View Full Version : Thoughts on Zeiss Ikon digital model
ZeissFan
10-30-2005, 07:57
What I want to do is to discuss the prospects for a digital version of this camera. I know that I'm jumping the gun, as the film camera hasn't been delivered to any users yet.
I was talking with a friend of mine. He is big into digital. He went from Nikon film to Nikon DSLRs to a Canon 1DS to 1DSII to 20D and more recently sold all of the bodies and moved to the 5D.
I asked him about this, and he told me that he's purely an amateur. While he loved the image quality from the 1DS, he hated carrying the camera and a couple of lenses. He said the weight was unreasonable and found the size of the camera to be too much for simple things -- going on vacation, just having a walkaround camera. A digital Zeiss Ikon would almost be perfect for him, except for his occasional need for long telephotos (200mm+).
We also discussed full frame vs. sensor crop, and he's firmly in the camp that doesn't like a sensor crop. I'm on agreement here, especially when applied to rangefinder photography.
That got me to thinking about the oft-discussed digital version of the Zeiss Ikon. The brochure talks about any camera system being "only as strong as its weakest link." Clearly, at this time, Carl Zeiss AG doesn't feel that digital has reached that point. And as we discussed, Zeiss would never want to compete in the 18-month digital cycle. I would expect their approach would be to produce a product that would have some shelf life.
However, the brochure also says:
"When digital technology takes another leap or two, you can count on us to come up with high performance digital systems that will satisfy even the truly passionate. And your Carl Zeiss T* ZM-mount lenses will be ready."
OK, that last sentence was marketing hype, but the first part (to me) indicates that they have their ear to the ground and their eye on the market.
With Canon now in its third generation of full-frame digital, I wonder how close we are to that point that satisfies Zeiss.
My own musings:
1) I wonder if Zeiss would turn to Sony as a supplier for a full-frame sensor or if it would consider using Canon as a supplier -- clearly the only player at this time in full-frame 35mm digital sensors.
2) Would Zeiss wait for Sony to develop its own full-frame sensor? How many generations would it take to iron out all of the technical issues?
3) Or would Zeiss go a different route? Perhaps look to long-time partner Hasselblad and modify the Imacon sensors to fit a digital Zeiss Ikon?
In any case, I think the next couple of years will be very interesting for this system.
Good speculative topic. I haven't even seen the film camera yet, but it's hard not to think about a digital version.
A FF sensor would be ideal for a number of reasons, not the least for the improved image quality. Theoretically a FF RF could use existing lenses as is -- though there is some doubt how well lenses designed for film work on a FF digital sensor. I see many allusions to this issue on the Canon forums at dpreview.com.
Is Sony working on a FF sensor? Right now it appears Canon is the only game in town, and, as far as I know, they don't sell sensors to other companies. Nikon and several other players get their sensors from Sony, so maybe there's work being done on FF.
So far no one has been able to design a small digital camera in which the sensor could be upgraded later. At least with a Hassy, you can replace the digital back when technology improves, but it's a long way from a carry-around RF.
It's hard to lay down the hard cash on a camera that can't be upgraded when you know the industry is in its infancy and that rapid changes will continue. Unless you're a pro and can write it off...
Gene
Huck Finn
10-30-2005, 08:45
I was talking with a dealer the other day who said that he expects Leica's digital M to be less than full frame but more that the R-D1 - probably a 3/4 frame he guessed, based on what he hears from his contacts. Zeiss says that they only want a full frame - certainly a challenge to do with non-retrofocus lenses. I agree that it will be interesting.
Huck
There are two approaches to dealing with the light fall-off from oblique rays hitting an FF sensor, both of which are realistic possibilities:
1. Via camera firmware or digital darkroom like Photoshop (which is easily done already.)
2. New sensor with improved sensitivity towards oblique rays.
I expect these breakthroughs to be available in a few years' time. Meanwhile we already have the Fuji F10/11 with dramatically low noise at high ISOs - a result of better noise-reduction algorithm, an improved sensor (is the SuperCCD made by Fuji themselves?), or a combination of both.
It would be nice to find a way to combine low noise of those superccd sensors with the level of detail available in the foveon chips.
Skipping to swappable backs:
Perhaps a course for the camera technology might be in swappable backs. Just as we have swappable lenses now, once the industry matures, we could concievably see various companies like the tamrons and sigmas creating lower-cost digital backs for some standardized back-mount? Just look at all the people out there dropping $k's of dollars for the leitz lenses, canon's L-glass, or the high-end side to Nikon. Why? Because the glass can apparently last a while. Would it be possible to see sensors which will last us 20-30 years?
