PDA

View Full Version : Digital Zeis Ikon


Sailor Ted
12-08-2006, 20:15
Any news / rumors regarding a digital Ikon?:angel:

Also are the rangefinders in the Ikon more reailable then the R-D1? (same Cosina factory so same issues?)

jlw
12-08-2006, 20:27
This is a little like asking what are the chances of a unicorn winning the Kentucky Derby!

My guess is that there's never going to be a digital Zeiss Ikon, so I'm not sure how I should vote.

Sailor Ted
12-08-2006, 20:30
Is it really that far fetched? Why do you think so? As far as realiability is the Zeiss Ikon any better then Bessa's in regard to the RF? that's what the question is really about.

back alley
12-08-2006, 20:46
this has been hashed about here quite a bit.
i suggest you do a search and read about all the differences between the bessa and the zeiss.

joe

jlw
12-08-2006, 20:50
Is it really that far fetched? Why do you think so? As far as realiability is the Zeiss Ikon any better then Bessa's in regard to the RF? that's what the question is really about.

Okay, it's not as far-fetched as unicorns, but I think it's unlikely. There's a market niche for the film Ikon (high-quality RF camera falling between Bessa and Leica in price) and a sound business rationale for introducing it (sell more of Zeiss's M-mount lenses) but it doesn't seem as if there would be a big enough niche for a digital Ikon to make it worth the very high costs of developing it.

Besides, Zeiss would look at the experience of others trying to enter the field, and what would they see? Epson introduced one and it was a slow seller that hurt their reputation, even though people who have a good one are usually very pleased with it. Konica built prototypes but decided not to risk taking the plunge. Leica introduced one and was bitten by unforeseen difficulties that it is now having to rectify at large expense. If Zeiss really wanted to expand its camera offerings (which I am not sure they do) then undoubtedly they would look at these experiences and think, "There must be some other type of camera we could introduce that would be less risky and sell in larger volumes."

As to the question about whether the Ikon is more reliable than the Bessas, that IS a realistic query and one that it should be possible to research. The main problem is that there seem to be few Ikon owners on RFF so far, compared to the number of Bessa owners. Also, each successive Bessa model seems to have improved on the previous ones in construction quality, so the experience that people report with older ones may not be applicable to whatever model they might introduce next.

Bill58
12-08-2006, 21:20
I wouldn't be surprised if Zeiss improves upon both the RD-1 and the M8 and blows them both outa' the water. Just my guess but how long can Zeiss survive on their banner camera being a film Z1? Not long I'm afraid w/ the world going digital.

tidelands
12-08-2006, 21:30
Sure. Zeiss Ikon badge, Epson $, R-D1 body, NexGen technology, 1:1 sensor, 2 years. They'll stomp the M8 and set the pace for the M9.

pizzahut88
12-08-2006, 21:33
Any news / rumors regarding a digital Ikon?:angel:

Also are the rangefinders in the Ikon more reailable then the R-D1? (same Cosina factory so same issues?)


Quote from Zeiss Ikon's catalogue p.03:
"Carl Zeiss is deeply involved in several digital camera systems. . . When digital sensor technology takes another leap or two, accepting the high incident angles of a wide-angle M-mount lens to the corners of a full format sensor, you can count on us to come up with high performance digital systems that will satisfy even the truly passionate."

Good luck waiting for it.
I think it could be a really long wait.


Manfred

pizzahut88
12-08-2006, 21:37
Sure. Zeiss Ikon badge, Epson $, R-D1 body, NexGen technology, 1:1 sensor, 2 years. They'll stomp the M8 and set the pace for the M9.

And please sell it at 1/4th the price of the M8.:D
The M8 is indeed an investment.
But it doesn't pay any interest.

amateriat
12-08-2006, 21:57
Here's my problem: the only digital camera that I've kind-of-sort-of enjoyed using up to now has been Olympus' C8080. I've actively disliked all the dSLRs I've tried, largely because I'm so off the SLR thing in general and specifically because the dSLR experience for me has been largely a dessicated edition of the film-based SLR experience (except the top-end stuff, which is entirely too big and weighty for me). I can only hope that Zeiss, Leica, Cosina or someone gets their act together on the dRF front.


- Barrett

jlw
12-09-2006, 07:48
[quote]
Originally Posted by tidelands
Sure. Zeiss Ikon badge, Epson $, R-D1 body, NexGen technology, 1:1 sensor, 2 years. They'll stomp the M8 and set the pace for the M9.[quote]

And please sell it at 1/4th the price of the M8.

Don't forget the antigravity neckstrap lugs!

Seriously:

-- Is the Ikon selling so well, really, that its badge would help?

-- Epson already put its $$$ into the R-D 1 to no particular business advantage. Why would they put more $ into someone else's camera?

-- Agreed, the R-D 1 user interface is great. But post-M8, I doubt if many people would sit still for a manual shutter wind -- and going to motor wind would rule out the use of an existing Cosina chassis, meaning much higher development costs.

-- NexGen technology: Whatever that is. Leica tried to push the technology envelope just a bit and got magenta blacks, green blobs and streaks.

-- 1:1 sensor: I take it you mean a sensor of 24x36mm, which film nostalgists feel has mystical virtues... but, nobody except Canon makes sensors that size (which they can do only because they fab their own CMOS chips.) If anyone else felt it was worth the investment to do that, they'd have done it already. And Canon's not interested in selling their sensors to anyone else -- if they were, they'd have done that already.

-- 2 years: By which time entry-level DSLRs will have (crappy) 24-megapixel sensors, and most people will be taking most of their snapshots with 10-megapixel, 8:1 zoom camera phones. Tempus fugit.

