Pics on the new Fuji Mirrorless Rangefinder-like Camera LEAKED !!!

[Kiyatkin]

Here (http://photorumors.com/2011/11/15/fuji-mirrorless-camera-leaked/)

[Kiyatkin]

Looks promising. I wish Fuji great success for trying to fill a missing segment in the camera market!

[Alowisney]

They're saying it looks full frame. That could be VERY interesting!

[Gabriel M.A.]

That's nice, but...why a new mount? Aren't there enough mounts? Yes, to buy new lenses. But given how they dazzle people with first offerings lately only to dumb them down later (e.g. Lumix GF1 --yes, not Fuji...it's an example...-- and X100), how will they expect people to marry into the mount system?

If it's full-frame, they could use Nikon's mount (they already do for their Sx dSLRs) and then offer their own prime lineup, or do what Panasonic and Olympus have done for the 4/3 and m4/3 systems.


EDIT: oh, duh...the flange blah blah is of course shorter. So of course Nikon's mount (the SLR one) is out of the question --except, of course, via an adapter. Given that M-mount and LTM lenses are all manual-focus...I can see how that would not be the key for an autofocus camera. Hopefully you could adapt M-mount.

BTW, I'm sure the tech in the shots handling the camera will be getting a mighty earful...unless they're in on it.

[noimmunity]

Anybody up for Carly Simon's "Anticipation"?

[Archlich]

18/2 (pancake), 35/1.4, 60(aperture unknown, but might be f/2), equivalent to 28,50,90 respectively.

It will be Contax G reborn onto an APS-C sensor, with better VF.


-

It's a G instead of M(as X100 is closer to a Hexar instead of a CLE, something absolutely clear from day 1), so if you don't mind, please stop plaguing every thread regarding this system with "why not M-mount" quibbles. Thanks a lot...

[Sparrow]

.... where are those Fuji Guy's when one need's them?

[jsrockit]

Great...it's looking promising... basically a X100 with interchangable AF lenses. I, for one, do not want a Leica M clone. Let the complaining about no m mount begin! ;)

[JohnTF]

18/2 (pancake), 35/1.4, 60(aperture unknown, but might be f/2), equivalent to 28,50,90 respectively.

It will be Contax G reborn onto an APS-C sensor, with better VF.


-

It's a G instead of M(as X100 is closer to a Hexar instead of a CLE, something absolutely clear from day 1), so if you don't mind, please stop plaguing every thread regarding this system with "why not M-mount" quibbles. Thanks a lot...

From your lips to Fuji's ears-- would have to buy another camera, now if I could find a digital home for the G lenses---

Regards, John

[bensyverson]

To the people who will be wondering "why a new lens mount," the reason is probably money. You can't just build a new camera with a Canon mount, because there are patents associated with it. So to use the mount you need to license it, which would undoubtedly be more expensive than designing your own.

Besides, the options for Fuji were slim. The Micro 4/3 system has a smaller sensor than they wanted to use. The Sony E mount would work, but would have been expensive (the license is only free for "manufacturers of lenses and mount adaptors"). The M mount is manual focus, needs to support legacy lenses which aren't designed for digital, and they would need to design a few M lenses that could pass scrutiny with the M crowd.

If you think it through, they had only one option: DIY.

[bensyverson]

By the way, it will be smaller than full frame. Most likely APS-C. Their press release mentions that the resolution and noise "can rival the 35mm full size sensor," which clearly indicates that it's not FF.

[Arjay]

I'd be very surprised if the camera has a zoom OVF. VF eyepiece and front lens are on the same optical axis (see pics #4 & #6). The X10's zoom VF has then on different optical axes to accomodate for axis offset due to the use of prisms.

But it looks like the new camera will have a hybrid VF like that of the X100.

[bigeye]

Now we're talking!

[NazgulKing]

The only problem is historically, Fuji has a rather short attention span, and trying a new mount might be good in the short run, but hell knows if they will maintain it at all costs.

[totifoto]

I was gonna say "Nice" but got this message....."The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters."

So I´ll try again.

Nice :)

[hteasley]

Besides, the options for Fuji were slim. The Micro 4/3 system has a smaller sensor than they wanted to use. The Sony E mount would work, but would have been expensive (the license is only free for "manufacturers of lenses and mount adaptors"). The M mount is manual focus, needs to support legacy lenses which aren't designed for digital, and they would need to design a few M lenses that could pass scrutiny with the M crowd.

If you think it through, they had only one option: DIY.

Not really true, to my way of thinking: M mount patent ran out in '98, so it's free to use. They could introduce their own electronic coupling that would permit legacy lenses to mount, while allowing newer Fuji lenses to do modern automagical things.

The reason for the new mount is there's no financial incentive for them to have their camera mount old M-glass. How many photographers out there really care about that? How many of those photographers will want to buy the Fuji? What fraction of a percent of the market is that they're giving up, in favor of selling their own lenses to the broader public?

It will be interesting if an M adapter is possible, of course.

[bensyverson]

The reason for the new mount is there's no financial incentive for them to have their camera mount old M-glass.
Right, that was my main point. It may be possible to build autofocus contacts into the M mount, but it would be more costly than a custom mount, and why would you do it in the first place? So you could make a few RF enthusiasts happy for 5 seconds before they start complaining that their Elmar performs better on an M9?