On one hand, I think a replaceable back on the camera would be nice, especially as technology improves, you simply slide in the new back instead of purchasing an entire new camera. This may allow for flexibility to change back to film as well. After all, once you have a decent camera design, why continue to change it if you're not improving on it? In trying to think of a drawback to this, perhaps two: reduced profits for camera sales (?) and possible dust issues. Is dust a problem on the MF digital backs?
With wi fi technology surely camera backs or even a digital film insert could be possible - the bulk of the hardware (lcd screen + memory) could be in a module that clips on to your belt and the ccd and transmitter + battery could fit inside the camera - a digital Zorki 4 or Leica IIIc ?? A fantasy maybe but helps me sleep at night
bmattock
10-30-2005, 15:20
Is Sony working on a FF sensor? Right now it appears Canon is the only game in town, and, as far as I know, they don't sell sensors to other companies. Nikon and several other players get their sensors from Sony, so maybe there's work being done on FF.
Kodak.
Kodak Sensors for Digital Cameras (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd/applications/digitalCameras.jhtml)
I keep telling everybody, they were late to the party, but they're catching up fast.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
10-30-2005, 15:22
An excellent read:
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/digital/ccd/papersArticles/ultimateSensor.pdf
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Kodak.
Kodak Sensors for Digital Cameras (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd/applications/digitalCameras.jhtml)
I keep telling everybody, they were late to the party, but they're catching up fast.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Both references were excellent. Thanks, Bill. Funny, when I think digital, I don't even think Kodak, despite their earlier pioneering work. They haven't had a very high profile lately.
Gene
Bertram2
10-30-2005, 16:34
A FF sensor would be ideal for a number of reasons, not the least for the improved image quality. Theoretically a FF RF could use existing lenses as is -- though there is some doubt how well lenses designed for film work on a FF digital sensor.
Gene
Gene,
actually some of the wide Zeiss lenses show retrofocus design, and maybe this means they are thought for a proper digital use too.
On the other hand, at the time there is no reason to believe that a RF camera ever could work properly with a FF chip, at least as far as the wide lenses are concerned.
Again and again this is the decisive point at which all discussions end.
The only proper solution would be a second , a completely new lens set , like the one Oly found it necessary to develop, tho the prob is much less critical at SLRS.
Until a new kind of chip with more angle tolerance is ready for market the second lens set is the only way out.
I think this is exactly the reason why Leica M still is a film system only. Obviously their marketing research has warned them, there are not enuff M users who are willing to turn their fast wides into a slow standard lens with a APS chip.
And the limited market response for the RD-1 proofs their analysis. The RD-1 earns the merits of a frontrunner system, but it's a very sour compromise for all who use it.
Can't wait to see what the Zeiss solution will be, would not wait for Leica....
Regards,
Bertram
Bertram: My guess is that Kodak or Sony will develop sensor technology that meets the needs of WA lenses. I'm willing to accept some crop factor, but not a lot. I would prefer none, of course.
Trius
Bertram2
10-31-2005, 03:36
Bertram: My guess is that Kodak or Sony will develop sensor technology that meets the needs of WA lenses. I'm willing to accept some crop factor, but not a lot. I would prefer none, of course.
Trius
Trius,
so I would and I don't think that the FF price is a big prob , it will go down significantly soon. If a more angle-tolerant chip comes the main prob for RFs is solved. Maybe we all should still keep all our film lenses for a while ?!
Could be some day they also find a way to handle highlights in bright sun decently and then even I would think about a parallel digital system limited to certain purposes.
Bertram
Nikon Bob
10-31-2005, 04:14
In any digital system, DRF or DSLR, I will be looking for a FF sensor and the ability to use my old lenses at their original FOV. Until that happens I will stick with film and continue to grind my axe against Nikon. They have made it impossible, so far, to even use old lenses without a huge cash outlay for a pro body.
Bob
MacDaddy
10-31-2005, 05:14
I find it interesting in reading this discussion that no one has pointed out that several manufacturers, including Canon and Nikon, but most noteably Pentax, have trumpeted the fact their older FILM designed lenses apparently work quite well with their DSLRs. I had a Pentax ist DS prior to switching back to film and was able to successfully use lenses as old as 35 years old with the proper adapters! Some of their prime Limited series lenses are outstanding, and this on an APS-C size sensor. The only "curse" was the blasted crop factor (1.5x), but it was liveable with for me.
