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

Mirrorless FF (or M Module), how much are you willing to pay?
Old 08-05-2012   #1
aleksanderpolo
Registered User
 
aleksanderpolo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
Mirrorless FF (or M Module), how much are you willing to pay?

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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-05-2012   #2
DougFord
and then what happened??
 
DougFord's Avatar
 
DougFord is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: over Macho Grande
Posts: 622
Yeah, I think you're at the sweet spot as far as price.
And i think Ricoh/Pentax could make a big splash come Sept. by announcing a FF live view module with an updated body with built-in EVF. This would be true head to head competition with the leica M9/10 sans the mechanical RF.
It would be very interesting if they go that route.
__________________

the walk
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2012   #3
Sparrow
Stewart McBride
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 62
Posts: 11,514
... $1000 ... I thought we'd settled that over the weekend
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2012   #4
john neal
fallor ergo sum
 
john neal's Avatar
 
john neal is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Albion
Posts: 1,647
Interesting, I had a dealer offer me a new Modul R for half price in the week that Leitz announced they were discontinued - I didn't have the cash then and now cannot find a modul for anywhere near that price - they seem to be v expensive if they ever turn up for sale.

In the end, I sold the R8 and went FF Canon EOS 5D
__________________
Regards,

John
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2012   #5
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 35
Posts: 3,763
I like M lenses, but in DSLR territory, you can get into FF cheap with a second user 5D, or even a brand new Sony FF DSLR is not ridiculous. For me, the EVF/mirrorless thing is good, but not worth the extra pennies.

If they come down to circa APS-C prices, then that would be different, but at the moment, even the APS-C models can be a bit pricey compared to a Canon, Sony, or Nikon DSLR.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2012   #6
dct
Registered User
 
dct's Avatar
 
dct is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,097
Comparing the actual m4/3 or APS-C sized ICL offerings from Panasonic, Olympus, Ricoh, Sony and Fuji I have to accept something like +USD 1500...2000 for a step-up to a FF mirrorless with similar functionalities. This would be a fair plus IMHO.
Prices under USD 2000 for the FF ICL will remain wishful thinking...
__________________
photos
RFF gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2012   #7
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
 
Bobfrance's Avatar
 
Bobfrance is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire, England
Age: 44
Posts: 1,617
Keep up you guys! Haven't you heard the rumours of Hasselblad bringing out a medium format mirrorless camera and Canon producing a medium format DSLR? It's time to raise your expectation up a notch.

And yes - I'd pay $1000 and not a penny more!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2012   #8
aleksanderpolo
Registered User
 
aleksanderpolo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
I heard persistent rumor that the M10 is going to be $1000, so you say it's not real??!!

Surprise no one is interested in parting with their kidney yet, someone is willing to do it for a bunch of apple stuffs, come on guys.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2012   #9
fotomeow
name under my name
 
fotomeow's Avatar
 
fotomeow is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 755
I voted for two price ranges (you can do it in this poll, ya know), b/c I am much more interested in a FF 35mm (chose 1500-2k), and would pay more if I knew I would like the optics, but sight unseen, this is the best I can offer>
I also chose 500-1k) for the 50mm. same reasoning as above.
__________________
--> Gary G

Galleria RFF
[size=1]old stuff, new stuff, stuff that works and stuff that doesn't.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2012   #10
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,948
I really don't care what it costs as long as it has an OVF and a sensor with dynamic range and signal to noise at least as good as the D700.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

Self-Induced Transparency Photography, FLICKR, Professional Portfolio.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2012   #11
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,262
I'd happily pay what I payed for my D700 provided it matched that camera's output and could mount the same lenses.
__________________
---------------------------
zenfolio

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2012   #12
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,551
It's not enough to simply be mirrorless and full frame (not sure this matters to me anymore). For me, I need a really good internal viewfinder, relatively small size, fast AF, and classic shutter / aperture controls. Fuji has come closest.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2012   #13
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
It's not enough to simply be mirrorless and full frame
Exactly.

(I need 10 letters? Uh, fine, I'll go one better: Exactamundo.)
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2012   #14
Sparrow
Stewart McBride
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 62
Posts: 11,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
It's not enough to simply be mirrorless and full frame (not sure this matters to me anymore). For me, I need a really good internal viewfinder, relatively small size, fast AF, and classic shutter / aperture controls. Fuji has come closest.
... let me know when you find one, that's pretty much what I was looking for when I first considered a digital camera maybe 10 years back
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2012   #15
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 45
Posts: 690
I think a more realistic pricing would be around 3000$ to 4000$, probably closer to the latter. I would pay that price if the EVF is good, meaning much better than any of the rubbish currently offered by Sony, Olympus and Ricoh.
__________________
M(240) - ZM 25/2.8 35/2 50/2 85/2
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2012   #16
aleksanderpolo
Registered User
 
