View Full Version : Digital RF Arms Race - What if question...
Zen-shooter
08-27-2006, 02:01
I can't sleep....
In an earlier post, I asked for your Photokina predictions. Well, I want to take this one step further.
After the M8 arrives this fall, we will have two choices for digital rangefinder, (duh). What impact, if any, would happen to the marketplace if Zeiss does decide to bring their version of the digital ZI in a year or two from now and it's priced between the M8 and R-D1's, say US$3,000 (or similar to second tier DSLR like the Canon 5d)?
At present, the price gap between the M8 and the R-D1's is large enough that each makes can cater to their specific markets and survive. But with Zeiss in the game, who do you think would suffer more, Leica or Epson?
We all know how competitive the DSLR market is and will continue to be and how each new generation impacts the depreciation rate of the previous model (geeze...like can't believe my old D1X can be had for 5 hundres bucks now...).
My personal guess is that both would take a hit. But, Leica will probably hurt more than Epson, not just because of the size of the companies, but it's about who can then react to market demands and introduce the next generation DRF the quickest (a-la DSLR war) and that takes R&D money.
If I were Leica, I better ensure that the design of the body is kept so that diehard M-body loyalists continue to be interested in the digital M, always. So for future digital M's, Leica should always be current/competitive with the latest sensor resolutions and technologies (especially in the areas of cropped sized, dynamic range and noise reductions), to not get left in the dust. The down side, of course, is that the design life span of digital RF could parallel DSLR's and one could expect similar depreciation as well. We've all seen the ugly carnage in the last couple of years, where manufacturers are having trouble meeting their top and bottom lines.
Of course, we're all attached to the romance of shooting with M-bodies but would your feeling be the same if you also know that your US$5,000 investment will go down to say $1,500 in two years? The shots you take better be worth it...
So the rational side (where my wallet is) is telling me get a nice lightly used DSLR with low actuations...
The emotional side (my eyes and fingers) is telling me, Get it, Get it, Get it now!!! After all it's a M-body and it will accept tons of lenses. The shots you take will be worth the $5,000 admission price...
Hmmmm......:confused:
Nachkebia
08-27-2006, 02:06
Well, everyone wants to have it right? right :) even me! :D another thing is you can not have something that has not been out because we don`t know how good it is! I don`t want noise sensor on iso 800 :) plus I need to hear couple of personal reviews :) also crop factor.. zeiss has different standing point, I think they will push film until they can (because they can) unline leica :) and that is amazing fact :D anyhow full frame rangefinder digital camera with M mount is welcome, but only with next generation of sensors, and thats what zeiss gonna wait for :D
Nachkebia
08-27-2006, 02:07
Oh god! how meany smillies...
IGMeanwell
08-27-2006, 02:47
Oh god! how meany smillies...
Its like I got your personal feelings for almost every thought you had :D
here here I hope the m8 is a great camera that will be a joy to use for many photographers. I hope it is welcomed with open hands even though I dont think thats whats actually going to happen ala DMR + high price. Oh well, I hope it works anyway so there will be a drive to make more digital rangefinders in the future.
Mark Norton
08-27-2006, 03:20
I doubt that Epson will still be in the market in two years time. I also doubt that M8s will be worth only $1500 by that time.
A ZIdig would make a great second body...:)
Tom Diaz
08-27-2006, 05:21
A ZIdig would make a great second body...:)
That's what I was thinking.
I doubt that Epson will still be in the market in two years time. I also doubt that M8s will be worth only $1500 by that time.
I agree entirely. I don't expect the see a large depreciation with the M8.
And frankly even if I'm wrong, I will easily shoot $3500 worth of film, processing and scanning in two years. The time saved in picking up processed film and scanning will be worth it alone, assuming the image quality is there, which we have every reason to believe it is.
photogdave
08-27-2006, 09:12
I don't think there is room in the market for a third DRF. I think if Zeiss was going to make one they would have planned for it from the beginning and introduced it at the same time as the film body.
I don't think there is room in the market for a third DRF. I think if Zeiss was going to make one they would have planned for it from the beginning and introduced it at the same time as the film body.
Perhaps, but if there is not RD-2 in the cards that leaves some room.
