From a design/shooting perspective, Cosina's experience is hard to beat. If they entered the digital world (not likely), they'd be a good competitor to what Fuji is offering (or Sony if they actually made some more lenses for their system!).
Cosina made the 1:1 life size finder for the Epson RD-1, the first digital M rangefinder. I really suspect we will see something else from them.
The R-D1 RF, was a direct redesign of the Bessa system, with the addition (or ommision) of a longer RF base. This, to Leica users meant a less precise long lens focus mechanism; to my using the camera for a few years, I did not notice any issues, with either the Lux 75 1.4 or the 90 2.8. YMMV.
Still, the 1:1 VF was better than the M8 in all respects.
Mr Kobayashi, Cosina's CEO has in numerous occasions expressed his non interest for digital cameras. That, combined with the tech support headaches they experienced with the R-D1 probably has all but burried any DRF's coming out of that company.
To bad, that was probably the sexiest RF ever made (red-dot flame-suit
ON!
h00ligan wrote:
Why could a rangefinder couplinge be only realistic with a fixed lens? Leica doesn't seem to have an issue. Why wouldn't they pass focal length and adjust he frame lines accordingly?
I should add, it wont be a rangefinder, it will be like the x100
I was referring to the Fuji X pics shown by the OP. There is no coupling mechanism, just a digital interface which removes the possibility of an RF coupling. It has nothing to do with framelines, which are much easier to accomplish, and, for all we care can be digitally superimposed on the VF if the body communicates with the lens. RF coupling also eliminates AF, which is another marketing hurdle all together.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Cosina made the 1:1 life size finder for the Epson RD-1, the first digital M rangefinder. I really suspect we will see something else from them.
Yes, their CEO is pretty adamant about sticking with their current game plan. However if they are going to stay relevant, they will probably have to go beyond making Bessas and CV lenses (and Zeiss' lenses by license). If they do, I doubt they will develop/innovate it on their own.
"if by "rangefinder" abam meant body and lens size, I hope you're right."
that's what i'm getting at: FF sensor; modern, comprehensive feature set; rangefinder-esque in its form factor; interchangeable lenses; smaller/narrower overall package than traditional DSLRs; non-M9 pricing.
As the organic photoelectrc conversion layer has a large absorption coefficient in principle, it can absorb enough light in spite of its extreme thinness. Therefore, it is free from spectral cross-talk between tiny pixels when capturing slanting rays of light and does not need any micro-lenses convetionally used for gathering incident light.
The spectral sensitivity of the organic photoelectric conversion layer can be freely controlled by designing organic materials and it is possible to achieve a panchromatic property which does not have sensitivity to infrared light but only to blue, green and red light (as shown in Fig. 2). Therefore, it is not necessary to use a conventional infrafred light cut filter and we can eliminate its problem, a change of infrared cut wavelength and color hue caused by a change of the angle of light incidence. ...Show more → ricardovaste wrote:
Anyone care to look over this?
So am I right in thinking that
(a) such a sensor design would lessen some of the problems associated with wide angle and digital sensors, with lens designs needing to be telecentric, and the use of micro lenses on the sensor to correct.
(b) no filter over the sensor would lead to a much greater detail.
Yay or nay?
If this tech is in the Fuji LX perhaps it could explain why the 18/2 is smaller than one would expect for APS-C. Perhaps it could explain why the sensor itself supposedly meets and exceeds current full-frame models?
(sorry if this has been discussed before, only just saw it though...) ...Show more → Tariq Gibran wrote:
This new Fuji sensor tech has been mentioned before but it seems a many think it's too soon to see it in a commercial product - but we will see.
To me, this tech will improve corner performance, resolution, color accuracy, & S/N ratio(and possibly a few I missed).
This could be a game changer.
The paper refers to a simple organic layer between the color filter and the wells, remarkably simple was the feeling I got.
They did build B&W and color test sensors to test the process, looks like it could be soon, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that that have tested 2 more variations/generations in an attempt to reduce dark noise & read noise prior to implementation, which could be behind the "better IQ than current FF sensors" statement.
I'm not so sure these companies are "out innovating Nikon and Canon". I suspect the issue is that Nikon and Canon are worried about crippling other product lines. Naturally I do not know anything factually but I have known more than $$$ company that has deliberately killed inside projects for fear of loss of an existing dominating product. It doesn't always make sense to me but my logic is not what is important when they make the decision
Looks like the ILC space is getting heated with some unconventional players! Who would have guessed that Sony and Fuji would be out innovating Nikon and Canon in the digital camera space in 2011 and 2012. I'm lukewarm about Nikon's somewhat ugly and underwhelming offering although I hate it less now after reading Huff's impressions.
douglasf13 wrote:
This tech looks good, but I wonder about its application. We don't even have backlit CMOS yet for aps-c, because the cost is too high.
