View Full Version : Future X100 Models = M ?
CameraQuest
03-12-2011, 19:58
With this kind of popularity even before they are widely available, its obvious Fuji will followup with more X100 family members.
The big question is when and if
we will see a X100 styled Leica M mount camera.
Time will tell.
Stephen
I'd have a hard time seeing them doing that, simply because there isn't currently any sort of optical means of focussing - you'd have to be on the EVF the whole time, which wouldn't (I imagine) appeal to many M-mount lens owners. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to throw my Summilux on something more modern than my R-D1s - I just don't expect it to be a Fuji X-something...
R!
Eventually someone will jump into that space and release another m-mount digital. I am also not convinced it will by Fuji. Probably an X-100w will be up next.
Eventually someone will jump into that space and release another m-mount digital.
I too think that something like this has to happen eventually. Someone will jump in and produce a reasonably priced digital platform for using M and LTM lenses. I'd like to use some Leica glass but I just don't see the value in an M8 or M8.2. You can use M glass on M4/3 cameras with adapters but the 2X crop factor doesn't work for me. I'm actually quite eager to see how the Ricoh GXR with "M" module specs out...
Brian Legge
03-12-2011, 21:17
Given how much M lenses cost, it seems like even an inexpensive body could be relatively expensive.
FrozenInTime
03-12-2011, 21:34
Ricoh might be closet to producing a M mount RF body- they are hinting at something unique for their GXR M mount:
See the interview here: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/ricohs_leica_lens_module_for_gxr_exclusive_intervi ew_news_305582.html?aff=rsn
Here's the interesting bit:
The use of a focal plane shutter though will require a new solution for live view operation.
The shutter is not exposed and so can not relay information to the rear LCD screen.
Mr Saiki told AP that Ricoh does have a solution for this, but he would not be drawn on what it was.
He would say, however, that it would not involve a time consuming process and that the camera would remain very effective as a tool for street photographers.
This means there can be no live view EVF.
After reading the article, I convinced myself that it would be possible for Ricoh to give the GXR M-lens module a real Leica M style coupled optical rangefinder that used the current hotshoe and EVF contacts :eek:
If the camera includes a cam as part of the lens mount then they can read and then electronically display a distance scale on a optical viewfinder as they did with the projected LCD in the GR1 film cameras.
One stage beyond this is to electro-mechanically transfer that distance measurement onto a a traditional optical rangefinder.
The electronics would be very straightforward - using either a servo motor or moving coil meter mechanism to swing the RF mirror.
It might not accurate enough to focus a Noctilux full open, but Ricoh say the camera would remain very effective as a tool for street photographers
Any other ideas out there on what they could be planning ?
what's in it for Fuji? They dont even make M lenses.
skibeerr
03-12-2011, 22:07
what's in it for Fuji? They dont even make M lenses.
Sell body's?
Sell body's?
fair point :D
I guess I should elaborate: DRFs are fussy designs because of the short lens distance to sensor. There are no cheap and easy solutions, it would require a fair bit of R&D, they would possibly need to outsource the sensor thus adding to their costs, and then try to recover all these costs by selling to the small RF market which is relatively allergic to buying expensive toys that dont say Leica or Zeiss on them.
I'm not saying it's impossible or I wouldnt want it to happen, but my guess is it would require a fair amount of sake to sell this business case to the Fuji bosses. Leica went for it, but Leica knew a good DRF would boost their lens sales. Fuji would only be boosting somebody else's lens sales.
DRFs are fussy designs because of the short lens distance to sensor. There are no cheap and easy solutions, it would require a fair bit of R&D, they would possibly need to outsource the sensor thus adding to their costs, and then try to recover all these costs by selling to the small RF market which is relatively allergic to buying expensive toys that dont say Leica or Zeiss on them.
I'm not saying it's impossible or I wouldnt want it to happen, but my guess is it would require a fair amount of sake to sell this business case to the Fuji bosses. Leica went for it, but Leica knew a good DRF would boost their lens sales. Fuji would only be boosting somebody else's lens sales.