Besides it really wouldn't make sense to (re-)introduce the Ikon without some plan for making a digital version of it. We will likely be able to purchase 35mm film for some time to come but the market for new 35mm camera bodies (new to the market, not people buying existing cameras) is virtually non-existent. It may never see the light of day if Epson doesn't exit the DRF world, but to not even plan for a Digital Ikon would be just be foolish.
One reason for not introducing it at the same time as the film body may be that they wanted a bigger sensor than the RD-1 (the only DRF at the time) as the widest Zeiss lens for the system (barring the monstrously large, in expense and size, 15mm) would only be the equivalent of a 32mm.
And now a word from the Department of Things You Don't Want to Hear:
-- I don't think Zeiss will ever get into the digital RF market. The market is small and the initial investment is large relative to the return that's possible. (This is different from the Zeiss Ikon film camera, which didn't require such a large initial investment because Cosina had already done most of the chassis engineering.) Zeiss's main interest is in selling lenses, and I'm sure they're willing to let Leica create that demand.
-- I also don't think Epson will try to stay in the segment once they've sold off their inventory of completed R-D 1/R-D 1s bodies. Basically I think they got into this as an image-booster, and instead what they got was small sales and a huge amount of criticism, both justified (initial problems with RF calibration) and not so justified (e.g. silly reviews on digicam websites complaining about the need to cock the shutter manually.) Even though the R-D 1 has turned out to be an excellent camera for those who understand what it's for, I think its effect on Epson's overall prestige and reputation has been neutral at best and negative at worst. Having been burned once, they're not going to want to stick their heads in the oven again.
-- After Epson's experience, I think it's very unlikely that Cosina would want to follow in their footsteps either; besides, we've been told that their president is a traditionalist who wants to cater to the needs of film photographers. Konica did some prototyping, but they're out of the camera business.
-- So, who else might step in? Canon and Nikon are obvious thoughts: They have the technology, the manufacturing capacity, and the heritage. But what could be in it for either of them? Leica already has defined the high end of the market, so they'd be left with the low-margin "budget" end of the spectrum -- not where you want to be with a high-investment product. And they wouldn't be able to make up for the low profit margin on camera bodies by selling lenses, because they don't have existing lens lines that would be compatible. It just wouldn't make business sense for them... and if it wouldn't make sense for them, it also wouldn't make sense either for a smaller DSLR maker (e.g. Olympus) or an electronics-based manufacturer (Sony, Panasonic, etc.)
-- Another important consideration: Nowadays all the likely-candidate manufacturers want to be seen as leading-edge technology companies, and rangefinder technology (fairly or unfairly) is seen by most of the photo-industry punditocracy as an archaic approach of interest only to the shrinking market of boring old-fogey nostalgists. I suspect this factor would deter even dark-horse outsiders such as the Chinese photo industry.
In other words, if the Leica M8 doesn't succeed, I doubt if we'll ever see another digital RF camera.
If it DOES succeed -- in a really big, sell-like-hotcakes way, the kind of success that sees slightly-used ones selling on eBay for thousands more than list price -- THEN maybe someone else would be tempted to get in. (I can just stretch my imagination far enough to conceive several companies teaming up to cash in on the market potential: Zeiss for RF optics and lenses, Sony or Nikon for electronics, Cosina for chassis and final assembly.)
But at the $5,000 price point, I just can't see the M8 being a runaway success -- not the kind that would attract the attention of a high-volume DSLR maker. I really hate this idea, but I suspect the M8 is our last hope for carrying the RF aesthetic into the digital era.
Zen-shooter
08-27-2006, 10:32
I don't think there is room in the market for a third DRF. I think if Zeiss was going to make one they would have planned for it from the beginning and introduced it at the same time as the film body.
The following text was found within ZI's FAQ page...
Q: Will there be a digital ZI camera?
A: This may be a future possibility. However, we presently cannot comment on any details.
Q: Are the Carl Zeiss T* ZM-mount lenses ready for use with the future digital camera?
A: Yes.
As such, wouldn't ZI have faced similar image to sensor challenges as Leica a few years back? That's why I don't think they could have introduced a digital version at the same time as the film. Today's digital technology opens that possibilty... So at the very least, they should be considering DRF or at least make feasibilty studies, especially if M8 falls short in any key picture taking attribute - Leicaphiles can be quite demanding. I think they have the resources to pounce on that opportunity; targeting at price point between the M8 and R-D1S with equal or better performance should be a logical goal for them...
