Thoughts on Zeiss Ikon digital model
 

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

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

Two possibilities
 

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

Kodak.

Kodak Sensors for Digital Cameras

I keep telling everybody, they were late to the party, but they're catching up fast.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

An excellent read:

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/...mateSensor.pdf

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

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

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

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

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'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...

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!

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

Not even close
 

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

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

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 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.