huge also in diameter), lower overall power consumption, no need for over 40mm diameter lens flanges.. More convenience for optical designers. Let's bear in mind: For the mirrorless, the issues to be solved for the FF-format lenses on FF-sensors are more complicated than the ones for the APS-C lenses on the APS-C sensors; the ratio of the rear element diameter wrt sensor diagonal is generally larger for the APS-C format.

 

[Keith]

I'm a little over crop sensors. I'm so used to the control of depth of field that 24 x 36 offers with my my film cameras and my D700 that I'm starting to seriously question my choice of the OM-D!

The 1.5 of the RD-1 I can live with (and it was cheap) but the crop factor of MFT is really limiting IMO.

 

[jtm6]

Only benefit of crop sensors are for the bump in magnification

How does cropping magnify? A crop sensor doesn't change the focal length of the lens. It only crops the image.