We also discussed full frame vs. sensor crop, and he's firmly in the camp that doesn't like a sensor crop.
I'm confused! I don't like sensor crop either. I know, it doesn't change the way the pictures look, but it just bothers me. I want all my cameras and lenses to be full frame.
But... Would somebody please tell me what "full frame" is?
-- Lenses for my Sinar exhibit "sensor crop" when mounted on my Hasselblad.
-- Lenses for my Hasselblad exhibit "sensor crop" when mounted on my Leicaflex.
-- Lenses for my Leicaflex exhibit "sensor crop" when mounted on my Bolex H16.
*
It seems as if ALL these manufacturers are such cheapskate low-lifes that they can't be bothered to engineer a camera with FULL-FRAME coverage! Every one of these lousy cameras has "sensor crop"!
From all the discussion I've read here, I was sure that what constitutes "full frame" was authoritatively defined somewhere. But over the weekend I read through the entire U.S. Constitution (whew!) and it doesn't mention sensor size at all. And when I was in church on Sunday I flipped through the Ten Commandments and couldn't seem to find the one that says "Thou shalt make all thy lenses cover 24 x 36mm, no more and no less."
So, what IS full frame? Is it like pornography -- "I know it when I see it"?
*Satire warning: I don't actually own any of these cheesy cameras. Heck, they're not even RFs! But you get the idea...
From all the discussion I've read here, I was sure that what constitutes "full frame" was authoritatively defined somewhere. But over the weekend I read through the entire U.S. Constitution (whew!) and it doesn't mention sensor size at all. And when I was in church on Sunday I flipped through the Ten Commandments and couldn't seem to find the one that says "Thou shalt make all thy lenses cover 24 x 36mm, no more and no less."
Hm, did you check the Koran and the Tora? And constitutions of other countries?
come to think of it, this my be the reason why the european constitution faild!
Huck Finn
10-31-2005, 13:45
Comments on LUG & P.NET report that Leica has said at the recentLHSA meeting that their digital M will have a crop factor of 1.33. Based on statements made by Kornelius Muller at PhotoPlus, my guess is that Zeiss is conceding that Leica will have the first digital M, but I think that Zeiss has set its sights on being the first to get to a full frame digital M. Let the race begin!
Huck
I find it interesting in reading this discussion that no one has pointed out that several manufacturers, including Canon and Nikon, but most noteably Pentax, have trumpeted the fact their older FILM designed lenses apparently work quite well with their DSLRs. I had a Pentax ist DS prior to switching back to film and was able to successfully use lenses as old as 35 years old with the proper adapters! Some of their prime Limited series lenses are outstanding, and this on an APS-C size sensor. The only "curse" was the blasted crop factor (1.5x), but it was liveable with for me.
Regarding backwards compatibility, CanNik don't even come close to Pentax which offers manual metering and Av mode even with M42 lenses via a cheap adapter.
EF lenses are compatible with Canon AF bodies. That's it. Not FD mount lenses and certainly not LTM lenses.
Nikon is worse still. No metering is offered with manual focus, non-CPU lenses except with the most expensive bodies and the FM3A. Even within the AF system, not every lens is compatible with every body (and vice versa). The F mount unchanged for 50 years? My ass! :bang:
Nikon Bob
10-31-2005, 16:38
Regarding backwards compatibility, CanNik don't even come close to Pentax which offers manual metering and Av mode even with M42 lenses via a cheap adapter.
EF lenses are compatible with Canon AF bodies. That's it. Not FD mount lenses and certainly not LTM lenses.
Nikon is worse still. No metering is offered with manual focus, non-CPU lenses except with the most expensive bodies and the FM3A. Even within the AF system, not every lens is compatible with every body (and vice versa). The F mount unchanged for 50 years? My ass! :bang:
Glad you gave Pentax a pat on the back which they deserve for backwards compatibility. With Nikon it is also, My ass.
Bob
bmattock
10-31-2005, 17:29
I find it interesting in reading this discussion that no one has pointed out that several manufacturers, including Canon and Nikon, but most noteably Pentax, have trumpeted the fact their older FILM designed lenses apparently work quite well with their DSLRs. I had a Pentax ist DS prior to switching back to film and was able to successfully use lenses as old as 35 years old with the proper adapters! Some of their prime Limited series lenses are outstanding, and this on an APS-C size sensor. The only "curse" was the blasted crop factor (1.5x), but it was liveable with for me.
