If someone else made a FF digital RF?

[ajuk]

OK if someone else brought out a FF RF a lot cheaper than an M9, and for argument's sake let's say it's based on a fairly decent body like the Bessa R3 or Zeiss Ikon and it's got a decent sensor with comparable resolution and quality to that in M9 and oh yes and it also had an M mount, would you be interested?

[swoop]

Hell yes.

I've owned an R3a. It wasn't too terrible. A bit noisy, not built very tough, but usable.

I think the Ikon VF is awful though. Very low contrast.

[maitani]

i guess it would be a hotseller, i'm counting on Bessa or Nikon at Photokina...

[jsrockit]

I'd be interested, but it also depends on the price. If its only slightly cheaper than a M9, then no. If it's half the price... maybe. It's unlikely to happen I've been told.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by ajuk

OK if someone else brought out a FF RF a lot cheaper than an M9, and for argument's sake let's say it's based on a fairly decent body like the Bessa R3 or Zeiss Ikon and it's got a decent sensor with comparable resolution and quality to that in M9 and oh yes and it also had an M mount, would you be interested?

Everything depends on the design and feel of the body, and what lenses work with it properly. I bought the M9 because I wanted the format and feel of my M4-2 and it had to work well with the lenses I'd already acquired for both the M4-2 and the Ricoh GXR with A12 Camera Mount.

I'd certainly love to have spent less than $6000+ for a camera body, but having done so, I'm not likely to buy anything that doesn't perform as well.

[semordnilap]

Probably, yes, if it's no larger.

I don't expect it, though...

I would also buy an updated 1.3x crop sensor rf, if the cost savings were significant.

[n5jrn]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I'd be interested, but it also depends on the price. If its only slightly cheaper than a M9, then no. If it's half the price... maybe.

Precisely.

[ajuk]

There's £2000 difference in the cost of an M7 and M9 here.
Looking to Nikon F6 seems to cost about £1500, the D3s body costs £3500 for what I assume is a body of the equivalent quality of the F6, so that's £2000 more for the electronics and sensor, even though it's the same electronics in the D700. Hmm.

[Lss]

A lot cheaper than M9, "decent" and "comparable"? Yes, I would very likely get one.

[dexdog]

I would be interested, provided that it was significantly less expensive than a leica. I am considering an NEX 7, and that would be the first camera that I ever bought to break the $1000 threshold. A FF rangefinder would be very attractive in the $4,000 range

[dreilly]

I'd be strongly interested. I'd love for Epson to pull out an R-D2, upgrade the sensor, maybe drop the corny shutter advance (though it does save one from buying an accessory, vestigial "Thumb's Up" or "Thumbie" and slapping it on). I'd actually be fine with a good APS-C sensor, but I know that's heresy around here. I've been Full-frame, and it's not the seventh heaven it was made out to be.

[Matus]

I definitely do not expect digital camera with optical RF (like Leica) to come to life. But I do not see why a mirror-less camera (a'la NEX7 or Ricoh GXR or such) could not be made with FX sensor for under € 3000 (cutting off the optical RF saves A LOT of money)

I mean - look at the sensor for Ricoh GXR M-mount - it is the best non-Leica sensor for wide angle M-mount lenses (thanks to lack of AA filter and addition of micro-lenses) and it costs about 600 €. Now why a module of double the size could not be made for triple (give or take) the cost? There is no "new" technology needed. 24 Mpix with the performance of the current sensor of the GXR M-mount module would smoke the output from M9 - and the sensor in the GXR was already superseded.

What keeps all this away from us is that VERY MOST users do not (for a good reason, to be honest) care for FX sensor or M-mount lenses. That makes the target base (I am guessing here) 20 - 100 times smaller than "common" mirror-less user.

EDIT: reading the above answer I just realized that there are cameras for € 600 that do indeed have a very usable optical RF - so indeed a camera like Epson RD-2 would be interesting and doable.

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by Matus

EDIT: reading the above answer I just realized that there are cameras for € 600 that do indeed have a very usable optical RF - so indeed a camera like Epson RD-2 would be interesting and doable.