-- 1/4 the price of the M8: Why? As outlined above, the development costs for such a camera would be huge -- much more than for the film Ikon. They wouldn't be able to price it above the M8 because of the "stigma" of Cosina manufacture, but they couldn't afford to price it much lower.

Besides, as I've said before, if Carl Zeiss wanted to have its name on more cameras, there'd be lots and lots of types they could make that would have less competition and more sales potential. (For example, they've introduced a line of lenses in Nikon F mount; does that suggest any ideas...?)

But hey, Christmas is the time for wishes, so I'm as happy to wish for a prototype 12-megapixel, $999 "Ikon D" to turn up at PMA as anyone. (Actually, I'd rather wish for a $1999 "Canon 7sD" with ISOs to 6400, but there's plenty of room in Fantasyland for all of us.)

Socke
12-09-2006, 08:19
Is it really that far fetched? Why do you think so? As far as realiability is the Zeiss Ikon any better then Bessa's in regard to the RF? that's what the question is really about.


And what about Zeiss waiting for sensor technology suitable for rangefinders? As far as I know, they don't deem them suitable yet.

Socke
12-09-2006, 08:30
[quote][quote]
Originally Posted by tidelands
-- 1:1 sensor: I take it you mean a sensor of 24x36mm, which film nostalgists feel has mystical virtues... but, nobody except Canon makes sensors that size (which they can do only because they fab their own CMOS chips.) If anyone else felt it was worth the investment to do that, they'd have done it already. And Canon's not interested in selling their sensors to anyone else -- if they were, they'd have done that already.




Not so mystical if you're a wideangle shooter. I could live with a 1:1.33 sensor as it's just one lens more to bring me back to my preferred 63° of view and 80° is not a problem, but what about those who shoot 15mm lenses on 135 film?

A croped sensor in a RF camera is even less of a problem for me as in a SLR since it doesn't affect viewfinder size.

The availability of sensor in 24x36mm isn't a problem, several companies produce them, as long as you can live with poor high ISO performance and have a camera with a reasonable large flange to film distance.

So RFs with 24x36 sensors seem to be out of the equation for quite some time to come.

Nachkebia
12-09-2006, 08:31
Zeiss ikon is great camera, I am sure digital zeiss ikon would be perfect digital camera if it would be full frame and under $2000..

Al Patterson
12-09-2006, 08:35
Me, I'm waiting for a digital version of the CL. Unless I hit the lottery and make one for myself, I'm sure I'll wait a REALLY long time...

A digital Canon P or 7 would also be cool.

I'd settle for a digital Ikon though.

jano
12-09-2006, 10:29
Why don't they just curve the sensor to deal with the extreme angle? Or, perhaps, give the sensor a vibration synced with the shutter that would bend it temporarily as the light comes in.. :D

Socke
12-09-2006, 10:44
Jano, I doubt it is possible to produce curved silicon waffers.

Paul T.
12-09-2006, 10:52
Why don't they just curve the sensor to deal with the extreme angle? Or, perhaps, give the sensor a vibration synced with the shutter that would bend it temporarily as the light comes in.. :D

Welll, that would work well, except you'd have to design a whole new range of lenses, which focus light rays to a curved plane, rather than a flat one, as do all existing camera lenses. DO you remember all the fuss about the Hexar RF, which had a slightly difference back focus? Or the problem camera makers have with holding film flat. If you could make a curved (or rather, dished) sensor, you might cut down the vignetting,

personally, I'd be perfectly happy with a 1.3 sensor crop; it's far less of a hassle than a 1.5 crop, and we've seen how well the M8 does in terms of reducing vignetting via the offset microlenses. We just need Zeiss to produce a DZI with a 1.3 crop, no infra-red contamination, at around $2750, that not a lot to ask. Is it???

Nachkebia
12-09-2006, 23:09
We just need Zeiss to produce a DZI with a 1.3 crop, no infra-red contamination, at around $2750, that not a lot to ask. Is it???
Who is we? I want full frame, don`t know who is we :D

Sparrow
12-10-2006, 02:48
Who is we? I want full frame, don`t know who is we :D
I'm with you; so we are
:D

PetarDima
12-10-2006, 02:50
Zeiss ikon is great camera, I am sure digital zeiss ikon would be perfect digital camera if it would be full frame and under $2000..

That-is- what- we are- waiting for ...:D

IGMeanwell
12-10-2006, 02:50
I don't care whether its full frame or cropped

but I just want it to be wedding worthy (reliable, relatively fast ergonomics)
and under 2000 USD (actually I would like it less than that but lets be somewhat realistic)

I don't mind DSLRs however its just not practical to carry one around all the time ... and my F30 is adequate but its just not the same as shooting with a nice prime lens

xayraa33
12-10-2006, 06:36
I am waiting for the Canon 7sD to be made.
it will be a long wait.

Nachkebia
12-10-2006, 06:39
Canon? what slr has to do with digital rangefinder? and why 5D is not enough? :)

ZeissFan
12-10-2006, 06:48
I don't see Carl Zeiss releasing a digital camera in the near future, although I don't know that for a fact. Just a guess.

However, I'm quite certain that Zeiss is closely watching the situation with the M8 and doesn't want to end up going down that road. I wouldn't be surprised if Zeiss takes an even more cautious approach before making the jump.

And the further question is: How many want to see this camera on the market? And how many will actually buy it new -- not second hand, but new?

I would expect a price of between $2,500 and $3,500 for a full-frame Zeiss Ikon. If it decides to go the sensor crop route, I think the price would be closer to $2,500-$3,000. Again, pure speculation; I have no insider knowledge.

Personally, I don't want a sensor crop. A sensor crop sucks. I want and would expect a no-compromise approach from Zeiss.