And now a word from the Department of Things You Don't Want to Hear:
-- I don't think Zeiss will ever get into the digital RF market.
-- I also don't think Epson will try to stay in the segment once they've sold off their inventory of completed R-D 1/R-D 1s bodies.
In other words, if the Leica M8 doesn't succeed, I doubt if we'll ever see another digital RF camera.
Epson is definately a non-player. They have shown no inclination to even service their current customer base. The rangefinder market is too small for a small mass merchandizer like Epson to be interested in selling an actual product vs. consumables. The can't even service their printers, your just supposed to throw them away.
Canon has the resources, but because the are smart would wait until there was a proven mass market for a digital rangefinder. If they did enter the market, their model would be a polycarbonate, $1200 model. I'd buy it. But they don't make rangefinder lens, so chances are slender to non-existant.
Zeiss is about the only company that could pull it off. Cameras are a very small part of their business. They could take the chance without betting the farm. Plus they already have good relations with Cosina with regards bodies and lenses. All they would have to do would be team up with a creditable electronics house. The problem there is the bar begins at about 11Megapixels which means Kodak.
Cosina could do it also but probably has a very bad taste in their mouth with their experience with Epson. The electronic component is probably behond their comprehension. Also, their manufacturing is based on a pre CNC model so they would have to use their existing technology to make the cameras. So they couldnt start with a clean slate designwise. Thats OK because the existing design (M7 clone) is pretty close to optimal anyway. The RD1 was proof of that.
Really some sort of Zeiss/Cosina & some 10+MP sensor provider, is the only hope for another digital rangefinder. And before anyone would spend any kind of big bucks, the M8 would have to prove there is a viable market.
Rex
Bob Ross
08-27-2006, 13:59
Camera bodies are usually made so that lenses can be sold, since that is where the profits are found. Epson made a box that took M mount lenses that they don't make. Their market is the existing lens owners, not lens buyers. Leica can almost be heard whispering, "you'll want our new lenses to go with our new digital body, you'll want our Dots, we're sure." The big accomplishment with these both (Leica & Epson) is the solving (?) of the sensor fall off problem with short back focus lenses.
If a mfr wanted to mimic the rangefinder's window viewfinder in an electronic fashion, to save some serious costs, we could have a new box. Unfortunately what may be coming along first is the high quality electronic displays, that they think will do away with window viewfinders and even optical reflex viewfinders. Can they make something new that will use the rangefinder lenses, that we love? The M8 may be the name of the game for a while.
Bob
If a mfr wanted to mimic the rangefinder's window viewfinder in an electronic fashion, to save some serious costs, we could have a new box. Unfortunately what may be coming along first is the high quality electronic displays....
Bob
If the electronic view finder was of sufficient quality (mucho MPs) and thru-the-lens (thru the sensor too), that would be the end of both the optical digital rangefinder and the optical DSLR. But don't hold your breath. Although organic LCDs may be on the horizon, a live view sensor of sufficient size to feed the requirements of a high quality camera, are way off in the future. Digicam design seems to be going backwords, if anything.
But your right, in 10 years time the optical component of the viewfinder will be gone. But meanwhile I'm getting the M8.
Rex
A ZIdig would make a great second body...:)
As far as I understand it, they'll go 24x36 mm, film and digital. So you have to factor in a cropp factor for the lenses.
OTOH, wan't your 35 wide, take a digital ZI body, want your 35mm normal, take the M8, saves a lot of money on lenses :)
If the electronic view finder was of sufficient quality (mucho MPs) and thru-the-lens (thru the sensor too), that would be the end of both the optical digital rangefinder and the optical DSLR. But don't hold your breath. Although organic LCDs may be on the horizon, a live view sensor of sufficient size to feed the requirements of a high quality camera, are way off in the future. Digicam design seems to be going backwords, if anything.
But your right, in 10 years time the optical component of the viewfinder will be gone. But meanwhile I'm getting the M8.
Rex
I had the chance to try the Sony R1(?) APS fixed zoom camera, it's surprisingly good, with my limited (once in a while I'm handed a digital P&S to take a shot of the owner) LCD finder experience I was not overwhelmed but I've seen much worse LCD finders.
