Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Non Rangefinder Cameras > CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras -

CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras - This new category of digital Compact System Cameras with interchangeable lenses was mislabeled for a time as "Mirrorless Cameras" by those forgetting about "Mirrorless" Rangefinder cameras.  Such confusion is easily understandable, since interchangeable rangefinder cameras were only recently introduced in 1932.  hmm.    CSC or Compact System Camera is probably the best category description to date, although I am fond of the old RFF desigation of  CEVIL  indicating Compact Electronic Viewfidner Interchangeable Lens.   This forum is here at RFF because via adapters these cameras offer an inexpensive way to use rangefinder lenses on digital cameras -- in addition of just about every 35mm SLR lens you can think of.  All  offer the photo enthusiast an incredible array of adopted lenses which was not possible before these new digital formats.   This group continues to grow in popularity and new camera models! 

View Poll Results: How much are you willing to pay for FF Mirrorless (or M Module)
FF? My APSC/m43 is perfectly fine 21 13.55%
$0-500 4 2.58%
$501-$1000 17 10.97%
$1001-$1500 31 20.00%
$1501-$2000 41 26.45%
$2001-$2500 32 20.65%
$2501-$3000 20 12.90%
$3001-$3500 4 2.58%
$3501-$4000 4 2.58%
I would gladly sell my kidney and pay for any price 1 0.65%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 155. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 10-15-2012   #26
Matus
Registered User
 
Matus's Avatar
 
Matus is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Frankfurt, DE
Posts: 1,792
Something around €2000 would be doable, under that it would be OK - IF the price of the 'new' Ricoh GXR II body would remain where it is now, or for €250 more would include (as large as possible) EVF on board.
__________________
________
Matus
... Flickr galleries: New Zealand , Spain
... per camera: Olympus XA , Jupiter J3 , Rolleiflex T, Mamiya 6, Ricoh GRDIII shots
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2012   #27
Godfrey
wonderment
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
pardon my ignorance, but how can one 'optimize a sensor' for 'lenses never designed to work with it'? that seems 'definitionally preclusive' to me, ie, cant happen as a matter of logic. and it wasnt really what i was talking about...the canon 5d i used for years, with only one lens 'designed' to use with it, worked amazingly with a whole bunch of lenses never designed to be used with it. we're talking about a FF mirrorless, doesnt matter if its sony mount, fuji mount, whatever, we on this forum will most definitely be using it with 'non optimized' lenses. extra 'technology' cost is not apparent to me.
The whole point of a digital camera with an M-bayonet lens mount is to allow the use of digital capture with existing M-bayonet (and M39) mount lenses. The *vast* majority of M-bayonet lenses were designed long before digital capture even existed: they were designed for film cameras of a particular type. So designing a sensor for a Leica M digital camera or for a Ricoh GXR M-bayonet lens mount camera unit is indeed designing an optimization for lenses that were never designed to be used with a digital sensor.

I don't know that there is something "definitionally preclusive" or whatever about that statement.

The question that might shed light on the problem for you is "What's different between RF camera lenses and SLR camera lenses that makes it harder to optimize a sensor for the RF camera lenses?" Or, from the context of your post, "Why do my SLR lenses work so well on the digital bodies when they weren't designed for digital sensors either?"

RF cameras do not have the big mirror box with a swinging mirror that has to clear the back of the lens. Because of the mirror box and mirror, lenses for SLR cameras sit further from the image plane and have been designed with optical tricks that have the side benefit of allowing the light rays to strike the image plane at a more orthogonal incident angle, which is what digital sensors work best with.

RF camera lenses sit closer to the imaging surface because of the lack of mirror box and were designed to be more compact since they didn't have to worry about clearing a swinging mirror. Generally speaking, as the focal length get shorter than the format diagonal, the lens insets further and further into the body and the nodal point gets closer and closer to the image plane. This causes the ray trace to move well off the orthogonal across the image format.

This is no problem with film but causes issues due to the geometry of the components on a digital sensor. That's why to handle RF lenses, Kodak designed a sensor with selectively offset microlenses for the CCD and the new CMOSIS sensor uses a new design for microlenses and CMOS circuitry that helps re-target the ray trace appropriately.

