If someone else made a FF digital RF?

[segedi]

Seeing as how E-mount lenses won't cover full frame, I'm adding this to the NWIH list. The do have A-mount lenses, but SLR != RF even with an RF-like EVF.

[jsrockit]

It appears nobody but Leica will ever make a mechanical digital rangefinder... We'll have to make do with EVFs (or if lucky OVF) AF cameras or pay the crazy prices for Leica.

[Paul Luscher]

Only if it had an M-mount. The ZM seems like a likely candidate for "digitalization"--especially if Zeiss Ikon wants to keep the line going, as film slowly dies out. Wonder why it hasn't happened already....

[thirtyfivefifty]

Maybe, depends on who makes it and the execution.

[benlees]

Leica and its hilarious prices are inviting, if not begging for, some competition. Epson/Cosina are, as we speak, discussing revamping the R-D1. $8000 for a b&w camera- if it sells- could open the door to a very expensive Epson!

[Archlich]

Originally Posted by benlees

Leica and its hilarious prices are inviting, if not begging for, some competition. Epson/Cosina are, as we speak, discussing revamping the R-D1. $8000 for a b&w camera- if it sells- could open the door to a very expensive Epson!

Any hint of source?

[benlees]

Originally Posted by Archlich

Any hint of source?

Sorry! I was being facetious! Should have made it more obvious. Just meant that with the skyrocketing prices that people may be willing to pay for Leica stuff that more companies would/should be investigating putting something on the market.

[Sunti]

Xpro2 will pro'bly be FF. Not a mechanical RF, but a Virtual RF with EVF/OVF with AF.

Give them a year. If there's any comp. that would take the chance and execute it well, it'll be Fuji.

[hteasley]

Originally Posted by benlees

Sorry! I was being facetious! Should have made it more obvious. Just meant that with the skyrocketing prices that people may be willing to pay for Leica stuff that more companies would/should be investigating putting something on the market.

Skyrocketing prices for Leica doesn't mean a super-healthy rangefinder market. It means a luxury brand is doing well.

[jaapv]

Flattery by imitation like X100 and XPro cameras do indicate a healthy market. These cameras have opened up a new segment of customer base to
Peaking sales on the introduction of these cameras indicate as much.

[hteasley]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Flattery by imitation like X100 and XPro cameras do indicate a healthy market. These cameras have opened up a new segment of customer base to
Peaking sales on the introduction of these cameras indicate as much.

They're not rangefinders. They look retro, which indicates that the market appreciates a little retro design. But they're not rangefinders.

[Ken Ford]

Originally Posted by hteasley

They're not rangefinders. They look retro, which indicates that the market appreciates a little retro design. But they're not rangefinders.

True, but a rangefinder is just one type of direct view camera. I think many people like the DV experience more than the RF part - I know I do.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Sunti

Xpro2 will pro'bly be FF. Not a mechanical RF, but a Virtual RF with EVF/OVF with AF.

Give them a year. If there's any comp. that would take the chance and execute it well, it'll be Fuji.

Fuji has a two year road map for xpro lenses... don't think full frame is coming next year.

[Lax Jought]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Fuji has a two year road map for xpro lenses... don't think full frame is coming next year.

Yeah I'd have to agree with this, they're selling far too many X-Pro1s at the moment to worry about releasing a FF version. They're more likely to wait until the cycle comes around before introducing a new product.

[hteasley]

Originally Posted by Ken Ford

True, but a rangefinder is just one type of direct view camera. I think many people like the DV experience more than the RF part - I know I do.

Sure, no problem. But when someone observes, "Leica's apples are selling like gangbusters, clearly there's a market for apples, someone else should try to sell cheaper apples," it's not germane to say, "Yeah, people buying these apple-shaped oranges proves that that market exists." No, it doesn't. It proves there's a market for oranges.

[Archlich]

Why Leica charges such exorbitant price? Sure the luxury pricing is pretty much a Leica practice, but it's more due to (like people had been repeating for a thousand times) although the market exists, it is so small that it's pretty much limited to the people posting in this thread that are "looking for an (uncompromising yet cheap) alternative".

It's also because since the demand is so small, there's no competition, and there won't be any - why should anyone bother when they can simply make a very junky P&S swivelable and sell it for $800? (google Casio TR100/ Tryx if you don't know what I'm referring to)

The Fujis are the closest we could get..well...

Actually, it simply tires me each time seeing this thread (and its "uncompromising alternatives") shows up on the front page. The head bartender really could create a new forum just for this..

[EdwardKaraa]

Totally agreed. With the whopping 31 million euros profit in the year 2011 after having lost money at least since 2006, no wonder no other company is interested in this sector.

Originally Posted by Archlich

Why Leica charges such exorbitant price? Sure the luxury pricing is pretty much a Leica practice, but it's more due to (like people had been repeating for a thousand times) although the market exists, it is so small that it's pretty much limited to the people posting in this thread that are "looking for an (uncompromising yet cheap) alternative".

It's also because since the demand is so small, there's no competition, and there won't be any - why should anyone bother when they can simply make a very junky P&S swivelable and sell it for $800? (google Casio TR100/ Tryx if you don't know what I'm referring to)

The Fujis are the closest we could get..well...