aleksanderpolo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
That would be close to the M9 price. I thought the whole mirrorless thing is about pretending to have an M8/M9 without paying the same price?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa View Post
I think a more realistic pricing would be around 3000$ to 4000$, probably closer to the latter. I would pay that price if the EVF is good, meaning much better than any of the rubbish currently offered by Sony, Olympus and Ricoh.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2012   #17
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksanderpolo View Post
That would be close to the M9 price. I thought the whole mirrorless thing is about pretending to have an M8/M9 without paying the same price?
Half off is a huge discount no?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2012   #18
aleksanderpolo
Registered User
 
aleksanderpolo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
How much is a used M9 selling these days? I didn't pay much attention to its price as it is still in the "sell a kidney" range for me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2012   #19
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksanderpolo View Post
How much is a used M9 selling these days? I didn't pay much attention to its price as it is still in the "sell a kidney" range for me.
$5000 or so.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2012   #20
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,044
these prices are crazy! fuji came out with one of the greatest mirrorless ever for $1500, with choice of 2 great vfs. sony, as much as i hate them and this particular idea, came out with a FF mirrorless WITH a (supposedly) zeiss lens for $2500. and folks are talking about $4000??!! $2-2500 tops, amd closer to 2 at that! and less for an M module on the gxr!
tony
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2012   #21
Godfrey
wonderment
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,173
I have both an M9 and GXR with A12 Camera Mount.

I like the GXR quite a lot, but I think it would be something of a mistake to update the camera unit to a larger format without first addressing some of the issues with the body. For me, the body needs more responsiveness: it is both slow and a bit inconsistent on the shutter lag. The write speed is modest, and it doesn't buffer writes to media so it blocks for a third to half a second. I'd like to see updates on both those fronts as well as a newer, higher resolution EVF before I went to the expense of a FF sensor camera unit.

I expect it would be difficult for Ricoh to produce a FF sensor camera unit with M-bayonet customizations, that performs as well or better than the current A12 Camera Mount, that costs much under $2000 MSRP. I would expect a price in that ballpark at least. They'll need a new shutter and I have to wonder what sensor they'd use. Optimizing a FF sensor for RF lenses is a non-trivial effort—look what Leica is doing with CMOSIS, what they did with Kodak in the past. It's a much more difficult sensor optimization than optimization for APS-C or SLR lenses due to the short mount register and the size of the format relative to the lens mount and distance to primary nodal point with a large number of lens designs.

I think Ricoh would be better off updating the A12 Camera Unit to the latest 16Mpixel Sony APS-C sensor, and optimizing that. They've already got a good shutter for that, the micro-lens optimization would be much easier, and the net gain of 1.5-2.5 stops of sensitivity would be welcome. That could potentially keep the costs down in the same ballpark as the current A12 Camera Mount (which, frankly, continues to work very well compared with even the latest cameras out ... getting better than that is essential if any update at all will be profitably marketable).

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2012   #22
Godfrey
wonderment
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
these prices are crazy! fuji came out with one of the greatest mirrorless ever for $1500, with choice of 2 great vfs. sony, as much as i hate them and this particular idea, came out with a FF mirrorless WITH a (supposedly) zeiss lens for $2500. and folks are talking about $4000??!! $2-2500 tops, amd closer to 2 at that! and less for an M module on the gxr!
tony
Optimization of a sensor for a) a new interchangeable line of lenses dedicated to the camera you're going to put it in, or b) for a new non-interchangeable lens camera is FAR less difficult and less expensive than optimizing a sensor for a wide range of lenses never designed to work with it in the first place.

That's a fact of life in today's technology.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2012   #23
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,324
I'm guessing that all of us want Ricoh to make money. Also, we would all like them to do a first rate job and rival the Leica 'M' files and ergonomics.

All of this takes money and a lot of development time/cost. So, I don't expect nor want a product on the cheap. I'm betting to meet the above, we are talking around $3K for a complete camera... body and module, or camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2012   #24
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
Optimization of a sensor for a) a new interchangeable line of lenses dedicated to the camera you're going to put it in, or b) for a new non-interchangeable lens camera is FAR less difficult and less expensive than optimizing a sensor for a wide range of lenses never designed to work with it in the first place.

That's a fact of life in today's technology.
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2012   #25
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,826
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'? it seems 'definitionally preclusive' to me, and wasnt really what i was talking about...
Actually it seems to sum up pretty much what you were talking about. Basically you were saying that just because Fuji managed to produce a small-sensor, not-for-generic-lenses camera for a comparatively bigger market for $1500, a generic M mount full frame module should be cheap.

What Godfrey meant was that it's a lot harder (read: more expensive) to build a camera that works reasonably well with all sorts of known and unknown lenses that people might stick in front of it, than it is to design a system where you build both the sensor and the lenses and can fine-tune them to each other. A generic M module (or whatever) is a case of the former, the cameras you mentioned are a case of the latter. In other words, if you want generic, prepare to pay more.

The other reason why the former is more expensive is that there are a lot fewer buyers. The market for generic M modules is marginally small, hence less economies of scale and higher prices.

In other words, this kind of comparison doesn't work, it only leads to wishful thinking.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  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 19:57.


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.