There's a lot of development cost in that design necessity, as well as a good deal more cost in manufacture due to production variances - many more sensors are scrapped as not meeting the desired quality.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2012   #28
rhl-oregon
jolly good dog Robert
 
rhl-oregon's Avatar
 
rhl-oregon is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,118
How about $1250 (based, roughly, on GXR M-module $649 x 2). Focus on the FF sensor for now, not on other extras (some of us are happy to leave brightline VFs to film cameras and work with Ricoh's mix of focus-peaking EVF + sharp display.
__________________
Robert Hill Long
Evgeny Oregon USA


R/lo Graf

  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2012   #29
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,006
thanks godfrey, that makes sense. i think we were just talking past each other. i still dont think itd cost sony very much to trade its $1000+ zeiss lensd FF for a similarly priced lensless FF...we'll see it soon, i,m certain of that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2012   #30
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhl-oregon View Post
How about $1250 (based, roughly, on GXR M-module $649 x 2). Focus on the FF sensor for now, not on other extras (some of us are happy to leave brightline VFs to film cameras and work with Ricoh's mix of focus-peaking EVF + sharp display.
I thought that the yield on a new FF sensor was substantial lower than an APS-c sensor. I think it unlikely that this ratio would be sufficient to pay for the larger sensor/electronics and R&D. There are now at least two (Japanese) and perhaps one (French) manufacturer of high resolution/fast EVFs, so that part should be pretty easy, but many want EVF in the body. That will both make such a camera more appealing to many and more expensive. I won't spend good money on a FF camera without a really stellar EVF, or OVF.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2012   #31
Godfrey
wonderment
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
thanks godfrey, that makes sense. i think we were just talking past each other. i still dont think itd cost sony very much to trade its $1000+ zeiss lensd FF for a similarly priced lensless FF...we'll see it soon, i,m certain of that.
I suspect that if/when the Sony RX1 is morphed into an interchangeable lens camera, the cost of the body will be $2500 or so ... And it will be designed to work best with a new range of interchangeable lenses that are optimized for the sensor design, if they want to keep the camera as compact as possible. Fitting M-bayonet RF lenses to it will likely produce the same issues that fitting M-bayonet lenses do on current Fuji Xpro1, micro-FourThirds and NEX bodies ... but moreso as the format is much larger.

The only cameras with sensors optimized for RF lenses are the GXR, M8, MM, M9, and upcoming new M at present. They do the lenses justice. Upgrading the GXR with a FF sensor camera unit would be great, but I expect it will not be inexpensive.

I will be delighted to be found wrong if and when they do it! :-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2012   #32
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,303
Sony won't be a player in the Leica 'M' alternative for my Biogons. Zeiss can provide them with three primes and their FF 'A' lens adapter can get them the rest of the way.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-14-2013   #33
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
 
LeicaTom's Avatar
 
LeicaTom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winter Haven Florida
Age: 50
Posts: 2,541
I'd pay $3,500 for a perfect operational M module for a Leica M6, something that's 18MP plus + etc.

Leica itself should have built a M digital module way before they even made the M8, it's a shame that they don't get engineers to build it to accept M6 & M7/MP bodies, they would have thousands and thousands of NEW customers and more people dependent on company for repairs/support.

I don't think they will ever get it right.....that 240 is just a overpriced trinket, who the hell buys a Leica to take videos??? If they would just look at what the public really wants and also make their products more affordable, the company would be even more successful......

$3,001 to $3,500 would be acceptable if they could build a reliable, dependable user friendly, company repair supported digital module, but it'll NEVER happen, the company is run by a bunch of greedy immoral capitalists, who don't give a damm about what real photographers really want, with Leica it's just a money thing, their concern over what Photographers think ended in the late 1960's, since then it's all been about what they can do to save their own ass from bankruptcy , the Japanese should have bought them out years ago, we'd have more affordable equipment and HIGHER quality gear if the Japanese owned Leica.

