If someone else made a FF digital RF?

[semordnilap]

Originally Posted by rxmd

I'd rather say it's a nice side benefit of making cameras with a short lens register and not much more. If threads like this have shown one thing, it's that RF lens owners, particularly Leica, are really picky and capricious about the cameras they use. I don't think they're a very rewarding target audience all by themselves.

Agreed. And frankly, I think that while there may be a lot of internet chatter about using M and legacy glass on these short register-large sensor cameras, most people buying a NEX are using the zoom and maybe buying the 16. A lot of people have asked me about my NEX 5n... a lot more than about my M8. And all of them (save at RFF events) are buying them without any idea of what a 'legacy lens' is. That's the economics behind all of these cameras, except for the ricoh, and I do wonder if/how ricoh makes a profit on the gxr.

Aside: I would love the above suggested digital ikon with d700/5dmkii equivalent sensor.

[jarski]

only M9 price has prevented me having full frame digital rangefinder. so pretty easy to answer this one.

[kanzlr]

I would buy a digital IKON even if it where an APS-C camera

[tstermitz]

Of course you can't put the M lenses on a Nikon D800 CAMERA; The interesting question is how well Leica lenses would do on the D800 SENSOR. The stupid question is why do we have to carry such a huge camera and huge lenses in order to get the D800 sensor. The technological question (in 2012) is why do we have to pay $8,000 to use leica M-lenses on a FF sensor.

In the end, the camera is just a box that allows the sensor to sample the image created by the lens. I really like the rangefinder design, and the M9 simplicity of use. 18M is pretty useful for me, but I have to admit I would trade that for a FF NEX-10 with the D800 sensor, live view and focus peaking.

Read Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers) on the difficulty of getting sharp, in-focus images in general, and the 36M resolution specifically. He believes that few Nikon lenses will be up to the task of resolving across the full sensor of the new D800. His reference lenses will be a few Zeiss and Leica-R manual-focus, prime lenses.

For that matter, Chambers says that Leica M lenses out strip the M9 sensor, and that the lack of live view means precise focussing is the major short-coming of the M9.

[jaapv]

If somebody brought out a Ferrari at 20.000 Euro I would buy it in a flash...

[uhoh7]

Originally Posted by rxmd

RF lens owners, particularly Leica, are really picky and capricious about the cameras they use. I don't think they're a very rewarding target audience all by themselves.

Yeah, who wants utterly obsessed customers who will pay 4k for a prime? Or people are will study a lens for a year and spend another to find one? Who are bored with 5Ds?

Originally Posted by rxmd

My main lens on the Canon easily delivers the best image quality in that focal length (24mm) that I've seen so far, including in comparison with Leica, Zeiss etc.

You have shot that 24 elmar?

Originally Posted by jaapv

If somebody brought out a Ferrari at 20.000 Euro I would buy it in a flash...

Haven't you heard? There's no "market" for fast cars

[Adanac]

Originally Posted by semordnilap

That's the economics behind all of these cameras, except for the ricoh, and I do wonder if/how ricoh makes a profit on the gxr.

Apparently the GXR does very well in Japan, all modules. Japan also seems to be a hot bed of interest for non-reflex interchangeable lens cameras.

Maybe the Japanese demand in part explains why the M Mount module often is in short supply elsewhere in the world.

Oh and I'd also be interested in a digital Ikon even if it had a crop sensor, but not if a full frame version was known to be coming.

[hteasley]

Originally Posted by uhoh7

Perhaps they see it the way you do.

<...>

You post as if it is perfectly logical for Leica to have the only digital RF.

In fact it is entirely illogical, and as sensor technology improves, and costs come down, it is less and less likely.

I post what I believe to be the case. The RF market is a tiny market, and I don't see it getting big enough for a big player like Nikon to seriously care about. Folks like Zeiss and CV care, maybe Sigma could have a go, but really, there's not a lot of upside for Canon or Nikon to pursue this market anymore.

The RF market, to my mind, will be niche forevermore, simply because it is rooted in a mostly manual mode of shooting. At the very least, it is replete with all-manual cameras and lenses, with the only significant automation capability being shutter speed on a handful of cameras.

The mass market that Canon and Nikon pursue demands AF. The RF market is pretty immune to the siren song of AF. Canon and Nikon need to pursue opportunities that make sense at their scale, and RF cameras, I believe, do not offer such an opportunity.

[Adanac]

Originally Posted by rxmd

I'd rather say it's a nice side benefit of making cameras with a short lens register and not much more.

It's back to the future. Registrations only got longer because viewfinder / focusing schemes for compact cameras decades ago were not up to the task of focusing macro and tele lenses, thus the SLR was born.

Half a dozen decades later new viewfinder/focusing capabilities thanks to electronics are enabling a return to shorter registration cameras.

Sure, it's a happy accident that short back focal lengths mean lenses from longer BFL cameras can be easily adapted, but the decision to design slim cameras isn't accidental and surely the designers were at some level aware that their cameras would be targets for enthusiasts and non native lenses - a good thing.

This all feels like a trend to me, one made possible by advances in EVF technology and in part due to acceptance of rear LCD only "finder" cameras.

Originally Posted by Archiver

Ricoh has been able to deliver an M-mount aps-c module that has been optimized for rangefinder lenses at a cost of less than $1000.

