S+ format, 54x36mm?

[ZHNL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I asked Fringer if they will implement a S to GFX adapter at the time I order contax GFX adapter. I told them that a similar S adapters will be more popular than contax 645 they offered and they can ask more for S users. They replied that they don’t have such a plan. 
well, I guess they missed this opportunity. 

in additional to Helged’s comments, GFX will bring image stabilization to S glass, especially for any focal longer than 100mm can be very useful. 

another big benefit is S glasses have all real mechanical focus ring. 

And I know Sony’s 100M sensor is very capable. 

[Einst_Stein]

I guess the potential market size of C645 adapter or S would be very limited. The C645 adapter price out of the manufacturer is perhaps $300 or less. Even if they sell 1000 pieces, it would hard to justify the develop and manufacturing cost.

[Pieter12]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

I guess the potential market size of C645 adapter or S would be very limited. The C645 adapter price out of the manufacturer is perhaps $300 or less. Even if they sell 1000 pieces, it would hard to justify the develop and manufacturing cost.

How many S adapters do think Leica has sold? And for way more than $300. The S-adapter-L retails for more than $1500.

[Einst_Stein]

33 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

How many S adapters do think Leica has sold? And for way more than $300. The S-adapter-L retails for more than $1500.

Leica's adapter is much more expensive. They can cover the cost much better than the third party solution, especially the micro-brand. I don't know how much Leica adapter have been sold. I guess Leica could get the profit from the Leica S camera. It's totally different equation.

If I were to use Leica S to GFX adapter, I would like it to be provided by Fujifilm, or much more preferred, by Leica.

But, what exactly is your point? 

[Pieter12]

58 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Leica's adapter is much more expensive. They can cover the cost much better than the third party solution, especially the micro-brand. I don't know how much Leica adapter have been sold. I guess Leica could get the profit from the Leica S camera. It's totally different equation.

If I were to use Leica S to GFX adapter, I would like it to be provided by Fujifilm, or much more preferred, by Leica.

But, what exactly is your point? 

Just pointing to your logic that if Leica can sell an adapter for many times the price and possibly fewer than the number you cited, why does this other manufacturer have to hit that price point? Or sell that many adapters? Maybe there isn’t really much of a market for an S to GFX adapter after all.

[Einst_Stein]

6 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

Just pointing to your logic that if Leica can sell an adapter for many times the price and possibly fewer than the number you cited, why does this other manufacturer have to hit that price point? Or sell that many adapters? Maybe there isn’t really much of a market for an S to GFX adapter after all.

Why Leica can sell higher price? OMG, a million dollars question. I don't know.

Why Leica can sell fewer pieces than other micro-brands? may be because when Leica offered the adapters, Leica expected to sell more S cameras? 

Is there enough market for S to GFX adapter? It depends on the costs of developing and manufacturing, and any other strategic reasons, but I doubt. 

[helged]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, ZHNL said:

I asked Fringer if they will implement a S to GFX adapter at the time I order contax GFX adapter. I told them that a similar S adapters will be more popular than contax 645 they offered and they can ask more for S users. They replied that they don’t have such a plan. 
well, I guess they missed this opportunity. 

in additional to Helged’s comments, GFX will bring image stabilization to S glass, especially for any focal longer than 100mm can be very useful. 

another big benefit is S glasses have all real mechanical focus ring. 

And I know Sony’s 100M sensor is very capable. 

Absolutely, IBIS clealy helps uncover the optical potential - and usability - of the S-lenses. That being said, the S-optics is perhaps not technically perfect compared to the modern, top-of-the-top lenses - for instance SL 35 APO-Summicron - but they shine nevertheless with an unique blend of optical quality and Mandler-type of magic. In my eyes, anyway. 

A Leica representative explicitly stated that Leica is working on a mirrorless S, so I view ‘S4’ more than a rumor. But, I guess, ‘S4’ could be suspended or dropped, pending on new (economic/technical/etc) considerations. Woukd live to see a mirrorless S! Whether the bank account is similarly in love with ‘S4’ remsins to be seen…

In the mean time, if a GFX-mount adaptor facilitating aperture control becomes available, I’m in…

[Stuart Richardson]

8 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Why Leica can sell higher price? OMG, a million dollars question. I don't know.

Why Leica can sell fewer pieces than other micro-brands? may be because when Leica offered the adapters, Leica expected to sell more S cameras? 

Is there enough market for S to GFX adapter? It depends on the costs of developing and manufacturing, and any other strategic reasons, but I doubt. 

I have a feeling that Leica's Contax adapter was not built to be profitable. At least not directly. When Leica launched the S system they did so with a few lenses that were all extremely expensive. They wanted to poach buyers from other medium format users and those who had been using Hasselblad and Phase One digital backs on other cameras. In particular, Contax and Hasselblad suffered a bit by Phase One closing off the compatibility of their backs. So you had a group of users who were used to medium format digital and had a stable of lenses (Hasselblad V, H, Contax etc) but did not have much choice in which backs worked on their camera. Leica wanted them to buy the S camera to build a market, and the easiest way was to lure them in and allow them to use their existing lenses. So I don't think they were particularly concerned about how much money they made off these adapters, it was all about selling the camera bodies and trying to get people into the system. For a lens adapter maker, they clearly have to use a different calculus.