I agree with you - I bought the Pentax *ist DS myself, for the same reasons. I use even older lenses - Carl Zeiss M42 lenses, old WWII German lenses, etc. I also use the very nice Pentax SMC M42 primes, and here lately, the Pentax SMC-A P/K mount lenses (nice for auto-everything-but-not-AF). I love 'em!
I finally broke down and got myself an inexpensive Sigma 28-105 ASP f2.8~4 AF zoom, and a Sigma TTL flash. Great for speed.
As you said, Pentax has really done a bang-up job of providing backward compatibility. And I'm a long-time Canon FD fan, I'm new to Pentax.
I did a lot of searching and study before buying. The Pentax *ist DS was superior to the Canon Digital Rebel for the purposes I wanted to use it for. I'm happy with my choice.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
ZeissFan
11-01-2005, 08:56
The DSLRs with sensor crops have an easier time with legacy lenses because they don't use the "full" image circle. As well, I notice that some independents have developed lenses for both film and digital that supposedly don't suffer from light falloff.
The Carl Zeiss ZM lenses reputedly were developed with digital in mind from the start and so mounting a wide angle lenses to a digital camera with a full frame sensor supposedly won't suffer the usual problems of combining wide angle + digital.
Now, why I wouldn't want a sensor crop: If I were to spend $4,000 on a 15mm Distagon (which I won't ... yet), I sure as heck wouldn't be happy to watch it become a pedestrian 24mm lens on a 1.6x crop or a 20mm lens on a 1.33x crop. Or watch my 25mm Biogon turn into a 40mm (1.6x) or 33mm (1.33x) lens.
And by the way, I think we all understand the meaning of full frame, as it applies to digital vs. film.
An interesting debate, the issue re full frame sensors is a vexed one. Irwin Puts write intelligently and with some authority on the subject (I suspect he knows more about these things than the rest of us put together!) See http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html and http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c011.html. I recommend a read of what he has to say - he is a good myth debunker and there are plenty surrounding this subject.
Re Zeiss's attitude to digital - another reading of what they say in the brochure is that they are waiting for a leap forward in sensor technology, more than just a fiddling with the current sensor technology. I am no expert in these matters, but I know a man who is - he makes thermal imaging cameras and they use the sort of chips now current in digital cameras, let's call them CCDs for ease of reference (in fact that is what CCDs were originally invented for, sort of, by (among others) my mum's cousin's hubby - brain the size of a planet! Anyway the thermal imaging guy explained how they work - boy it's crude. They are in essence transistors with the tops shaved off. To get anything vaguely meaningful out of them one has to put a load of filters in front. What they produce is pretty much electonic gibberish. The clever bits are the programs that unscramble it all. They do an amazing job considering the rubbish they start with (I am told). It may be easier to explain in analogue terms - image a system that produced negs so bad that you could hardly see what it was - a complete mess, like it had been shot through heavily frosted glass. The only way you could get anything out of it was to scan it and employ some specially designed software. In essence that is what goes on in a digital camera.
Good as those programmes are, there are limits - you cannot make a silk purse...
The foveon chip is a radical departure from the CCD idea - controlling it is touch though. My relative wondered (when it first came out) if they would ever manage to get the best from it for that reason. It took them nearly 30 years to get to grips with CCDs!
Perhaps Zeiss have in mind some fundamental leap forward in the direction of a new sort of chip entirely. After all, if what these guys tell me is true (and I have no reason to doubt them) building CCDs with load more pixels or whatever is not a quantum leap forward - a medium format neg shot through frosted glass to follow my earlier analogy. Something that sees more clearly is needed. After all you cannot polish a turd!
anymore thoughts on this subject?
No, not much.
Only that I've read Michael Reichmans findings about 35mm and MF lenses and Sensors over some 20MPixels interesting. Seems that the current resolution you can get from a Canon 1D MkII or Phase one P45 is more than what the lenses deliver. The shots with which he compared the Phase one back a Hassy and a Linhof with Rodenstock lenses seem to prove what he said.
And to crop factor or not. If I can get a digital Rangefinder with framelines for leneses with the FoV of 28, 35 and 50 I'm fine. That's the major shortcoming I see in the R-D1, the 28 is not wide enough for me, a viewfinder with framelines for a lens around 22mm would solve the problem for me.
The Foveon X3 3 layer chip technology certainly looks interesting. Have a look at http://www.foveon.net/article.php?a=67 and http://www.foveon.net/article.php?a=70.