I quite agree. I can't see that this would be in Fuji's interest.
Look at it this way: Leica was able to stay in business because the company is not only funding itself from camera body but also from lens sales.
Even if Fuji came up with a viable solution for M lenses, it would not benefit substantially from lens sales (it takes a certain reputation to be successful against Leica - to say it politely).
Given the angle of incidence problem for the sensor surface, I would rather imagine that R&D would be under way to come up with a novel lens system.
This might consist of a two-part lens concept: (1) front lens (the part that defines FOV) and (2) back lens (the part that is responsible for unchanged angles of incidence to the sensor). I'm not an optics specialist, but I'd be very surprised if I were the first to think about a lens system in this way.
It would be logical to come from the Zeiss Ikon (Cosina) as their entry into digital. They do have 2 extensive lines of M glass and it would extend their position as it exists today.
I believe this was in Fuji's design. The primary advantage of a TTL viewfinder (EVF) is SLR-type functionality - use of zooms and interchangeable lenses. Without a commitment to a set of lenses, it was wasted on the X100... a timid business decision.
.
I'd prefer to see Fuji build something that uses their own dedicated lenses ... the last thing we need is another M mount camera to drive up lens prices!
Agree with Keith. I'm tired of uncoupled crop factor adaptations. Let's see an interchangeable lens camera with 35/2 and 75/2 dedicated focal length equivalents, the hybrid viewfinder, varying size, parallax correct frame-lines, etc ....
Roland.
Agree with Keith. I'm tired of uncoupled crop factor adaptations. Let's see an interchangeable lens camera with 35/2 and 75/2 dedicated focal length equivalents, the hybrid viewfinder, varying size, parallax correct frame-lines, etc ....
Roland.
YES YES YES and YES ... I like your train of thought Roland. :)
Roger Hicks
03-13-2011, 06:05
Eventually someone will jump into that space and release another m-mount digital. I am also not convinced it will by Fuji. Probably an X-100w will be up next.
Why?
As the old proverb says, "If wishes were horses, then beggars might ride."
A far better idea, as canvassed by others above, is a new mount and a smaller sensor (e.g. APS-C) so the lenses can be designed to suit the format from the beginning.
Cheers,
R.
Sounds like a digi-contax G3.
willie_901
03-13-2011, 08:10
With this kind of popularity even before they are widely available, its obvious Fuji will followup with more X100 family members.
The big question is when and if
we will see a X100 styled Leica M mount camera.
Time will tell.
Stephen
I think Fuji could do this. The question is: will they do it, and what is their motivation to do so.
The Fuji M-lens camera body would have to be thicker than a Leica M body. This would greatly reduce the engineering challenges. The OVF design would have to be different too. Fuji would have to change their image recording strategy as well. Fuji designed the X100 micro lenses and lens as a coupled set. This greatly reduces the necessity of post-acquisition, in-camera data modification. Fuji would have to develop in-camera data correction algorithms to accommodate the diverse family of M lenses.
I think Fuji could do this. The question is: will they do it, and what is their motivation to do so.
Fuji designed the X100 micro lenses
Source? i'd like to read more on this. Do micro lenses need to be calibrated for the angle of incidence?
I don't see the advantage of going M mount, and they would lose autofocus, an important tech if they want to sell quantity.
I don't think it's a technical question. There are no technical barriers. It's a product marketing decision.
I hope I'm wrong, but if fuji's past as prologue, an M-mount is pretty unlikely. They offer pro/enthusiast rigs with proprietary fixed or a limited (~3) number of lenses rather than a full system (and never in someone else's mount).
Roger: Sticking to M only, I can argue that this is the market where ZI/Cosina lives now; they've made the commitment to M (and even LTM) with a system level of bodies and lenses. It's already done. Will they take the step to a digital body? They have to, don't they?
