Is the "Rangefinder Renaissance" kicked off by Voigtlander over?

[anjoca76]

I would love to see new productions of some of the discontinued CV lenses. If I had the pockets for it I would love to have more Leica glass, but I can't afford it. CV lenses have allowed me to stay in the rangefinder game, so to speak, and shoot these wonderful classic cameras without having to limit myself to old, beat-up Elmars. The list of new LTM and M mount CV lenses still available on the camerquest website seems to get thinner all the time.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I get what you are saying, but they haven't missed it entirely. They do make m4/3 lenses.

... that and they did make the first digital-RF

[mdarnton]

Originally Posted by anjoca76

I would love to see new productions of some of the discontinued CV lenses. If I had the pockets for it . . .

One of my disappointments is that the only company that seems to be interested in the Leica nostalgia market has thrown off LTM people, completely. All of the new lenses are M, and it appears all of the LTM stuff is discontinued. Given the number of LTM cameras around, and the fact that an adapter turns an LTM into an M lens, the one place they built their brand seems to be the one place they don't care about anymore.

Don't care about LTM, don't care about digital--they're leaving themselves a smaller and smaller slice of a small market. But hey, it worked for Kodak! :-)

[anjoca76]

Originally Posted by mdarnton

One of my disappointments is that the only company that seems to be interested in the Leica nostalgia market has thrown off LTM people, completely. All of the new lenses are M, and it appears all of the LTM stuff is discontinued. Given the number of LTM cameras around, and the fact that an adapter turns an LTM into an M lens, the one place they built their brand seems to be the one place they don't care about anymore.

Don't care about LTM, don't care about digital--they're leaving themselves a smaller and smaller slice of a small market. But hey, it worked for Kodak! :-)

Well said, and a very good point. I always, when I can, try to buy the LTM version of any lens so I can use them on my Barnacks if I want to. Obviously for anything other than a 50mm lens it involves adapters and external viewfinders, etc., but I figure why not at least have the option?

[zuiko85]

Why are we holding onto 24X36mm full frame like it is some kind of divinely inspired standard that must transfer over to the digital world.

Sensors can be any dimensions or aspect ratio including square. The size and pixel density of sensors are confined by present technology and price but by little else. So I say what's the big push for a standard formed almost 100 years ago by a guy trying to get the largest area out of the most compact package that could use 35mm double perf cine film.

OK, crank mode off.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by mdarnton

One of my disappointments is that the only company that seems to be interested in the Leica nostalgia market has thrown off LTM people, completely. All of the new lenses are M, and it appears all of the LTM stuff is discontinued. Given the number of LTM cameras around, and the fact that an adapter turns an LTM into an M lens, the one place they built their brand seems to be the one place they don't care about anymore.

Don't care about LTM, don't care about digital--they're leaving themselves a smaller and smaller slice of a small market. But hey, it worked for Kodak! :-)

I think CV may have used the LTM initially because the M mount was still protected by a patent.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by zuiko85

Why are we holding onto 24X36mm full frame like it is some kind of divinely inspired standard that must transfer over to the digital world.

Best fit for many legacy lenses... people want to use their old lenses which were made for the 35mm format.

[jarski]

this is drifting again to discussion is full frame needed or not. some keep wanting it, no matter how much others try convince its not necessary.

its been a bit silent from CV (their rangefinder products), nothing new has come up for a while (?). perhaps it has/had todo with difficulties in Japan after quake disaster, but maybe also prioritizing mirrorless and SLR system lenses. if they dont come up with something new for rangefinders, for sure customer enthusiasm is going to wane away. edit: need to acknowledge though that their RF offering is pretty balanced now, covering most used focal lengths, some fast lenses like 50/1.1 and 35/1.2 + their current film cameras of-course. hard to improve but new products never were

I wasn't interested in any cameras when Cosina started their RF-renaissance, and found probably my way here via first Dpreview after Leica M8 was announced. but whats been written here and elsewhere, it was pretty big deal for many, back 10-years ago.

[JayM]

I hope not. Definitely have been wondering what if anything they'll do in M mount in the future. Reissues of stuff that's LTM and discontinued?

They should make an M Mount 21mm f/2 so I stop looking at Olympus SLRs.

[Joe AC]

I personally am waiting for a 50mm .95 Nokton. That would spark some interest.

