Future X100 Models = M ?

[CameraQuest]

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

[Catto]

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!

[CNNY]

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.

[LKeithR]

Originally Posted by CNNY

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]

Given how much M lenses cost, it seems like even an inexpensive body could be relatively expensive.

[FrozenInTime]

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...2.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

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 ?

[Spyro]

what's in it for Fuji? They dont even make M lenses.

[skibeerr]

Originally Posted by Spyro

what's in it for Fuji? They dont even make M lenses.

Sell body's?

[Spyro]

Originally Posted by skibeerr

Sell body's?

fair point

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.

[Arjay]

Originally Posted by Spyro

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.

[bigeye]

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.
.

[Keith]

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!

[ferider]

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.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by ferider

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]

Originally Posted by CNNY

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.

[Traut]

Sounds like a digi-contax G3.

[willie_901]

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

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.

[arpinum]

Originally Posted by willie_901

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.

[bigeye]

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

[Paul T.]

Originally Posted by ferider

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bigeye

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.

[ampguy]

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.

[deirdre]

Maybe we should wait and see how badly damaged their Sendai facilities are before speculating.

[dap]

Originally Posted by willie_901

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.