Besto,
- Charlie
Agree with Keith. I'm tired of uncoupled crop factor adaptations. Let's see an interchangeable lens camera with 35/2 and 75/2 dedicated focal length equivalents, the hybrid viewfinder, varying size, parallax correct frame-lines, etc ....
Roland.
Exactly. THey would make more money this way, and it would be technically more efficient - the biggest problem would be focusing quickly with a 75/2 or 75/2.8 equivalent using contrast detection.
willie_901
03-13-2011, 10:44
After thinking about this for a while, I like the idea of Fuji using the X100 platform to produce a M42 screw-mount body.
Why? Because I predict a significant population of M-mount lens owners will never purchase a non-Leica camera body. So, why go after such a relatively small market share? Fuji seems to have abandoned their Nikon F mount DSLR because Canon and Nikon dominate the DSLR market. There is no compelling reason for Fuji to use Nikon's F-mount.
At the same time huge numbers of M42 lenses are available. Fuji could market their own line of high-quality, compact M42 lenses as well. The Fuji M42 lenses and on-camera image processing engine would be optimized for this new system. Again, a significant number of M-mount owners will never purchase a non-Leica lens; Zeiss and CV already sell excellent Leica alternatives, so why would Fuji invest in their own M-mount lens line?.
Problems:
The OVF design will still be more complex compared to the X100.
The camera body will be larger than the X100 smaller than most DSLRs. (But focal length specific, post-acquisition artifact correction may not be necessary.)
While some M42 lenses are mediocre and some are excellent, M lenses quality is more consistent and M lenses are more compact.
Some M42 lenses could produce inferior results and people would incorrectly blame the Fuji body.
I suspect some camera companies subsidize a small portion of their body R&D, materials, manufacturing and marketing costs with profits from lens sales. Fuji may have to charge more for a M42 body because many customers don't need to buy Fuji lenses. This would also be true for a M-mount body.
Roger Hicks
03-13-2011, 11:26
I don't think it's a technical question. There are no technical barriers. It's a product marketing decision.
I hope I'm wrong, but if fuji's past as prologue, an M-mount is pretty unlikely. They offer pro/enthusiast rigs with proprietary fixed or a limited (~3) number of lenses rather than a full system (and never in someone else's mount).
Roger: Sticking to M only, I can argue that this is the market where ZI/Cosina lives now; they've made the commitment to M (and even LTM) with a system level of bodies and lenses. It's already done. Will they take the step to a digital body? They have to, don't they?
Besto,
- Charlie
Dear Charlie,
Dunno, but I don't think they do.
Bessas are a (relatively) short step from the film SLRs on which they are based.
A Bessa-digi would require a LOT more R+D, and besides, Kobayashi-san has never made much secret of the fact that he much prefers film. The RD-1 wasn't his, remember.
If there's enough money in it, he might change his mind (or he might very well not), but is there enough money in it?
Cheers,
R.
I don't think we'll see an EVF capapble m-mount body, with an optical RF coupled VF anytime soon. Here is why:
The accuracy in digitally magnified TTL EVF is so much higher than a .5 to 1x VF RF, that most owners would be sending either their camera, or their lens back, as the focus would not match.
With my NEX and a short throw lens (e.g. 120 deg. close to infinity) at 7x, I can just breath or move the camera a mm or two back and see the area of precise focus change.
To see the same changes on an optical RF, I can move several cm forward or backwards, and still not see the change of accurate focus.
On an RF, even the best aligned, you would have a couple of degrees lens barrel movement each way, before anything changed in the image in the RF/VF mechanism.
I'm basing this on .72 , 1:1 RF's, and with 1.25x magnifiers. I realize there are 1:1 and 1.35 magnifers out there, but that setup rules out wide angles.
Maybe we should wait and see how badly damaged their Sendai facilities are before speculating.
After thinking about this for a while, I like the idea of Fuji using the X100 platform to produce a M42 screw-mount body.