[Pickett Wilson]

Ah, they do keep moving the cheese, don't they. lol

[jsrockit]

So you could make a few RF enthusiasts happy for 5 seconds before they start complaining that their Elmar performs better on an M9?

Exactly... or so those who don't want to buy the M8 or M9 can complain about how we still don't have a proper mechanical rangefinder solution for their expensive M glass.

[v_roma]

The only problem is historically, Fuji has a rather short attention span, and trying a new mount might be good in the short run, but hell knows if they will maintain it at all costs.

Even if they only produced those three lenses, I don't think it would be a bad package at all. Plus, adapaters will flood the market shortly after the camera is released allowing you to use a multitude of other lenses, I think?

[tbarker13]

This looks like it could be fun. Wonder how long it takes to go from this to the market.

[Gabriel M.A.]

The only problem is historically, Fuji has a rather short attention span, and trying a new mount might be good in the short run, but hell knows if they will maintain it at all costs.

That is my main concern.

[jsrockit]

Even if they only produced those three lenses, I don't think it would be a bad package at all.

Exactly...

[FranZ]

Just don't get it.
They are talking about both FF ánd APS-C.

FF = FF and not APS-C!

[bensyverson]

No, they're saying their APS-C performance will be as good or better than FF performance. They're not doing FF.

[Jamie Pillers]

Not to worry! A few minutes after the camera is put on the store shelves, the M-to-Fuji adapters will show up on eBay.

[hteasley]

Right, that was my main point. It may be possible to build autofocus contacts into the M mount, but it would be more costly than a custom mount, and why would you do it in the first place?

That reasoning was what I was questioning. I'm not entirely certain that it would be more expensive: your only given reason for added expense was licensing costs of using someone else's design, and I was pointing out that the M mount carries no license cost at all.

Why would designing a new mount be cheaper than a modified M-mount? Surely using the M-mount as a base solves *some* engineering questions already....

I agree there are good reasons for them to not do M-mount, but "more expensive to design than starting from scratch" is not a reason I am on board with. There's a ton I don't know about this, of course, so if there's something I'm not seeing, I'm way open to correction.

[celluloidprop]

I think it's safe to assume one of the lenses will be a variation of the 23/2 from the X100.

If it shapes up nicely, I see myself buying in - a X100-style body with 21/35/50 equivalent lenses would be ideal for me. A M9 is always tempting, but for my way of working I don't know that an EVF and decent AF is any worse than a traditional RF for speed and accuracy.

[Archlich]

I think it's safe to assume one of the lenses will be a variation of the 23/2 from the X100.

If it shapes up nicely, I see myself buying in - a X100-style body with 21/35/50 lenses would be ideal for me. A M9 is always tempting, but for my way of working I don't know that an EVF and decent AF is any worse than a traditional RF for speed and accuracy.


If there ever will be one, it'll be announced very late; the X100's only advantage then would be size and cost. Its leaf shutter as well maybe, for we're not sure if the new system will be using a focal plane shutter.

I have always been wondering why the X100 has a 35mm equivalent lens - judging from the Fuji custom if they produce a fixed lens series it'll be a 40-50ish first then a wide version with 28mm (or equivalent). Now this interchangeable system has made the reason clear.

[jsrockit]

I have always been wondering why the X100 has a 35mm equivalent lens - judging from the Fuji custom if they produce a fixed lens series it'll be a 40-50ish first then a wide version with 28mm (or equivalent). Now this interchangeable system has made the reason clear.

I'd think 35mm is the best compromise lens out there. For some 28mm is too wide and for some 50mm is too narrow. If you are a user of the 28 or 50mm, you can adapt to the 35mm a bit easier than vise-versa. Also, remember this is really a 23mm lens adapted to be a 35mm lens on a APS-C sensor... could be the reason they didn't go 28mm.

[hxpham]

I hope they move the back button AF switch to where the back wheel is, because the position of it [the AF button] is really awkward as it is now.

[celluloidprop]

If there ever will be one, it'll be announced very late; the X100's only advantage then would be size and cost. Its leaf shutter as well maybe, for we're not sure if the new system will be using a focal plane shutter.

This whole thing looks like it's a long ways away from formal announcement. There's a good chance it will replace the X100 entirely, or that it will be expensive enough that the X100 will remain in place as a budget option (or for people who only want/need a single focal length).

[jsrockit]

This whole thing looks like it's a long ways away from formal announcement. There's a good chance it will replace the X100 entirely, or that it will be expensive enough that the X100 will remain in place as a budget option (or for people who only want/need a single focal length).

Formal announcement is Feb 2012.

[Rogier]

Just dump al the gimmicks, display's etc.
Give me a full frame sensor with a great dynamic range and low noise. I don't care how much pixels there are.

[bensyverson]

I agree there are good reasons for them to not do M-mount, but "more expensive to design than starting from scratch" is not a reason I am on board with. There's a ton I don't know about this, of course, so if there's something I'm not seeing, I'm way open to correction.
It's always more expensive to produce a backward-compatible system rather than starting from scratch, because you need to design, verify and test against the legacy equipment. But the M system would be particularly expensive...


