If Zeiss/Cosina wants to...

[BobYIL]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Around $200M revenue ( that's Leica AG's camera and lens sales only) may not mean much for some giants like Canon or Nikon to introduce a FF or APS-C size rangefinder/mirrorless with a few AF lenses to accompany. To amortize investment costs they can never introduce one with M-mount. Not even for Fujifilm..

However half of this turnover could easily be feasible amount for a joint venture between Zeiss & Cosina to introduce the digital ZM. The Fuji X-Pro1 and M9 "controversy" have indicated that the rangefinder/mirrorless users are after to have either a fast and reliable AF body with native AF lenses or one with classical rangefinder and M-mount manual focus lenses.

Bear in mind that the monthly production quota of Leica M9 is not even 2.000 pieces while Leica still claiming that they hardly cope up with demand. I doubt it... the initial tide is over, there is no more waiting lines for a $7K body. The waiting lines now shifted to another camera being produced 30.000 pieces a month.

However this brings a question to mind: Is the need for a real digital rangefinder is only 2.000 units a month? How about the sales figures if some company comes up with a similar product to offer for less than the half of the M9; say $2.500 - 3.000? Would it not sell as much as the M9 at least? Would it not "steal" a hefty slice out of Leica's cake? Sometimes the end user cost determines the sales figures.

I think the closest company to such a "dream" is the Zeiss/Cosina; for they have the rangefinder as ready, needing only the body to be modified to digital (even the shutter is close in construction to the one used on the M9) while having an array of lenses similar to what Leica do and with more reasonable prices. A 24MP CMOS (!) sensor of the late Sony offering with usable ISO 6400 could well be a fine alternative to satisfy almost any expectation like the M9 does + some more! . With such a reasonable body cost I tend to believe it may sell as much as the X-Pro1 and definitely more than the M9. And who wants to stick to the best Leica lenses can still do it by not needing to invest on a Leica body.

Add to these also the Liveview and using any SLR lenses via adapters too. Even the HD video since all new Fujitsu processor engines come automatically with video even for bodies costing couple of hundreds only.

Just my two cents...
[/FONT]

 

[Paul Luscher]

I have always wondered why Zeiss/Cosina has never ventured into the digital rangefinder market. Leica, despite its astronomical prices, has shown there is a demand for this type of camera. And I think Zeiss ,with its ZM, is well placed to "digitize" it--and if it priced it competitively, could give Leica a run for its money.

I do remember Zeiss, when it came out with the ZM, stating that the ZM lenses were "digital ready." So why no digital ZM? I remember hearing rumors that Zeiss had come to some kind of agreement with Leica....

 

[swoop]

Zeiss is doing just fine licensing lens design and manufacturing to Cosina and they have a nice contract with Sony. The money spent developing a digital Ikon would just be a waste as they'd probably only make enough in sales to recoup their expenses. It's just bad business. Epson tried it and it wasn't a disaster but it was hardly a moneymaker even when they were the only digital rangefinder in the world. Now you have all sorts of cameras that use M lenses. Why waste the money and effort.

 

[DRabbit]

Zeiss is doing just fine licensing lens design and manufacturing to Cosina and they have a nice contract with Sony. The money spent developing a digital Ikon would just be a waste as they'd probably only make enough in sales to recoup their expenses. It's just bad business. Epson tried it and it wasn't a disaster but it was hardly a moneymaker even when they were the only digital rangefinder in the world. Now you have all sorts of cameras that use M lenses. Why waste the money and effort.

You could make the argument that Epson's timing was all wrong. Being the first may not have been smart. "Retro" cameras weren't as appealing to the younger masses back then (2004) as they are today. On it's own, it had it's flaws that reviewers picked up on. Upgrades as time went on weren't really all that impressive. AND it was Epson... not a company traditionally known for Cameras.

 

[splitimageview]

If I were Cosina/Zeiss I'd simply build lenses for the Fuji.