Today's consumer just wants something on the market. Anything. Doesn't have to be great, just as long as it's there. And as soon as it arrives, then it's time to pick it apart and start speculating on the successor model that will then have the features that were left out of this model.

Zeiss can't afford to play this game. Whatever digital camera it brings to the market will need to have a shelf life that is at least double that of current products, possibly more.

xayraa33
12-10-2006, 07:03
Canon? what slr has to do with digital rangefinder? and why 5D is not enough? :)

the Canon 7sD will be a rangefinder digital camera with a full size sensor.
it will take its styling and functionality from the mid 1960s Canon 7s (z).

Nachkebia
12-10-2006, 07:05
Hm okeyyy and it is M mount? why would someone want it over zeiss digital ? because of canon`s plastic look? no thanks :)

Al Patterson
12-10-2006, 07:29
I am waiting for the Canon 7sD to be made.
it will be a long wait.

I'd like a digital CL, so I'll likely be joining you in the very long wait...

jlw
12-10-2006, 07:58
II would expect a price of between $2,500 and $3,500 for a full-frame Zeiss Ikon.

Canon's least-expensive 24x36-sensor DSLR costs nearly $3,000, and they've already paid off most of their sensor-manufacturing development cost.

Given that RF cameras are considerably more expensive than similarly-spec'ed SLRs because of the smaller sales volume and the extra precision they require, and I would expect a 24x36-sensor Ikon to cost in the range of $5,000 if manufactured to the same quality level as the current Ikon.

This is based on the fact that the most recent DRF camera (M8) cost about 50% more than the same manufacturer's film RF, plus a premium for development of a currently non-existent 24x36 sensor capability (the Epson and Leica were able to draw on DSLR practice for their electronic designs, lowering development costs, but there would be no 24x36-sensor DSLR on which to base this design since nobody except Canon makes one.)

Whether people would pay more than the price of a Leica M8 for a 24x36-sensor Ikon would depend on whether the larger sensor was seen to offset the "stigma" of Cosina manufacture (which doesn't bother most of us who actually use Cosina-made cameras, but seems to bother a lot of other people.)

I suspect that at least some of the people who say, "I insist on a 24x36 sensor and anything else is an unacceptable compromise" don't actually own any high-end digital camera now. They're what car salesmen call "pipe smokers": people who don't intend to buy a car at all, who just enjoy fencing with the salesman and finding rationalizations to reject everything offered. It would be quite defensible for Zeiss to suspect that such people would never "put their money where their mouth is."


The only people who do demonstrably care enough about a 24x36 sensor enough to pay a premium for it in a digital camera are people who have bought Canon's two 24x36-sensor models. How many of those people also want a rangefinder camera (and would be willing to pay a premium for it, and buy a new set of lenses for it) would be a good test of the market for such a camera.


(On the other hand, suppose it were possible to engineer a genuinely modern electronic optical RF: I wonder if a stepper motor could move the RF optics accurately enough to substitute for all those expensive precision-machined levers, and if a digital encoder in the lens could be precise enough to stand in for that costly custom-finished coupling cam on an RF lens.

If it could, then it would be only trivially expensive for a company whose DSLRs already use an all-electronic lens mount to engineer an electronic-RF camera that used a version of that same mount; the lenses then could be used on either type of body. The extra throat depth of an RF camera with a DSLR lens mount would eliminate some of the compactness advantages of an RF camera, but it also would eliminate the chief-ray-angle issues that made development of the R-D 1 and M8 so difficult.

All that plus an extant 24x36 sensor spells C-A-N-O-N... too bad they'd be too ruthlessly practical to consider such a thing! Canon seems to be the least nostalgic of all the major camera companies, with absolutely no interest in celebrating its heritage the way Nikon has done with commemorative cameras, Pentax has done with special-edition lenses, and Olympus has done to some extent at least with advertising allusions to its classic cameras. Too bad, because they seem in the best position of anyone to introduce a truly modern, compromise-free DRF...)

Nachkebia
12-10-2006, 08:00
If not possible don`t make it!
Leica made it and? why should zeiss do the same? I don`t mind waitin two years for full frame $2000 rangefinder camera :D

iml
12-10-2006, 08:11
"Full frame" is a non-issue for me, even on a 1.5 crop I doubt the effective FOV of the CV 12mm (18mm) is too narrow for most of us. The widest I ever shoot is between 21 and 28 mm. Even Canon don't seem to be in any rush to bring out a new full frame body, which makes me think it was a proof of concept more than a serious effort to make full frame a standard for digital imaging.

A digital RF without the gross IR sensitivity of the M8 and with decent manufacturer support, unlike the Epson, is all I ask. Preferably priced no more than £2K. Surely this can't be too much to hope for, but I fear it may be.

Ian

Sailor Ted
12-11-2006, 02:32
Zeiss ikon is great camera, I am sure digital zeiss ikon would be perfect digital camera if it would be full frame and under $2000..

And I'm sure Ferrari would be the perfect car “if got 40mpg, did over 200 mph, and cost no more then 30,000 USD.” "Where moose and squirrel?"

Seriously if it came in at 3500- 4000 USD, had a longer and more reliable rangefinder base then my R-D1s, and had a crop factor of say 1.3 I'd be VERY HAPPY. Oh and I'll keep the film advance lever thank you very much :D

Sailor Ted
12-11-2006, 02:38
(On the other hand, suppose it were possible to engineer a genuinely modern electronic optical RF: I wonder if a stepper motor could move the RF optics accurately enough to substitute for all those expensive precision-machined levers, and if a digital encoder in the lens could be precise enough to stand in for that costly custom-finished coupling cam on an RF lens.