Joe

[Bill58]

I always thought that the term "RF-renaissance" was just a lot of hype dreamed up by somebody in Calif.

[Dez]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I think CV may have used the LTM initially because the M mount was still protected by a patent.

I despair of ever being able to find a digital RF camera that I can afford, and I will hang onto my Bessa R that seems to now be worth three times what I paid for it three years ago. But maybe there is a back door- I just bought a tiny little Panasonic GF3, a 4/3 camera that is exceedingly convenient with LTM lenses, as if someone had actually thought of it while it was being designed. While I have the basic 14-42 lens that's designed for it, I expect it will see a lot of time using my $12 LTM adaptor, and my collection of Leitz, Canon, and Russian lenses. I can't affort CV lenses either, so it doesn't bother me too much that LTM ones can't be had anymore..

It's not so great for wiide angles with the small sensor. I'll have to see if I can mount my 20mm Russar without hitting the sensor. I have already tried mounting a Nikkor 8mm fisheye on it. Ridiculous, but fun, which is not a bad metaphor for much of my photography.

Cheers,
Dez

[redisburning]

Originally Posted by Dez

It's not so great for wiide angles with the small sensor. I'll have to see if I can mount my 20mm Russar without hitting the sensor. I have already tried mounting a Nikkor 8mm fisheye on it. Ridiculous, but fun, which is not a bad metaphor for much of my photography.

Cheers,
Dez

haha that's a good attitude to have. it certainly applies to me as well.

[andephotographic]

Originally Posted by zuiko85

Why are we holding onto 24X36mm full frame like it is some kind of divinely inspired standard that must transfer over to the digital world.

Sensors can be any dimensions or aspect ratio including square. The size and pixel density of sensors are confined by present technology and price but by little else. So I say what's the big push for a standard formed almost 100 years ago by a guy trying to get the largest area out of the most compact package that could use 35mm double perf cine film.

OK, crank mode off.

I'd like to see a square 36mm format sensor camera.

[thegman]

Originally Posted by zuiko85

Why are we holding onto 24X36mm full frame like it is some kind of divinely inspired standard that must transfer over to the digital world.

Sensors can be any dimensions or aspect ratio including square. The size and pixel density of sensors are confined by present technology and price but by little else. So I say what's the big push for a standard formed almost 100 years ago by a guy trying to get the largest area out of the most compact package that could use 35mm double perf cine film.

OK, crank mode off.

I think you're right, but if you want to use lenses designed for 35mm, then a sensor that size makes sense. If you're buying "native" lenses, then of course it does not matter, and it's matter of opinion what is a "crop" anyway.

Another problem is that if you like metal lenses, with real focus and aperture rings, optimized for manual focus, not auto, then there is precious little for APS-C or m43.

[drec]

From what I've read, the major costs are not only seen in the FF sensor being larger and more expensive than the APS-C size, but APS-C sensors having much bigger production runs, thus mitigating costs. Sony's 16mp sensor, which I love, is in their cameras as well as Pentax and Nikon's (Ricoh, put it in a Leica module please!). Where else is Leica's Kodak sensor?

And, putting the sensor into a Bessa body wouldn't make sense-- I think you'd have to put it into an Ikon body in order to assure buyers of the sturdiness of their camera. I could see such a camera approaching at least $5000 new. And while $5000 is not $9000, I'm willing to wager that most people who can afford a $5000 rf body would just spring for the $9000 Leica.

I think the FF non-Leica dream remains alive with EVF brands like Ricoh or Sony. You won't see it in a rf body, but in an EVF. I have the GXR-M and would be totally fine with that; while I would love an M9, the only thing I really miss in the GXR is having a FF sensor.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by drec

And, putting the sensor into a Bessa body wouldn't make sense-- I think you'd have to put it into an Ikon body in order to assure buyers of the sturdiness of their camera. I could see such a camera approaching at least $5000 new.

The Bessa makes complete sense...as long as you are not a snob. Bessas are sturdy enough.

[zuiko85]

andephotographic; Well, 36X36mm would have a diagonal of 50.9mm. The legacy 35mm SLR and RF lenses only had to cover a diagonal of 43.25mm so the corners could be a bit dark.


thegman; How true! Unless you pay for their top of the line large aperture zooms (huge, heavy and expensive) the run of the mill kit zooms and other regular plastic body lenses inspire little confidence and lack proper engraved focus and DOF markings and aperture rings.

