Bessa Digital Rangefinder?

prunci

Newbie
Local time
2:11 AM
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
8
Does anyone here know if Voigtlander is planning to market a digital rangefinder camera in the near future? For some reason, I recall reading that somewhere here in a forum discussion, but I can't find the thread. My apologies if this has already been discussed ad nauseum. For that matter, anyone know of any company's plans to issue digital rangefinders in the future? It sure would be nice to see one in the $1000 range!

Thanks,

Paul
 
I'm pretty sure that I've read several times that Mr. K., Cosina's president, doesn't like digital much and therefore doesn't plan to build a digital Bessa.

That said, they're doing the manufacturing for Zeiss on the new Ikon, and Zeiss have said pretty directly that they intend to build a digital Ikon, even going to the effort of (apparently) designing the new wide-angles to be friendlier to digital sensors than traditional designs. (I'm not an expert on lenses -- anyone have more detail on this last point?)

So Voigtlander might do it, just because of market pressures ... it's certain that a cheap M or LTM digital would sell pretty well to the people that frequent these forums. 😉

jv
 
I don't know how well that would go down with Epson, for whom Cosina-Voigtlander manufactures the chassis of the R-D 1 under contract.

I believe that I've read here that C-V builds the camera body and Epson installs the sensor and electronics; hard to believe that C-V could do that much less inexpensively themselves, so I don't see how they could get $2,000 of retail price out of the product just by moving the electronics installation in-house. They could lower the price by deleting features, but some people already complain that the R-D 1 is pretty spartan in terms of features!

The big DSLR manufacturers that have a sub-$1000 model do it by sharing components with their more expensive models, and in some cases with a film SLR as well. This not only lowers the price, it lets the manufacturer justify the low-price model as a "loss leader" to get people into the system, where they'll buy lenses, accessories, and possibly a high-end body later.

I suspect this strategy wouldn't work as well with an RF camera, because they are inherently more expensive to manufacture (the rangefinder optics, coupling mechanism, etc. have to be very precise) and there aren't as many features to drop to create an "entry-level" model.

What might happen eventually is that someone might introduce a more expensive, more-featured model -- one with such often-requested features as a full-35mm-frame sensor, higher pixel count, more framelines, longer RF base, etc., etc. -- and this would provide downward price pressure on lesser-featured models. But I think we'll NEVER see an entry-level digital RF that's as cheap as bottom-tier DSLRs, simply because RF cameras cost more to make and don't sell at the same volume.

BTW, the above higher-featured camera does sound to me a lot like a digital version of the still-vaporous Zeiss Ikon RF camera. But I don't recall ever seeing Zeiss say directly that they intend to make such a camera -- only that they're considering all the options. The fact that they claim they're designing their lenses to be more digital-friendly is only common sense for any lens line nowadays; it wouldn't surprise me if Leica and Cosina are doing the same with new designs, but without any official announcement.
 
Interesting analysis, jlw. I'm new to rangefinders and don't know a whole lot about the economics of the photographic equipment industry. I appreciate your explanation.

Thanks,

Paul
 
I find it interesting why to estimate a digital RF obviously expensive.
At least the AF system is not necessary.
Of course the whole film treatment mechanics and DX code reading things are not necessary too.
If use a not-fullframe-readout type sensor, the shutter is not necessary.
This also makes possible the use of a sophisticated EVF instead of optical VF/RF.
(O.K. a lot of people would say: a camera without VF/RF is NOT a RF camera. I think, that a usefull refresh rate and a resolution similar to a former Minolta's could be acceptable.)
Remains a box with a bayonet containing the electronics - and the sensor.
Btw Mr. Gandy promisses us somthing he saw already for monthes...
Is it possible, he has to wait something to be declared by Mr. K???

nemjo
 
I think a DRF with a 35mm-size sensor would electrify the RF community (no pun intended). The thought of sharing my lenses between a film body loaded with B&W and a digital body for col work, with no crop factor on the digital side -- well let's just say it would go down well with a Guinness ... 😀

But we gotta work on the cost part ... (not the Guinness) 🙄

Epson, think BIGGER ...