Sounds like the Digital Contax G :D

Nachkebia
12-11-2006, 02:38
Ferrari? I don`t think any digital camera can equal to ferrari, pardon me :) maybe latest honda acord :D anyhow time passes and digital technology becomes cheap and we hope finaly we will have full frame sensors for cheap, you are happy with 1.3 crop, I am not :)

Sailor Ted
12-11-2006, 02:56
Digital calculators are cheap- not full frame digital sensors.

PetarDima
12-11-2006, 02:57
I think - I saw that information here, on RFF : some people from Zeiss said that they have plans about full frame Zeiss ...

jlw
12-11-2006, 05:25
I think - I saw that information here, on RFF : some people from Zeiss said that they have plans about full frame Zeiss ...

No, you saw a quote from a Zeiss lens catalog saying they wouldn't consider marketing an M-mount digital camera until it could have a 24x36 sensor and meet their standards for image quality.

This could be a long wait...

Nachkebia
12-11-2006, 05:28
Zeiss can afford long wait, Leica could not, everything else I leave you to figure it out :D

edlake
12-11-2006, 06:43
Either a digital Zeiss or a digital Leica would be alright with me. I'm not hung up on the "full frame" thing (I use a Nikon D200 as well as film Nikons) but the viewfinder frames should reflect the field of view of the attached lens in the digital domain. Pricing is probably best if under $3000. I could handle that either new or used, but not much more. Anyway it sounds nice...

HAnkg
12-11-2006, 06:59
Considering the resources available to RF digital development and the problems with RF wideangles sitting so close to the film plane, a full frame sensor is not likely in 2 years for any price. Leica needed a Digital M to survive but why whould any other manufacturer commit more resources then Leica to best the Leica design considering the likely ROI.

Consider that Canon is the only DSLR manufacturer that has been able to produce a commercially viable 24x36 DSLR. A full-frame M is a bigger technical challenge then a full-frame DSLR, so I think its safe to assume higher R+D costs for a full frame M then for the full frame Canon 1 series. Now compare the size of the SLR market to the RF market and tell me what bean counter in his right mind would sign off on the $$$ for development?

You might as well wish for a pink pony for Christmas :)

Trius
12-11-2006, 07:56
I know nothing about the manufacturing of sensor and the curved plane issue, but my guess is that it is not foreseeable. My rationale is that ZI, with an eye to a possible full-frame digital RF, went ahead and designed their ZM lenses to be compatible with both film and digital cameras. Granted they could come out with a line of digital-specific lenses if they needed to, much as Olympus decided to do with their ZD lenses for 4/3s mount.

My guess is that if anyone will come up with a full frame sensor suitable for RF, it won't be Canon (why would they), but Kodak. Whether they can solve for the (perceived) need for "better" high ISO performance or not, I don't know. But since they have experience with larger sensor sizes and have access to very good engineers close to home, I'd bet on them being the manufacturer to bring it to the table.

Whether there's a business case for it is another question. Most likely it would be a spin-off benefit of a new larger sensor for a medium format back, so the R&D costs would be partially sunk.

Huck Finn
12-11-2006, 08:25
You might as well wish for a pink pony for Christmas :)

How did you know a pink pony was on my christmas wish list? :D

Will
12-11-2006, 08:42
If Zeiss really wanted to expand its camera offerings (which I am not sure they do) then undoubtedly they would look at these experiences and think, "There must be some other type of camera we could introduce that would be less risky and sell in larger volumes."

It would be something like an FM2, FM3A, again OEM base on what Cosina had (remember those cosina OEM cameras) with better materials. They might do something with the foucsing screen and try to get 100% instead of around 90, 92% for those entry level camera. (Think how they improve upon the CV Bessas's RF)

Then they would charge a price between a Leica R8/9 and a Bessaflex TM.

Will
12-11-2006, 08:44
[QUOTE=jlw]

Besides, as I've said before, if Carl Zeiss wanted to have its name on more cameras, there'd be lots and lots of types they could make that would have less competition and more sales potential. (For example, they've introduced a line of lenses in Nikon F mount; does that suggest any ideas...?)

[QUOTE]

Exactly...

pvdhaar
12-18-2006, 23:40
This is a highly speculative question..

The only thing that I think you can safely argue, is that it won't be substantially cheaper.. :(

Trius
02-02-2007, 11:05
Just as long as it doesn't specialise in IR photography.

willie_901
02-02-2007, 11:13
I would be pleasantly shocked if Zeiss markets a digital rangerfinder before 2012.

Digital sensor technology has a long way to go, but there is little motivation to make radical improvements. Buyers are very happy with the current sensor technology. Manufacturers spend R&D on anti-shake bodies, jazzed up auto-focus technology and in-camera software. The general public eats up the consumer level products, and the pros buy the more expensive stuff because time is $$$$. Everybody's happy.

So, how is Zeiss going to get its hands on the next level of digital technology.? They certainly won't develop it in house. They either have to find a partner or wait for it to trickle down.

Zeiss appears to be positioning itself as a up-market lens supplier for digital cameras – and that's it .

Nachkebia
02-02-2007, 11:17
Zeiss is not in trouble! so they don`t need digital camera, M8 is enough for selling biogons :D

Trius
02-02-2007, 12:06
Vlad, you're bad!

Socke
02-02-2007, 12:13
But he may be on the spot!

Nachkebia
02-02-2007, 12:19
Plus marketing wise they are the only pure`ists left, every other company on earth has gone digital! just think about it :D if only zeiss ikon was well build :D

Olsen
02-09-2007, 13:27
Considering the resources available to RF digital development and the problems with RF wideangles sitting so close to the film plane, a full frame sensor is not likely in 2 years for any price. Leica needed a Digital M to survive but why whould any other manufacturer commit more resources then Leica to best the Leica design considering the likely ROI.