Legacy M lenses often have oblique ray angles, requiring a different microlens array configuration than the more telecentric modern designs. Fuji would have to spend time researching and creating a compromise MLA that wouldn't be optimal for either set of lenses.
Bench testing would mean purchasing multiple copies of a wide range of M lenses. A non-trivial cost, even for a large company. Especially if they want built-in correction profiles for each major lens (which would be a must, given the above compromise).
Fuji would either have to decide to make "M-Auto" lenses mechanically incompatible with the standard M mount, or spend time and money testing them on other bodies.

[georadu]

Hi,

Can someone make a 3d model out of those distorted images. I have the X100 and this piece of news is very interesting.

Oh, and, hi to all guys, I'm new here.

George

[Griffin]

These are strange times when one can get so excited about a shutter speed dial on a new digital camera. This must rank as the golden era of still photography, considering the variety of gear out there..

[Roger Hicks]

'Rangefinder-like'

Or as we say in English,

'Point and shoot autofocus with manual override and an optical viewfinder'.

Gosh! How original!

Cheers,

R.

[celluloidprop]

Rangefinder-like - small(er) bodies and lenses, quieter, more inconspicuous.

I'm not sure it's fair to call anything with a EVF a 'point and shoot.' Performance aside, is there anything conceptually different between SLR phase-detection autofocus and mirrorless contrast-detection? You hold it up to your eye and decide what you want to focus on.

[Roger Hicks]

Rangefinder-like - small(er) bodies and lenses, quieter, more inconspicuous.

I'm not sure it's fair to call anything with a EVF a 'point and shoot.' Performance aside, is there anything conceptually different between SLR phase-detection autofocus and mirrorless contrast-detection? You hold it up to your eye and decide what you want to focus on.

So which reasonably versatile digi-cams aren't 'rangefinder-like' by that definition?

Edit: or alternatively, "call it an SLR with the mirror box taken out". It's as close to a small SLR as to a true rangefinder. By all means call it compact, quiet, inconspicuous. But I've had a TLR like that (Tessina) and several point-and-shots.

Cheers,

R.

[tbarker13]

I had the X100, but sold it. I loved the camera. The biggest drawback for me was the 35mm lens. I do too much portraiture these days to make a 35mm lens work. If this new camera offers the X100 quality with choices that include 35mm and something in the 75-90 range, I'll happily climb back aboard the Fuji bandwagon.

I'm never quite sure what to make of these "point and shoot" comments that seem to be insults aimed at the X100. Perhaps I'm reading the comments with the wrong tone.
But I've used a lot of digital cameras in recent years, and found the X100 no more "point-and-shoot" than an M8, D700, etc.
The X100 may be easier to treat as a mindless tool. But that's selling the camera short and failing to realize what it has to offer.
The mere fact that you can decide where the point of focus falls (as well as the user's total control over shutter speed and aperture) removes it from the "point-and-shoot" category.
From an operational standpoint, the only real differences between the X100 and the M8 is that the Fuji has a fixed lens and dreadful manual focus. Of course, it's manual focus is nowhere near as bad as the M8's autofocus.

[Brian Sweeney]

Hard to judge from blurry pictures, but if they are using standard size screws: the throat of the mount looks too narrow to be a full-frame digital.

I can believe APS-C, 1.5x crop factor.

[celluloidprop]

There are relatively few non-SLR digitals with interchangeable lenses (like the new Fuji) and EVFs, and only one with a built-in EVF.

The X100 (and to a lesser extent NEX-7) gets the RF-like tag because of VF placement and styling - you hold it to your eye precisely like a RF, the aperture and shutter speed dials work like a Leica/Bessa/etc. (or any number of older SLRs, of course, but it's been a long time since they were the norm). And I don't think those things should be discounted - holding the camera to your right eye and changing aperture with a ring around the lens is a different way of working from even the NEX-7 (with a series of dials), much less a SLR.

[Roger Hicks]

I had the X100, but sold it. I loved the camera. The biggest drawback for me was the 35mm lens. I do too much portraiture these days to make a 35mm lens work. If this new camera offers the X100 quality with choices that include 35mm and something in the 75-90 range, I'll happily climb back aboard the Fuji bandwagon.

I'm never quite sure what to make of these "point and shoot" comments that seem to be insults aimed at the X100. Perhaps I'm reading the comments with the wrong tone.
But I've used a lot of digital cameras in recent years, and found the X100 no more "point-and-shoot" than an M8, D700, etc.
The X100 may be easier to treat as a mindless tool. But that's selling the camera short and failing to realize what it has to offer.
The mere fact that you can decide where the point of focus falls (as well as the user's total control over shutter speed and aperture) removes it from the "point-and-shoot" category.
From an operational standpoint, the only real differences between the X100 and the M8 is that the Fuji has a fixed lens and dreadful manual focus. Of course, it's manual focus is nowhere near as bad as the M8's autofocus.

I think so. Autofocus point-and-shoots with manual override are hardly novel, and some are very good. Think of the Rollei 35AF-M (I think I have the alphabet soup in the right order, but I gave mine away), or the Contax G-series. But 'rangefinder-like'? Not really.

It's a bit like those very cheap toy plastic 'SLRs' with a direct vision finder and no reflex system. They might look like SLRs at first glance -- but not very. I mean, a scale-focus camera like my Olympus Pen W is at least as 'rangefinder-like' as anything with autofocus. All it's missing is the rangefinder. Much like an autofocus camera.