Tom
__________________
WW 2 Leica Historian and Rare Military Leica Camera and Lens Consultant Services (for Civilian and Military Engraved Leica IIIC "Stepper" and IIIC K models made between 1940 to 1946)

I'm a Retro PinUp Photographer using vintage M39/LTM Leica/ CZJ Sonnar/ Nippon Kogaku and Canon lenses with a Leica M8 Digital
I'm also a Vintage Volkswagen Collector, Driver and Enthusiast ~ I own a 1957 "Oval Window" Beetle named "Blauchen" (oV!Vo) Beep!

http://www.modelmayhem.com/118
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2013   #34
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 3,699
I am not interested, however, if a decent digital sensor a' la Leica S2 came out inside an M body, I would pay the equivalent I spend in film, chemicals and scanning time value multiplied by the duration of the warranty. As an example, last year I shot about 150 rolls, so that would be 600 EUR for film, another 100 for the chemicals, and a very conservative estimate of 1500 EUR for the scanning hassle, that makes a total of 2.200 EUR per year. In case of a 2 year warranty the price turns out at 4.400 EUR, actually quite close to what the current M9 goes for.
__________________
http://mondoinbiancoenero.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2013   #35
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,931
I'm perfectly fine with APS size mirrorless. Going full frame would mean that the lenses scale up to FF size and weight as well, defeating the whole purpose of mirrorless as far as I'm concerned, which is compactness without sacrificing the possibilities that a DSLR offers.
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2013   #36
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,157
I can't see myself paying more than $2000 for a body anymore.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2013   #37
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,164
I would love to have a Ricoh gxr ff m module... But I don't think this will ever happen. Outside of that, I am already happy w/ what I have in apsc mirrorless. But I agree w/ others, everything scales up in size and weight for ff and depends on who implemented it. If it is a Nex, not sure if I would be interested due to their UI and native Sony lenses tend not to be as good as third party offerings.

I also feel these days nothing over 2k for a body.

Gary
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2013   #38
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwcolor View Post
I thought that the yield on a new FF sensor was substantial lower than an APS-c sensor.
Yield tends to improve over time due to better technology being available and better understanding of what an be done in the manufacturing process to fix the causes.

An example is the Nikon d700 sensor vs the d800 and then d600. I currently am presuming ff sensor yields have improved a lot to be able to offer a ff dslr at the price of the d600.

Gary
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-15-2013   #39
Matus
Registered User
 
Matus's Avatar
 
Matus is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Frankfurt, DE
Posts: 1,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryLH View Post
Yield tends to improve over time due to better technology being available and better understanding of what an be done in the manufacturing process to fix the causes.

An example is the Nikon d700 sensor vs the d800 and then d600. I currently am presuming ff sensor yields have improved a lot to be able to offer a ff dslr at the price of the d600.

Gary
Garry - the quality of the processes to produce FX digital sensors surely improved over past few years - no question about that. But to make such a sensor really suitable for rangefinder lenses it needs 'special treatment' AND the production volume is small, much smaller than for APS-C mirror less or FX DSLR.

Even the latest M240 may give you problems with some wide lenses and Leica designs their wide lenses with some retrofocus to improve the situation AND it needs lens profiles.

But yeas - it would be something if Ricoh would bring FX M-mount modules ... with a new body ... with built-in EVF ... ... probably not going to happen.
__________________
________
Matus
... Flickr galleries: New Zealand , Spain
... per camera: Olympus XA , Jupiter J3 , Rolleiflex T, Mamiya 6, Ricoh GRDIII shots
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-15-2013   #40
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,164
I would tend to agree, sadly, that Ricoh may never do it. I think they have lost a lot of focus after acquiring Pentax. Lets c how well they refocus now that the grd is done.

Everything u mentioned about ff sensors I agree w/... Which is one of the main reasons I am not really interested in ff any longer plus over time I have come to realize, for the type of pictures I take, ff is not needed.

Apsc is going to be the sweet spot, ff is is really going to be catering to a smaller segment of the market until the cameras hit a sweet spot in pricing. Given how well Fuji did w/ their xp1 at 1700, I would expect around the 1500 price range is where the sweet spot will be. A used d600 is selling for around 1600, so that sweet spot is not too far away IMHO. The big issue that would still remain is the need to upgrade to lenses that support ff image. If u have a big investment in dx (Nikon speak for apsc image circle lenses) then it is going to be a sticky point for sure, which is why something like the Ricoh ff m module would be a great nice to have.. A Nikon or canon ff csc (for those who want non dslr solution) for those w/ a lot of legacy fx lenses would also be up there if either of these companies would just get their act together.