Not even that, $649 USD retail at authorized dealers. This pricing makes me hopeful that a full frame module from Ricoh could come in under $2,000. Bet they'd sell out quickly.

I'd be willing to buy such a module or a FX rangefinder-lens friendly compact from anyone, even if it were, M9-like, strictly focused on the needs of photographers and not videographers, especially if removing such features makes it possible to keep costs down. Might be nice to have in body stabilization though.

[ajuk]

Originally Posted by huntjump

Question is how big that market is. The huge upfront R&D to produce this "dream" camera will need a much more expansive market than the RFF community. Not to mention most of us just want to put our "M" glass on there anyway

Well Leica did.

[hteasley]

Originally Posted by ajuk

Well Leica did.

Leica's the only company that can charge the high prices needed to make a company of its size successful on such a small number of lenses and cameras. No one is going to pay nearly as much for another marque.

[EdwardKaraa]

AFAIC, the combined price of an M9 and its imminent replacement at the end of the year are what is keeping me from getting one. I am looking forward to getting the M10 and hoping in the meanwhile someone other than Leica would come out with a FF DRF or even mirrorless like the GXR in order to spare my bank account that big dent

Zeiss unfortunately seem to have completely ditched the digital ZI project. The most likely alternative will come from Cosina (RF) or Ricoh (FF GXR) or maybe Sony (Nex 9).

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by uhoh7

Yeah, who wants utterly obsessed customers who will pay 4k for a prime? Or people are will study a lens for a year and spend another to find one? Who are bored with 5Ds?

If you're into making camera bodies, it doesn't really matter how much your users are willing to spend on lenses by other manufacturers. What does matter is that they tend to have ideosyncratic, divergent ideas what they expect from a camera body, and it's difficult to please them all at once. Together with the comparatively small numbers this makes them a bit of an unrewarding demographic.

You have shot that 24 elmar?

Played around with it. It's clearly a very good lens, but it doesn't really fit into how I shoot. On RF I'm mostly shooting film and 21/50 lenses, and the SLR lens is so much more flexible to use that it's really a non-comparison. It's also a LOT bigger and heavier due to the tilt/shift mechanics, however. If one wanted to start pixel peeping and comparing "pure" image paramters, however, I think the Canon is in the same ballpark if not better.

[NLewis]

What we really need is an NEX-9 with the new 36mp fullframe sensor, for about $2800. It would be compatible with about everything under the sun. Sony will release new FF SLRs this year, and maybe they'll announce something similar at the same time, just as they announced the NEX-7 along with the A-77 and A-65, all of which use the same sensor.

[f6andBthere]

Originally Posted by jaapv

If somebody brought out a Ferrari at 20.000 Euro I would buy it in a flash...

And if that Ferrari had drum rear brakes and points and coil ignition you'd buy it in a flash no doubt ... because then you'd a have a car to match your M9's level of sophistication!

[jarski]

Toyota would do, but there's just the Ferrari available

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by f6andBthere

And if that Ferrari had drum rear brakes and points and coil ignition you'd buy it in a flash no doubt ... because then you'd a have a car to match your M9's level of sophistication!

The only Ferrari I would like is a 1959 Ferrari 250GT SWB like this one:

Technologically, it makes my Leica M9 appear like a starship. But as a car ... feh, nothing else fit for the street has ever had that kind of soul. ];-)

[tom.w.bn]

I'd like to have a Tesla Roadster. Any ideas which corresponding camera fits to this car?

[ferider]

The M9, Tom, obvious to me. Short battery life, too expensive, and by far doesn't handle as well as the classic it is based on (Lotus Elise = M6TTL ?).

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by ferider

The M9, Tom, obvious to me. Short battery life, too expensive, and by far doesn't handle as well as the classic it is based on (Lotus Elise = M6TTL ?).

LOL. short battery life. Good comparison

[Tessar.]

I'd buy a full frame NEX7 with high quality evf in the blink of an eye.

[ajuk]

Originally Posted by jaapv

If somebody brought out a Ferrari at 20.000 Euro I would buy it in a flash...

While I think you're analogy utterly fails, there are sports cars as fast as Ferraris that cost a lot less, and while being well made do not match up to their exceptionally high standards. There is this though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancia_Thema

I don't see the point in spending so much money on a body when its got computerized internals, for the same reason I wouldn't buy a gold plated diamond encrusted swatch, I could still put the latest Leica lens and Ektar into an M3 and get exactly the same result as an M7. Still A Bessa R4A still too expensive for me anyway, but I wouldn't mind forking out for a digital version of that if I had the money.

[sepiareverb]

Originally Posted by ajuk

I could still put the latest Leica lens and Ektar into an M3 and get exactly the same result as an M7.

Not exactly, but point taken. But if one likes a meter, likes extreme precision in exposure and likes an RF body that is as quiet as can be then there isn't much "better" than an M7. It can certainly be more precise than an M3, or an MP.

[uhoh7]

Originally Posted by tom.w.bn

I'd like to have a Tesla Roadster. Any ideas which corresponding camera fits to this car?

CV 75/2.5 + nex-5
I think the sony FF compact EVIL is coming fast, but how much time will they spend tuning the sensor for M wides?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by hteasley

Leica's the only company that can charge the high prices needed to make a company of its size successful on such a small number of lenses and cameras. No one is going to pay nearly as much for another marque.

What about Alpas? They make Leicas look inexpensive.

Cheers,

R.