Full Frame Fuji X Pro 2 to be released in 2015 ?

[kdriceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Fuji Rumors speculates that Fuji will release a FF XPro 2 in 2015.

 

New Source: X-PRO2 will feature a Full Frame sensor. Initially 3 to 5 FF lenses! | Fuji RumorsFuji Rumors

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Album]

Fuji Rumors speculates that Fuji will release a FF XPro 2 in 2015.

 

New Source: X-PRO2 will feature a Full Frame sensor. Initially 3 to 5 FF lenses! | Fuji RumorsFuji Rumors

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

"The source said that existing XF lenses won’t fit on on the new Full Frame X-PRO2. Therefore new FF Fujinon lenses will be offered (initially 3-5) and rest will be Leica lenses via a detachable mount."

[Nick_S]

In my view, this is the area where Leica should have been developing their mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, not wasting time and R&D on smaller APS-C sensors. A full-frame solution like this would complement the M series nicely, especially if it incorporated micro-lenses like the current M digital sensors to optimise compatibility with the wide angle lenses in M mount.

 

Nick

[CalArts 99]

In my view, this is the area where Leica should have been developing their mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, not wasting time and R&D on smaller APS-C sensors. A full-frame solution like this would complement the M series nicely, especially if it incorporated micro-lenses like the current M digital sensors to optimise compatibility with the wide angle lenses in M mount.

 

Isn't the M already their full frame mirrorless interchangeable lens camera? Why make another one? Or do you mean a much cheaper M? But it seems kind of redundant to make a FF mirrorless ILC when they already have one. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're suggesting. Sorry, if that's the case.

[Nick_S]

Isn't the M already their full frame mirrorless interchangeable lens camera? Why make another one? Or do you mean a much cheaper M? But it seems kind of redundant to make a FF mirrorless ILC when they already have one. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're suggesting. Sorry, if that's the case.

I think the idea of Leica's new compact is for it to have its own range of high quality auto-focus lenses. However, it would be nice to have the ability to work well with existing M-lenses and in full-frame. I don't understand why they would compromise on an APS-C solution.

 

Nick

[UliWer]

I think the idea of Leica's new compact is for it to have its own range of high quality auto-focus lenses. However, it would be nice to have the ability to work well with existing M-lenses and in full-frame. I don't understand why they would compromise on an APS-C solution.

 

Nick

 

An answer has been offered several times here and elsewhere:

 

Traditional lenses for the M-bayonet especially if they have short focal lengthes do not serve a digital sensor very well. Light hitting the sensor in a flat angle causes problems in the corners: red edges, italian flag, smearing. You find these effects on Kodak-, Leica-CMOSIS, Sony and Fuji-Sensors - perhaps with some differences but there is a problem which seems to be just a physical one.

 

To avoid it you need lenses with a much larger diameter of the exit pupil, and therefore you need a new bayonet much larger than the M-bayonet. To avoid very large camera bodies, you need - smaller sensors. You might succeed with a small body with large sensor and a fixed lens especially designed for the sensor like in the Sony RX 1. But if you look for a system with interchangeable lenses, you won't be able to use the present or past line of wide-angles for the M on a large sensor with a small body, without running into some more or less severe problems at your frame's edges.

 

That's the reason for "compromising" on APS-C-solutions with a new set of (larger) lenses for small camera bodies. I am not sure, if Leica will following this compromising path, or if they produce the wonder of solving the physical problems caused by their traditional lens designs.

[Steve P]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know the history of Leica sales in the film era but would like to know how sales of the flagship M cameras were impacted by the introduction of the CL. If the impact was significant

then why would Leica want to give themselves the same headache all over again in the digital era?

[Nick_S]

An answer has been offered several times here and elsewhere:

Traditional lenses for the M-bayonet especially if they have short focal lengthes do not serve a digital sensor very well...

That much is clear but Leica, having developed sensors with microlenses that work in this context, are in the position to produce a full-frame mirrorless solution with AF lenses that also performs very well with their own M-mount lenses.

 

Steve P, if Leica don't develop a quality full-frame mirrorless camera, them someone else will beat them to it and take that share of the market (Sony, Fuji, etc.). On the other hand it would be easier for an M camera user to justify a second camera system (e.g., those ageing with poorer eyesight, for their partner etc) if their M-mount lenses worked in all their glory and the AF lenses had some complementary characteristics.

 

Nick

[viramati]

So here we go again!! I doubt very much the fuji will produce a camera that has a sensor built for the leica,zeiss and CV set of rangefinder lenses so once again it will probably only work well with lenses above 35mm and retro-focus design. I think unless Zeiss or Voigtlander produce a Digital FF camera made for the RF lenses we will never get the perfect solution for wides apart from leica.

[Guest polygamer]

Hi, the APS-C Fujis perform dismally with Leica M mount lenses below 75mm.

 

So, I lost interest in them.