Gene
 
There will never be a cheap digital RF due to the small market for such cameras. I think entry model DSLRs make money, due to big volumes.

Why should adding some off the shelf digital components boost the price by 6 times compared to a film Bessa with whom it shares many components? I guess the answer is that they need to get R&D money back on a rather small production run, and there really is no alternative in the market today.

It is a pity that the Epson RD-1 is so expensive. Perhaps there will be an RD-2 and then the RD-1 will get a big price drop as an entry level model. It would not annoy the people who bought the RD-1 at the current (high) price, they have already gotten their money back due to savings compared to film, or at least that is the impression I get from reading posts from RD-1 owners.
It is a strange thing that when I estimate the time it would take me to "get the money back", I usually end up with 10 years. I think Digital photography is really very expensive. I am currently doing digital darkroom, but I am still not sure if even that was the right route to take, time will tell.
 
hth said:
It is a strange thing that when I estimate the time it would take me to "get the money back", I usually end up with 10 years. I think Digital photography is really very expensive. I am currently doing digital darkroom, but I am still not sure if even that was the right route to take, time will tell.

Consider the prices we have to pay for film and development here in Europe.
On average a roll of colour film costs 3 euro. I don't know about B&W as I never shoot it.
Developing colour film costs another 3 euro. B&W will usually be more.
That's 6 euros for a roll.
Add to that the time you need to scan the negs, or add the cost of having a cd made of the negs (thyat'll be another 10 euro, thankyouverymuch).

I shot an average of 1 roll a day in the past two years.
6 euro times 365 days is 2190 euro per year, not counting my valuable time that I spend on scanning.
My R-D1 cost me 2500 euro (buying it from Dr Yao in Hong Kong, and including import duties here in Holland).
Not only did that save me 500 euro on the retail price here in Europe, it also saves me tons of time scanning negs, and in a year's time I've saved myself the price of the camera on film.
It was a big step to shell out 2500 euro for a single camera but for me it proofs to be the only sensible thing.
 
I'm cynical enough to wonder if the Leica lenses on those Panasonics are "made in Solms" Leica or merely "We'll let you engrave your name on it if you meet our QC standards and give us a sack of money" Leica. I doubt if the top-level Nikkor and Canon lenses are notably inferior to the latter...

Besides, who'd want ANY of them? NONE of them are rangefinder cameras! (cue stirring theme music)
 
I've got both a Panasonic FZ20 and a Nikon D70.. the lens on the Panasonic is definitely superior to the Nikon lineup (at least the affordable Nikkor lenses).. however, the sensor on the Nikon is much better than the Panasonic.. you have to keep the "ISO" setting at 100 or lower on the Panasonic to get acceptable noise levels.. the Nikon can go up to 400 or higher without a problem

both are actually pretty nice cameras.. the Panasonic is much smaller and lighter.. it has a very impressive zoom range and the anti-shake technology actually works.. I'd rather use the Panasonic than the Nikon if I'm going to shoot digital.. EXCEPT the EVF on the Panasonic annoys the living crap outta me.. anybody that goes from a standard RF to something with an EVF will not be a happy camper.. imagine the delay with an SLR times 5.. also, the EVF makes it nearly impossible to manually focus

I'll never buy a digital RF with an EVF.. but it would be sooo nice to use high quality glass with a digital camera.. Canon EOS users are lucky enough to have that option, thanks to Jorge.. check out his DSLReXchange site for info
 
Joe,
take a look on Leica's Digilux2(PanaLC1), imagine on it the Minolta's more than 900kEVF with a high refresh rate...
It's really very near to a digital RF.
nemjo
 
Justin Viiret said:
That said, they're doing the manufacturing for Zeiss on the new Ikon, and Zeiss have said pretty directly that they intend to build a digital Ikon, even going to the effort of (apparently) designing the new wide-angles to be friendlier to digital sensors than traditional designs. (I'm not an expert on lenses -- anyone have more detail on this last point?)