Sheesh...I hope not. That would be the nail in Fuji's coffin. There is a reason that there is no current camera system that utilizes a screw mount lens design instead of a bayonet mount.
Pentax's delay in moving to a bayonet system cost them in the long run (they went from 1st to "also ran"). Fuji's own M42 mount system from the 70's was a dud. Even Voigtlander's recent M42 camera never took off.
Don't ge me wrong, M42 mount lenses are fun to play with on occasion, but I sure wouldn't build an entire modern camera system around them.
Dear Charlie,
Dunno, but I don't think they do.
Bessas are a (relatively) short step from the film SLRs on which they are based....
Roger: I was thinking more in the vein of Cosina's Zeiss Ikon body (M7 clone) and the line of Zeiss ZM lenses that sits at the higher end of the market.
The Bessa bodies and the Cosina lenses at the low/mid-end of the M market show a substantial plan and commitment to M. They would be in the best position to extend their past lines with a M9 clone body.
So much for dreaming. All roads lead back to the M9...
- Charlie
Contarama
03-14-2011, 19:33
When Leica puts a full sized sensor in a compact body that takes M mount lenses then and only then will you have a M10...
Come on gentlemen the X100 is just a Compact Fixed Lens unit with a DSLR sensor...I mean even the Samsung NX10 is all of that!
It is just the beginning...
Let's wait and see what Nikon (or Leica FWIW) does...if they decide to skip micro four thirds and APS-C format for the full frame kahuna then I think we have a neat digital camera coming some day...
When Leica puts a full sized sensor in a compact body that takes M mount lenses then and only then will you have a M10...
Come on gentlemen the X100 is just a Compact Fixed Lens unit with a DSLR sensor...I mean even the Samsung NX10 is all of that!
It is just the beginning...
Let's wait and see what Nikon (or Leica FWIW) does...if they decide to skip micro four thirds and APS-C format for the full frame kahuna then I think we have a neat digital camera coming some day...
And ladies ... political correctness is everything you know! :D
I thought the M9 was a compact body ... how compact do you want it?
Contarama
03-14-2011, 20:59
I thought the M9 was a compact body ... how compact do you want it?
Yeah I guess you are right about that...I'm just wishing, hoping, and praying for one of those full frame sensors around M9/X100 size with a compact price!
Yeah I guess you are right about that...I'm just wishing, hoping, and praying for one of those full frame sensors around M9/X100 size with a compact price!
Now compact price I can relate to! :D
watanabe
03-14-2011, 21:46
I was very excited about the x100 as well, but decided to go for an NEX5 + a set of 28/45/90mm brand new contax g lenses for $1k on ebay. Chose this route as I used to shoot a hasselblad and I love the look of zeiss glass. $333 a lens was a bargain. Threw in a 15mm cv and I'm pretty much set for my walkaround camera.
Using MF lenses on this body is great as I get what I wanted out of the X100: an aperture ring on the lens and a shutter speed dial on the back. Live view focusing is just as sharp as I get on my large format gear, except I don't need a loupe.
To stay on topic: I would love a more traditionally styled camera a la x100 with a short flange distance. Fuji could make whatever lenses they wanted (would consider buying them to, love their LF lenses) but the market will take care of adapting M/ltm/etc lenses to the mount.
Mister E
03-14-2011, 21:58
I think what Stephen is saying is now Kobayashi is taking notice.
gekopaca
03-14-2011, 22:09
It would be logical to come from the Zeiss Ikon (Cosina) as their entry into digital. They do have 2 extensive lines of M glass and it would extend their position as it exists today.
.
+ 1 IMHO it's more probable than an eventual Fuji's marketing decision.
Voigtlander/Cosina could make a R-D2 (Bessa clone) or Digital Zeiss Ikon, and now there's two good reasons to do this :
1) with an APS-C sensor it was too a "niche", but with a Full-Frame sensor it will be a commercial success.