Consider that Canon is the only DSLR manufacturer that has been able to produce a commercially viable 24x36 DSLR. A full-frame M is a bigger technical challenge then a full-frame DSLR, so I think its safe to assume higher R+D costs for a full frame M then for the full frame Canon 1 series. Now compare the size of the SLR market to the RF market and tell me what bean counter in his right mind would sign off on the $$$ for development?

You might as well wish for a pink pony for Christmas :)

I think that this assessment is right.

That said, the digital market is flowing over of look-a-likes. Even in major parts of the SLR market. Most likely, Nikon will introduce their Full Frame this year. Possibly other producers too. They are aiming for Canon's tremendous success (earns 80% of the profit in the total world camera business!). How good they will be is another question.

If Canon does not introduce a remarkably new and good sensor which solves AC problems and vignetting later this month I think that better sensors is several years down the road. - Leica could be 'dead and gone' by then.

A digital Zeiss Ikon M...? We have reliable info from Stephen Gandy that such a thing is two years down the road. At least. We have to live with M8 for quite a while, as he sayes.

But I am suspicious about other camera producers with the know how to 'pull off' a good digital RF camera . Like Imacon /Hasselblad.

In this digital world of look-a-likes it is an obvious vacant space in the market for a profesional, but compact, wide angle digital camera, with, say, 16 mill. pixel, - to start with. - A 'digital Zeiss Biogon', if you like. Canon's G7 is pritty close, but the optics is too poor and with no raw files and it's plasticy feel it is not profesional. Imacon/Hasselblad would be a natural parter in such an adventure, and a product like this needs a 'heavy name plate' to take off.

Trius
03-22-2007, 17:43
Olsen: My thinking too. If I were to spring for a digital RF today, with the intent of using it until a dRF that solves the wide angle problem arrives, it would be the Epson, warts and all, and put Zeiss glass on it.

anselwannab
03-23-2007, 17:12
I think the only d-bessa we'd get is if it had b&W sensor only. Something to keep it retro and Epson happy.

I assume a B&W only sensor would have greater resolution and ISO sensativity b/c you don't have the RGB filter in place to absorb light and force those calculations to fill in the Bayer mosaic.

I still think it would be interesting of someone came out with an APS-c or 4/3 camera and glass suited for it. In that I mean faster to offset the depth of field gain. If we're all about the best tool for the job, we'd be willing to invest in new glass if it delivered.

Mark

Abbazz
03-23-2007, 17:29
The question is not whether Zeiss will release a digital RF, but when. Stephen Gandy has hinted a few times at a forthcoming digital Zeiss RF on CVUG.

Cheers,

Abbazz

Socke
03-23-2007, 17:31
There was an interesting discussion on fotoimpex fotolaborforum.de why nobody buys forte and reintroduces PW14.
Marco Boedecker, the owner of Fotoimpex, told us that those who rescued Forte in 2004 are out of funds now and one needs another 2.5 million Euro to buy the assets and keep the company running until production is up again AND increase the price of the products to Ilford prices.

When Forte tried to adjust prices to a level with which they could stay in business, they lost 60% of their sales because the very price sensitive customers switched to cheaper products.

Mirco gets to the point, with 10 companies out of the paper business in the last two years we may not have too much choice in the next two years.

OTOH he points out that Hahnemühle Photo Rag 188g/cm² in A4 is 55 Euro per 50 sheets and 308g/cm² is some 76. Add ink into the equation and 50 24x30 Adox FB for 36 Euro look cheap :)

While an A4 printer is not so expensive, if you want to go to 30x40 you need an A3 printer and at 40x50 we're talking about a plotter where an inkset alone is around 380 Euro!

And how many 30x40 prints do you make a year? It is possible with most enlargers but not with a cheap printer.


So at the moment I have enough arguments to stick with film for my rangefinder needs, but it doesn't look so bright for the future. Prices for film, paper and chemicals will rise and hopefully somebody has a wide angle rangefinder solution, say 63° FoV, under 2000 Euro then.

NickTrop
03-23-2007, 18:19
To the digital rangefinder crowd. Why would anyone want to waste such wonderful glass on some crappy, relatively "low res" digital sensor is beyond me. Sacrelidge! Should be a crime! Enjoy your expensive, "inadvertent", "by accident" Leica M8 "IR" camera. Those poor mechanical engineers at Leica must be losing their minds, as they're forced to react to such silly and irrational market demands as a "digital rangefinder". Makes me wonder if they didn't throw the wrong IR filter in the camera accidentally on purpose so's to kill their digital line.

Hope ya'll can take a ribbin' ; )

espressogeek
03-24-2007, 11:34
I would bite if they offered one. I love their glass. I keep saying this but the rd-1 is a fab camera. Please don't let that project die :-( .

LOOP
04-01-2007, 22:15
I agree the best digital was c8080 olympus !!

jaapv
04-02-2007, 05:36
So, how is Zeiss going to get its hands on the next level of digital technology.? They certainly won't develop it in house. They either have to find a partner or wait for it to trickle down.

That is a misconception. Zeiss is one of the forerunner companies for digital imagining, for instance in meteorology, medical and spectral sensors. They are far more digital-savvy than Leica. Their main problem is that they seem to have been infected with the full-frame virus, which may be understandable for a lens manufacturer that has its main reputation as one of the foremost wideangle designers. Whatever the reason, it has left them in the position Leica was in three years ago, claiming "it is impossible at the present level of technology"

To the digital rangefinder crowd. Why would anyone want to waste such wonderful glass on some crappy, relatively "low res" digital sensor is beyond me. Sacrelidge! Should be a crime! Enjoy your expensive, "inadvertent", "by accident" Leica M8 "IR" camera. Those poor mechanical engineers at Leica must be losing their minds, as they're forced to react to such silly and irrational market demands as a "digital rangefinder". Makes me wonder if they didn't throw the wrong IR filter in the camera accidentally on purpose so's to kill their digital line.