Gary

Last edited by GaryLH : 05-15-2013 at 11:47. Reason: Added info and fixed sentence structure
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2013   #41
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryLH View Post
I would tend to agree, sadly, that Ricoh may never do it. I think they have lost a lot of focus after acquiring Pentax. Lets c how well they refocus now that the grd is done.
How'd they lose focus?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2013   #42
johannielscom
985 & 532/16
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 6,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksanderpolo View Post
I was shooting GXR-M with 35/1.2 @1.4 yesterday, and as much as I love the combo, I really hope I can be shooting 50/1.4 on FF. So, how much are you willing to pay for a FF mirrorless. Let's assume it's a GXR M Module with mid-level sensor (<24MP), effective microlenses arrangement like the current M module.

I would gladly pay for $2000 for the M Module alone, and if there is an update in the body, additional for that too. How about you?

I hope that Ricoh and other maker can see this thread and be encouraged in that direction.
You point them to this thread yet, and point out there's a market evolving here? I'd be more than happy to test one and blare its fortes off the roofs to further the sales

Loving my GXR Monochrom
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2013   #43
aleksanderpolo
Registered User
 
aleksanderpolo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
I don't have any Ricoh contact. Hope that their sales figure of A12 is encouraging enough that they are considering the FF option. But it is not hard to see that whenever there is a mirrorless FF rumor, be it mini-M or the FF NEX, people on various forums get excited.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-07-2013   #44
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksanderpolo View Post
I don't have any Ricoh contact. Hope that their sales figure of A12 is encouraging enough that they are considering the FF option. But it is not hard to see that whenever there is a mirrorless FF rumor, be it mini-M or the FF NEX, people on various forums get excited.
The ones who don't understand the technicalities get excited about the possibility of building one, and the ones who have some understanding of the technicalities then get excited -- actually, "exercised" would be a better word -- about how rapidly such people zoom into cloud-cuckoo land.

I love the idea of optimizing sensors for a wide variety of lenses that were never designed for digital. The best solutions are probably software based, but to take an extreme example, who is going to write the software to optimize my Thambar for my M9? They only ever made about 3000 Thambars and I'd be surprised if more than 100 of those see regular use today.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-06-2013   #45
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
$5000 or so.
I see them at 3500 frequently
__________________
twitter: uhoh007
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-06-2013   #46
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 610
The Sony A7 and A7r are starting to look promising as a full frame M-mount option if Ricoh doesn't come to the party. Anecdotal reports suggest that lenses from 28 upwards work fairly well, with 35 and up working with almost no vignetting or coloured edges. For lenses 28mm and wider, it seems that extreme retrofocus lens designs may suffer at bit. I love my GXR-M, and have been shooting more with it recently, but a full frame option with focus peaking and similar upgrades would only add to our choices.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-06-2013   #47
Rogier
Rogier Willems
 
Rogier's Avatar
 
Rogier is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 1,186
I had such high hopes for the Nikon Df
__________________
Smiles across the wires,


Rogier Willems


http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogierwillems/

http://www.scooter-it.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-06-2013   #48
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,070
Since the A7 my price is now $1700.
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2014   #49
Godfrey
wonderment
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archiver View Post
The Sony A7 and A7r are starting to look promising as a full frame M-mount option if Ricoh doesn't come to the party. Anecdotal reports suggest that lenses from 28 upwards work fairly well, with 35 and up working with almost no vignetting or coloured edges. For lenses 28mm and wider, it seems that extreme retrofocus lens designs may suffer at bit. I love my GXR-M, and have been shooting more with it recently, but a full frame option with focus peaking and similar upgrades would only add to our choices.
I have the A7 now. After quick tests of all my M-mount lenses:

- Color Skopar 21, 28, Ultron 28/2, Nokton 50/1.5 LTM :: unacceptable
- Color Skopar 35, 50 :: satisfactory
- Nokton 40/1.4 MC, M-Rokkor 40/2, M-Rokkor 90/4, Hektor 135/4.5 :: good

On the other hand, all my Leica R lenses (24, 50/2, 50/1.4, 90/2, 135/2.8, 180/2.8) and Nikkor SLR lenses (50/1.2, 55/3.5, 85/1.8, 105/2.8) work very well with it. I have yet to see how the Nikkor 18 and Elmarit-R 19 mm lenses do, but I expect well.

From other tests done on various forums around the net, I'd say that the A7/A7r are excellent bodies for nearly all SLR lenses but only for a small percentage of RF mount lenses.

I consider the A7 a sort of "one-body-fits-all" SLR replacement.

G
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:25.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.