Surely the current sales success of the M9 must have Zeiss and Cosina's attention?

[Keith]

Yeah yeah I know ... no one else will bring out an M mount digital rangefinder because yadda yadda yadda ... but:

With the M9 out for some time now and many buyers still on waiting lists for up to four or more months not to mention certain M mount lenses becoming premium property with the arrival of a full frame digital body finally ... you have to say the M9 is a sales success!

Are Cosina and Zeiss and possibly Epson watching this phenominon of a smallish company producing a full frame DRF as fast as they can make it ... but still chasing their tails regarding supply to their dealers to satisfy demand ... at seven grand! 😱

More full frame digital rangefinder bodies out there obviously means better lens sales for Zeiss and Cosina and maybe that's all they want and are content to let Leica carry the ball at this stage ... but for how long? Surely a digital M mount body from any of these obviously capable manufacturers could fill that void between demand and supply that Leica seem to be basking in currently and increase lens sales for all three companies.

Just a thought and we could be tilting at windmills of course ... but why not?

🙂

 

[Thardy]

You would think that they have to be thinking something along those lines. Especially with film being dead or dying a slow agonizing death.

Why keep churning out film cameras without ANY thought of the future?

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Why keep churning out film cameras without ANY thought of the future?

You sound so certain of this as a fact.
If I was the CEO of CV why would I want to tell you or anyone else what I was thinking?

 

[JoeV]

I would assume that the RF market would be an area Cosina would be interested in maintaining, especially given that in the grand scheme of things this is a specialist market with only three players (Leica, Zeiss and Cosina). Unless they were relegating the market to the other two players, why quit now? To make film-only rangefinders with no plans for a digital body is a guaranteed death-knell to their lens product line, where the higher profit margins are to be had. The typical customer may purchase several higher-profit lenses for their one body purchase, for instance.

My guess is that the problem is acquiring/developing full-frame sensors that work well with the short flange distance of the M-mount lens. Perhaps we under-estimate the technical hurdles Leica had to overcome to produce the M9. Leica has a relationship with Kodak; perhaps Cosina is looking for a partnership with someone like Sony. The solutions involving micro-lenses over the sensor are dealt with at the factory that makes the sensor, a custom product line. This is expensive, and a player like Sony may not want to interrupt their production line to make a small-volume product like this, even if it doesn't directly compete with Sony's camera products. Sony is probably struggling to keep up with the demand for their FF chips, so they may not have the incentive to explore a custom product for Cosina.

A company like Kodak, OTOH, is perfect for the job, because they have a specialist expertise in these sensors, a production line ready, and were probably hurting for more business prior to the partnership with Leica. But there may be agreements in place between the two that prevent a third party like Cosina from buying the Kodak chip, especially if it's custom designed to Leica specs, it's Leica's IP (intellectual property).

Other than Sony and Kodak, Cosina would have to go to some other semiconductor manufacturer that has little experience and no IP in FF sensor technology, like Samsung. Matsu****a (i.e. Panasonic) makes their own chips, but I don't see them aiding a rival in the camera industry.

~Joe

 

[Keith]

My guess is that the problem is acquiring/developing full-frame sensors that work well with the short flange distance of the M-mount lens.

I always felt that this was a problem Leica created for themselves by trying to make every M made after the M3 look like and feel like an M3 ... including their digital!

Zeiss or Cosina would not be hampered by such foolish constraints ... if Zeiss comes up with a camera that is somewhat different in dimensions and look to the current Ikon, big deal, it won't effect sales IMO. The same goes for Cosina ... there will be no one telling the design team a Bessa digital has to look and feel like an R3*!

 

[stompyq]

I always felt that this was a problem Leica created for themselves by trying to make every M made after the M3 look like and feel like an M3 ... including their digital!

Zeiss or Cosina would not be hampered by such foolish constraints ... if Zeiss comes up with a camera that is somewhat different in dimensions and look to the current Ikon, big deal, it won't effect sales IMO. The same goes for Cosina ... there will be no one telling the design team a Bessa digital has to look and feel like an R3*!

But would you buy a radically different beast like that?

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Realistically, what could Cosina or Zeiss sale a FF digital RF for? $4,000? Without the cult following of Leica, I doubt a market would exist for such an expensive RF from Cosina or Zeiss.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Keith: not to hijack the thread, but after playing with the E-P2 for a couple of weeks, I am asking a slightly different question: why not move away from the "proprietary mount" and market a FF camera that could take ANY lens ever made. That seems to be the m-4/3 model. With a short enough flange-to-sensor distance and an auxilliary adapter, your market is anyone with any legacy lens. If there is a future in this type of photography, I wouldn't be surprised if it used an EVF rather than a mechanical RF. If I was a non-lens company (Samsung, Sony, etc.), that's what I would be working on.