Cheers,

R.

[Brian Sweeney]

Tessina: 14x21mm images.

Same as the Sigma, 20.7 mm × 13.8 mm Foveon X3 sensor.

That's what we need. A Foveon sensor in a Tessina size camera.

[Roger Hicks]

Tessina: 14x21mm images.

Same as the Sigma, 20.7 mm × 13.8 mm Foveon X3 sensor.

That's what we need. A Foveon sensor in a Tessina size camera.

Dear Brian,

Best idea so far! And you can take care of the lateral reversal with in-camera software instead if flopping the negs in the carrier. I think I recall correctly that the sensor was on the 'floor' of the camera with a mirror behind the taking lens?

Mind you, it might be quite a thick Tessina...

Cheers,

R.

[andredossantos]

When I get back into digital I basically have four requirements:

-Compact size
-Manual controls ie: shutter speed dial and aperture ring
-Large sensor
-OVF or quality EVF

I prefer FF but am ok with aps-c (at minimum) IF the native lenses are designed with the classic FL's in mind (like the 23mm on the X100). I especially want a 45mm or 50mm
equivalent not a 50mm that the becomes a 75mm, etc. One of the things that drives crazy about my first foray into aps-c Canikon DSLR's was that you had to buy the classic FL's (primes, of course). Anyway, I'm holding out hope that Fuji hit a home run here (in terms of what I am looking for of course). I was excited about the Nex 7 but have totally cooled on that one since I really am not looking for a camera to mount my manual focus lenses.

Edit: Forgot about some sort of eye level VF! doh! Definitely a req!

[Nikon Bob]

'Rangefinder-like'

Or as we say in English,

'Point and shoot autofocus with manual override and an optical viewfinder'.

Gosh! How original!

Cheers,

R.


Yes Roger, we know it is not a rangefinder and not original either. Point is quite a few people are willing to accept a digital camera that is similar to a rangefinder in certain aspects only. It is just a matter of combining certain non original ideas in a package that physically is similar to a rangefinder and less bulky than a DSLR. I don't know why anyone would be bothered by the term " Rangefinder like" as imitation is said to be the most sincerest form of flattery.

Bob

[Roger Hicks]

Yes Roger, we know it is not a rangefinder and not original either. Point is quite a few people are willing to accept a digital camera that is similar to a rangefinder in certain aspects only. It is just a matter of combining certain non original ideas in a package that physically is similar to a rangefinder and less bulky than a DSLR. I don't know why anyone would be bothered by the term " Rangefinder like" as imitation is said to be the most sincerest form of flattery.

Bob

Dear Bob,

Or 'small camera with optical finder and manual control'. Isn't that enough? It's what I'd be happy with.

My point is that I don't think it's imitation: I think it's people projecting their fantasies onto a camera which should stand or fall on its own merits, rather than being compared with something it isn't.

Yes, it's a hole in the market (though I'm not sure how big the hole is). Yes, I think it's a good idea. I might even buy one. But I'd not confuse it with a rangefinder, any more than I'd confuse it with a scale-focus camera, which is also perfectly feasible with tiny sensors -- why not use 16mm ciné lenses?

Cheers,

R.

[bensyverson]

This camera is pretty original. How many digital cameras can you count that have interchangeable lenses, autofocus, and an optical viewfinder? I count one: this one.

[jsrockit]

'Rangefinder-like'

Or as we say in English,

'Point and shoot autofocus with manual override and an optical viewfinder'.

Gosh! How original!


Well, it is kind of original in the digital camera world.

[Bobfrance]

Well I don't have to catagorise it to find it intriguing.

It's worth noting, for those who are interested, that all the dials, most of the buttons and the hotshoe on that bare metal prototype are black. I suspect the LX could well be black. Something that I sense a lot of people will like.

[fireblade]

just another camera that will have its place on the market. fuji are just keeping the "can't afford a leica" market happy. Ricoh have done it, Sony through their Nex/adapter have done it, and the chinese have adapters for every other camera to attach leica glass.
hell..once the nikon FT-1 adapter is released you will get leica glass on the V1....and on it goes :)

[Bobfrance]

I sold my Leica glass and an M9 is waaay to expensive for a small point and shoot backup to my medium format gear. ;)

[buzzardkid]

Tip #1: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!

I'll believe it when I see it!

[Roger Hicks]

just another camera that will have its place on the market. fuji are just keeping the "can't afford a leica" market happy. Ricoh have done it, Sony through their Nex/adapter have done it, and the chinese have adapters for every other camera to attach leica glass.
hell..once the nikon FT-1 adapter is released you will get leica glass on the V1....and on it goes :)

Exactly. It looks like a nice camera. Yes, there's (probably) room for a manual, interchangeable-lens digicam, designed as such rather than badly bodged as such. But it ain't the Second Coming, and it's no more 'rangefinder-like' than enormous number of film cameras that no-one ever said were 'rangefinder-like'.

It's just that (in the eyes of many RFF members at least) so many digicams are so awful that they rush to label even a half-decent one, with a viewfinder, as 'rangefinder-like'.

Cheers,

R.

[bensyverson]

Tip #1: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!

I'll believe it when I see it!
They've already announced the camera system, and this "leak" must be deliberate, to prevent people from buying Micro 4/3 and Sony E cameras for the holidays.

