Digital Zeis Ikon

[jaapv]

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?

Not that hard (I know, it has been posted before, but still....) But for anybody not wanting to lug over 1.5 kg's, there is of course the CV 12 mm.

 

[Bill58]

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"



I guess what you're saying is when they finally come out w/ one, it will be a "killer" digital RF or SLR. I can hardly wait.

Bill

 

[ferider]

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.

All we have to wait for is a full frame sensor with enough bits per pixel. The vignetting problem that forced Leitz to
reduce the sensor size can be dealt with in software if larger words per pixel are available: one stop of light loss in
the corner = 1 additional bit per pixel.

Say, a 24bit sensor for full format becomes available. This can then be used as 16bit sensor for a digital RF, using the additional
8 bits to correct corner light fall off.

Once this kind of sensor becomes available for other applications, or mainstream DSLRs it can be used by either Zeiss or
Leitz for a full-frame RF.

Roland.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hm okeyyy and it is M mount? why would someone want it over zeiss digital ? because of canon`s plastic look? no thanks 🙂

Very good point. There are times that I just kick myself because I can't bring the image to look "natural" from a Canon image. You need perfect lighting in order to never have this problem. But that is also the problem with Nikon cameras: you need perfect lighting in order to get a perfectly crisp image. Once you're over ISO 400 with the current crop of Nikon dSLRs, it's game over (for me).

It boils down again to have the right tool for the right situation. Even Swiss Army knives won't provide everything you need.

We'll always complain about something. Either we wait for the M15, the R-D50 or just adapt to some of the weak points each camera has. I really would love a camera made for Goldilocks, but whining over and over about cameras made for each of the Three Bears just makes me want to go like Daffy Duck and wait for the men in their clean white coats.

 

[1dave]

That's easy enough to do by combining components from others, like Kodak, who are making sensors for the very best digicams/backs in the world, and adapting the Zeiss lenses. The body is nothing, the software can be bought from anybody.
A totally proprietary product is no longer the game, as Leica is finding out.
look to combined efforts for the next generation of digital products.

 

[xabi]

a zeiss ikon that sells for $2000, or $1500 better.

 

[jaap]

Look at the M8 and you''l know why Zeiss hasn't launched a digital RF.
An digitall alternative for a film based RF has to be at least a full frame and far more then 10 Mb. Even an Eos 5 can't compete with a good film based Mf SLR.
And if you don,t believe me you should ask the engineers at Zeiss

 

[Socke]

I've asked Zeiss engineers 🙂

but some 5 years ago at photokina 2002 when they where close to the Yashika/Contax booth. Then they told me it would be impossible with current lenses and mentioned the huge 17-35 for the Contax N and ND as a typical lens design for digital sensors.

As to fullframe in a digital RF, IMHO that is not as imporant as in a SLR where the viewfindersize is directly related to folm/sensor size.
But take that with a grain of salt, my widest lens is 28mm and I use a 35 mostly, so no problems getting even wider lenses for my needs with small sensors. This is a big problem for those who shoot 21 or wider.

We talked mostly about the possibility of a digital Contax G and they convinced me, that there was no sensor capable of handling a 28mm Biogon or even a 35mm Planar. I thought it should be possible to fit an APS Sensor and an adapted viewfinder into it so I'd just need to add a 21mm to my arsenal 🙂

With this said, a crop sensor in a M-Mount camera is no problem for me, I don't own M-Mount lenses and would buy a body with a f2 lens in the 63° FoV range as a starter if the viewfinder supports it.
That's my main problem with the Epson, fit a R2 or R4 viewfinder into a RD-1 and I'm a customer.

 

[Carzee]

Canon's least-expensive 24x36-sensor DSLR costs nearly $3,000, and they've already paid off most of their sensor-manufacturing development cost.....[big snip]...they seem in the best position of anyone to introduce a truly modern, compromise-free DRF..

Um, EOS style 45pt autofocus anyone...

I must disagree. Canon is not in a 'handy' position to do a DRF because as far as I know they have no RF glass.

Maybe Canon's mega money could pay for Cosina to do a run similar to what they have already done for Zeiss... but that thought would be up against Canon's uber-global-marketing-Godzilla-international-conglomerate ego. Yes, that is the question... would Canon be able to market RF glass in anything other than white/beige barrels?

