If someone else made a FF digital RF?

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

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.

Any camera manufacturing is a monetary endeavour... Leica AG is not a foundation established by philanthropists to 'serve' camera users any more than what Zeiss, Canon, Nikon or Fujifilm were doing since years... Nobody risks their own millions of euros/dollars merely for the love of being able to produce some cameras at all costs...

[anerjee]

A FF sensor is too expensive to manufacture and then put into something as limiting as a rangefinder body. Leica can get away with it, for now, no one else can.

[janosh]

Originally Posted by Lss

What is a visually demanding photographer?

A photographer who prints his own or at least uses a high quality lab to print larger than snapshot prints. Or...a photographer who expects to be paid for his work. NOT somebody who simply loves cameras and makes snapshots.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

Any camera manufacturing is a monetary endeavour... Leica AG is not a foundation established by philanthropists to 'serve' camera users any more than what Zeiss, Canon, Nikon or Fujifilm were doing since years... Nobody risks their own millions of euros/dollars merely for the love of being able to produce some cameras at all costs...

I'm not sure that is what I said exactly, but perhaps I should have said not "solely" a monitary endeavor. CV makes film rangefinders ( a whole new line in the 21st century) and I would imagine it wasn't because they wanted to make as much money as possible. My point was that it'll be a company that cares about making a rangefinder camera and not a company whose sole purpose is to make as much money as possible. Its a niche product.

[semordnilap]

I think a big promotional point, and a reason to develop such a camera, would be no image blackout during capture. You get used to blackout, but it's not ideal, and one of the great RF advantages. As I said before, if someone can create this in an evf type technology we will be a lot closer to a reincarnation of the rangefinder. Probably not an actual rf, but maybe something pretty close.

Companies obviously know that there is a market for manual focusing, hence the introduction of peaking in the newer evil cameras. I think the vf is the tough nut to crack-I don't expect anyone other than leica will release a true rf anytime soon, but the evf tech will make for some interestingly close cameras.

A FF EVIL is not far off, for sure.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by semordnilap

I think a big promotional point, and a reason to develop such a camera, would be no image blackout during capture. You get used to blackout, but it's not ideal, and one of the great RF advantages. As I said before, if someone can create this in an evf type technology we will be a lot closer to a reincarnation of the rangefinder. Probably not an actual rf, but maybe something pretty close. .

I use the EVF in my X100 on occasion and can't remember seeing it blackout.

[semordnilap]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I use the EVF in my X100 on occasion and can't remember seeing it blackout.

Really? The EVF on the NEX 5N blacks out. It's very quick, but definitely there. I have image review off.

That would be neat if it doesn't... can you double check and let me know?

[Adanac]

Originally Posted by hteasley

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. [...] 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.

I understood the context of your remarks and agree. A new competitor faces a daunting, probably impossible, challenge to usurp the current market leaders in their core businesses, perhaps even more so for Leica than CANIKON.

My point speaks to the invention of new categories forming the potential to do what competition in existing categories may not be able to accomplish. You touched on that.

Taken to logical extension I'm feeling it may be safe to predict the death of the DSLR, or more accurately, at least a flipping of statistics over time. Where mirrorless ILCs now make up the smaller fraction of units shipped annually, one day DSLRs will occupy that space with simpler, smaller, mirrorless ILCs taking over.

How that applies to the current discussion is less clear but in the back of my mind I wonder if we could see the same flipping of positions where true RF cameras become less important by way of units shipped than electronic finder cameras that allow for the use of rangefinder lenses while maintaining high IQ. Is there a larger constituency of rangefinder camera or rangefinder lens users where the lens is more important than having a "range finder" focus mechanism and optical viewport? I'd guess there is and if that guess is right then the RF market could be disrupted by new entrants.

Is Leica's current and potential user base even worth going after? Is the larger ecosystem revolving around Leica and related products (Zeiss, CV et al) worth going after? It may be, for a smaller maker.

Who knows, maybe Leica themselves will bless the trend and come out with an ILC with an all-digital finder. Competing with oneself often is better than allowing someone else to put your back against the wall.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by semordnilap

Really? The EVF on the NEX 5N blacks out. It's very quick, but definitely there. I have image review off.

That would be neat if it doesn't... can you double check and let me know?

Hmmm, maybe it does and I've never cared. I'll check it out tonight. Perhaps someone else can answer before then.

[kanzlr]

It blacks out, yes. But shorter than the GXR.

[DougFord]

When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.