Eric Mazur's group at Harvard University's Chemistry Department has discovered how to make "Black Silicon", a form of silicon that traps far more light than that used currently in sensors. In time this may revolutionize high ISO digital photography, computer displays and photovoltaic cells for solar power. See the Mazur Group page on Black Silicon (http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/research/detailspage.php?rowid=1) for an introduction to the discovery. Maybe someday it will find its way into an M mount digital camera, but don't hold your breath.
The Foveon X3 3 layer chip technology certainly looks interesting.
Foveon's chip technology has been in use in Sigma DSLRs for some time, and while some people like them a lot, they've yet to prove themselves to have the dramatic superiority that their developers claim.
One observation that's cropped up but which Foveon does NOT talk much about (for obvious reasons) is that their three-layer approach means that light striking any but the top layer must make its way through the layer(s) above it first. Since the layers are necessarily somewhat absorbent, the gain of the second layer must be boosted somewhat and the gain of the third layer must be boosted considerably. The result is more electrical noise at high ISO settings than seen with the best single-layer sensors.
Why not an Epson R-D2 announcement to surprise everyone at Photokina, eh?
Gene,
Can't wait to see what the Zeiss solution will be, would not wait for Leica....
Regards,
Bertram
Well, the waiting was not that long, was it ?
So... the D3 from Nikon launched. There is a full frame sensor in there, possibly made by Sony. Anybody think that this could lead to a digital Ikon at some point in the not so near future?
J J Kapsberger
08-23-2007, 06:49
The digital Ikon would have to feature two things to give it a competitive advantage over the M8:
1) Full frame, low-noise sensor; and,
2) A price which doesn't include the ridiculous premium one pays on the M8.
If ever there was an over-priced M, it's the M8. If the Ikon can undersell it by a couple of thousand, I'd break the sound barrier on my way to buy one.
Mmm... while a digital ikon would be interesting its really hard for me to even think about buying another digital camera... here's my reasoning:
If i buy a digital rangefinder... it's going to be obsolete in at least two years. Chances are it's costs are going to be at least 1k+.
If i'm spending that much right now on a camera... i'm going to want to buy a camera that will last me years. Only thing that would do that right now is a film camera.
Buuut... if i had the income... i'd definately be interested in one... though it would need to match though preferably exceed the resolution of my D70s...
J J Kapsberger
08-23-2007, 06:56
...If i buy a digital rangefinder... it's going to be obsolete in at least two years...If i'm spending that much right now on a camera... i'm going to want to buy a camera that will last me years...
The fact that it would be obsolete in two years is irrelevant if the digital Ikon were good enough for your purposes right now and you based your buying decision on that fact. And just because it's obsolete doesn't mean that it still can't last you many years. The M3 was obsolete decades ago and yet it's still providing many a happy, satisfied user excellent service.
depends on how much film you shoot. film can get pricy once you start shooting a lot. as for obsolete, the rd1 is almost 3 years old and still going strong, there is even an increased demand for it... 6mp is good enough for most purposes.
Jason Sprenger
08-23-2007, 10:27
I think now that there promises to be serious competition in the realm of full-frame sensors, the chances for a digital Ikon in the next few years just increased.
I'm not worried so much about obsolesce because if the camera has 10+ megapixels, the image quality I need from a rangefinder is pretty much fulfilled. (Truthfully, hand-held, 6 or 8 would cover it.)
For me the issue is that obsolete means often the pixels dont cut it anymore. Especially if your talking about digital. As resolutions get larger and larger for monitors, the resolution of displaying your images get closer and closer to what you might call a 100% crop. Thus, the image quality lowers.
Granted for many this may be trivial.
But the hard truth is that saying an M3 went obslete is completely different than say a digital slr or digital camera going obsolete.
An M3 going obsolete means that is just has fewer features. It still has the same resolution ability as an m7. Whereas a Nikon D70s going obsolete in comparison to a full frame 12megapixel camera is a huge difference in resolution, clarity, etc.
Comparing a 35mm film camera going obsolete and a digital SLR '35mm' camera going obsolete is like comparing apples and oranges.
As long as the resolution of digital cameras keep increasing there is going to be drastic differences in resolution, clarity, etc of images in comparison to that of older generations...
shadowfox
08-24-2007, 09:49
An M3 going obsolete means that is just has fewer features. It still has the same resolution ability as an m7. Whereas a Nikon D70s going obsolete in comparison to a full frame 12megapixel camera is a huge difference in resolution, clarity, etc.
