Digital Zeiss Ikon - Pricing

R

retow

Well-known
Local time
3:56 AM
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
270
View My Gallery
How much woukld you be willing to pay for a digital ZI. Also considering that used M8s' start to become available and might presumably be priced in the $3000 range in 2008.


🙂
 
retow said:
How much woukld you be willing to pay for a digital ZI. Also considering that used M8s' start to become available and might presumably be priced in the $3000 range in 2008.


🙂
Click to expand...
As little as possible, I reckon 🙂 About $450 would do it for me 🙂. Seriously though, this whole thing with the high prices of rangefinders is getting old. I mean, how hard or costly is it to make one, for Pete's sake ? 🙄
 
wordpress said:
$999. Seriously.
Click to expand...


Less than the film body?

I wonder what will happen first? 4/3 and APS sensors get into P&S cameras, or RF companies bring out more cameras.

If an 4/3 APS unit comes out with a fast lens and low shutter lag, and some kind of control, I'm there and won't look back.

I would think $2500-3000, still can't buy one.

Mark
 
akptc said:
Seriously though, this whole thing with the high prices of rangefinders is getting old. I mean, how hard or costly is it to make one, for Pete's sake ? 🙄
Click to expand...

Prices are high because we dummies just keep buying em. I bought one but now I think I'm done.
 
Thardy's got a point. Imagine if, when Leica introduced the M8 for five grand, everyone had said, "You need to stop smokin' that stuff," and didn't buy. I suspect the price would have been adjusted accordingly.
 
dazedgonebye said:
If it showed for less than $3,500, I'd be shocked.
Click to expand...


The M7 is listed for about $3500, the ZI for about $1300. Why shouldn't the same ratio apply to the digital versions? M8 $4800 ZI digital about $1900.
 
retow said:
The M7 is listed for about $3500, the ZI for about $1300. Why shouldn't the same ratio apply to the digital versions? M8 $4800 ZI digital about $1900.
Click to expand...

Because digital is ever so slightly more complicated than film.
 
I don't get it. On one hand everybody is clamoring for a full frame sensor, on the other everybody is clamoring for a price tag 50% under the M8 and even under the R-D1 on market introduction.

Digital is expensive. R&D costs want to be earned back. A digital Zeiss Ikon will be an expensive beast.

tedwhite said:
Imagine if, when Leica introduced the M8 for five grand, everyone had said, "You need to stop smokin' that stuff," and didn't buy. I suspect the price would have been adjusted accordingly.
Click to expand...
Probably not. Leica wouldn't have started selling M8s at a loss. (It also constitutes a loss when you don't earn your R&D costs back.) Also the Euro exchange rate wouldn't have been adjusted specially for Leica. If people hadn't bought, Leica would probably have been out of business by the end of the 2007 fiscal year. I'm not sure whether that's so desirable.
 
I guess digital rangefinders must be much more expensive to produce than digital SLRs.

I'd like to see the body at or under $2000. Otherwise, I'm likely to keep shooting film and scaning or using some other kind of less expensive digital camera.
 
cablesnarl said:
I guess digital rangefinders must be much more expensive to produce than digital SLRs.

I'd like to see the body at or under $2000. Otherwise, I'm likely to keep shooting film and scaning or using some other kind of less expensive digital camera.
Click to expand...

I think a lot has to do with high R&D costs and low sales volume.

Perhaps in time, Digital will be so old hat that enough off the shelf technology will exist to make them cost competitive. Perhaps another 5 years for FF sensors to go down in price and for the particular rangefinder technical challenges to be met.
Here's hoping.
 
Under 2000 bucks sounds fine to me. Partner up with canon, get the sensor out of the 20D, stick it in a body with whatever is needed, the 350D already showed us that high tech digital can be small, then give it a reasonable price tag and they will fly off the shelves, and it will be more then most of us need.
 
Last edited:
Rangefiders are expensive because of the lower production than SLR. Also rangefinders are from expensive materials. You can find new starter SLR from plastic. Also they are build to last. Look at the russian RF. They had milions in production so prices are low. BUt still they are working great even after 40-50 years. When you buy film rangefinder it will last forever, you can leave it to grandkids to use it 😀. But, when it is digital it won't last forever. And if it last, you will be in magic circle looking for more pixels, trying to buy new body and selling the old one, which will cost 1/5 of the original price after 3-4 yaers and nobody will be interested because in that time on the market will be P&S with more megapixels. Look at digicams now, Lumix LX2 has more pixels than Nikon D50, D50 is a serious DSLR and LX2 is pocket P&S. How much you will pay for old D50 wich was xxx$ on the release? will you give 400$ for old DSLR body or you will buy 10MP P&S? Everyone is reponsible for his/her buying desicions. I would never ever spend even 1500$ for digital body, if i'm pro i would go with expensive Nikon D2 but that is an investment. I will use film till i can, after that i will see what is on the market. Let's se on this way. M8 - 4000$, if i have that money i will rather have fun with buyin negatives, developing, printing do you know how much is that 😱. And that is more fun for me. As i said, if i'm pro I would go digital in this second, but still having film fun at home.

Cheers

Sorry for my english
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom