If someone else made a FF digital RF?

[Archlich]

I now believe this is one of the most common (series of) threads on RFF: The cheap FF digital RF wet dreams, ending with a "will you buy it?"

[huntjump]

Originally Posted by Archlich

I now believe this is one of the most common (series of) threads on RFF: The cheap FF digital RF wet dreams, ending with a "will you buy it?"

No way. "Death of Film" is firmly in the #1 slot

[tightsqueez]

If it has an M mount, a true rangefinder, isn't bigger than the M8/M9 and encases a GREAT sensor... sure, I'd look into it.

Otherwise, I've already got what I need. And I wholeheartedly express the word "need".

[gdi]

Originally Posted by 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.

Or an iPhone

[ajuk]

Everybody in here seems to be saying it's pipe dream, but there's clearly a market for it.

[huntjump]

Originally Posted by ajuk

Everybody in here seems to be saying it's pipe dream, but there's clearly a market for it.

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

[dreilly]

I'd really welcome a respite from the grotesque hype surrounding the X-1 Pro that seems to have engulfed many RF fans, just because of a window on the camera!

[janosh]

As seen in prints, Pentax's APS-C sensors have been better than most other APS-C for the past several years, as well as Canon 5D FF (not necessarily 5DII)..

Collector/enthusiasts will always yearn for more ways to use their old LTM and M lenses but more visually demanding photographers will be happy to pay less money for the superior performance of Pentax Limited (and presumably Fuji ) digital primes. And infinitely more for nominally Leica digital lenses, of course.

Pentax will issue a set of Limited series pancake primes, as they did for their DSLRs. K-01 will be a lot more rugged than any rangefinder, just as Pentax DSLRs have been for the past several years.

I love the feel of some rangefinders (Canon, Leica), but for me their main virtue vs SLR and DSLR is relative flatness due to their lack of mirror box, along with their ruggedness (at which Pentax DSLRs whup Leica RFDR). Modern autofocus is incredibly fast and accurate, but the "feel" of engagement with focus process is of course very different (intellectual rather than tactile).

Originally Posted by 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.

[sepiareverb]

I don't need another FF digital body.

[crispy12]

If it was in the price range of the new Xpro1, I'd buy it even if it had a 1.5x sensor. Or an Epson R-D2 with 12mp? Of course!

[hteasley]

Originally Posted by sepiareverb

I don't need another FF digital body.

Ditto. I'm not equal to what my M9 can do, so I foresee no need to upgrade anytime soon.

[EdwardKaraa]

I would buy any FF RF or mirrorless but I agree that chances are it will be rather mirrorless than RF. Zeiss might make one, but if I understand correctly, only when sensors cost as cheap as film, or maybe when film becomes as expensive as sensors (more likely)

[f6andBthere]

Originally Posted by huntjump

No way. "Death of Film" is firmly in the #1 slot

Surely you're overlooking ... "I'm thinking of getting a Leica!"

[uhoh7]

Originally Posted by ajuk

Everybody in here seems to be saying it's pipe dream, but there's clearly a market for it.

Why is leica more profitable than sony?

Inside the big dying corporations some are asking that question.

it's only a matter of time. I think the EVIL FF will come first---and there will be the issues about dealing with RF wides--but one sensor or the other will prove itself the equal of the kodak, prices for it will come down, and another RF will appear--more than one I'd bet.

If nikon had half a brain there would already be a digital SP.

No market? More market than for an AF viewfinder APS-C, which is trying so hard to look like the real thing.

[Adanac]

Agree with others that an EVIL, or as Sean Reid calls 'em, an EFC (Electronic Finder Camera) tuned for M lenses seems more likely to show up as a competitive, functional, full frame alternative to a digital M than would another full frame digital RF camera.

And I would buy one for sure.

That said if the pipe dream variant (a FX digital RF competitor to Leica) showed up, at a really attractive price point, chances are I'd be interested in that too depending on who made it. I'd buy a digital Zeiss Ikon RF no doubt.

Back to something closer to possible reality, I'm hoping Ricoh takes the challenge - they've already been far down this road with the AA-filter-free APS-C A12 M mount module of theirs, so producing a 135 sized sensor module for the GXR would not be a huge hill for them to climb. Of all the makers they seem to me to be the ones most likely, and able, and with the least baggage, to pull this off anytime soon.

[dct]

Originally Posted by semordnilap

...
...
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...

Agreed. Something like that with FF sensor and short mount distance would be the 1st real concurrent to the M9. And I might be interested...

[hteasley]

Originally Posted by uhoh7

If nikon had half a brain there would already be a digital SP.

Why? I get the impression that they'll be trying hard to keep up with D800 demand.

The camera market for rangefinders is a mature market, and it's owned today by Leica. It's not that amenable to disruption. The mature SLR market is split between Nikon and Canon. It's also not that amenable to disruption. At this stage, it's going to take a combination of serious missteps by one company, coupled with a significant achievement by another, to shift things dramatically.

With market leaders already in-place in these arenas, folks are left with inventing new categories, like m4/3 or EVIL, to attempt to own those markets. It looks to me like Sony will end up with the EVIL market, pumping out NEX cameras for a good while.

What incentive would Nikon have to go against Leica, in a tiny segment filled with price-insensitive Leica loyalists, when they already have a much bigger pool to swim in?

[Adanac]

Originally Posted by hteasley

The mature SLR market is split between Nikon and Canon. It's also not that amenable to disruption.