They've announced that the camera will be displayed at CES 2012, with availability in the spring.

In other words, you can be 99% sure this is the camera.

[Nikon Bob]

Dear Bob,

Or 'small camera with optical finder and manual control'. Isn't that enough? It's what I'd be happy with.

My point is that I don't think it's imitation: I think it's people projecting their fantasies onto a camera which should stand or fall on its own merits, rather than being compared with something it isn't.

Yes, it's a hole in the market (though I'm not sure how big the hole is). Yes, I think it's a good idea. I might even buy one. But I'd not confuse it with a rangefinder, any more than I'd confuse it with a scale-focus camera, which is also perfectly feasible with tiny sensors -- why not use 16mm ciné lenses?

Cheers,

R.

Well, no point in arguing semantics call it what you wish but I do think just about everyone here has a good idea what "rangefinder like" means as a descriptive. It may not be the most precise description but people get the drift. It does have its own merits and some of them are similar to traditional RFs. Nobody is confusing it with a traditional RF. As for projecting fantasies that could be true in part. Then again there is a big "but" to that also. I personally will settle for an "ersatz" DRF if I am unwilling to or can't afford to pay the freight on a real DRF. Nothing wrong with that either, nobody goes through life without a few compromises. I hope the hole in the market is large enough for the exercise to be profitable for a company willing to take a chance on an innovative blend of non original ideas. Sometimes you just don't need "echt" to be happy.

Bob

[Leigh Youdale]

Given Fuji's reputation for lens manufacture I think I'd much sooner have a camera and lens set that was designed by them from scratch and not something that was compromised from birth by trying to make the M system fit and work as well.
And if I was running Fuji I'd be wanting to sell lenses too, not just bodies.
So you have to buy some new glass? Pffft!
The other point I noticed was a comment about Fuji's propensity to introduce something new and after a while move on. Maybe they've changed with the X100/X10 designs, but in case they haven't I wouldn't be planning on waiting a couple of years for a cheap second hand one to fall into my hands.

[Brian Sweeney]

Dear Brian,

Best idea so far! And you can take care of the lateral reversal with in-camera software instead if flopping the negs in the carrier. I think I recall correctly that the sensor was on the 'floor' of the camera with a mirror behind the taking lens?

Mind you, it might be quite a thick Tessina...

Cheers,

R.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=89374&stc=1&d=1321398743

That's what I'm thinking.

[wgerrard]

$4000 = approx. price of this camera and 3 lenses, if it comes to fruition.

[gavinlg]

My x100 is one of the best cameras I've ever used. It's definitely not a point and shoot any more than a leica M is a point and shoot. If I give the camera to my girlfriend I have to completely pre-set the thing otherwise she won't get a good photo from it.
Yes it's a little quirky - you have to know how the camera works to get the best from it, but with just a little time and experimentation it really blows you away with how good it is. And you really do use it just like a rangefinder - hence the rangefinder tag that seems to follow it around. The ONLY difference is that instead of using an RF patch to manual focus, you use an AF patch to spot focus. And to be honest, it's probably quicker than RF focussing 8 times out of 10 anyway.

Also, I have to mention that I love the 23mm fujinon lens on the x100. Considering it's 35mm equivalent, an M mount fuji would need a 21 or 25mm lens to equal a 35mm equivalent. That leaves you with the zeiss ZM f2.8's, the slow voigtlander 21 and 25, and the horrifically expensive 21mm summilux. Considering that the 23mm f2 fujinon lens is a SUPERB performer, and it's included with the $1200 body in the x100, I'd prefer proprietary fujinon lenses for this new interchangeable lens camera any day of the week. You can bet they'll perform better and be much cheaper than adapted M mount lenses ever will.

[tbarker13]

I'd argue that for many people, the term "rangefinder" evokes images of a lightweight camera shaped like a Leica,, etc. For most of us, the actual rangefinder mechanism isn't the point.
I really don't care how my camera achieves its focus.
So I'm not going to hold it against the manufacturer for using the term "rangefinder" when describing its camera.
That tells me a heck of a lot more than "small camera with optical finder and manual control."

[Keith]

If it has the IQ and high ISO performance of the X100 and can be focused quickly and successfully in Zero EV lighting ... I'll have one!

Otherwise no deal ... the X100 left me high and dry in this area!

[celluloidprop]

But it ain't the Second Coming, and it's no more 'rangefinder-like' than enormous number of film cameras that no-one ever said were 'rangefinder-like'.

I remember both the Hexar AF and Contax G cameras garnering interest precisely because they were 'rangefinder-like' in design compared to the dominant plastic SLRs and simplified (even high-end) P&Ses.

And those didn't even have an electronic viewfinder!

[al1966]

It would have been far more interesting if they created a 645 sized sensor camera similar to the older Fuji 645 series cameras. 645 slr cameras are way too heavy to wander around with, now they just need to realises that I am speaking sense and knock it out for less than a Canon 5d mk2(?). Then for an encore a 6x9 sensor RF style camera for less than a Nikon D3. Come on now please and can I have a free one for coming up with the idea :)

[celluloidprop]

If it has the IQ and high ISO performance of the X100 and can be focused quickly and successfully in Zero EV lighting ... I'll have one!

Otherwise no deal.