Very good point.
thebard37
08-30-2007, 03:09
The Nikon FX sensor is rumored to have been designed by Nikon as an offshoot of the earlier LBCAST sensor designs.
Either way, I suggest Ikon fans wait for an announcement from Sony.
Sony has been making 35mm lenses (although they have made some APS type lenses) in A mount, allowing Zeiss to market 35mm lenses in A-mount, and has been flashing around leviathan pro-dslr type bodies with prism housings large enough to suggest digital 135 format.
Whether or not Nikon's new FX sensor is Sony or in house, Sony's announcement will tell the tale. If Sony debuts (or at least presents a viable forecast for) a 135 format sensor, then it might not be too long a wait for a DZI. It would be great if it were a high resolution imager too-- I'll take the noise but would love as much or more resolution than 35mm film.
And yes, I also suggest that Zeiss's words about a "leap" in technolgoy is a self fulfilling prophecy. When their Japanese bedfellows finally create a 35mm sensor for them to use, whatever technogloy that is in it will *BE* that great leap forward . . .even if it is fairly mundane technologoy by today's standards. ;-)
Think of it as"pre-marketing"!
summilux
09-04-2007, 22:18
something looks like this will be definitely cool
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1090/1327672954_24f36cc6d0_b.jpg
I had a chance to play with a ZM recently. This camera is begging to be converted into digital.
Indeed, the view finder is every bit as good as a Leica M. Leave it alone and let me focus the lens. Add a screw-on magnifying eye piece for life-size 1:1 view…let the 50mm and 85mm lenses also shine.
The sharper-sounding automatic shutter is just as quiet as an M. I would adapt the dial for ISO control, and operate AE or manual as I please.
I would leave the manual film advance alone…let me do some things Epson RD1 style. A nice option would be an add-on motor to cock the shutter. 4~5 FPS is fast enough to support manual exposure bracketing.
The cavity for the unneeded film cartridge is the perfect place for batteries…hopefully 3 or 4 AAA rechargeable cells interchangeable with store-bought disposables. The film rewind is the perfect place for a screw-on sealed battery hatch.
The unneeded film take-up spool is the ideal space for dual SD memory chip Nikon D3 style…one for RAW and one for JPEG, or double up for higher storage capacity. Imagine dual 8Gb SD for bracketing as I please. No film/processing cost is the perfect reason for such operations.
I would urge Zeiss to use a full-frame CCD…allowing usage of all available M-mount lenses without crop factor. 4500 x 3000 (3:2) 13.5 MPixel would be sufficient…allowing also 4000 x 3000 (4:3) and 4496 x 2539 (16:9).
Don’t bother with LCD screen, a million buttons and all possible features, real photographers don’t need those gismos. An external wire-linked LCD with a large screen for review also doubles as a waist-level low-level view-finder would be useful, just plug it in when needed.
This way, the camera would not be larger, heavier or more complex. I will do the lens focus, set the exposure and bracket, or select AE or auto-ISO if deem appropriate. Free me to be the photographer I want to be; and not Imaging Device Input Operator/Technician (IDIOT) relying on automatic everything.
I had a chance to play with a ZM recently. This camera is begging to be converted into digital.
Indeed, the view finder is every bit as good as a Leica M. Leave it alone and let me focus the lens. Add a screw-on magnifying eye piece for life-size 1:1 view…let the 50mm and 85mm lenses also shine.
The sharper-sounding automatic shutter is just as quiet as an M. I would adapt the dial for ISO control, and operate AE or manual as I please.
I would leave the manual film advance alone…let me do some things Epson RD1 style. A nice option would be an add-on motor to cock the shutter. 4~5 FPS is fast enough to support manual exposure bracketing.
The cavity for the unneeded film cartridge is the perfect place for batteries…hopefully 3 or 4 AAA rechargeable cells interchangeable with store-bought disposables. The film rewind is the perfect place for a screw-on sealed battery hatch.
The unneeded film take-up spool is the ideal space for dual SD memory chip Nikon D3 style…one for RAW and one for JPEG, or double up for higher storage capacity. Imagine dual 8Gb SD for bracketing at will. No film/processing cost is the perfect reason for such operations.
I would urge Zeiss to use a full-frame CCD…allowing usage of all available M-mount lenses without crop factor. 4500 x 3000 (3:2) 13.5 MPixel would be sufficient…allowing also 4000 x 3000 (4:3) and 4496 x 2539 (16:9).
