Trius
Waiting on Maitani
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.
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
Well-known
HAnkg said:You might as well wish for a pink pony for Christmas
How did you know a pink pony was on my christmas wish list?
Will
Well-known
jlw said:
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.
Last edited:
Will
Well-known
jlw said:
pvdhaar
Peter
This is a highly speculative question..
The only thing that I think you can safely argue, is that it won't be substantially cheaper..
The only thing that I think you can safely argue, is that it won't be substantially cheaper..
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Just as long as it doesn't specialise in IR photography.
willie_901
Veteran
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 $$$$. Everybody's happy.
So, how is Zeiss going to get its hands on the next level of digital technology.? They certainly won't develop it in house. They either have to find a partner or wait for it to trickle down.
Zeiss appears to be positioning itself as a up-market lens supplier for digital cameras – and that's it .
Digital sensor technology has a long way to go, but there is little motivation to make radical improvements. Buyers are very happy with the current sensor technology. Manufacturers spend R&D on anti-shake bodies, jazzed up auto-focus technology and in-camera software. The general public eats up the consumer level products, and the pros buy the more expensive stuff because time is $$$$. 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
Well-known
Zeiss is not in trouble! so they don`t need digital camera, M8 is enough for selling biogons
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Vlad, you're bad!
S
Socke
Guest
But he may be on the spot!
Nachkebia
Well-known
Plus marketing wise they are the only pure`ists left, every other company on earth has gone digital! just think about it if only zeiss ikon was well build
if only zeiss ikon was well build 
Olsen
Well-known
The Digital Zeiss Biogon
The Digital Zeiss Biogon
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.
The Digital Zeiss Biogon
HAnkg said: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.
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
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
Well-known
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
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
6x9 and be there!
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
Cheers,
Abbazz
S
Socke
Guest
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.
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
Veteran
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' ; )
Hope ya'll can take a ribbin' ; )
espressogeek
Well-known
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
maraboutflash
I agree the best digital was c8080 olympus !!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
willie_901 said:
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"
NickTrop said:
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
Last edited: