Not my first choice of body style, but with the right sensor, at least double the area of a 35mm FF sensor, and for under $6000, I'd be tempted to get one.
i'm certainly a fan of giant sensors, don't think i'll be spending $6k on a camera anytime soon though. i'd have to try one out before i'm convinced that a cubic body would work any better than a normal body with a flip up screen for waist level shooting.
So since it looks like Leica will be the only one giving us a "mirrorless" FF for the foreseeable future, does anyone think they'll at least add live view to the M10... perhaps even ditch the range finder for an EVF? How soon are we from a Leica refresh anyways? If the M9 could do everything an SLR could (close ups and telephoto) I'd consider trying to save up for it as an only camera (maybe not right now but a little down the road) but with it's current limitations, the price tag is even harder to justify.
There is apparently a minor problem in that CCDs are meant to be better for the kind of grazing angles that the M lenses direct at the sensor (less electronics around the pixels, i.e. more surface area for the light sensitive part), so until that problem is solved, there won't be a CMOS M, i.e. no live view. I am expecting the M10 at Photokina 2012. Leica is a company with strong traditions, so I expect an improvement to the rangefinder, but not a replacement, i.e. no EVF, or at least only in combination with an optical viewfinder with framelines.
^^Thrice claims that, but I don't see him back it up with anything (at least not in his post on the previous page). The link that Douglas provides gives another perspective: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1002459/2#9523353
Perhaps there are simply no suitable parties that produce CMOS sensors that would make a customized sensor (with offset microlenses and such) for Leica?
As far as I know, CMOS chips have much more circuitry in between pixels, and thus narrower "tunnels" to the diode. I am not sure where I read that, maybe one of the posts by some of the sensor specialists here or on DPReview? TheSuede or someone else might be able to straighten us out.
not being an expert on any of this, how would a foveon type sensor compare... could one of those achieve live view and would it still be suitable for M-style lenses? I know only sigma does these now but there have been patents by canon and sony recently for similar sensors and some rumors that Leica might get a sensor from Sony for a new camera (no indication given that it would be the M10 though).
EOS20 wrote:
I would like to see the Leica and Hasselblad style bodies introduced. Maybe they could add a EVF to the Hasselblad style body similar to this:
At this point in time I'm sure that any foveon type sensor with pixel elements buried in the well will suck at high angles, 5 years from now could be a different story.
LightShow wrote:
At this point in time I'm sure that any foveon type sensor with pixel elements buried in the well will suck at high angles, 5 years from now could be a different story.
They'll still suck at high angles, but backside illumination will help. A lot. It's a very demanding sensor architecture.
Sony's green filter-ish sensor topping looks pretty interesting though!
Douglas kind of touched on it, but it seems that everyone clamoring for a compact FF mirrorless camera is glossing over a key consideration: the lenses. Sure, look at the Leica M system and some of the lenses are quite small, but that's restricted to 50mm and wider. For such a FF camera to work on the general market, it will have to appeal to a relatively wide range of users, and while it certainly would be possible to make an even smaller than M FF body, or even smaller than the NEX bodies, the lenses will still be large. An xx-200/300 zoom will be large. Any telephoto lens would be large. I like the M9's form factor, and it could be even smaller to match film Ms, but if I was also going to use it with a 70-200 zoom, or lenses longer than 300mm, the body would become seriously uncomfortable to hold. This is where the 'pro' bodies have a significant advantage because they counter the size of large telephoto lenses very effectively, resulting in a very well balanced combination.
The FF M works because it draws from a long established user base who have already accepted that they will be restricted to 135mm and wider, though most never go longer than 90mm and most users' work seems to be 50mm and wider. But the M market is pretty much an anomaly. A mainstream manufacturer such as Nikon needs to appeal to a much too broad consumer range to justify a new system with sales numbers they'll consider a success. In this respect, a 2.5x crop system is a clever option, because it will be smaller than even m4/3 with an image quality difference that will be all but indistinguishable (for the normal person). And for the enthusiast set, it should be possible to adapt all other lens systems to it (other than the Pentax Q), though the all electronic m4/3 and NEX lenses would be problematic.
