bigeye
Well-known
Those were all top of the line cameras, today's M9 equivalent. With a crop sensor, it's a second-tier compact, a digital Hexar AF, Konica C35AF, Nikon 35ti, etc.
Is this a young/old thing? I've seen this movie a couple of times.
daveisbest
Established
I'm a film shooter, I don't own a digital camera. It's not particularly because I much prefer film photographs to digital images, though I do. It's more because there isn't a digital camera available that I can afford and would be comfortable using.
First off I can't really visualise shots with SLR's of any sort, so that rules all DSLR's out. My main, all purpose camera needs to have a good optical viewfinder with framelines, a lens with a focal length between 35-50mm and at least f2 max aperture and separate dials/rings for aperture,shutter speed and focus. I'm currently using a Fujica 35EE which meets all these requirements.
The only digital cameras that I can think of which meet all these requirements are the Epson Rd-1, the Leica M8 and M9 and the Fuji X100. Personally I feel the Rd-1 is outdated, the M8 has too many flaws and the M9 is too expensive. Once the X100 is released I'm hoping it doesn't have any major shortcomings or I'll have to hold off buying a digital for a while longer. The price is a little on the high side, but I don't mind paying €1000 for something which will be my main camera and I will use all the time. The lens doesn't have to be up to Leitz or Zeiss standards, I couldn't really give a toss as long as the images it produces are good enough.
First off I can't really visualise shots with SLR's of any sort, so that rules all DSLR's out. My main, all purpose camera needs to have a good optical viewfinder with framelines, a lens with a focal length between 35-50mm and at least f2 max aperture and separate dials/rings for aperture,shutter speed and focus. I'm currently using a Fujica 35EE which meets all these requirements.
The only digital cameras that I can think of which meet all these requirements are the Epson Rd-1, the Leica M8 and M9 and the Fuji X100. Personally I feel the Rd-1 is outdated, the M8 has too many flaws and the M9 is too expensive. Once the X100 is released I'm hoping it doesn't have any major shortcomings or I'll have to hold off buying a digital for a while longer. The price is a little on the high side, but I don't mind paying €1000 for something which will be my main camera and I will use all the time. The lens doesn't have to be up to Leitz or Zeiss standards, I couldn't really give a toss as long as the images it produces are good enough.
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
Can someone explain to me in clear terms how a sensor of any size mated with its own permanent lens can be referred to as a "crop"? And, if it truly is a crop sensor even if nothing is being cropped, how it's appropriate to compare it to a series of compact cameras that accept "full-frame" 35mm film?
Not being a troll, here. I'd really like someone to explain their near-constant use of the term in this context.
FrankS
Registered User
It's all relative to the size of 135 film frame which was the consumer imaging standard for a looong time. It's an accepted world-wide practice/convention.
Last edited:
Well, it is a crop sensor, but you're probably confused because it's largely seen as a negative thing to be a crop. For most it's the light gathering abilities and the fact that all those nice wide angle low light lenses are sort of crippled on a multiplying sensor. (the Canon 35mm 1.4 for example, becomes a nice but nothing special normal lens on a crop, whereas it's a world-class 35mm on a FF body) That aspect is not important on a fixed lens camera that has engineered the lens to match it, and with a (presumed) d90 sensor and f/2 lens, the low light performance is better than a few FF cameras.
It's a crop in the sense that it's a cropped version of a 35mm sensor. But most people care more about the above mentioned aspects than they do about the physical dimension of 35x24mm. (the real photographers anyway)
ferider
Mentor
The "crop factor" is important to calculate depth of field. That Fuji 35/2 equivalent will have much more DOF than - say - a 35/2 on a Leica M9.
(going under cover)
(going under cover)
FrankS
Registered User
These snide little digs / back-handed comments we can do without. RFF is a step above that. Let's try to maintain this standard.
Last edited:
Yes, and the Konica Hexar AF was $1,199 MSRP Almost exactly what the fuji x100 is going to be.
If anything, it's older people that should remember what proper R&D for a new well made product costs, it's the younger folks that expect dinner and cake for a buck fifty and 30 accurate reviews beforehand that they don't have to pay for.