 

I am not sure, whether a new 24x36 Fuji is even worth keeping an eye on ...

 

Will it be another low-perfomer with Leica M mount lenses like the SONY A7/R???

[onceuponatime]

An answer has been offered several times here and elsewhere:

 

Traditional lenses for the M-bayonet especially if they have short focal lengthes do not serve a digital sensor very well. Light hitting the sensor in a flat angle causes problems in the corners: red edges, italian flag, smearing. You find these effects on Kodak-, Leica-CMOSIS, Sony and Fuji-Sensors - perhaps with some differences but there is a problem which seems to be just a physical one.

 

To avoid it you need lenses with a much larger diameter of the exit pupil, and therefore you need a new bayonet much larger than the M-bayonet. To avoid very large camera bodies, you need - smaller sensors. You might succeed with a small body with large sensor and a fixed lens especially designed for the sensor like in the Sony RX 1. But if you look for a system with interchangeable lenses, you won't be able to use the present or past line of wide-angles for the M on a large sensor with a small body, without running into some more or less severe problems at your frame's edges.

 

That's the reason for "compromising" on APS-C-solutions with a new set of (larger) lenses for small camera bodies. I am not sure, if Leica will following this compromising path, or if they produce the wonder of solving the physical problems caused by their traditional lens designs.

 

 

Indeed. Flat FF sensor on a thin body poses problems for wide and unltra wide angle lenses : as seen in Sony A7/R.

Hence Sony have patented / are producing curved FF sensor.

Fuji in partnership with Sony should avail of this curved FF sensor.

[Guest polygamer]

Hence Sony have patented / are producing curved FF sensor.

Fuji in partnership with Sony should avail of this curved FF sensor.

This sounds very interesting. As I do not see the manufacturing of curved wafers,

(out of which the camera sensors are cut), I expect a high precision glue process

of the sensor to a curved substrate.

[stunsworth]

Indeed. Flat FF sensor on a thin body poses problems for wide and unltra wide angle lenses : as seen in Sony A7/R.

Hence Sony have patented / are producing curved FF sensor.

Fuji in partnership with Sony should avail of this curved FF sensor.

 

A curved sensor wouldn't work with flat field lenses such as Leica/Zeiss etc.

[AlanG]

To avoid it you need lenses with a much larger diameter of the exit pupil, and therefore you need a new bayonet much larger than the M-bayonet. To avoid very large camera bodies, you need - smaller sensors.

 

???? It seems to me that many cameras and lenses prove this is not so. In the case of the A7 one can get a pretty large rear element fairly close to the sensor. But there are not many reason to do that unless you are trying to make a compact wide angle of unusual design such as the RX1. Or maybe a compact zoom. For instance the Canon 17mm TSE does not have a very large rear element and it works well on a reflex camera leaving plenty of room for the mirror. Once the mirror is eliminated lens designers have more options and not too many of them will necessitate a rear element that is larger than the sensor and also needs to be very close to it..

 

Plus even if you make a camera with a very large lens mount, that does not mean that many of the lenses will have to be especially fat (other than at the mount itself.) And why would the camera have to be especially large just to have a larger lens opening?

[40mm f/2]

Curved sensors make more sense if the lens (WA) and the curvature of the sensor are designed as a pair. So not so useful for interchangeable lenses but the best concept for wide angle.

Fuji is developing organic sensor technology which allows much higher dynamic range and also greater incident angles. It would also make the production of curved sensors easier.There are rumors that Fuji is using that type of sensor for the X Pro2 and that would be the reason for the 2015 release.

A sensor with greater DR, sensitivity and resolution allows to use APS C and get similar or better IQ than a full frame sensor. So Full frame makes only sense if you want to use your WA lenses designed for full frame as such. For new lens designs it would not matter.

[stunsworth]

Curved sensors make more sense if the lens (WA) and the curvature of the sensor are designed as a pair. So not so useful for interchangeable lenses but the best concept for wide angle

 

The first camera I can remember using had a curved sensor.

[bill]

Hi, the APS-C Fujis perform dismally with Leica M mount lenses below 75mm.

...

 

"...dismally..."?

[Guest polygamer]

"...dismally..."?

Less than perfectly, O.K.? with Leica M mount lenses because of corner smearing.

 

Only from 75mm upwards there were no problems, according to trustworthy

contributors in the German Systemkamera Forum.

 

I planned to buy one, but lost interest in the Fujis when the user experiences came in.

 

That was a disappointment for me, because I still have a Fuji 645 (somewhere) from

my film days, and I looked forward to using a Fuji again.

[woorob]

Minox subminiature cameras had a curved film plane for precisely these reasons.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Nick_S]

Minox subminiature cameras had a curved film plane for precisely these reasons.

Yes the early models did, and matched to a superb lens. However, the corresponding Minox enlarger of the time also had a curved film plane to avoid distortion when flattening out the negative.

 

Nick