There's not a camera that exists that you can demand accurate and fast AF at 0 EV - even the high-end Nikons are going to struggle or require AF assist at that. Contrast detection even moreso - they can't turn technology into magic. Even the best RF user is going to struggle to focus accurately in that kind of light.

[kosta_g]

it's like knowing what you're getting for christmas - I kind of hate these rumour sites. where's the suspense gone? the art of building up a product through a manufacturer is lost!

[Keith]

There's not a camera that exists that you can demand accurate and fast AF at 0 EV - even the high-end Nikons are going to struggle or require AF assist at that. Contrast detection even moreso - they can't turn technology into magic. Even the best RF user is going to struggle to focus accurately in that kind of light.


I wasn't suggesting AF ... I can focus my D700 manually in these conditions because I know it's AF system can't cope ... and I wouldn't expect it to.

But at least I can actually focus it manually and fairly quickly by choice ... this was the main let down for me with X100 and the sole reason I got rid of it.

[Spyro]

There's not a camera that exists that you can demand accurate and fast AF at 0 EV

Hexar AF, some polaroids, Fuji GA 645 (if I remember correctly) basically anything with an active infrared system will focus instantly in zero light. No such digicam exists unfortunately.

[Keith]

Hexar AF, some polaroids, Fuji GA 645 (if I remember correctly) basically anything with an active infrared system will focus instantly in zero light. No such digicam exists unfortunately.


And you have to wonder ... why?

[Snacks]

Surely if you wanted something to mount Leica glass, you'd buy a Leica, right? Let Fuji have their camera, mount and lenses. And let me buy it now!

[nighstar]

Ah, they do keep moving the cheese, don't they. lol

LOL

yeah, i hate companies that do that.....

[Spyro]

And you have to wonder ... why?

my best guess is that it doesnt actually offer any significant advantages other than the crazy low light performance, which is a very specialised feature. OTOH it has the disadvantage of the single AF point which is a very hard sale these days.

[Keith]

my best guess is that it doesnt actually offer any significant advantages other than the crazy low light performance, which is a very specialised feature. OTOH it has the disadvantage of the single AF point which is a very hard sale these days.


And yet this entire forum is based around a type of camera that only has a single focus point ... albeit manual!

Maybe they (Fuji) could make one just for us? :D

[Thardy]

It would have been far more interesting if they created a 645 sized sensor camera similar to the older Fuji 645 series cameras. 645 slr cameras are way too heavy to wander around with, now they just need to realises that I am speaking sense and knock it out for less than a Canon 5d mk2(?). Then for an encore a 6x9 sensor RF style camera for less than a Nikon D3. Come on now please and can I have a free one for coming up with the idea :)


A small RF sized camera with a 645 sized sensor for the price of a 5DM2? I can see that.

Especially since they're starting from scratch.

[Spyro]

I'd buy three of them Keith.

[bwcolor]

Wow, such response...

Can you say...infinite backorder?

Fuji is doing a good job of generating some excitement amongst the rangefinder retrograde crowd. Looks good so far.

[DougFord]

I guess no square sensor. I thought a 30mm2 sensor @ 36mp would be intriguing.
With the HUD, the projected frame-lines could give you a 30x20 in camera horizontal or vertical crop @ 24mp.
Or you could just go whole hog and shoot 'full frame' @ 36mp.
Perhaps a solution looking for a problem
Anyways, I'm not a buyer in any case, just an onlooker.

[Nikon Bob]

I'd argue that for many people, the term "rangefinder" evokes images of a lightweight camera shaped like a Leica,, etc. For most of us, the actual rangefinder mechanism isn't the point.
I really don't care how my camera achieves its focus.
So I'm not going to hold it against the manufacturer for using the term "rangefinder" when describing its camera.
That tells me a heck of a lot more than "small camera with optical finder and manual control."

Exactly.

Bob

[Shade]

Well it sounds interesting, but the lenses look kinda ugly from the back. And yes, it looks quite huge! And I think they would just put an updated APS-C sensor from the X100, since developing a FF sensor would cost more money.

I think the mount is large enough for FF sensor is due to because they are probably thinking of introducing an FF camera sensor down the line later on, *IF* they manage to pull this off. So they are prepared, the lenses and mount are designed for FF, and they can just "up the ante" later on with the LX and perhaps change it to FX next year.

[mrisney]

It's a newer type sensor. Not sure what, but not Bayer. Fuji is introducing it, and want to build on the sensor technology. They are primarily interested in getting the sensor out there. I was the one who broke the new on photorumors.com about the name and the APS-C format. I heard the story from my local lab that deals Fuji, they knew I was hesitant on buying an X100, and have been hanging onto my Lumix G system - for now. Yes it's an iteration on the X100, with a lens set. But Fuji is apparently keen on getting a leg up into Nikon and Canon's market share. They aren't sourcing the sensor out, they are fabricating it. That's important to note, as Nikon are using Sony's sensors, and Leica uses Eastman Kodak and Panasonic. There aren't many non Bayer CMOS sensor's out there. Except Sigma's Foveon. That's the part that I think most are missing - I think they are blinded by crummy pictures. But the sensor tech is the real news IMO.

[kchong]

Interesting info, mrisney. I'd definitely love something similar to their EXR technology. More than willing to drop resolution down to 8mp if it offers great high ISO or DR.