2) with the earthquake I was thinking first it will be too difficult for Japanese firms, but in fact they need now to push up their profits, particulary with the help of their manufactures in foreign countries (south-east Asia…) - so we could see new products sooner than expected.
But a FF Zeiss Ikon or R-D2 will certainly be expensive…
But why not? I'm waiting for something around 3000$.
Roger Hicks
03-15-2011, 01:47
Several times over the last few years, I have discussed this with Zeiss. The Party Line is that (a) the market is too small and (b) they couldn't make an FF digi that was enough cheaper than an M9 to lure people away. It would need to be a LOT cheaper, or people would just find the extra for an M9, and that ain't gonna happen. Remember that the R&D has to be amortized over as many cameras as they can actually sell. The same is true of Fuiji or anyone else.
Of course things change, but equally, they don't always change [I]in favour[I] of new RF cameras.
Cheers,
R.
Mister E
03-15-2011, 01:52
I'd pay the cost of the M9 if it did what I wanted. The problem is that it has 10 year old digital equipment in it.
I don't want a junk battery or shoddy shutter. I especially don't want all the other issues it has. In addition to this I want some of the nice creature comforts like weather sealing, etc. All these could be offered by Zeiss for still less than the Leica and I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
I think what Stephen is saying is now Kobayashi is taking notice.
.. he could start with a digital L, just to test the water that is ... cheap, simple and basic
willie_901
03-15-2011, 04:45
I'd pay the cost of the M9 if it did what I wanted. The problem is that it has 10 year old digital equipment in it.
I don't want a junk battery or shoddy shutter. I especially don't want all the other issues it has. In addition to this I want some of the nice creature comforts like weather sealing, etc. All these could be offered by Zeiss for still less than the Leica and I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding
Ladies and Gentleman, we have a winner.
Mister E succinctly and accurately describes the Emperor's nakedness.
Roger Hicks
03-15-2011, 05:44
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding
Ladies and Gentleman, we have a winner.
Mister E succinctly and accurately describes the Emperor's nakedness.
If you don't want an M9, fine. But this is a frankly feeble and elderly attack on the only camera in its class, and surely, one that we have all heard too often.
Cheers,
R.
gekopaca
03-15-2011, 05:57
If you don't want an M9, fine. But this is a frankly feeble and elderly attack on the only camera in its class, and surely, one that we have all heard too often.
R.
But, Roger…
6 or 7000$ is a little bit expensive, isn't it?
But, Roger…
6 or 7000$ is a little bit expensive, isn't it?
They're selling all they can make at that price and it has to be seen if and when anyone else can make one for a significantly lower price.
Contarama
03-15-2011, 06:12
And isn't the titanium version 20K? They are selling those too!
Would it really have been that much more difficult and costly for Fuji to have went FF?
gekopaca
03-15-2011, 06:17
They're selling all they can make at that price and it has to be seen if and when anyone else can make one for a significantly lower price.
Leica cameras are always great products, sometimes the best ones, but in passed times other brands showed they could make something equal (or about equal) but less expensive.
Maybe we can hope for a M9 alternative for about 3000-3500$?
Roger Hicks
03-15-2011, 06:39
But, Roger…
6 or 7000$ is a little bit expensive, isn't it?
Yes. But why do you think no-one is flooding the market with cheaper ones?
I can think of only two reasons. One is that they can't get the price down appreciably, and the other is that the market is pretty tiny. Combine the two and it's quite a convincing argument. It may of course be wrong, but the fact that there aren't any competitors suggests otherwise.
Cheers,
R.
ZeissFan
03-15-2011, 06:52
It's easy to say that "Zeiss can do this," or "Cosina can easily build one."
But these are business decisions and are not made to cater to a few hundred people on Internet forums. The reason the RD-1 no longer is in production is that it didn't make enough money. If it was hugely profitable, it would still be around.