I had the chance to try the Sony R1(?) APS fixed zoom camera, it's surprisingly good, with my limited (once in a while I'm handed a digital P&S to take a shot of the owner) LCD finder experience I was not overwhelmed but I've seen much worse LCD finders.
I forgot about the R1. Actually it has all the elements theoritically required for a good EVF "rangefinder" but it is so poorly executed in every detail, that one would want to forget it. Actually, its not Sonys fault since the technology to support such a design is still in its infancy. The main problem is the EV needs to have a pixel density about 10 X densier. The view has to come close to the optical view to be acceptable. Like I said, don't hold your breath.
Rex
Bob Ross
08-27-2006, 18:12
If the electronic view finder was of sufficient quality (mucho MPs) and thru-the-lens (thru the sensor too), that would be the end of both the optical digital rangefinder and the optical DSLR. But don't hold your breath. Although organic LCDs may be on the horizon, a live view sensor of sufficient size to feed the requirements of a high quality camera, are way off in the future. Digicam design seems to be going backwords, if anything.
But your right, in 10 years time the optical component of the viewfinder will be gone. But meanwhile I'm getting the M8.
Rex
The one thing to watch at the moment is the OLED. They offer higher resolution, higher refresh rates and at lower power consumption. Fabrication facilities are being built. In Europe they are being looked at for household lighting as well. They are showing up in wireless phones and were rumored to be in some cameras by Photokina. The high rez EVF may actually come from military applications.
I still think that someone could take the mechanical rangefinder and make an electronic version that would give focus confirmation for manual focus M mount lenses and then use LCD/OLED to show the framelines. No prisms or machined linkages (except the focus cam), just a modified AF module put to a new use. Put it in a plastic body, as you suggested, mass produce under a name like Rollei or Argus:) , sell it for $1,200. It certainly wouldn't be a Leica, but might give the digital Rf experience to folks who can't afford an M8.
Bob
I still think that someone could take the mechanical rangefinder and make an electronic version that would give focus confirmation for manual focus M mount lenses and then use LCD/OLED to show the framelines. No prisms or machined linkages (except the focus cam), just a modified AF module put to a new use. Put it in a plastic body, as you suggested, mass produce under a name like Rollei or Argus:) , sell it for $1,200.
Bob
I think that could be easily technologically feasible in a few years. But if the M8 or a succesor, doesn't make it commercially, there will be no Canon sized market for a rangefinder, M mount camera. The survival of the Lenses is really the key as all other interchangeable lenses are based on massive, retrofocus, autofocus designs that will never mesh with the rangefinder form factor. A compact body would be easy to develop, but what good would that be if only huge DSLR lenses were available?
Rex
shutterflower
08-27-2006, 19:51
I don't think there is room in the market for a third DRF. I think if Zeiss was going to make one they would have planned for it from the beginning and introduced it at the same time as the film body.
my opinion is that Zeiss will develop some full frame DRF because that would make it a unique product since all other offerings are crop sensors. This is a big deal. It is just obvious that this needs to happen, and that all those people out there with all those M mount lenses will greatly appreciate full utility of all their glass. Or, at least, the full realization of each piece's nature.
Benefits of a cropped sensor : very sharp from edge to edge in most images. You're going to have very little trouble with corner un-sharpness and vignetting will be greatly decreased - assuming the sensors are well designed.
I will buy a DRF when a full frame version comes around - hopefully soon - and hopefully I will have the money to buy it when it does.
Mark Norton
08-27-2006, 21:27
After the huge effort of getting the M8 out, seems like Leica will turn their attention to making an impact on the 4/3 market, though re-badging the L1, if that is in their plan, would not be a smart move, IMHO. They've also got to decide what to do with the R, whether to invest the money in a dedicated body, an R10.
All of which suggests the M8 is what we're going to have for a number of years, 5 would be my guess.
my opinion is that Zeiss will develop some full frame DRF because that would make it a unique product since all other offerings are crop sensors. This is a big deal. It is just obvious that this needs to happen, and that all those people out there with all those M mount lenses will greatly appreciate full utility of all their glass. Or, at least, the full realization of each piece's nature.
Benefits of a cropped sensor : very sharp from edge to edge in most images. You're going to have very little trouble with corner un-sharpness and vignetting will be greatly decreased - assuming the sensors are well designed.