No issue there... any fixed lens camera is going to be a second tier camera. Doesn't mean it isn't as capable.
However, the X100 includes many things those cameras did not i.e. high shutter speeds, etc. Also, it is priced the same as the 35ti was in the 90s.
The original AF was closer to $600 in stores. I was going to buy it a few times and never bothered. However, I had classmates who bought it because it was rangefinder-like and was cheaper than any Leica M and lens at the time.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
The "crop factor" is important to calculate depth of field. That Fuji 35/2 equivalent will have much more DOF than - say - a 35/2 on a Leica M9.
This is literally the only aspect of the sensor size that matters. I will miss the DOF I get on my 35mm 1.4 on a full frame camera, there is something about it, and every little bit counts when you're using wider than 50mm to get soft backgrounds. Whether or not I sell my DSLR will depend on how I handle the aesthetic difference in dof between the two.
How many months after? The x100 is bound to be $600 dollars at some point after launch as well. If we can't directly compare MSRP on the single most similar camera of the past to this, I don't really know what to say.
Especially considering you have to remember that one required film every time you wanted to shoot, versus having a sensor in the other.
sper
-
Fuji is saying that they built the sensor and the lens from the ground up. Why does everyone think it's a D90 sensor. How would that even be possible considering all the problems Leica's had making cameras with short flange distance.
And if it is a D90/D300S sensor, awesome! That camera takes great pictures. Next step D700 sensor, even better.
And if it is a D90/D300S sensor, awesome! That camera takes great pictures. Next step D700 sensor, even better.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
If that tiny little sensor can, when put in the hands of any top notch photographer of your choosing, create images we love to look at, then its 'first tier'. Period.
So... we have to wait to see. But my guess is that there's no such thing as "top of the line" or "second tier" gear... there's just gear that fits the purpose. And the x100 is undoubtedly going to fit a LOT of purposes!!
"Young/old thing?" Nope... its an intelligent/knee jerk thing.
So... we have to wait to see. But my guess is that there's no such thing as "top of the line" or "second tier" gear... there's just gear that fits the purpose. And the x100 is undoubtedly going to fit a LOT of purposes!!
"Young/old thing?" Nope... its an intelligent/knee jerk thing.
Educated guesses, really. It's the most recent sensor of this exact megapixels made by a manufacturer that licenses out it's tech. (Sony makes the d90 sensor and would have no problem selling theirs to Fuji).
I don't think Fuji has said they built the sensor from the ground up, I am pretty sure they said "designed" which probably covers the offset microlenses and all the other aspects of welding a sensor to a circuit board and pathing it to chips. Plus, Leica used a Kodak sensor, so it's pretty comparable to Fuji using a Sony one but doing their own microlens design.
But maybe it is something fresh out of Fuji, I'd love it if it were and had even better performance than the d90, but I think a lot of people want it to be the d90 sensor, seeing as how good that one is!
Silva Lining
CanoHasseLeica
I'm looking forward to seeing what the quality of that lens is like.....if it is anything like the quality of the Fujinon on my GW690II then I will be very interested indeed
The reason why we are comparing it to older cameras is that it is at a similar price point now as those cameras 15 years ago. People keep complaining that the Fuji is not worth $1000.
ferider
Mentor
The problem Leica had was short flange distance in combination with interchangeable lenses that do not pass aperture/focal distance to the body. They solved part of the resulting vignetting problem via micro-lenses, the other via lens codes and soft/firmware.
On a fixed lens auto-focus body that "knows" about aperture, focal distance, etc, vignetting can be completely corrected by the soft/firmware. As can also, for example, focus shift, as the Hexar AF demonstrates.
No idea about the x100 sensor being a D90 sensor or not. It doesn't matter much technically, even if it is, performance might be completely different from the D90 depending on the implementation of the corrections.
Roland.
Last edited:
ChrisN
Striving
Technically, I'd say nothing. But in today's market, who wants it apart from the few weirdos that hang out here?
99% of the market is perfectly comfortable with other forms of focus confirmation.