 

[BobYIL]

Epson was a disappointment destined right from the start... Introduced in 2004, with 6.1MP crop sensor, offered with a price ($3.000) people would consider to pay for only with the logo of Nikon, Canon, Leica on.. For the great majority it was not different than if HP, GE or Kyocera had introduced it with their own name on.

The second factor in those years, people were dying to get the most MP for better IQ, size was no issue at all. The D200 came into the scene with 10MP and a tag of $1700, to cause waiting lines same as what the D800 did in our day.

It was with the introduction of the 4/3 sensor cameras and especially afterwards the M43 "mirrorless" concept that changed everything.. Suddenly people became aware of the load and size they were schlepping around.

Epson have the technology for a "classical" digital rangefinder; after all a "classical" digital rangefinder should be similar to what the M9 is demonstrating; a simple FF body with a classical rangefinder. What Epson should do -if they are serious enough- is nothing but replacing the sensor with a 24MP one from Sony and upgrade the shutter and the electronics; and to offer again for $3.000.

Any major camera manufacturer today is ABLE to turn out a camera even with the specifications of the M10 to come out soon; because Leica is following the technology from behind.

 

[shadowfox]

Somebody in Seiko 1) like RF design enough and 2) have enough influence to get R-D1 out to the market in 2004.

Where is that person today?

 

[Araakii]

There is not enough market for another low-end digital M (if that's even possible). People who can afford the M9 now will not likely settle with a cheaper M that is not as well built.

 

[boomguy57]

This thread has been exhaustively covered in two recent threads, but I will say that there is surely a demand for a cheaper digital RF. The recent demand for the X100 and XP1, coupled with the used market for RD-1 and M8 has convinced me as such. Additionally, the number of M-mount adapters being sold for a variety of other cameras--m4/3, NEX, Fuji X, etc--assures me that there is INDEED a market.

Someone could pick up where Epson left off if they felt they could make inroads into this market, but I suspect the most profitable way to do this is from Leica themselves, to introduce a slimmed-down version of their digital RFs alongside their flagship M9, M10, etc line.

But, is it likely? I'm not sure. I think it is likely that Leica understands there is a demand that cannot be met with their current M production, especially as the M10 will surely break the $10,000 USD barrier (ouch!). My guess is they will come out with a mirrorless-competitor that is more RF than others out there now, has a native M-mount, and perhaps built-in EVF. Who knows, but if they price it at $2500-3000 and it has value there, it would sell well IMO.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

Zeiss has always said that it will make a digital ZI only when the sensor technology is able to cope with the extreme angles of RF lenses. We are obviously not there yet.

 

[BobYIL]

Zeiss has always said that it will make a digital ZI only when the sensor technology is able to cope with the extreme angles of RF lenses. We are obviously not there yet.

Just curious: Any link, source for it, please?

Sensor technology is there to cope up with the extreme angles of RF lenses. The widest RF lens of Zeiss is 15mm ZM Distagon, the widest one by Leica is the Tri-Elmar starting with 16mm. Featuring offset microlenses over the sensor + in-body software correction Leica has no problem with the superwides.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

Just curious: Any link, source for it, please?

Sensor technology is there to cope up with the extreme angles of RF lenses. The widest RF lens of Zeiss is 15mm ZM Distagon, the widest one by Leica is the Tri-Elmar starting with 16mm. Featuring offset microlenses over the sensor + in-body software correction Leica has no problem with the superwides.

It was mentioned in the ZI brochure, but I can't find the download link on Zeiss website anymore. Also in a reply from Zeiss to a question by someone either on this forum or on photo.net. Basically it says that Zeiss has designed the ZM lenses with digital in mind, and that naturally since digital will eventually replace film, Zeiss has a plan to make a digital ZI, but only when the sensor technology allows to take full advantage of the ZM lenses without compromises. From memory of course.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

This one is close enough:

http://www.zeissrumors.com/2009/08/zeiss-stance-on-digital.html