Don’t bother with LCD screen, a million buttons and all possible features, real photographers don’t need those gismos. An external wire-linked LCD with a large screen for review also doubles as a waist-level low-level view-finder would be useful, just plug it in when needed.
This way, the camera would not be larger, heavier or more complex. I will do the lens focus, set the exposure and bracket, or select AE or auto-ISO if deem appropriate. Free me to be the photographer I want to be; and not Imaging Device Input Operator/Technician (IDIOT) relying on automatic everything.
Mason Galindo
08-23-2009, 20:18
4 years of speculation and still no product? WHY?!
:D
I had a chance to play with a ZM recently. This camera is begging to be converted into digital.
Indeed, the view finder is every bit as good as a Leica M. Leave it alone and let me focus the lens. Add a screw-on magnifying eye piece for life-size 1:1 view…let the 50mm and 85mm lenses also shine.
The sharper-sounding automatic shutter is just as quiet as an M. I would adapt the dial for ISO control, and operate AE or manual as I please.
I would leave the manual film advance alone…let me do some things Epson RD1 style. A nice option would be an add-on motor to cock the shutter. 4~5 FPS is fast enough to support manual exposure bracketing.
The cavity for the unneeded film cartridge is the perfect place for batteries…hopefully 3 or 4 AAA rechargeable cells interchangeable with store-bought disposables. The film rewind is the perfect place for a screw-on sealed battery hatch.
The unneeded film take-up spool is the ideal space for dual SD memory chip Nikon D3 style…one for RAW and one for JPEG, or double up for higher storage capacity. Imagine dual 8Gb SD for bracketing at will. No film/processing cost is the perfect reason for such operations.
I would urge Zeiss to use a full-frame CCD…allowing usage of all available M-mount lenses without crop factor. 4500 x 3000 (3:2) 13.5 MPixel would be sufficient…allowing also 4000 x 3000 (4:3) and 4496 x 2539 (16:9).
Don’t bother with LCD screen, a million buttons and all possible features, real photographers don’t need those gizmo. An external wire-linked LCD with a large screen for review also doubles as a waist-level low-level view-finder would be useful, just plug it in when needed.
This way, the camera would not be larger, heavier or more complex. I will do the lens focus, set the exposure and bracket, or select AE or auto-ISO if deem appropriate. Free me to be the photographer I want to be; and not Imaging Device Input Operator/Technician (IDIOT) relying on automatic everything.
I bought a ZM with a 40mm/1.4 CV lens a few months later. Knowing and double verifying that the ZM framelines are loose (~85%); and under TomA's kind advisement, I had immediately filed down one of the bayonet claws to bring up 35mm frame lines (took 10 minutes)...a tight, almost 100% coverage Nikon F2 style.
Having played with The ZM for a year and a half, I might add the following thoughts:
The ZM finder is at least one f-stop brighter than my M2. Its far better eye-relief encourages users to be sloppy...hence perhaps comments that the patch might disappear unless you center your eye in the viewfinder.
The RF has a longer "reach" than Leica...next city block is not yet infinity, more like across the harbour and then some. I mounted my Nikon DG2 2X eyepiece magnifier (same thread size as the ZM) and carefully checked. Perhaps that was why some thought their RF is out of adjustment.
For the long-awaited ZMd, the only viewfinder suggestion I would now make is that Zeiss at least somehow adds an internal eyepiece magnifier in the viewfinder...the hump in the top plate is the perfect location to place a rotating control ring.
Hell, Zeiss could even develop a one-frameline zoom viewfinder starting at 0.5X (good for a 25mm lens) and ending up at 1.4X (making the viewfinder 1:1 and good for 85mm lens or longer). Nikon did an external one decades ago. Contax G/GII even had one built-in...didn't Zeiss have a hand in it?
"Full frame" might be the new holy grail, but digital format size can also be measured in terms of pixels [Leica S2 style]. If 3000 x 4500 is enough, then a 6 micron pixel chip will become 18x27mm (a crop factor of 1.333 for lens focal lengths, sounds familiar?).
If Sony [whose partnership with Zeiss was renewed recently for another 5 years] will play ball, didn't Sony make a full-frame sensor for its A-900 and said to have supplied that chip [modified by Nikon of course] to the D3X?