Hope ya'll can take a ribbin' ; )

Seems to me you are ripe for your M8 - Go and see your nearest reputable Leica dealer for the cure and hand over your cash :D :p

jaapv
04-02-2007, 05:55
[QUOTE=jlw][quote]



Not so mystical if you're a wideangle shooter. I could live with a 1:1.33 sensor as it's just one lens more to bring me back to my preferred 63° of view and 80° is not a problem, but what about those who shoot 15mm lenses on 135 film?



Not that hard (I know, it has been posted before, but still....) But for anybody not wanting to lug over 1.5 kg's, there is of course the CV 12 mm.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/wide.jpg

Bill58
04-02-2007, 05:56
[QUOTE=jaapv]That is a misconception. Zeiss is one of the forerunner companies for digital imagining, for instance in meteorology, medical and spectral sensors. They are far more digital-savvy than Leica. Their main problem is that they seem to have been infected with the full-frame virus, which may be understandable for a lens manufacturer that has its main reputation as one of the foremost wideangle designers. Whatever the reason, it has left them in the position Leica was in three years ago, claiming "it is impossible at the present level of technology"



I guess what you're saying is when they finally come out w/ one, it will be a "killer" digital RF or SLR. I can hardly wait.

Bill

ferider
04-02-2007, 06:57
I know nothing about the manufacturing of sensor and the curved plane issue, but my guess is that it is not foreseeable. My rationale is that ZI, with an eye to a possible full-frame digital RF, went ahead and designed their ZM lenses to be compatible with both film and digital cameras. Granted they could come out with a line of digital-specific lenses if they needed to, much as Olympus decided to do with their ZD lenses for 4/3s mount.

My guess is that if anyone will come up with a full frame sensor suitable for RF, it won't be Canon (why would they), but Kodak. Whether they can solve for the (perceived) need for "better" high ISO performance or not, I don't know. But since they have experience with larger sensor sizes and have access to very good engineers close to home, I'd bet on them being the manufacturer to bring it to the table.

Whether there's a business case for it is another question. Most likely it would be a spin-off benefit of a new larger sensor for a medium format back, so the R&D costs would be partially sunk.

All we have to wait for is a full frame sensor with enough bits per pixel. The vignetting problem that forced Leitz to
reduce the sensor size can be dealt with in software if larger words per pixel are available: one stop of light loss in
the corner = 1 additional bit per pixel.

Say, a 24bit sensor for full format becomes available. This can then be used as 16bit sensor for a digital RF, using the additional
8 bits to correct corner light fall off.

Once this kind of sensor becomes available for other applications, or mainstream DSLRs it can be used by either Zeiss or
Leitz for a full-frame RF.

Roland.

Gabriel M.A.
04-02-2007, 07:00
Hm okeyyy and it is M mount? why would someone want it over zeiss digital ? because of canon`s plastic look? no thanks :)
Very good point. There are times that I just kick myself because I can't bring the image to look "natural" from a Canon image. You need perfect lighting in order to never have this problem. But that is also the problem with Nikon cameras: you need perfect lighting in order to get a perfectly crisp image. Once you're over ISO 400 with the current crop of Nikon dSLRs, it's game over (for me).

It boils down again to have the right tool for the right situation. Even Swiss Army knives won't provide everything you need.

We'll always complain about something. Either we wait for the M15, the R-D50 or just adapt to some of the weak points each camera has. I really would love a camera made for Goldilocks, but whining over and over about cameras made for each of the Three Bears just makes me want to go like Daffy Duck and wait for the men in their clean white coats.

1dave
04-19-2007, 13:29
That's easy enough to do by combining components from others, like Kodak, who are making sensors for the very best digicams/backs in the world, and adapting the Zeiss lenses. The body is nothing, the software can be bought from anybody.
A totally proprietary product is no longer the game, as Leica is finding out.
look to combined efforts for the next generation of digital products.

xabi
05-05-2007, 18:03
a zeiss ikon that sells for $2000, or $1500 better.

jaap
05-06-2007, 00:43
Look at the M8 and you''l know why Zeiss hasn't launched a digital RF.
An digitall alternative for a film based RF has to be at least a full frame and far more then 10 Mb. Even an Eos 5 can't compete with a good film based Mf SLR.
And if you don,t believe me you should ask the engineers at Zeiss

Socke
05-12-2007, 08:02
I've asked Zeiss engineers :)

but some 5 years ago at photokina 2002 when they where close to the Yashika/Contax booth. Then they told me it would be impossible with current lenses and mentioned the huge 17-35 for the Contax N and ND as a typical lens design for digital sensors.

As to fullframe in a digital RF, IMHO that is not as imporant as in a SLR where the viewfindersize is directly related to folm/sensor size.
But take that with a grain of salt, my widest lens is 28mm and I use a 35 mostly, so no problems getting even wider lenses for my needs with small sensors. This is a big problem for those who shoot 21 or wider.

We talked mostly about the possibility of a digital Contax G and they convinced me, that there was no sensor capable of handling a 28mm Biogon or even a 35mm Planar. I thought it should be possible to fit an APS Sensor and an adapted viewfinder into it so I'd just need to add a 21mm to my arsenal :)

With this said, a crop sensor in a M-Mount camera is no problem for me, I don't own M-Mount lenses and would buy a body with a f2 lens in the 63° FoV range as a starter if the viewfinder supports it.
That's my main problem with the Epson, fit a R2 or R4 viewfinder into a RD-1 and I'm a customer.