Another factor to consider is that manual focus primes, built to the same standards as NI-Ca-Ptx-Oly-Min had in the 1970's would cost a bundle today.

[sleepyhead]

Originally Posted by JayM

I hope not. Definitely have been wondering what if anything they'll do in M mount in the future. Reissues of stuff that's LTM and discontinued?

They should make an M Mount 21mm f/2 so I stop looking at Olympus SLRs.

Interesting discussion here regarding potential future digital options, BUT, as a film shooter,I must admit that when I started this thread what I had in mind was I wonder if CV has any "secret" plans for NEW LENSES that might interest rangefinder users.

Someone above wrote that they would like to see a 21mm f/2.

For years, I've been missing a 24mm f/2 for rangefinders. A 28mm f/1.4 would also be awesome.

Otherwise, I'm happy.

[froyd]

Personally, I'm glad Cosina is not pumping out a new RF body every year or so. leave that that rat race for digital bodies.

Too bad though that their prices have jumped so much... I bought my R2a for $500, now they are $700 --just a couple hundred $ more and you are in Leica territory.

[ottluuk]

I think the partnership with Zeiss to produce ZM lenses kind of ruined the future of Voigtländer's own lens line. They either have an agreement with Zeiss not to undercut the ZM products with similar offerings or it's simply more profitable to make the ZM stuff for premium prices (sounds likely to me, it's not like there's a mass market for RF lenses).

For CV lens line this results in:
no current slow/tiny 28
no 35/2 (yeah, I know, f/2.5 is almost there - but almost there isn't much of a selling point)
no normal 50/2 with modern controls and 0.7m MFD
no hope of resurrecting the 50/1.5 Nokton in M mount
no current 90

This leaves a current "system" of unusual focal length and aperture combinations which really appears to be serve as an extension of the core system made up by ZM lenses.

When Konica made the Hexar RF, their main lens line was 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 and 90/2.8 - and this is essentially what you need for a practical, well thought out rangefinder system. Add a faster 50 and a 21 and you're there. You get that from Zeiss (aside from the 90/2.8, oddly) or Leica.
But as for Voigtländer - I think we may expect some more oddball lens designs, reworked classics, collapsibles, the like. /just a guess, no need to flame me

[Roger Hicks]

Is the original Renaissance over? In one sense, yes. In another, doesn't it inform what we do, centuries later?

Cheers,

R.

[zerobuttons]

Originally Posted by sleepyhead

.....
I don't think that we have a Voigtlander dealer in Denmark, either.
.....

Photografica in Copenhagen has at least some of the Voigtländer program:
http://www.photografica.com/advanced...=voigtl%E4nder

[bobby_novatron]

drec -- I must respectfully disagree with your Zeiss Ikon 'ruggedness' statement. I bought one used here on RFF a couple years ago, and after a while the ISO dial started malfunctioning. When I (gently) opened the housing to see what was wrong, I found the internal components of the dial to be made of very flimsy aluminum. Not very inspiring.

On that basis, a Bessa would probably do just fine for some kind of updated digital RF body from Cosina / Epson.

Now, in terms of the original thread -- is the Renaissance over? I don't necessarily think so. There are still lots of film enthusiasts and Cosina can be thanked for introducing so many interesting RF products over the past few years.

But yes, I think things could be shaken up a bit. If Cosina could come out with an updated APS-C (or bigger) version of the Epson RD-1, I'd be one of the first to buy one. It would really inject a lot of fresh momentum into the RF / photography community.

That being said, the incentives for Cosina / Epson are probably pretty low. RF's have been a niche market for decades now, and they're not going to sell such a unique product on volume. That means they'll have to recoup their investment through higher prices ... but that strategy puts them in the squeeze with other prosumer / professional products from Fuji, Leica, et al.

Oh well -- one can only dream! *sigh*

Excuse me while I go brew up some D-76...

[shadowfox]

I think Cosina should stay true to their mission.

If I were in Mr. K's position, the next thing is to strike a deal with Ilford or Fuji to make film processing a bit easier for those who came from digital (assumed nowadays) and would like to "try film." How? that's another discussion.

But I'm tickled that CV produced high quality lenses for m4/3rd.
If I can justify the price of that Nokton 17.5mm (that's 35mm equivalent), I would snap one up.