I will buy a DRF when a full frame version comes around - hopefully soon - and hopefully I will have the money to buy it when it does.
It would be a nice thing for those that prefer the larger sensor. personally I prefer a smaller size; it was the main reason I did not upgrade to the Canon 5D. However, with Leica now entering the digital market and my move back to rangefinders I'm glad I didn't waste the money. :) It would be a technical sensation if ZI managed to pull it off in the forseeable future and cheap it will be not :(
shutterflower
08-27-2006, 23:31
It would be a nice thing for those that prefer the larger sensor. personally I prefer a smaller size; it was the main reason I did not upgrade to the Canon 5D. However, with Leica now entering the digital market and my move back to rangefinders I'm glad I didn't waste the money. :) It would be a technical sensation if ZI managed to pull it off in the forseeable future and cheap it will be not :(
I can't imagine why it would be very much more than the Canon 5D. The mechanics are simpler, aren't they?
patrickjames
08-27-2006, 23:42
Leica had to stay with their DMR sensor. Zeiss is a different company that has good relations with Sony who will be looking into getting into the professional DSLR market now that they have the Minolta camera mount. Sony will think full frame because they can make the chip and that will make them competitive with Canon. Zeiss will need no R&D. A rangefinder is a simple thing. Sony makes the chip and Zeiss can put it into a camera fairly easily using Sony's electronics. Voila, Leica killer digital rangefinder.
I can't imagine why it would be very much more than the Canon 5D. The mechanics are simpler, aren't they?
It would certainly be not in a mechanical sense, however the sensor technology for a more acute acceptance angle is not so readily available.
Mark Norton
08-28-2006, 02:44
Leica had to stay with their DMR sensor. Zeiss is a different company that has good relations with Sony who will be looking into getting into the professional DSLR market now that they have the Minolta camera mount. Sony will think full frame because they can make the chip and that will make them competitive with Canon. Zeiss will need no R&D. A rangefinder is a simple thing. Sony makes the chip and Zeiss can put it into a camera fairly easily using Sony's electronics. Voila, Leica killer digital rangefinder.
If the Sony Alpha is representative of the current state of Sony's Art, I'll pass, thanks. As for Zeiss making a Leica killer digital rangefinder camera... that would be a bit like their "killer" film rangefinder then?
humanized_form
08-28-2006, 05:14
i'm buying the M8 thinking that this could possibly be the last best effort made to bring a high quality digital rangefinder to market. and while there will be a built up demand waiting for the M8, i'm not so sure the current drf market is really as big as we think or hope it to be.
we really need a new generation of users to discover the rangefinder ways for it to survive. these could be digicam kids or dslr users tired of the autoeverything cameras, looking for something else and a drf alternative could be it. however the M8 is just way too expensive to bring in many new users, so i would be very happy to see a more affordable digital zeiss ikon.
whatever happens i doubt anyone else will go to the extremes Leica will to develop and manufacture a high quality drf. this really is "it" for them.
Bob Ross
08-28-2006, 09:00
Sony will think full frame because they can make the chip and that will make them competitive with Canon.
Sony may have read Canon's paper on Full Frame sensors. Canon states that the FF sensor is 10X the cost of their APS (1.6) sensor. CAnon also has a good deal of their R&D expenses behind them, unlike Sony.
Still, FF sensors may be the market targets for Sony, Nikon and Pentax/Samsung, who might want to collectively challenge the Canon dominance of the FF market.
Bob
..... Canon states that the FF sensor is 10X the cost of their APS (1.6) sensor. CAnon also has a good deal of their R&D expenses behind them, unlike Sony.......
Still, FF sensors may be the market targets for Sony, Nikon .....
Bob
I'm not so sure the FF sensor is the answer for the rangefinder/M mount camera. I one of the main ideas is to perserve the M mount lens system on a digital platform, then the 1.3x sensor has its attractions. Mainly, the possibility of designing compact, fast, wide angles for a reduced format sensor, is much more practical than a FF.
Anyway, for the near term, FF is the rhelm of the DSLRs with their massive lenses and all. When compacteness isnt an issue, thats the way to go in the long run. But where a much more compact camera is desired, the 1.3x crop factor isnt much of a sacrifice. Its really more of a lens size issue than a body size issue.
Rex
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.