So how's about a camera designed like the nex5n, with an apsC sensor or ff perhaps. A camera for the masses with the optional EVF. Volume sales assured, bean counters happy.
Now the 'weird' part. An m-mount adapter with an attached fully functional opto-mechanical RF assembly. Probably short base length, interfacing with the cameras electronics via the EVF port, to provide projected frame lines and other camera data in the optical viewfinder. This adapter assembly would provide full roller on cam manual focussing and add about an inch or so to the cameras height. This adapter would be a showcase for the engineering prowess of the company. A mechanical wonder of both fit and function.

[sepiareverb]

Was thinking more about this today. A FF Ikon would certainly have appeal. What I disliked about the Ikon most was the wind-on, and as the M9 shutter is about as loud as the Ikon the improved ergonomics of the Ikon might swing me. Ideally? Leica VF & framelines in a Contax G2 type body. This pretty much describes an Ikon...

[ssmc]

Originally Posted by 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 :/

+1 (exactly)

Unless of course the 5DIII/X specs are real (22MP, 6.9fps, 61-pt AF) in which case if the image quality (DR, SNR, high-ISO noise, etc.) is at least equal to the D700 then I will completely "jump ship" and sell my D300, D700 and 7D since with the exception of a high-quality stabilized mid-range zoom, this one camera could take the place of all three. Which would be nice!

But back to the 135-format DRF... the only mfr I can see doing this might be Zeiss, and they would almost certainly have to collaborate with a Japanese company for the electronics to do a good job at an affordable price without any "idiosyncrasies". For a FF sensor that would mean Canon or Sony. Sony may have some kind of an exclusivity contract with Nikon but they do have a new FF 24MP sensor in the works for the A99 which is probably not going to appear in any Nikon bodies so that might work. Neither Nikon nor Canon have anything remotely like an M-body RF in their respective lineups so competition is not really an issue. Sony has the NEX-7 but they already work with Zeiss so that's my most likely guess of all the unlikely possibilities... plus, if they can fit all the electronics and battery in the NEX-7 they could absolutely do the same in the form-factor of the Ikon (with a FF sensor) with room to spare. We could also be assured of the latest, top-shelf monitor specs (not the dismal bottom-end-P&S unit on the M9), excellent battery life and film-camera-like responsiveness and operating speeds. I can dream...

Regards,
Scott

[ssmc]

Originally Posted by janosh

A photographer who prints his own or at least uses a high quality lab to print larger than snapshot prints. Or...a photographer who expects to be paid for his work. NOT somebody who simply loves cameras and makes snapshots.

Even from a strictly film perspective I find this a narrow and elitist statement - I have never sold a photo in my life, nor do I plan to (though I've done some volunteer stuff), and I almost never print anything. However I am extremely picky when it comes to image quality. I like to be able to look at my digital captures and panoramas and negative scans on a large calibrated monitor and not get depressed when zooming in to 1:1 to explore the details. The fine-art print is all very well but it certainly does not need to be the defining end-product without which one is no longer "visually demanding". And as for getting paid - there are plenty of paid photographers whose work would not pass muster on a technical and/or aesthetic basis among a lot of "amateurs".

There is a vast gulf between "snapshots" and the necessity to print large/get paid to be "visually demanding". Just because one pursues photography in one's own way doesn't mean one's perception of image quality goes out the window. Otherwise you could go the next step and say anyone who doesn't shoot MF is not "visually demanding"... or 4x5... or 8x10... or that anyone who doesn't use a Phase One IQ180 is just a hack hobbyist (I can think of a couple of well-known individuals who have this attitude). Where does it end?

Regards,
Scott

[Dirk]

"Maybe, depends on the body", and the price.

[tstermitz]

My thought process went through several steps:

Leica lenses are expensive because they are optimized and optimal across a FF sensor (or 135mm film), even at the widest aperture. The Leica drawing style is contrasty and detailed. Leica lenses (and only a few others) can satisfy the latest high-resolution sensors like the Nikon D800. Only Zeiss lenses are in the same ballpark.

As someone said, I think it was Diglloyd (or also probably, Ken Rockwell), that the reason to shoot M rangefinders is about being able to shoot Leica lenses. We have a finite set of options for M lenses.

In crop format we have the M8 and adapters for M4/3 and Nex.

The only FF opportuniies to shoot Leica lenses are film rangefinders or the Leica M9. So, yes to the OP, it would be nice to have other FF leica options.

[uhoh7]

Originally Posted by hteasley

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?

Perhaps they see it the way you do.

Perhaps not. The limited edition modern SPs: what was the point?

It's not an either or proposition. Like Mercedes, Nikon is not constrained to a single market--obviously.

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.

Every pro knows the most prestigeous digtal camera one can own, and the Leica business is going very well. The press alone from a challenge to the M9 is worth a fortune for the entire line of whatever maker steps up.