Carzee
05-13-2007, 17:57
Canon's least-expensive 24x36-sensor DSLR costs nearly $3,000, and they've already paid off most of their sensor-manufacturing development cost.....[big snip]...they seem in the best position of anyone to introduce a truly modern, compromise-free DRF..

Um, EOS style 45pt autofocus anyone...

I must disagree. Canon is not in a 'handy' position to do a DRF because as far as I know they have no RF glass.

Maybe Canon's mega money could pay for Cosina to do a run similar to what they have already done for Zeiss... but that thought would be up against Canon's uber-global-marketing-Godzilla-international-conglomerate ego. Yes, that is the question... would Canon be able to market RF glass in anything other than white/beige barrels?

lament
05-14-2007, 11:05
Um, EOS style 45pt autofocus anyone...

I must disagree. Canon is not in a 'handy' position to do a DRF because as far as I know they have no RF glass.

Maybe Canon's mega money could pay for Cosina to do a run similar to what they have already done for Zeiss... but that thought would be up against Canon's uber-global-marketing-Godzilla-international-conglomerate ego. Yes, that is the question... would Canon be able to market RF glass in anything other than white/beige barrels?Canon has no RF glass? How quickly the world forgets... :)

wyk_penguin
05-14-2007, 19:21
We have not forgotten that Nikon copied Contax and Canon copied Leica.

VinceC
05-14-2007, 19:58
>>We have not forgotten that Nikon copied Contax and Canon copied Leica.<<

They copied the lens mounts. But Canon and Leica were very innovative with their 1950s RF-era lenses, making them faster and in more varieties than Contax or Leica.

garethc
05-15-2007, 00:07
Copies? Maybe. Cheaper? Yes. High quality? Yes!

jaapv
05-15-2007, 03:53
There was an interesting discussion on fotoimpex fotolaborforum.de why nobody buys forte and reintroduces PW14.
Marco Boedecker, the owner of Fotoimpex, told us that those who rescued Forte in 2004 are out of funds now and one needs another 2.5 million Euro to buy the assets and keep the company running until production is up again AND increase the price of the products to Ilford prices.

When Forte tried to adjust prices to a level with which they could stay in business, they lost 60% of their sales because the very price sensitive customers switched to cheaper products.

Mirco gets to the point, with 10 companies out of the paper business in the last two years we may not have too much choice in the next two years.

OTOH he points out that Hahnemühle Photo Rag 188g/cm² in A4 is 55 Euro per 50 sheets and 308g/cm² is some 76. Add ink into the equation and 50 24x30 Adox FB for 36 Euro look cheap :)

While an A4 printer is not so expensive, if you want to go to 30x40 you need an A3 printer and at 40x50 we're talking about a plotter where an inkset alone is around 380 Euro!

And how many 30x40 prints do you make a year? It is possible with most enlargers but not with a cheap printer.


So at the moment I have enough arguments to stick with film for my rangefinder needs, but it doesn't look so bright for the future. Prices for film, paper and chemicals will rise and hopefully somebody has a wide angle rangefinder solution, say 63° FoV, under 2000 Euro then.

My photolab prints beautiful, handprofiled and adjusted to my individual wishes enlargments (up tp 2 m wide if you wish, my personal record is 1.20 m wide) on Hahnemuhle (sorry, my keyboard chokes on Umlauts) or any other paper at very reasonable prices. Approx 10 to 40 Euro a go. A private investment in a printer and ink would cost magnitudes more as you point out.

gavinlg
07-11-2007, 06:52
I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Paul T.
07-11-2007, 07:05
My fantasy: Zeiss, via their long-term relationship with Sony, knows that they are working on a FF sensor, and are waiting until that's a reality before commissioning the Digital Ikon. Is there any real evidence this fantasy is true?

(And has anyone else noticed that this has become a phantom thread, which is labelled as having 'new' posts, when in fact the most recent one is days or even weeks old. A system glitch?)

grainhound
07-11-2007, 07:33
(And has anyone else noticed that this has become a phantom thread, which is labelled as having 'new' posts, when in fact the most recent one is days or even weeks old. A system glitch?)

I've noticed this happening a couple of times, this thread being the most recent. I also wondered about a glitch. When I first saw this thread up again today, the time given for jaapv's post was 15 minutes ago. The date he posted on was 5-15-07. Coincidence or glitch?

Sparrow
07-11-2007, 07:38
It’s when people vote in the poll…………..like a dripping tap, innocuous at first but after a while.................... BLOODY ANOYING

Dr. Strangelove
07-11-2007, 08:16
My fantasy: Zeiss, via their long-term relationship with Sony, knows that they are working on a FF sensor, and are waiting until that's a reality before commissioning the Digital Ikon. Is there any real evidence this fantasy is true?

Full Frame digital with the Leica M mount would be very difficult and expensive. The 1.33x crop factor of the M8 already required very expensive solutions such as special microlenses in order to work. Zeiss would probably want the Digital Ikon to be a little more affordable than the M8 so my guess is that they would use the same 1.5x crop factor APS-C sensors that Nikon uses. The current ZM lenses could be used so that the 2/35 becomes the new normal lens and the 50 mm normal lenses become portrait lenses. The Sonnar 2/85 would make a great longer than portrait telephoto lens, something that the ZM line currently does not have. Even the 21 mm ultra-wides would still be useful with 1.5x crop factor. Only the shorter than 30 mm (35 mm equivalent) lenses would have to be redesigned. If somebody needs a faster than f/2 normal lens, it would be very easy for Zeiss to design one.

