Leica's future.. Fujifilm's future..

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

... Good thing we have choices.

+1 :-)

The GXR is quite a bit different from what it was in 2009 with the addition of a couple of firmware updates, which greatly improve operation of the A12 50 and 28 mm camera units, and then the A12 Camera Mount. I use it mostly with the A12 Camera Mount and a couple of my favorite Voigtländer RF lenses.

[ChrisN]

Originally Posted by NickTrop

Leica has been fighting for its life, if not in critical condition, certainly in "serious" condition - seems to me, since the end of the rangefinder heyday in the early-70's. Big and obvious problem with your Apple/Leica analogy. Apple innovates, continuously. Leica's innovation days were the middle of the last century - looong time ago... and they've been playing catch-up ever since, first with SLRs then in the digital era.

But imagine the market that Leica would have making high-priced luxury lenses in native Canon mount? Or Nikon mount? No barrier to entry of needing an M9 to use Leica glass. No kluge adapters. A real, genuine Canon mount 'Cron for you Canon or Nikon DSLR.

Leica is creating its own barrier to entry for its lens line due to their extremely high-priced cameras. Their camera bodies offer no benefit to lower-priced pro full-frame offerings of Nikon and Canon. They cater only to people married to a particular form factor and companies like Fuji are eating into this turf with excellent substitutes. Further, no way can they compete with Nikon or Canon in R&D.

Concede the "body wars" to Nikon and Canon. They won. Let them beat the crap out of each other in the body market. (If they want to stay in the "body business" - design the camera and let Panasonic crank them out in a factory in Japan and have them slap that all-important red dot on them.)

No pros shoot Leica M9s. But make a native Canon or Nikon Summicron? Or zoom? Or whatever? Watch the sales flood gates open.

Perhaps we are seeing a tentative move along these lines, but sidetepping full frame and moving into the future - the micro four thirds format. Just as rangefinders have effectively "had their day", so will we soon see the full-frame digital SLRs abandoned by the vast majority of professionals as the quality of output from smaller formats becomes "good enough".

No pros shoot Leica M9s ... That's a very bold statement - I suspect there might be just a few who do!

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by ChrisN

Perhaps we are seeing a tentative move along these lines, but sidetepping full frame and moving into the future - the micro four thirds format. Just as rangefinders have effectively "had their day", so will we soon see the full-frame digital SLRs abandoned by the vast majority of professionals as the quality of output from smaller formats becomes "good enough".

The market trend shows that mirrorless and smaller than APS-C sensors are becoming closer in price and function to P&S along a whole range of bodies and styles, fixed lens or interchangeable mounts.

FF will drop in price and body size and replace the high-end APS-C market. APS-C DSLR's will barely scrape up to $1,500 bodies and within 5 years all will be below $1,000. Pros will be able to get FF at $1,500 body with enough pixels to edit freely and large pixels to grab low-light, and "get the shot". m43 doesn't have the pixels and low-light to quite make it. FF does, APS-C hits the commodity middle ground.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

The market trend shows that mirrorless and smaller than APS-C sensors are becoming closer in price and function to P&S along a whole range of bodies and styles, fixed lens or interchangeable mounts.

FF will drop in price and body size and replace the high-end APS-C market. APS-C DSLR's will barely scrape up to $1,500 bodies and within 5 years all will be below $1,000. Pros will be able to get FF at $1,500 body with enough pixels to edit freely and large pixels to grab low-light, and "get the shot". m43 doesn't have the pixels and low-light to quite make it. FF does, APS-C hits the commodity middle ground.

The processor circuitry is getting more and more complex with each year, a multitude of new features are added, processor speeds increasing yet the Milbaut imaging processors, co-processors and motherboards are getting smaller and smaller. Batteries are getting smaller.. Good signs.. FF in near future will need no low-pass filter as they will reach 70-80MP (technology is already on the P&S cameras). For the critical applications DSLR will continue to live; contrast detect AF can not satisfy pro requirements (at least with today's technology).

Also we must bear in mind: The FF and conventional lens designs can not go together without complications.. Even a 50mm lens of state of art RF design on a FF-sensor shows more resolution drop toward edges than an ordinary retrofocal 50mm.. (Yep, not nice but true..)

[Aristophanes]

Batteries aren't really getting smaller. If you want smaller, less time in the on position is now the trend, and video has become an issue for all cameras.

My understanding of the optical physics (challenges my mathematics, but I get it) is that resolution on FF would see minimal gains above 50, maybe 60 MPs, making it not economical to push higher. APS-C would be about 32 MP's.

And for most FF DSLR shooters, we're talking zooms (gasp!). So if you're assuming complications, that's a market reality for lens design. Basing anything off the 'normal' 50 isn't the dominant factor market revenues use as a starting point. My colleague bought the D800 to get the 14-24. In DSLR-land, primes are accompaniments to the main kit for most sales. I see few PJ's or paparazzi or sports shooters using primes.

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

"Film" in this context appears to be more relevant technically to emulsions and layered synthetic applications, and not emulsions on a substrate for photography. Fuji released some details about their new cosmetics focus where they are looking to re-purpose their "film" towards skin-based application rather than what we think of as film. Sunscreen, not ISO.

Yes, that was precisely my point. Film technology is critical to Fuji, but not necessarily the continued manufacture of photographic film.