A digital SP would be sexy as could be, but Leica's true vulnerablities, to my mind, are in the form factor. A digital CL--a true RF just a tad bigger than a nex-7 with M mount and a nice little live articulated LCD, so SLR glass would also be usable: such a tool would be highly desirable and grow the pie.

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 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...)

Well said

[Archiver]

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

So you might think. And yet, 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. I don't pretend to know what Ricoh's sales figures or profit margins are like for this module, but I suspect that it has sold very well compared with their other standalone modules.

As long as we're dreaming:

- a body the slimness of the M7 but the weight of the Zeiss Ikon
- the controls of the Zeiss Ikon
- the speed of current DSLR's in terms of shutter lag, startup time, buffer clearance etc.
- long battery life
- liveview focusing ability
- quiet shutter a la the Ricoh GXR
- a sensor that is as good at high ISO as contemporary DSLR's, and yet with a unique and pleasant colour signature like the M9
- top build quality and weathersealing
- in-body image stabilization and dust removal

Give me this in an M-mount rangefinder body and I am sold. A camera like this would most likely cost a LOT, but heck, this is one version of my dream camera. If I could add 1080p 60p full HD video using AVCHD lite or even h.264 that would be great.

[Adanac]

Established camera makers may have decided it wasn't worth the effort to take on Leica as film was on its decline, but maybe they might be unwilling to allow Leica to have its slice of the high end market completely unchallenged in the digital age.

Perhaps the real incentive for other camera makers to go after Leica's lunch is not just the high end but increased demand in the middle. Are we not there, now?

50% of all interchangeable lens cameras sold in Japan in the back half of 2011 were non-reflex cameras. If there truly is a seismic shift going on, who is to say that Nikon or others won't look to their past to innovate for the future?

Once upon a time Japanese camera makers made cameras compatible with Leica lenses. Could it be that this will happen again? It already is, to some degree (Ricoh GXR M Mount aside), through camera bodies that can take adapted M lenses. Pursuing a native/adapted lens strategy lets a maker pursue profit off its own lens line up, hit the road running by levering off existing glass, and also pull those existing RF glass users in. Everyone's happy.

Who knows, maybe some lab geeks at Nikon or Canon (or Ricoh) have perfected a digital range finder patch focus system.

I sure hope one of them is planning on going down this road, with gusto.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by tstermitz

My thought process went through several steps:

Leica lenses are expensive because they are optimized and optimal across a FF sensor (or 135mm film), even at the widest aperture. The Leica drawing style is contrasty and detailed. Leica lenses (and only a few others) can satisfy the latest high-resolution sensors like the Nikon D800. Only Zeiss lenses are in the same ballpark.

I'd presume that the main reason they're expensive is because they are hand-made in small quantities to a relatively high mechanical standard.

Your statement about Leica lenses and D800 sensors sounds a bit like you're talking out of the blue. You can't put Leica lenses on a D800. Nobody has tried them on a 40-ish something MP sensor just yet. The best Leica cameras have 18 MP and film doesn't really go higher either. They'll probably be quite OK, but if mainstream manufacturers are serious about taking another round in the megapixel race it won't be long before Canon and Nikon have lenses that will satisfy the sensors in their own cameras, too.

Some of the mainstream manufacturers' lenses are are already there. 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.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Adanac

Once upon a time Japanese camera makers made cameras compatible with Leica lenses. Could it be that this will happen again? It already is, to some degree (Ricoh GXR M Mount aside), through camera bodies that can take adapted M lenses. Pursuing a native/adapted lens strategy lets a maker pursue profit off its own lens line up, hit the road running by levering off existing glass, and also pull those existing RF glass users in. Everyone's happy.

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.

[kanzlr]

Originally Posted by rxmd

You can't put Leica lenses on a D800

of course you can. I kinda liked the 35mm Elmarit-R on my D700.

[semordnilap]

Originally Posted by kanzlr

It blacks out, yes. But shorter than the GXR.

That's what I figured. The blackout is very short in a lot of these EVFs, but still there.

[semordnilap]

Originally Posted by DougFord

An m-mount adapter with an attached fully functional opto-mechanical RF assembly. Probably short base length, interfacing with the cameras electronics via the EVF port, to provide projected frame lines and other camera data in the optical viewfinder. This adapter assembly would provide full roller on cam manual focussing and add about an inch or so to the cameras height. This adapter would be a showcase for the engineering prowess of the company. A mechanical wonder of both fit and function.

That would be weird, and probably terrible looking, but if you cut out the electronics aspect and add manual selection of framelines, more likely than an optical rf! Expensive and delicate, I would expect, too.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by kanzlr

of course you can. I kinda liked the 35mm Elmarit-R on my D700.

Yeah well, way to be nitpicky and I like the 90 Elmarit-R on full frame too, but I guess it was rangefinder lenses he was talking about.