 

[lament]

Um, EOS style 45pt autofocus anyone...

I must disagree. Canon is not in a 'handy' position to do a DRF because as far as I know they have no RF glass.

Maybe Canon's mega money could pay for Cosina to do a run similar to what they have already done for Zeiss... but that thought would be up against Canon's uber-global-marketing-Godzilla-international-conglomerate ego. Yes, that is the question... would Canon be able to market RF glass in anything other than white/beige barrels?

Canon has no RF glass? How quickly the world forgets... 🙂

 

[wyk_penguin]

We have not forgotten that Nikon copied Contax and Canon copied Leica.

 

[VinceC]

>>We have not forgotten that Nikon copied Contax and Canon copied Leica.<<

They copied the lens mounts. But Canon and Leica were very innovative with their 1950s RF-era lenses, making them faster and in more varieties than Contax or Leica.

 

[garethc]

Copies? Maybe. Cheaper? Yes. High quality? Yes!

 

[jaapv]

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.

My photolab prints beautiful, handprofiled and adjusted to my individual wishes enlargments (up tp 2 m wide if you wish, my personal record is 1.20 m wide) on Hahnemuhle (sorry, my keyboard chokes on Umlauts) or any other paper at very reasonable prices. Approx 10 to 40 Euro a go. A private investment in a printer and ink would cost magnitudes more as you point out.

 

[gavinlg]

I would buy it in a heartbeat.

 

[Paul T.]

My fantasy: Zeiss, via their long-term relationship with Sony, knows that they are working on a FF sensor, and are waiting until that's a reality before commissioning the Digital Ikon. Is there any real evidence this fantasy is true?

(And has anyone else noticed that this has become a phantom thread, which is labelled as having 'new' posts, when in fact the most recent one is days or even weeks old. A system glitch?)

 

[grainhound]

(And has anyone else noticed that this has become a phantom thread, which is labelled as having 'new' posts, when in fact the most recent one is days or even weeks old. A system glitch?)

I've noticed this happening a couple of times, this thread being the most recent. I also wondered about a glitch. When I first saw this thread up again today, the time given for jaapv's post was 15 minutes ago. The date he posted on was 5-15-07. Coincidence or glitch?

 

[Sparrow]

It’s when people vote in the poll…………..like a dripping tap, innocuous at first but after a while.................... BLOODY ANOYING

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

My fantasy: Zeiss, via their long-term relationship with Sony, knows that they are working on a FF sensor, and are waiting until that's a reality before commissioning the Digital Ikon. Is there any real evidence this fantasy is true?

Full Frame digital with the Leica M mount would be very difficult and expensive. The 1.33x crop factor of the M8 already required very expensive solutions such as special microlenses in order to work. Zeiss would probably want the Digital Ikon to be a little more affordable than the M8 so my guess is that they would use the same 1.5x crop factor APS-C sensors that Nikon uses. The current ZM lenses could be used so that the 2/35 becomes the new normal lens and the 50 mm normal lenses become portrait lenses. The Sonnar 2/85 would make a great longer than portrait telephoto lens, something that the ZM line currently does not have. Even the 21 mm ultra-wides would still be useful with 1.5x crop factor. Only the shorter than 30 mm (35 mm equivalent) lenses would have to be redesigned. If somebody needs a faster than f/2 normal lens, it would be very easy for Zeiss to design one.

Now, the real killer feature for the digital Zeiss Ikon would be autofocus possibility (new lenses with an AF motor would be required), which would make long tele lenses possible. A high quality auxiliary electronic VF (EVF) would be available for use with the AF lenses, since composing with LCD sucks. It would be something that no other camera company has and it would make the digital Ikon a real all-round photographic tool, which could compete even with DSLRs. It would also be much more expensive to develop than a straightforward rangefinder with a digital sensor, so I do not really believe that Zeiss has anything of the sort planned. Unfortunately.

 

[back alley]

It’s when people vote in the poll…………..like a dripping tap, innocuous at first but after a while.................... BLOODY ANOYING

very true!

it could be avoided if people set a close date when they start a poll.

i figure 10 days max is good for any poll.

joe