As much as I'd like to see a full-frame digital Zeiss Ikon for $2,500, I don't see it happening in the near future. I could be wrong.
Passion is great. But in the business world, it's all about turning a profit.
sebastel
03-15-2011, 21:46
methinks, the properties of the X100 that make this camera so attractive can finally be related to the basic design of a _fixed lens_ camera.
attractive as an interchangeable lens body might be, its construction by far goes beyond what is possible while concentrating on a single lens design. as a consequence, i hope that fuji does not go the way of developing a body with interchaangeable lens mount. instead, i hope that they'll expand the line of the X100 by similar fixed lens bodies featuring other primes, like a 74degree lens and a 46degree lens (equivalent to 28mm and 50mm focal lenght on 135 format).
other bodies, like a 90degree (eqiv. 21mm) or 30degree (equiv. 85mm) may also be interesting, but probably meet too little demand to initiate production.
just my few cents.
s.
Roger Hicks
03-16-2011, 00:22
methinks, the properties of the X100 that make this camera so attractive can finally be related to the basic design of a _fixed lens_ camera.
attractive as an interchangeable lens body might be, its construction by far goes beyond what is possible while concentrating on a single lens design. as a consequence, i hope that fuji does not go the way of developing a body with interchaangeable lens mount. instead, i hope that they'll expand the line of the X100 by similar fixed lens bodies featuring other primes, like a 74degree lens and a 46degree lens (equivalent to 28mm and 50mm focal lenght on 135 format).
other bodies, like a 90degree (eqiv. 21mm) or 30degree (equiv. 85mm) may also be interesting, but probably meet too little demand to initiate production.
just my few cents.
s.
This certainly sounds like a better and more feasible approach. Like you, I doubt there is a big market for much longer lenses, but unlike you, I suspect that there may only be one other camera, a 21mm or (more likely, because it's easier) 24mm equivalent. A 28mm equivalent sounds too close to 35mm to me.
Cheers,
R.
It's easy to say that "Zeiss can do this," or "Cosina can easily build one."
But these are business decisions and are not made to cater to a few hundred people on Internet forums.
Yes, that's why it was prefaced as not being a technical question, Cosina/Zeiss has the best market position as a Leica-alternative, etc...
The advantage of EVF (TTL viewing) with interchangeable lenses is that it is a functional hybrid and can be sold against both rangefinders and SLRs, a much broader market than just we RFF weenies.
Nikon and Canon have sold sophisticated FF cameras for several years now at ~$2400. Figure that some supply/production efficiencies have resulted over the past 3-4 years; a SWAG of $2400 might be where you could bring in a lower volume FF rangefinder today (or soon).
Looked at another way, would adding $1200 to the price of an X100 allow you to build in a FF sensor and an interchangeable mount? Probably?
Which may be a problem for Cosina/Zeiss; I wonder if they have the desire or capability to build a good EVF to allow entry into the broader market. It might be that they can only provide a traditional VF, which would constrain them to their traditional market.
It's a matter of when pricing (cost/volume) and the 'will' to do it are right -- inevitably, it will happen.
Complete speculation, but entertaining.
- Charlie
Nikon and Canon have sold sophisticated FF cameras for several years now at ~$2400. Figure that some supply/production efficiencies have resulted over the past 3-4 years; a SWAG of $2400 might be where you could bring in a lower volume FF rangefinder today (or soon).
However much we might like our FF rangefinder for $2400 it is not gonna happen.
It's the lower volume part of your logic that's the flaw. A rangefinder body will achieve 1/10 or 1/100 or maybe 1/1000 of the sales of the Canon FF. It won't come in anywhere near that price within the next two or more years.
I believe, depressingly, Roger is probably right, the most likely next model is a WA Fuji. But a successor model with interchangeable lenses would almost certainly outsell something like the Contax G2, because there's nothing else on the market quite like it.