Now, the real killer feature for the digital Zeiss Ikon would be autofocus possibility (new lenses with an AF motor would be required), which would make long tele lenses possible. A high quality auxiliary electronic VF (EVF) would be available for use with the AF lenses, since composing with LCD sucks. It would be something that no other camera company has and it would make the digital Ikon a real all-round photographic tool, which could compete even with DSLRs. It would also be much more expensive to develop than a straightforward rangefinder with a digital sensor, so I do not really believe that Zeiss has anything of the sort planned. Unfortunately.

back alley
07-11-2007, 08:22
It’s when people vote in the poll…………..like a dripping tap, innocuous at first but after a while.................... BLOODY ANOYING


very true!

it could be avoided if people set a close date when they start a poll.

i figure 10 days max is good for any poll.

joe

Sparrow
07-11-2007, 08:23
“Killer feature” AF and electronic VF???

Well I, for one, would probably die laughing
:)

back alley
07-11-2007, 08:31
dr.,
zeiss has already stated they would not consider a drf without a full frame sensor.

Harry Lime
07-11-2007, 08:38
Now, the real killer feature for the digital Zeiss Ikon would be autofocus possibility (new lenses with an AF motor would be required), which would make long tele lenses possible.


Doesn't this defeat the purpose of it being an RF?

That's a Contax G2, not a ZM or M.

Dr. Strangelove
07-11-2007, 08:48
dr.,
zeiss has already stated they would not consider a drf without a full frame sensor.
Well, in that case they will have their work cut out for them or they will have to use some other mount than the Leica M. A FF sensor with the M mount is not impossible, but keeping it affordable would be very difficult. Of course they may have decided just to keep it around the same price range as M8 and compete with better features. Since the M8 is so expensive it should be possible, but the market for DRFs is not very big and they would have to take a significant chunk out of Leica's market share if they want to keep it profitable. Or, which I find more likely, they do not have any concrete plans for a digital RF.

Paul T.
07-11-2007, 08:55
A lot depends on whether Sony and Nikon do, as rumoured, launch a FF camera. If that happens, the main engineering problem is that of vignetting.

I'd be interested to know if Zeiss WA lenses do show less vignetting on the M8 and R-D1, as has been suggested. Because if that is the case, Zeiss could launch a digital Ikon and claim that it gives decent image quality with their own WA lenses, even if legacy WA lenses are a problem.

Dr. Strangelove
07-11-2007, 09:06
Doesn't this defeat the purpose of it being an RF?

That's a Contax G2, not a ZM or M.
No, it would not. AF with a motor in the lens would not add significant weight or volume to the body. It would require more battery capacity though, but digicams never have too much of that in any case. The EVF would be auxiliary, so you could detach it. It could even have its own battery.

So, you could still use the camera as a traditional rangefinder with the non-AF-lenses. RF coupling with about 180 mm (equivalent) or shorter focal length AF lenses would not be impossible either, although it would probably require a separate mode switch (AF/RF) in the lens.

The achilles heel of this concept with current technology is the EVF. Although EVFs have been improving steadily they still can't compete with optical VFs in image quality. However, with Zeiss' experience on military optronics and scientific imaging they might just be able to make a decent EVF. But of course none of this will happen, so Sparrow will still have to find other sources of amusement :p

Sparrow
07-11-2007, 09:12
A lot depends on whether Sony and Nikon do, as rumoured, launch a FF camera. If that happens, the main engineering problem is that of vignetting.

I'd be interested to know if Zeiss WA lenses do show less vignetting on the M8 and R-D1, as has been suggested. Because if that is the case, Zeiss could launch a digital Ikon and claim that it gives decent image quality with their own WA lenses, even if legacy WA lenses are a problem.

That’s how I see it, once they have the technology why not? Steal a march on the competition and make your own WA lenses look superia at the same time, the R&D costs have to be incurred to make the dSLR may as well spread them as wide as possible and licence a dRF

back alley
07-19-2007, 12:27
Well, in that case they will have their work cut out for them or they will have to use some other mount than the Leica M. A FF sensor with the M mount is not impossible, but keeping it affordable would be very difficult. Of course they may have decided just to keep it around the same price range as M8 and compete with better features. Since the M8 is so expensive it should be possible, but the market for DRFs is not very big and they would have to take a significant chunk out of Leica's market share if they want to keep it profitable. Or, which I find more likely, they do not have any concrete plans for a digital RF.

i think that is more likely...no real plans to develop a digital rf.

joe

Trius
07-19-2007, 17:45
i think that is more likely...no real plans to develop a digital rf.

joe
In which case I would opt for the RD-1, orphan status and all, until a successor to the M8 arrives.

Bill58
07-19-2007, 20:44
I suspect that a digital ZI also depends on whether Epson produces an RD-2 or not. I hardly think the market can absorb TWO digital RFs (all due respect to the zealous membership here).

ZeissFan
07-19-2007, 21:33
Now, revisiting this after a few months. Maybe we'll learn something after Sony releases its next generation of Alpha SLRs. At least one magazine believes that Sony is working on a full-frame dSLR. And Zeiss is making a small number of lenses for that camera.

Possibly the performance of its lenses with the upcoming Sony Alpha dSLR (full-frame, if the magazine's beliefs turn out to be true) will prompt Carl Zeiss to move ahead with R&D on a full-frame digital version of its camera.

Zeiss has an advantage in that it doesn't necessarily have to make a digital rangefinder backward compatible with Leica lenses. It has stated from the beginning that its ZM lenses are "digital ready," so it can simply market the camera as performing best with its own lenses and not have to be concerned with the crushing burden of trying to support 80 years worth of lenses (including LTM lenses).

Sort of a brilliant strategy to boost sales of a digital rangefinder and its own lenses.

... if a full-frame digital rangefinder is announced.