Actually, it simply tires me each time seeing this thread (and its "uncompromising alternatives") shows up on the front page. The head bartender really could create a new forum just for this..

[Ken Ford]

Originally Posted by hteasley

Sure, no problem. But when someone observes, "Leica's apples are selling like gangbusters, clearly there's a market for apples, someone else should try to sell cheaper apples," it's not germane to say, "Yeah, people buying these apple-shaped oranges proves that that market exists." No, it doesn't. It proves there's a market for oranges.

Only if you're method-centric instead of experience-centric. To me the actual method used to focus is far lower in importance than the direct view aspect.

[hteasley]

Originally Posted by Ken Ford

Only if you're method-centric instead of experience-centric. To me the actual method used to focus is far lower in importance than the direct view aspect.

That's cool, too, but really, I think the type of camera is important for this discussion. Leica is selling a very particular kind of camera with the M system, and the amount of competition in the space (manual-focus, manual-aperture rangefinder cameras) is ridiculously low, and absent when it comes to digital. The Fuji cameras have much more in common with the NEX and MFT cameras out there, and only share a body style with Leica.

For all the comments about how Leicas are now purely fashion items for the wealthy, it seems to me that it's actually Fuji that is trading on style. Their cameras are thoroughly modern mirrorless designs, made to look retro-cool. There's nothing the least bit necessary about their retro design, given the camera functions.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by hteasley

That's cool, too, but really, I think the type of camera is important for this discussion. Leica is selling a very particular kind of camera with the M system, and the amount of competition in the space (manual-focus, manual-aperture rangefinder cameras) is ridiculously low, and absent when it comes to digital.

To be honest I think the number of people who actually want rangefinders as in "cameras with rangefinder focusing" is very small, and is dwarfed by the number of people who want rangefinders as in "compact cameras with retro styling, direct view, and classic exposure controls".

Rangefinder focusing is probably pretty irrelevant except to a tiny minority of buyers.

[kzphoto]

Originally Posted by rxmd

To be honest I think the number of people who actually want rangefinders as in "cameras with rangefinder focusing" is very small, and is dwarfed by the number of people who want rangefinders as in "compact cameras with retro styling, direct view, and classic exposure controls".

Rangefinder focusing is probably pretty irrelevant except to a tiny minority of buyers.

I agree with you *mostly.* If the Xpro1 had some better manual focus controls -- IE actual MF lenses and not fly-by-wire-- I would be all ears. I like a little bit of a tactile feedback.

I use a Leica camera for the OVF and the ergonomics. Focus tabs are awesome. I could care less that there's an RF inside. In fact, I love the Fuji hybrid ovf/evf way better. I can snap a picture and tell right away if something went awry. It helps a lot!

[fotomeow]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Fuji has a two year road map for xpro lenses... don't think full frame is coming next year.

And I was talking to a camera shop guy today and he was saying that Fuji would have to make a separate lens set/size in order to work with a full frame sensor, and the current fuji lenses for the Xpro1 wouldn't be able to be used on a full frame sensor.

[hteasley]

Originally Posted by rxmd

Rangefinder focusing is probably pretty irrelevant except to a tiny minority of buyers.

Don't think I don't know that, too. Just don't call them rangefinders, is what I say. They are totally legit cameras, can take great pictures, and they're awesome. I love my NEX-7, which I use with a Hawk adapter and my M lenses.

But it's not a rangefinder. It solves picture-taking problems in a different way. When the title of the thread is "If someone else made a FF digital RF?" then that means a particular thing. If anyone should not be so sloppy about camera terminology as to call something a "rangefinder" when it is "not a rangefinder", it's a bunch of camera enthusiasts on rangefinderforum.com.

[dct]

Originally Posted by hteasley

:
:
For all the comments about how Leicas are now purely fashion items for the wealthy, it seems to me that it's actually Fuji that is trading on style. Their cameras are thoroughly modern mirrorless designs, made to look retro-cool. There's nothing the least bit necessary about their retro design, given the camera functions.

I agree Fuji is also playing with style, helping the X line to sell also (not only) for retro attracted buyers. But still, most of the forms follow only function, as they did many years ago. And were forgotten by a playstation interface approach of many manufacturers:
- Starting from the OVF, which looks like a - well - any optical tunnel VF (is this fact already yelling retro?).
- Then the right-eye-optimized corner positioning of the VF. It looks like a ... you know, the expensive one. But: Is this retro because it is in exactly this corner of the camera which is simply the best for a compact VF based camera?
- And the shutter speed and exposition control dials: This is also not retro but one of the best ergonomic positions agreed since decades on various 35mm film cameras of any kind.
- I could add the flash socket (also exactly in this position for most cameras)
- The threaded shutter release: It is not retro only because many camera manufacturers forgot this feature in the last 15 years.

What remains on retro styling only for the fancy look? I would rather say: Form follows function. Every VF centered mid sized camera (RF or not) will look similar to the classic ones. Like all the (D)SLR: They look very similar because they share the same optical approach.

[Lss]

Originally Posted by rxmd

Rangefinder focusing is probably pretty irrelevant except to a tiny minority of buyers.

It is however very relevant to those who need it.