This is actually quite simple, if you understand how the light hits the sensor🙂

Film just requires light to more or less hit the film, an extreme oblique is fine. Now digital sensors need light to aim as close as it can to a right angle from the sensor. An angle and it does not work. Check out all the info on the Olympus Fourthirds.com site. Very neat info.

So Zeiss, said, ok, redesign the lenses so light hits at the correct angle. And only at that angle. This is actually quite a feat. They are also only the second company to have a COMPLETE lineup of lenses designed this way. It also meant they had to alter the lenses, as G Series could not just be slapped into a new mount and used.

The scary part is they did this with some full 35mm frame lenses that are super wides. Using a half frame, people were shocked Olympus could do zooms this way. Zeiss is a harder taskmaster by far... and it is shocking they were able to cook some up that met their requirments.

Kudos to Zeiss and Cosina
 
Jtake a look on Leica's Digilux2(PanaLC1), imagine on it the Minolta's more than 900kEVF with a high refresh rate...
It's really very near to a digital RF.


Except for the lack of, ummm... an RF!

In terms of how you use it, it's more like an SLR without a pentaprism. What you see through the finder is still the lens image -- no outside area, no framelines, no constant magnification -- and for focusing you either have to trust the AF system or your own visual acuity to distinguish between sharp and slightly unsharp images.

Of course that's great for people who like SLRs, which most people do. But I prefer to use an RF. Isn't that why most of us are here?
 
bmattock said:
Actually, I've seen those models before - I suspect that they're not made by Voigtlander, but sold under that name (as well as a bunch of other names). Made in Taiwan. That's my understanding, anyway.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

You're probably very right, Bill, but there aren't any real Voigtlanders anymore, are there? Our beloved Voigtlanders are also made in faraway Asia by Cosina. 🙂
 
RML said:
You're probably very right, Bill, but there aren't any real Voigtlanders anymore, are there? Our beloved Voigtlanders are also made in faraway Asia by Cosina. 🙂

Well, yes...I see your point. But the 'modern' Cosina/Voigtlander does make their own cameras, as they have for other manufacturers for decades (Canon, Nikon, Minolta, and so on). The Cosina/Voigtlander digital cameras you mention appear to me to be relabeled *to* Cosina/Voigtlander and made *by* yet another company, located in Taiwan.

As far as 'real' Voigtlanders go - the history of Voigtlander is so twisted and turned, at what point does one report that Voigtlander is no longer Voigtlander? When they were aquired the first time or the last time, or somewhere inbetween?

Granted that the current incarnation is a Voigtlander in name only - the right to use that name apparently belongs to RingFoto (sp?) of Germany and they license it to Cosina.

But I would argue that Mister Kobayashi has been very kind to a cherished old name - he has not disrespected it IMHO. Not that you were implying he had - just voicing an opinion, given an opportunity!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
jlw said:
Except for the lack of, ummm... an RF!

In terms of how you use it, it's more like an SLR without a pentaprism. What you see through the finder is still the lens image -- no outside area, no framelines, no constant magnification -- and for focusing you either have to trust the AF system or your own visual acuity to distinguish between sharp and slightly unsharp images.

Of course that's great for people who like SLRs, which most people do. But I prefer to use an RF. Isn't that why most of us are here?

JLW,

let me say few words on that - just thinking...
There are lots of RF cameras don't showing outside area in VF - FSU cams for example and more.
Therefore I think 'lens image' is not necessarily a fault - at least no parallax error.
I would be happy with a camera using RF type lenses no matter how the manufacturer gets over the difficulties.
If using a full-frame-readout sensor, a conventional RF seems to be necessary.
If using a non-full-frame-readout sensor than the very expensive optical VF/RF could be changed to a (developed) EVF.
The nicest would be if I could choose among them...

Cheers,

nemjo
 
Back
Top Bottom