Can that statement be made without some back up? The compact side of the Interchangeable Lens Camera market seems to be growing very rapidly. Those sales surely aren't all coming from former point and shoot buyers.

The Japanese Camera & Imaging Products Association (CIPA) just initiated a change in how they report statistics for shipments of interchangeable lens cameras, for the first time breaking them into Single Lens Reflex and Non-Reflex categories. So far there is only data for July through December 2011 but it is interesting to note that non-reflex Interchangeable Lens Cameras in the second half of 2011 currently make up 22.7% (2.03 million units) of total ILC shipments (6.91 million SLRs).

From their press release (PDF):

“Non-reflex” will include cameras such as so-called mirrorless cameras and compact system cameras, rangefinder cameras with interchangeable lens and interchangeable unit system cameras, and similar cameras. This will enhance the statistics of interchangeable lens cameras, which are becoming more diverse in addition to Single Lens Reflex.

This suggests growth. I'd guess significant growth.

Total ILC Shipments (CIPA members) over the last few years:

2011 15,693,781
2010 12,886,936
2009  9,910,695
2008  9,686,640

We've no idea from these numbers if compact ILCs (including RFs) are cutting into DSLR sales or not, but it would seem likely. Certainly camera sales are up after the depths of the recession passed - I wonder how many folks decided to buy a compact ILC rather than a DSLR?

[f6andBthere]

I think people need to remember a few things about the M8/M9. It was a Leica M rangefinder long before it was a digital anything and consequently had a waiting audience/fan base who were bound to snap it up if it was half reasonable when it actually went digital. And let's face it, it was only half reasonable!

If that camera had come into a cold market with the problems it had at the price they were asking, it would have been rejected.

Any company that offers a digital RF will be taking a big risk IMO.

[hteasley]

Originally Posted by Adanac

Can that statement be made without some back up? The compact side of the Interchangeable Lens Camera market seems to be growing very rapidly.

The rest of my comment would have, I hope, given some context to that description of the DSLR market. My meaning was that Nikon and Canon own the DSLR market, and barring something astonishingly catastrophic, nothing is going to shake them loose: to come to market with a new DSLR system is a daunting task.

Which is why camera manufacturers like Olympus and Sony and Fuji are trying to invent new categories and fight over those, as I said. I didn't say the new categories can't chip away at the existing ones; I said these new categories are the ones that companies see opportunity to compete in. Because it's not going to happen in the DSLR space.

And it's not likely to happen in the rangefinder space: at least, not in a way that would, I think, tempt a company like Nikon.

[Lss]

Originally Posted by janosh

but more visually demanding photographers will be happy to pay less money for the superior performance of Pentax Limited (and presumably Fuji ) digital primes.

What is a visually demanding photographer?

[BobYIL]

Look at the Zeiss Ikon, $1.618 body with an excellent rangefinder and a shutter of the same class as on the M9. Metal body, quality construction. Add to this a FF sensor with an unashamed cost of $2.000 (A900 costs $2.700 complete!) to end up with $3.618.00. This is the maximum retail price of a quality FF digital rangefinder. I am sure that if Sony or Canon (or even Nikon) had considered to introduce a FF optical or EVIL rangefinder, they would be aiming for a price not more than $2.700 while the X-Pro1 was going for $1.700.

Such a rangefinder will come, either this year or in 2013; and I believe it is on the drawing board of not only one manufacturer, for the lenses are readily available either for direct mounting on the M-mount or via adaptor to the specific mounts to come. Put the Leica lenses aside, there are a lot of amateurs and professionals who would love to use Zeiss, Voigtlander or similar lenses with reasonable costs.

(BTW, I am expecting any new FF or APS-C rangefinder to come out with a register distance of less than 28mm, otherwise they know that the project would be a gamble...)

[j j]

Originally Posted by Lss

What is a visually demanding photographer?

Ugly?

For sure someone could make a rangefinder and could make one cheaper than an M9, but would they? Viewfinders with prisms and deflected beams of light are 20th century tech. Great engineering and design, great fun, but expensive to make.

Far more likely is an innovative look at manual focus using electronic displays. Like a development of focus peaking or even a new take that looks to learn from the idea of the rangefinder but uses sensor and electronic display tech to enhance manual focus.

More likely than that is more AF cameras that tip their hat to tradition, like the new Fuji.

PS M mount = no chance.

[Paul Jenkin]

As someone who uses film and digital (and who uses Leica M film bodies) an cheap(er) FF M mount body would be wonderful - but I accept it's unlikely. My digital kit is a Nikon D700 and I would not want to buy anything that couldn't produce images of similar quality. There is, of course, the Ricoh GXR but that has a crop sensor. The biggest frustration in the early days of digital was the proliferation of crop sensors and having to buy special lenses to suit. I won't do that anymore, nor will I spend the money demanded by Leica for an M9. It's just as well that I'm perfectly happy with my M6TTL and M4-P....

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

Look at the Zeiss Ikon, $1.618 body with an excellent rangefinder and a shutter of the same class as on the M9. Metal body, quality construction. Add to this a FF sensor with an unashamed cost of $2.000 (A900 costs $2.700 complete!) to end up with $3.618.00. This is the maximum retail price of a quality FF digital rangefinder.

I don't think it is quite this simple. If anyone was to release the camera in question in this thread, I think it would be a labor of love and not a monitary endeavor.