Those who are into digital sensor design (AjayC and Daniel Heineck?) have repeatedly said that backlit designs give much more improvement for tiny pixel sensors in devices like smart phones than for sensors with bigger pixels (MFT, APS-C, FF). No mention of cost, IIRC. At any rate, we have not seen any demonstration of the possibility of superior performance of backlit CMOS for larger sensors. If it was worthwhile, you'd expect a company like Sony (or Canon) to be capable of implementing it for their high end models.
you2 wrote:
I'm not so sure these companies are "out innovating Nikon and Canon". I suspect the issue is that Nikon and Canon are worried about crippling other product lines. Naturally I do not know anything factually but I have known more than $$$ company that has deliberately killed inside projects for fear of loss of an existing dominating product. It doesn't always make sense to me but my logic is not what is important when they make the decision
I'd say that working on company politics instead of making great products is a sure way to turn a good company to an obsolete company. Multibillion companies are making strategic mistakes on a daily basis.
Things move very fast in this digital era. Ask Microsoft, ask Nokia, ask Canon. They all lost their dominance because they failed to adapt.
JonasY wrote:
Things move very fast in this digital era. Ask Microsoft, ask Nokia, ask Canon. They all lost their dominance because they failed to adapt.
This statement is curious because neither Microsoft, Nokia, nor Canon have lost their market dominance. That they eventually will is inevitable, but you're jumping the gun on this one.
That would be pretty remarkable and that 18/2 would probably be glued to my camera
Here's to hoping that this new mount is open for adapting
Unfortunately for those who plan to use adapted alt lenses, I suspect the camera may lack a built in focal plane shutter and, instead, use a lens shutter. Otherwise, I'm not sure why Fuji would restrict a professional camera to 'just' 1/4000 sec, the same incidentally as that available in the lens shutter in x100. Also note that on the shutter dial, none of the speeds are in a different color which typically would mark the highest sync speed. That also could indicate that all speeds sync and thus the lens shutter - and wow, 1/4000 lens shutter full sync would be groundbreaking stuff just as on x100 though it would be nice if it's always available at any aperture. It is a mock up though so that could also explain the shutter dial. IF it will only use Fuji lenses though, that might not be such a bad thing as they will likely be up there with the best lenses available with regard to optical quality.
JamesBeach wrote:
This statement is curious because neither Microsoft, Nokia, nor Canon have lost their market dominance. That they eventually will is inevitable, but you're jumping the gun on this one.
Nokia accounted for 15.2 percent of global smart phone market share in the second quarter of 2011, which is less than half of what it was just one year earlier. The winner is Apple with an 18.5 percent share, a company that didn't even make phones 5 years ago.
MS maybe a bit premature, but the downfall was announced on 18 August this year by HP. The tablets are taking over most of the market, and neither MS nor HP have anything to meet the challenge with. Forget about nerds like us who sit behind a desk editing photos. I now see business people who just a year ago looked upon Apple as a toy factory, making presentations on iPad, showing it on a projector and distributing it, including notes and sketches made on-screen, electronically to participants when the meeting is over.
The biggest market in the world, low income classes in Asia (there are around 3 billion people in that category within a 4 our flight from where I live), are moving from mobile phones to smart phones to tablets. Similar user interface, low price and size, great functionality. Most of the people in the world have never used and will never be using a PC.
I had a funny experience the other day: a 3 year old girl from the category mentioned above was looking at photos on my somewhat ageing Nokia. She enjoyed it, but couldn't understand why the photos didn't change when she moved her finger over the screen. That's your future customer.
Oh, and Canon... don't ask me. Never heard about them
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
[Nokia accounted for 15.2 percent of global smart phone market share in the second quarter of 2011, which is less than half of what it was just one year earlier. The winner is Apple with an 18.5 percent share, a company that didn't even make phones 5 years ago.
Not so fast. Nokia hasn't been the dominant player in smartphones since the category was established. (Before Apple came along, it was RIM--there is an example of a fallen giant.) Can't lose what you never had. However, they were and continue to be the most prolific producer of mobile phones in general and, because their phones are frequently multifunction, they are also the largest producer of digital cameras and MP3 players.
MS maybe a bit premature, but the downfall was announced on 18 August this year by HP. The tablets are taking over most of the market, and neither MS nor HP have anything to meet the challenge with. Forget about nerds like us who sit behind a desk editing photos. I now see business people who just a year ago looked upon Apple as a toy factory, making presentations on iPad, showing it on a projector and distributing it, including notes and sketches made on-screen, electronically to participants when the meeting is over.
"A bit premature"? Windows continues to be the OS installed on the vast majority of computers and...it's also installed on a lot of Macs. I don't know what you think HP's possible exit from the consumer PC market says about Microsoft's future, but whatever it is, you're wrong. That idea had little to do with dwindling sales and more to do with razor thin margins on increasingly commoditized products. Note that they would have still been producing servers and workstations with--surprise, surprise--Windows installed, among other operating systems. But, of course, they've decided to keep their PC division so there's no point in discussing this further. No bearing whatsoever on the future of Windows. And we haven't even discussed Microsoft's other dabblings. You're very premature pronouncing the fall of Microsoft, the desktop, or the laptop.
I have no idea what your iPad anecdote has to do with anything.