[f16sunshine]

I think these pics are BS!
Look at the third picture. The lens has is barely visible but what you can see is a 1.4 as max aperture and a silver trim "ring".
Then the pic with the lens near the mount looks like a mold plastic sigma/canon type build. Completely different build
the mount release looks hokey and is in a weird spot also.
These pics are fakes me thinks.

[AndySig]

From your lips to Fuji's ears-- would have to buy another camera, now if I could find a digital home for the G lenses---

Regards, John

My first thoughts were also that it sounds effectively like a digital Contax G. I'm amazed that nobody has as yet developed a digital body for those lenses.

[Jamie123]

Fuji is doing a good job of generating some excitement amongst the rangefinder retrograde crowd. Looks good so far.

This 'crowd' is always excited until the price is announced. :)

[Bobfrance]

This 'crowd' is always excited until the price is announced. :)

You're thinking of Leica. :p

[Roger Hicks]

My first thoughts were also that it sounds effectively like a digital Contax G. I'm amazed that nobody has as yet developed a digital body for those lenses.

This was exactly my thought -- though unlike you, I'd be surprised if anyone decided to hobble their lens designers, constrain their sensor designers, and cut into their potential sales of new lenses, by using an old 'legacy' mount that never offered (or sold) many lenses anyway.

It would make much more sense to offer an APS-C camera with a new series of telecentric lenses -- IF there really is a market for a digital Contax G lookalike (or functionalike). A lot of RFF members would like to think there was, even to the extent of making it an honorary rangefinder, but perhaps this is not the very best place for a manufacturer to do his market research: the phrase that springs to mind is "preaching to the converted".

Cheers,

R.

[sig]

I had the impression that the mirrorless system camera market was growing fast, fuji just wants to be a part of it. Their retro design hits home with a lot of customers, i think this will be a success

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

There's not a camera that exists that you can demand accurate and fast AF at 0 EV - even the high-end Nikons are going to struggle or require AF assist at that. Contrast detection even moreso - they can't turn technology into magic. Even the best RF user is going to struggle to focus accurately in that kind of light.

I just sold a Polaroid SX-70 Sonar in good working condition. It seemed to autofocus well in extremely dark conditions when I tested it before sale (there was some novelty value involved, in being able to do this!).
Regards,
Brett

[Mrbessar4a]

Just dump al the gimmicks, display's etc.
Give me a full frame sensor with a great dynamic range and low noise. I don't care how much pixels there are.

So go get a canon 5D...

[Mrbessar4a]

Dear Bob,

Or 'small camera with optical finder and manual control'. Isn't that enough? It's what I'd be happy with.

My point is that I don't think it's imitation: I think it's people projecting their fantasies onto a camera which should stand or fall on its own merits, rather than being compared with something it isn't.

Yes, it's a hole in the market (though I'm not sure how big the hole is). Yes, I think it's a good idea. I might even buy one. But I'd not confuse it with a rangefinder, any more than I'd confuse it with a scale-focus camera, which is also perfectly feasible with tiny sensors -- why not use 16mm ciné lenses?

Cheers,

R.

I'm still going to call it a rangefinder, just like I called my Bessa L a rangefinder.

[jsrockit]

$4000 = approx. price of this camera and 3 lenses, if it comes to fruition.

Fact or your opinion?

[Ken Ford]

I'd argue that for many people, the term "rangefinder" evokes images of a lightweight camera shaped like a Leica,, etc. For most of us, the actual rangefinder mechanism isn't the point.
I really don't care how my camera achieves its focus.
So I'm not going to hold it against the manufacturer for using the term "rangefinder" when describing its camera.
That tells me a heck of a lot more than "small camera with optical finder and manual control."

Same here, although I tend to refer to them as "direct view" cameras. It's the form factor that works for me, I don't particularly care what the actual focusing mechanism is.

[froyd]

My first thoughts were also that it sounds effectively like a digital Contax G. I'm amazed that nobody has as yet developed a digital body for those lenses.

I think part of the answer is that manufacturers want to make money on new lenses as well, not just the body.

[Roger Hicks]

So go get a canon 5D...

There's a new model WITHOUT all the gimmicks and displays? AND that doesn't resemble a tub of lard with a lens on the front?

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Same here, although I tend to refer to them as "direct view" cameras. It's the form factor that works for me, I don't particularly care what the actual focusing mechanism is.

Well, yes, exactly.

Cheers,

R.

[j j]

There's not a camera that exists that you can demand accurate and fast AF at 0 EV - even the high-end Nikons are going to struggle or require AF assist at that. Contrast detection even moreso - they can't turn technology into magic. Even the best RF user is going to struggle to focus accurately in that kind of light.

My Contax G2 focuses accurately in the dark. I suspect the Konica Hexar (AF) does so too. Are there not also SLRs that focus at -1 EV?

[Archlich]

I had the impression that the mirrorless system camera market was growing fast, fuji just wants to be a part of it. Their retro design hits home with a lot of customers, i think this will be a success

The body alone is rumored to be at $1,400, a kit will likely cost around $2,000. Given how people whined when the price of X100 announced, I doubt it would be as "successful" as the M43/NEX options that cost 1/2 or 1/3.