Thoughtfully,

Ben Marks

P.s. I have been having a lot of fun with a range of lenses for the E-P2: Leica-M, Leica-R, C/V, Nikon-F, Nikon-S, Contax, Kiev, Pentax 67, Pentax M2 mount . . . it's nuts. The quality of the sensor is pretty good, but the "crop factor"? Well . . . let's just say I'd rather be using more of the image circle if you know what I mean. No contest between the E-P2 and the M8 when attaching a 21mm lens . . . .no contest at all.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

If the E-P2 was full frame, it couldn't be adaptable to all those lenses.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Is this because you'd have to move the flange away from the sensor in order to cover the FF?

To my simple mind, since the Leica M mount flange distance is less than that for all the SLRs ever made, you could use that as the minimum and only have to jettison the C-mount lenses from the current M-4/3 bestiary. Or maybe it's the vignetting problem all over again . . .

 

[Keith]

But would you buy a radically different beast like that?

For a Bessa ... as long as it wasn't huge and ugly ... definitely!

And in Zeiss's case ... as long as they retain that increible finder! 😀

 

[Neare]

"But it's not a Leica." - The sad truth for Zeiss and VC.

Either way, with the R-D1 it is clear that Cosina already has the technology to produce one. Cosina is the backbone of all the VC products, and Zeiss's RF as well.
Perhaps there is more going on behind the scenes, financially? Or perhaps even legal issues in obtaining an appropriate sensor.

You would think that they have to be thinking something along those lines. Especially with film being dead or dying a slow agonizing death.

Why keep churning out film cameras without ANY thought of the future?

This is being repeated again and again by people and is just a really naive comment to make. The exodus to digital has occurred, so now the market is for people starting or returning to film. A market you underestimate the size of, or the rate at which it is growing.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

"The exodus to digital has occurred, so now the market is for people starting or returning to film. A market you underestimate the size of, or the rate at which it is growing."

If it is growing, why do film sales continue to decline? Shouldn't they have at least stabilized?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I agree with Pickett Wilson: a huge part of the M9 success at that price is its brand. It's not easy for any other brand to reproduce that success even at half that price. I think the M9 moment has been for Leica their most important moment since their M3 moment more than half a century ago. They've been the smart guys again.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Unless it's your only real market, like Leica, spending the R&D money to introduce a digital RF into a very limited market just doesn't seem to make any sense. Especially at the price you would have to sell a FF digital RF.

 

[Keith]

Realistically, what could Cosina or Zeiss sale a FF digital RF for? $4,000? Without the cult following of Leica, I doubt a market would exist for such an expensive RF from Cosina or Zeiss.

I read the other day in a thread that Leica are producing thirty five M9's a day yet people are still on lengthy waiting lists to get a camera in many areas ... what gives? If this trend continues surely there's a gap for something else at four grand. Perhaps Cosina and Zeiss would be keen to see Leica double their production to create an even more vibrant market for their lenses and not have to take the risk themselves.

All these scenarios ... and of course a small full frame digital with a decent EVF that takes a comprehensive range of heritage SLR glass is a nice thought also! 😀

 

[gilpen123]

I think Nikon is interested a digital FF FM3a not an RF though.

 

[dfoo]

Why is Leica smart to produce the M9? Surely it was obvious that Leica wanted to create a full frame M. It would have been pretty difficult to get that part wrong. The camera design, ergonomics and layout were established with the M3. The tough engineering effort was in the creation of the sensor.

 

[ferider]

Keith: not to hijack the thread, but after playing with the E-P2 for a couple of weeks, I am asking a slightly different question: why not move away from the "proprietary mount" and market a FF camera that could take ANY lens ever made. That seems to be the m-4/3 model. With a short enough flange-to-sensor distance and an auxilliary adapter, your market is anyone with any legacy lens. If there is a future in this type of photography, I wouldn't be surprised if it used an EVF rather than a mechanical RF. If I was a non-lens company (Samsung, Sony, etc.), that's what I would be working on.

Thoughtfully,

Ben Marks

Agree with you. Or some mixed beast with overlayed EVF (framelines and patch, for instance) and RF.

On the other hand, the M9 has a short registration distance, too. There would be an opportunity for Leica to come out with EVF and lens adapter. At least for Leica reflex legacy lenses. Maybe in a different camera, but using most of the M9 ?

Roland.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Why would they have to choose a 'full frame' sensor anyway?