Contarama
03-21-2011, 17:57
This thread makes me want to go out and buy a Fujica Compact Deluxe... :)
fair point :D
I guess I should elaborate: DRFs are fussy designs because of the short lens distance to sensor. There are no cheap and easy solutions, it would require a fair bit of R&D, they would possibly need to outsource the sensor thus adding to their costs, and then try to recover all these costs by selling to the small RF market which is relatively allergic to buying expensive toys that dont say Leica or Zeiss on them.
I'm not saying it's impossible or I wouldnt want it to happen, but my guess is it would require a fair amount of sake to sell this business case to the Fuji bosses. Leica went for it, but Leica knew a good DRF would boost their lens sales. Fuji would only be boosting somebody else's lens sales.
I don't think I agree. Witness the NEX platform. Steve Huff is over there doing frequent comparisons of the M9/M8 and the NEX systems with M-mount adapters and the results are very close. I have a $300 NEX 3 body that takes beautiful images with my M lenses on a camera that was not designed specifically to be an M-mount platform.
It just can't be that hard...
Mister E
04-20-2011, 13:48
Nearly everyone outsources the sensor, that makes things CHEAPER than developing a sensor in house!
I agree that a run of the mill DSLR sensor is probably cheaper to outsource, but what about asking for a new design and a small production run for an APSC mirrorless sensor with offset microlenses and all that jazz? Sounds like a special order to me, and these are usually priced accordingly.
I don't think I agree. Witness the NEX platform.
You are right, but I was not thinking of yet another viewfinderless camera.
dave lackey
04-20-2011, 14:45
I would rather see a film version....:p
I agree that a run of the mill DSLR sensor is probably cheaper to outsource, but what about asking for a new design and a small production run for an APSC mirrorless sensor with offset microlenses and all that jazz? Sounds like a special order to me, and these are usually priced accordingly.
You are right, but I was not thinking of yet another viewfinderless camera.
Why would the viewfinder technology have anything to do with the sensor tech?
It seems to me that the sensor is not the issue as was postulated but rather the R&D would need to go into making the proper R/F interface. The current Fuji hybrid finder wouldn't be the solution to the cheap M9. Fuji would need to install a proper R/F but I could see them one upping Leica and making it an EVF hybrid with AF as well.
but what about asking for a new design and a small production run for an APSC mirrorless sensor with offset microlenses and all that jazz?
Those offset microlenses you refer to were tailored specifically to the Fuji 23mm lens. If they came up with a true system camera there would be no need for such customization since the user would have a variety of lenses to choose from.
loquax ludens
04-20-2011, 15:17
I would rather see a film version....:p
You mean a compact fixed lens RF film camera? Olympus, Yashica, Konica, Canon, et. al., did that back in the '70s.
dave lackey
04-20-2011, 15:46
You mean a compact fixed lens RF film camera? Olympus, Yashica, Konica, Canon, et. al., did that back in the '70s.
Yeah, but there are not any NEW ones around are there?:p Actually, I would like to see a comparison be the Fuji X100 and the Fujica Compact Deluxe! Come to think of it, I would like that Fujica for a knockabout camera... back in the 70's I had the Nikon and Canon versions.
http://ny-image2.etsy.com/il_570xN.119158482.jpg
Mister E
04-20-2011, 16:12
I agree that a run of the mill DSLR sensor is probably cheaper to outsource, but what about asking for a new design and a small production run for an APSC mirrorless sensor with offset microlenses and all that jazz? Sounds like a special order to me, and these are usually priced accordingly.
You are right, but I was not thinking of yet another viewfinderless camera.
Mirror or no mirror, focusing methods, etc matter not to the sensor...
Fuji is most certainly using an off the shelf Nikon sensor, probably the same or similar one as is in the D90. I'm not sure I buy their offset micro-lenses BS. You'd think if the sensor and lens was so well matched you wouldn't have all these goofy reflection issues from point light sources at night.
ZeissFan
04-20-2011, 16:42
Does Nikon get its sensors from Sony? Or another company? Or does it make its own sensors? I actually don't know.