But the RD-1 was 3000 EUR with a 1.5 crop sensor. We are again at the point if there is someone who believes seriously that an M9 equivalent can be produced for significantly less money. I don't believe this.

[Roger Hicks]

Would I want one? Of course. Who wouldn't?

Is it anything more than a pipe dream? Well, that's another question.

I'd like my Land Rover to do 80 mpg as well.

Cheers,

R.

[thirtyfivefifty]

I prefer something like a Zeiss Ikon over a Bessa, body-wise, for the accuracy and nice viewfinder. If this other camera costs less than half, let's say under $4,000? Then hello, M-Mount!

[cosmonaut]

The DXO marks of the NEX 7 puts it up there close to the M9 so no. Just how much IQ do you have to have for a street camera? Also the NEX 7 works well in manual mode plus focus peaking.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by ajuk

There's £2000 difference in the cost of an M7 and M9 here.
Looking to Nikon F6 seems to cost about £1500, the D3s body costs £3500 for what I assume is a body of the equivalent quality of the F6, so that's £2000 more for the electronics and sensor, even though it's the same electronics in the D700. Hmm.

The D3s body has very different electronics from the D700.

[karlori]

If I was to buy one... But I'm exiting digital photography altogether for at least a while...

[segedi]

I don't see any pure optical RFs coming out besides Leica's. Hybrid and EVF would be more attractive for a manufacturer most likely.

If Ricoh came out with a FF A24 M-mount module....
I like the Ricoh body and funationality. The EVF is OK, better than it's specs. Focus peaking is nice. Focus magnifaction even better. But the best part is that the A12 M mount is built for using M lenses. There is no compromise, no adapters - and it works very well. Oh and no AA filter!

[huntjump]

not too many people on RFF who wouldnt want that ... but it just doesnt seem likely.

i'd pay up to $3,000 for an m9 alternative. otherwise i am forced to stick with my d700 for FF needs :/

[janosh]

The new Pentax (EVL, not RF) should be impressive at around $900.

Pentax APS C comes very close to Canon 5DII resolution and blows the original 5D away. And Pentax Limited DA prime lenses (all Pentax lenses will work on this camera) resolve more than anybody's DSLR zoom.

[250swb]

I said 'maybe'.

The thing that keeps coming back to me with my M9 is just how simple it is, and that is exactly what I like. I've never understood the advertised prospects of more complicated camera's and what they can do for me, because I always still keep them on the basic manual functions, or minimal auto functions. I sold my Fuji X10 because it was to complicated with too many ways to make a photograph. But with an M9 I know there are only a couple and this cuts out the dithering, and as a design concept this is remarkably effective for image making.

Steve

[semordnilap]

The optical rf mechanism can't be cheap if you want a nice view, no matter the digital tech. A hybrid system would be nice with real rf focusing, but as with everything we'd see it in crop cameras before ff. So I think we're still a few generations of technology away.

With digital, the scale needs to be pretty massive to make the production worthwhile; either that or you pay leica prices. Otherwise we'd see all kinds of boutique cameras.

I'm interested to see where evf technology is going, and I wonder if you couldn't create an optical rf with electronic focusing patch, perhaps a view through the lens superimposed on the optical rf image. Now that would be neat...!

The RF characteristics that are still missing from the new compact cameras are a bright view, seeing outside the frame, and no image blackout. I think that an optical-electronic hybrid viewfinder that could solve at least the latter problem would sell...

[Matus]

janosh, the new Pentax (I guess you speak about the K-01) is entirely different camera, so to speak. While I have no doubts about the IQ it will be able to deliver, it is "only" APS-C and is basically a DSLR without mirror and viewfinder - it will not be able to accept M or LTM mount lenses as it has K-mount which had flange-to-sensor distance quite a bit larger than a Leica-like systems.

[f6andBthere]

I think the manufacturers are thinking more about EVF progression than RF mechanisms for future viewfinder/focusing designs ... full frame or otherwise!

And to all those those who say ... "But EVFs suck!" ... yeah sure they do.

That won't be the case in a few years though IMO.