[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The MX of course had a great FF viewfinder using the K lens mount and in a body smaller than the APSC cameras today, so why does everyone claim a FF body must be huge?

It doesn't have to be huge, but it cannot be the size of the MX because you need to cram in all the electronics for image processing, autofocus, LCD, SR, buttons and dials in there too. In the case of film cameras you just had to put a thin film inside - the thickness of the camera was pretty much given by the diameter of the film roll plus the thickness of the body walls. And you only needed a tiny battery to power the metering - even that was optional. Not so anymore - batteries for digital cameras are pretty large and the battery technology improves very slowly compared to everything else.

[TomB_tx]

It doesn't have to be huge, but it cannot be the size of the MX because you need to cram in all the electronics for image processing, autofocus, LCD, SR, buttons and dials in there too.

Yeah - the market recognizes that people buy for innovations and gadgets, so they throw in lots of "features" that aren't really needed. Thankfully there is still Leica, that makes small FF digitals aimed at us old film users. That's why the first "real" digital I bought was the Leica M9. No autofocus, no SR, minimal extra controls. It's still a great camera to use, and I consistently get better results than with my K-5, and I enjoy using it more. By avoiding all the extra power-using features the M9 uses a pretty small battery, which could be smaller yet if they used a manual shutter wind.
But not many cameras are aimed at the smaller market like Leica. The market for a "digital MX" that skips all the auto-fluff for a small FF SLR that simply takes great pictures with the lens flexibility of the MX is too small to attract the remaining camera companies. Even Leica decided to drop their SLR line in the belief that dSLR users wanted all the fluff.
So for situations that need an SLR instead of a rangefinder - I still reach for an MX instead of my K-5. But I'll have to spend some time with a D600.

[Clavius]

Thankfully there is still Leica, that makes small FF digitals aimed at us old film users. That's why the first "real" digital I bought was the Leica M9. No autofocus, no SR, minimal extra controls. It's still a great camera to use, and I consistently get better results than with my K-5, and I enjoy using it more. By avoiding all the extra power-using features the M9 uses a pretty small battery, which could be smaller yet if they used a manual shutter wind.

Pentax wants to jump into niches, well here's a niche for them! A barebones FF camera like the M9, but for people without such deep pockets. Just a K-mount Pentax "M9" with WR. It would surely sell very well.

I had the pleasure of handling such a lovely M9 a few times. Whoa, if only Pentax would do someling like that. Just not with the excellent Leica quality, to keep it affordable and to steer clear of Leica waters.

[baro-nite]

Ah, the "digital MX". I would pay a premium for one, if it truly had an MX-quality VF and similar size. And, just for good measure, an uncrippled mount. Well, it's fun to dream. It's also fun to imagine the strangely mixed reactions you'd see here and elsewhere if such a thing ever happened.

[meeverett]

Ah, the "digital MX". I would pay a premium for one,

Me, too. Well, not necessarily a Leica premium, but easily much more than the current line of Pentax DSLRs.

I guess that's the problem I have. I can see how all the new features could be fun to play with, but when it comes right down to it, I'd rather have a digital MX. As far as a potential market goes, I guess that makes at least three of us.

[TomB_tx]

Me, too. Well, not necessarily a Leica premium, but easily much more than the current line of Pentax DSLRs.

I guess that's the problem I have. I can see how all the new features could be fun to play with, but when it comes right down to it, I'd rather have a digital MX. As far as a potential market goes, I guess that makes at least three of us.

I count at least 4 of us. Let's see: amortizing the R&D costs over that user base....

[arnold]

I count at least 4 of us. Let's see: amortizing the R&D costs over that user base....

Count me in too. MX is my favourite camera.

[baro-nite]

Wow, 5! Any more and I won't be able to count on one hand. Well, not without resorting to binary.

[creampuff]

My desire for FF is simply to use my collection of legacy film MF lenses with the angle of view they gave me on film, a...

Hate to break your thought bubble but the reality is your legacy MF lenses aren't up to scratch with the latest FF sensors. Just how many Nikon D800 users are still using legacy lenses? Most of the old lenses just cannot make it in terms of sharpness and resolution with the current sensors. Not so telling on APS-C but the shortcomings definitely show up on FF.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Thankfully there is still Leica, that makes small FF digitals aimed at us old film users.

