Digital Zeis Ikon

[Sailor Ted]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A long wait perhaps.

A long wait perhaps.

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]

That did be good.

That did be good.

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.😀
The M8 is indeed an investment.
But it doesn't pay any interest.

 

[amateriat]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.. 😀

 

[Socke]

Jano, I doubt it is possible to produce curved silicon waffers.

 

[Paul T.]

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.. 😀

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]

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 😀

 

[Sparrow]

Who is we? I want full frame, don`t know who is we 😀

I'm with you; so we are
😀