Along this line, it might be that Pentax is looking the farthest into the future. With a 100mm lens they will offer the same angle of view as 500mm on FF, but in a much, much smaller package and most people's long telephoto needs would be met with a 40-50mm lens. One could argue image quality issues with such a small sensor, but this assumes solutions won't be found over the next ten years. And as it stands now, P&S quality is 'good enough' for the majority of the camera buying market.
I'm certain Canikony could make a compact FF. I'm not certain they believe there is a large enough market to justify one. I would be happy to be proven wrong.
the big telephoto lenses argument doesn't really make sense to me. i don't really see any reason why my telephoto camera should be the same as my short lens camera (the lenses dwarf the camera so might as well just keep the camera attached). making a compact camera and pro style camera with the same mount is easy. and a compact a FF mirrorless won't be cheap anyway so it's not like it will be targeted at the p&s upgrade crowd that want super zooms. i'm not really sure how mainstream shooting longer than 200mm is anyway. keeping things small all the way out to 200mm isn't difficult (unless you also need it to be f/2.8 or faster). 100mm is all i want with my small camera to be honest and most of the people i know demanding a small FF don't even shoot that long. i always thought the close focus and framing issues or were more of a problem than the lack long lenses for m cameras. the rangefinder (and of course price) restricts the m user base more than the lack of telephotos in my opinion.
I agree, 100mm is the longest I need or want for an EVIL system, if I need anything longer I'll grab my 1DIII, 70-200 & or 400 and go to town.
I mostly shoot shorter than 50(70%), 50-100(20%), & >100(10%)
Many people have used one lens on their film RF/slr's(why I have no clue)and don't forget how many people shot P&S's with a single FL(typically a lens in the 35-50mm range).
So the average person should be happy with a pancake size wide(24-35), near pancake size normal(40-60), and somewhat compact short tele(80-100), and many will be happy with a zoom in that range and nothing else, anything longer is really a niche, and it won't kill the system if they happen to be bigger.
I'm certain Canikony could make a compact FF. I'm not certain they believe there is a large enough market to justify one. I would be happy to be proven wrong.
I'm still crunching some numbers, but it looks like the approximate market size will be somewhere around...
mikethevilla wrote:
I'm still crunching some numbers, but it looks like the approximate market size will be somewhere around...
Every.
Photographer.
Ever.
Until you realize it'll be an easy ~2K camera, and which case pretty much everyone's gone.
APS-C looks like the sweet spot here. A standardized bayonet and communications protocol would be *awesome* so you get a lot more lens options. (e.g. MFT)
Hasn't the 7D sold gangbusters at nearly 2K? I think a sort of companion mirrorless camera to the 5DMKIII would be great but the way Canon has their lineup seems to be emulating the 1D/1Ds duality. There's no real place for such a large frame camera. With that said I'd certain forgo buying a Full Frame DSLR for a Mirrorless one. But I purely shoot with natural light and have never used strobes or other off camera lighting.
bluetsunami wrote:
Hasn't the 7D sold gangbusters at nearly 2K? I think a sort of companion mirrorless camera to the 5DMKIII would be great but the way Canon has their lineup seems to be emulating the 1D/1Ds duality. There's no real place for such a large frame camera. With that said I'd certain forgo buying a Full Frame DSLR for a Mirrorless one. But I purely shoot with natural light and have never used strobes or other off camera lighting.
I think Sony learned its lesson here with the A850. It was a great, yet relatively simple 135 camera that got beat by a similarly priced aps-c camera with all of the newest features. I'd rather have a simple, 135 camera over an aps-c camera with a million AF points and video, but the general public must not agree.
Daniel Heineck wrote:
Until you realize it'll be an easy ~2K camera, and which case pretty much everyone's gone.
APS-C looks like the sweet spot here. A standardized bayonet and communications protocol would be *awesome* so you get a lot more lens options. (e.g. MFT)
I dream, I dream.
Even at $2k (heck maybe $3k) I'll bet they would sell more than they could make. Have you SEEN the demand for the x100? People are going insane! Slap FF in there, pick a lens mount and there will be rioting outside of BHphoto in no time.