Yes, but the M9 is a rangefinder and the only one still around. It doesn't have AF by definition - its lack was not a design choice to keep a small profile, but a technology limitation.

It would be very hard to sell a DSLR without AF these days. But we might see a FF AF MILC soon within a couple of years with dimensions close to those of M9.

[TomB_tx]

Hate to break your thought bubble but the reality is your legacy MF lenses aren't up to scratch with the latest FF sensors. Just how many Nikon D800 users are still using legacy lenses? Most of the old lenses just cannot make it in terms of sharpness and resolution with the current sensors. Not so telling on APS-C but the shortcomings definitely show up on FF.

Depends on the lenses. My favorite lenses on my M9 are the Leica Summicrons I bought back in 1969-1970. People are astounded when I pull up 100% crops off the FF sensor. Ken Rockwell has shots taken with a 1930s Leica lens on his site that look incredible at 100%.
Since APS-C shots need to be enlarged more for the same size print than from a FF sensor, and since MF lenses are harder to focus on a APS-C dSLR finder than on a good FF finder, I'd expect FF prints to look better than the same lens on APS-C.
Many of these old lenses are plenty sharp enough, but some will cause more "purple fringing" due to the characteristics of digital sensors. However, my old Leica lenses have less of this problem than some of the modern Voigtlander-Cosina and Zeiss lenses I've tried, and less than I see on some new Pentax lenses.
After looking at 100% crops from my K-5 with both K and M42 lenses, I'd be very satisfied with them. The K-5 finder just is harder to focus well with MF, and the focus indicator only tells you that you are "close.".

[TomB_tx]

Yes, but the M9 is a rangefinder and the only one still around. It doesn't have AF by definition - its lack was not a design choice to keep a small profile, but a technology limitation.
It would be very hard to sell a DSLR without AF these days. But we might see a FF AF MILC soon within a couple of years with dimensions close to those of M9.

The Leica wasn't just a technology limitation - most of us old Leica users hate autofocus and gadget-like "features." I splurged on it because of the fluff that it didn't have, so I could use it just like my film Leicas (that I continue to use).
The new Leica "M" with live-view is getting mixed reception from Leica users, even though you don't have to use the new features. But the feature-stripped "M-E" is appealing to many of them.
I have a K-5 and have used Nikon and Canon dSLRs as well. While I like small size, it's really the way manual cameras, where manual operation is simple instead of an added kind-of-works afterthought, that keeps me shooting film SLRs instead of digital most of the time.
But I've given up hoping for "digital MX" - even though some of us would pay a premium for one.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The Leica wasn't just a technology limitation - most of us old Leica users hate autofocus and gadget-like "features."

I have no interest in AF either, btw, but my point was simply that Leica never made an autofocus rangefinder and once they committed to the rangefinder form, the lack of autofocus was pretty much a given rather than a matter of a compromise resolved in the favor of preferring a small form factor.

The new Leica "M" with live-view is getting mixed reception from Leica users, even though you don't have to use the new features.

I am not surprised, because I found this release quite interesting. My first camera was a rangefinder - a Leica clone in fact - a Zorki 4, but while I liked the build and controls, I don't really care much for the rangefinder focusing experience. I just wish they would have released a less expensive version with no rangefinder mechanism at all. They will probably do that once FF MILCs start coming out.

[alamo5000]

For me I would like to have a FF, but the features of the camera matter more to me...having that right combo matters most to me.

When I shopped for a camera at all I looked for certain features, such as sensor quality, full manual controls, 7fps etc.

If I got a FF camera that is going to be super noisy at ISO 1600 and only shoots 3fps...its not going to work for my purposes.


I am learning though that the 7fps feature is less useful than I originally anticipated in certain situations...before I wanted it for sports and so forth because I was spraying and praying... but as I get more into things I have gotten better results shooting one frame at a time while using my brain to anticipate the action and try to artistically represent what I want....that said, on other occassions I wouldn't have any camera that shoots less than 7fps

[arnold]

Hate to break your thought bubble but the reality is your legacy MF lenses aren't up to scratch with the latest FF sensors. Just how many Nikon D800 users are still using legacy lenses? Most of the old lenses just cannot make it in terms of sharpness and resolution with the current sensors. Not so telling on APS-C but the shortcomings definitely show up on FF.

I need to be convinced of this. My understanding is that most lenses supply more resolution than current sensors can handle.