[Roger Hicks]

The body alone is rumored to be at $1,400, a kit will likely cost around $2,000. Given how people whined when the price of X100 announced, I doubt it would be as "successful" as the M43/NEX options that cost 1/2 or 1/3.

There might be more profit in it, though, if people buy what they think will give them better pictures, rather than cheap stuff they think they can afford. But I agree that this market may be VERY price-sensitive.

Cheers,

R.

[j j]

There's a new model WITHOUT all the gimmicks and displays? AND that doesn't resemble a tub of lard with a lens on the front?

Cheers,

R.

No. But luckily there are two old models of 5D that do not resemble animal fats (in or out of containers) and do not have gimmicks.

I have yet to see a valid reason why a camera without displays is a good thing.

[jsrockit]

The body alone is rumored to be at $1,400, a kit will likely cost around $2,000. Given how people whined when the price of X100 announced, I doubt it would be as "successful" as the M43/NEX options that cost 1/2 or 1/3.

$2,000 is what I would think a kit would cost... and this system should negate some of the shortcomings of the other systems you refer to. To me, the VF, the ergonomics, and some quality primes make up for the price difference. But of course, people will complain about how their crazy expensive leica wides don't perform well on it but at the same time say the M9 is too expensive for their very expensive wides.

[jsrockit]

No. But luckily there are two old models of 5D that do not resemble animal fats (in or out of containers) and do not have gimmicks.

No gimmicks? Come on...DSLRs are full of gimmicks.

[celluloidprop]

A Nex-7 and Zeiss 24 is ~$2100 (if they were available), I would expect the new Fuji to come in around there.

[j j]

No gimmicks? Come on...DSLRs are full of gimmicks.

What did you have in mind on the 5D? They seem to me to be rather straight-up functional cameras with fewer than the average number of wisecracks, gags and switcheroos.

[newsgrunt]

not ff so not considering. also not feeling the silver trim around the controls and bezels on the back. looks cheesy

[jsrockit]

What did you have in mind on the 5D? They seem to me to be rather straight-up functional cameras with fewer than the average number of wisecracks, gags and switcheroos.

To me, anything more than a shutter speed dial, an aperture ring, centered weighted metering, and a simple menu is a gimmick. ;)

[jsrockit]

not ff so not considering. also not feeling the silver trim around the controls and bezels on the back. looks cheesy

Why does full frame matter if they are making lenses with APS-C in mind? Also, the unit is a prototype... not the finished product.

[bensyverson]

There's not a camera that exists that you can demand accurate and fast AF at 0 EV - even the high-end Nikons are going to struggle or require AF assist at that.
Active autofocus systems can focus in zero light. That includes active infrared (like the Hexar AF) and sonar (like the Polaroid 680).

[Roger Hicks]

To me, anything more than a shutter speed dial, an aperture ring, centered weighted metering, and a simple menu is a gimmick. ;)

I'll drink to that (but then, I'll drink to most things). I can even live without the metering (I do with manual lenses on my D70). For digicams, I'm more than happy to add a screen on the back, and the necessary extra buttons and dials. But more than one LCD display, and 20+ buttons, dials and switches, plus countless sub-menus... No.

Cheers,

R.

[kxl]

I predict that a new Hawk Peng helicoid adapter for M-mount lenses won't be far behind... :)

[infrequent]

Hexar AF, some polaroids, Fuji GA 645 (if I remember correctly) basically anything with an active infrared system will focus instantly in zero light. No such digicam exists unfortunately.

There used to be some sony digicams that used to have infrared focus. I am thinking circa 2005/06?

[infrequent]

not ff so not considering. also not feeling the silver trim around the controls and bezels on the back. looks cheesy

...ppl look at the prototype and think that is the final form.

[jsrockit]

Interesting...no EVF in the LX?

http://photorumors.com/2011/11/18/rumors-fuji-lx10-will-have-an-aps-c-sensor-no-hybrid-viewfinder/

[bwcolor]

The camera will have, at minimum, frame lines that adjust with lens and parallax. Also, will have info. in viewfinder and the ability to choose autofocus point. Another thing to consider, without EVF, how will they allow for viewfinder manual focus? This report just doesn't make sense, unless another technology provides these functions.

Perhaps, the more that we know... the less we know.

[jsrockit]

Yes, bw, it doesn't make sense, but I'm not big on EVFs... so I'm cool with OVF and AF.

[bensyverson]

It would be highly weird for them to not include the hybrid VF, but it's all speculation at this point.

I actually wouldn't mind an optical viewfinder, as long as they include an AF confirmation light.

[bwcolor]

Yes, bw, it doesn't make sense, but I'm not big on EVFs... so I'm cool with OVF and AF.

Sure, I mainly use the X100's optical viewfinder. I'm a happy camper if that is what we have minus the switch to full EVF, but focus peaking is useful with manual lenses. We will see.

[gavinlg]

The prototype pictures have a sensor on the right of the eyepiece, which means that up to that particular point, it does have an EVF.

[noimmunity]

Interesting...no EVF in the LX?

http://photorumors.com/2011/11/18/rumors-fuji-lx10-will-have-an-aps-c-sensor-no-hybrid-viewfinder/

Well, the original rumor, on 相机入魔 in Chinese, does NOT say "only optical". In fact, all it says, as the translation shows too, is that the viewfinder is optical.

A hybrid would be nice, but the OVF is the most important part, for me.