Why would the viewfinder technology have anything to do with the sensor tech?
who said it would?
You'd think if the sensor and lens was so well matched you wouldn't have all these goofy reflection issues from point light sources at night.
c'mon, most fast lenses at this price range will find some way to screw up point light sources when wide open. Besides I thought the offset microlenses BS is mostly to avoid vignetting?
Mister E
04-20-2011, 19:53
c'mon, most fast lenses at this price range will find some way to screw up point light sources when wide open. Besides I thought the offset microlenses BS is mostly to avoid vignetting?
It probably is just to avoid vignetting. As for fast lenses having aberrations, sure they almost all have bad coma, but whatever's going on with the X100 isn't coma. From what I've seen it doesn't disappear when stopping down.
Those offset microlenses you refer to were tailored specifically to the Fuji 23mm lens. If they came up with a true system camera there would be no need for such customization since the user would have a variety of lenses to choose from.
Which would actually make it more difficult, because if you have a fixed lens you can tailor your microlenses to the sensor/lens combination. If the user can put any odd lens on the camera it takes a lot more engineering to get gut results.
If the user can put any odd lens on the camera it takes a lot more engineering to get gut results.
Sorry, but my point is that we've already seen tremendous results from the "cheap" Sony sensor in the NEX which to my knowledge is not esoteric in any way. The difference between M8/M9 comparisons with the NEX that are up on Steve Huff are negligible and I would wager that they are due more to the variance in crop factor than anything else. I would expect a full frame sensor to outperform an APS-C sensor.
But the argument that Fuji would have to spend ridiculous amounts of money on R&D or outsource the sensor manufacturing in order to make a system camera is nonsense.
Fuji is most certainly using an off the shelf Nikon sensor, probably the same or similar one as is in the D90.
Where exactly are you getting your certainty from?
Fuji has been recorded as stating the sensor is their own. I'm not sure if I believe that but I have no confirmation of the contrary - please share with us if you do.
I also thought the X100 trounced the D90 sensor in the DXO Labs analysis. EDIT - I just checked DXO and the two cameras both scored a 73 so I can see where you may think they are the same. Did you have any other confirmation of this?
Sorry, but my point is that we've already seen tremendous results from the "cheap" Sony sensor in the NEX which to my knowledge is not esoteric in any way. The difference between M8/M9 comparisons with the NEX that are up on Steve Huff are negligible and I would wager that they are due more to the variance in crop factor than anything else. I would expect a full frame sensor to outperform an APS-C sensor.
But the argument that Fuji would have to spend ridiculous amounts of money on R&D or outsource the sensor manufacturing in order to make a system camera is nonsense.
I guess it's mainly economies of scale, plus designing lenses for a smaller image circle. The approach in a compact camera is different. Fuji is designing a smaller lens, resulting in a compact, small and fast 24/f2. The smaller image circle makes a real difference in lens design - for comparison, a Leica 24/f2.8 is slower and costs twice as much as the whole Fuji camera; a Biogon 25/f2.8 costs about the same as the camera and is still slower; and both are a fair bit bigger and heavier than the Fuji lens. Whatever shortcomings the lens optically has, you can stick microlenses in front of the sensor and build extra optimizations into the sensor output processing logic. All these figure into the R&D expenses for the whole system, but by virtue of not having an interchangeable lens the whole system can be made both smaller and better.
The main difference between M8/M9 and NEX in those tests of yours is small is because the lenses they are testing it with are built for a larger image circle. Expensively engineer a lens for a large image circle and utilize only the sweet spot of it, and no wonder you get decent results. Look at what the NEX delivers for wideangles under 20mm with smaller image circles - suddenly you start to get vignetting. Some people may like that for its pictorial effect, but technologically impressive it's not.
jsrockit
04-21-2011, 04:41
If Fuji makes an interchangable lens model, they will most certainly make their own lenses and mount.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.