A "neutral" party Kodak has for a year now a 50Mp 6 micron chip (8,304 x 6,220)...big enough to be re-cut into two 4,152 x 6,200 chip; and full frame in physical size. I am sure Kodak will never build a Chinon-made camera using that chip; and will welcome a big enough purchase committment...Leica M8 style.
Zeiss is optics...for far over a century. Micro lens [as used in the Leica M8] is merely applied simple optics. Zeiss will do well working in that area...if it cannot come up with an even better solution.
Speaking of external LCD, I am sure an iPhone App could be developed...all it's doing is reading the camera SD chip directly as if it was the iPhone internal flash memory.
If a built-in LCD must be provided, the newest OLED display panels are far thiner, already used on a few new camera/devices and soon big TV's. The sensor/circuit/LCD package could then be as thin as 10mm...protruding from the ZM body a mere 4~5mm. I can live with that.
Adding an "A" setting in the current ISO dial is no hardship.
The current ZM exposure counter can be replaced with a LCD "exposure/battery remaining" display. If the film winder is indeed discarded, the available space can be used for an easier-to-read combined white balance, digital format and exposure/battery window RD1 style. [Hell, the battery remaining window could even be placed at the current film cartridge window.]
AND, a master on/off switch is already built-in in the ZM.
The Leica M8 proved a manual focus digital camera can be accepted...why not then a ZMd with the current lenses.
I have high hope that Zeiss might answer our prayer at Photokina 2010.
* Few buttons and immediate commands over WB / ISO / quality / EV and flash.
* viewfinder able to vary its magnification or additional lens to get a 1:1 for tele.
* 13.5 MP
* FF
* more IQ and high ISO capabilities than MP
* weather sealed and robust body
* reasonable price
Fitting all this within an existing Ikon shouldn't be that difficult for Zeiss engineers.. none will bother them even if the whole size would increase 5mm per side, right?
Scandium
08-26-2009, 06:27
My ideal ZI digital would have these characteristics:
Minimum Requirements
* Retain same basic body design and layout as current ZI.
* Full frame sensor
* 13-15 megapixels. Not larger than 15 megapixels.
* Removable IR cut filter or better yet, no IR filter.
* No LCD on back. Saves power, wiring, weight , and size. The film ZI doesn't have one and I don't miss it. ;-)
* Retain thumb advance to arm the shutter. Saves power, weight, and size. IMO an RF doesn't benefit much from motorized advance.
* Place dial control on top plate for white balance. Current ISO dial is fine.
* Add dial control for Raw or jpeg record modes to bottom plate. Perhaps under a cover.
* Add mono, color selection switch to top plate.
* Use a common Li-Ion rechargeable battery.
Options
* Mono only sensor, no Bayer filter array
* I agree with Dino about the variable magnification finder. Canon had that on some of their RFs. I'm not sure why it disappeared and no one else used it.
It seems my preference of no built-in LCD was much accepted in this thread...rather than being pounced on by histogram/chimp's in another thread.:bang:
When a CCD chip reached full-frame, a truce will happen, as is now between Canon, Nikon and Sony. AND, if Zeiss also join the peace talks by using its partner Sony's full-frame chip (as might have also been adopted by Nikon), then Leica is behind...again; unless the M9 at least keeps up.
Elsewhere, Kodak and Dalsa have also unofficially suggested a truce with their 50~60Mp chips, now reaching the 645 coverage.
What is interesting is that the native pixel size in such truces is 6 microns...sort of the new standard grain size in digital imaging.;)
Kodak started at 9 microns in its now ancient 16Mp chip. Imagine if Kodak will now cut its larger chips into OEM standard sizes, from 645 to 135 to APS or even smaller...and available to any manufacturer or individual customers.
Leica/Kodak's work in making a chip good enough (by off-setting micro lenses) is nanotechnology, more of a Kodak cup of tea...also Zeiss. Off-setting single element micro lenses is simple optics...in relation to what Zeiss had managed to do in its illustrious history and mostly unpublicized nano-optical technology.
Perhaps Kodak will have the last laugh.:)
I still think that the new M9 should be proof enough that a FF rangefinder can be done. So what is Zeiss actually doing ? Do they consider that the digital rangefinder market is such a small market that it makes no sense to invest in it ? That would be like letting Leica eat all the cake. But I think the cake would be bigger with a nice Zeiss camera placed price wise below the M. I for one would like to see some competition here, since it would make it possible to afford a newer technology and not to wait until the M10 comes around. I think they should come up with something now, when improvement is still possible and you still can get a generation or two out, after that, the market will be back to lenses...
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.