Digital?

[ernesto]

I know Cosina/Voigthlander likes film, and they do not Digital...
But soon or later a solution should be implemented.

With film cameras, the equipment do not include film.
Why D Cameras do include sensors?
Perhaps a Digital somehow standard Module could be produced by several specialized company as Kodak Fuji, (perhaps Canon and Nikon too) etc, which could be placed on diferent cameras, included Voigthlander, Zeiss Ikon, Leica.

Otherwise what we are experiencing with Leica and their problems issues and upgrades will go on happening. Each company with its specialty is a better value compared to current policy: All companies with diferent specialties want to do it ALL, but do not have the know how in all fields.

I hope Thinking People in these companies could work together to reach to a better and competitive product, saving their own reputation as specialists in certain field.

If not, we could end with a general lower quality of products in all brands, and in a long term a devaluation of all involved brand names.

Ernesto

 

[NickTrop]

Article, interview with Cosina CEO, bolding mine


Speaking Frankly: The Contrary Mind of Hirofumi Kobayashi
By Herbert Keppler
April 2006

<snip> /fair use/:

Then came the digital onslaught. Virtually all Cosina-made 35mm film SLRs were obsolete antiques, not needed by the major-brand camera companies.

I had what I thought was a brilliant idea for Kobayashi. Just as he had made basic, inexpensive 35mm SLR camera bodies with various lensmounts, why not do the same for digital cameras?

"Look at the short life of digital SLRs and their continuously falling prices," rejoined Kobayashi. "Why should I get into that mess?"

Kobayashi had, as they say, other fish to fry. It would be a completely different camera and he would sell it directly; no more selling cameras only to other companies who would then put their own names on them. But what name should Cosina use? While Cosina had tried its own on cameras for the Japanese market, the Cosina name was not exactly considered the Rolls-Royce or Mercedes-Benz of cameradom.

But Kobayashi was indeed thinking of a camera system that could well be equated with top quality. Where could he find a prestigious readymade name he could purchase or adopt?

Voigtländer, founded in 1756, is the world's oldest name in cameras...


http://www.popphoto.com/blogsandcol...ontrary-mind-of-hirofumi-kobayashi-page2.html

 

[ernesto]

Here I have found this web page.
It is very interesting how many Digital Sensors, Full Frame and Bigger sizes are being developed by Specialized companies that has no Photocamera experience.

http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/cameras/digital-cameras/digital-camera-backs/PLS_4287crx.aspx

If Mr Hirofumi Kobayashi do not want to go into that mess, just open the game and do an agreement with all these companies to set up a new 35mm digital back standard, so that could be attached to existing and / or future Voightlander cameras, offering to the public a great option pluss keeping his bussines within his compaies interests and specialties.

I am sure that camera will be better than an M8, pluss it could be updated by the user just buying the back from the Digital Maker directly.

Ernesto

 

[ernesto]

Here you have a black and white sensor back
http://www.mega-vision.com/products/Mono/Mono.htm
Aparently as it is described here, it is not that good to capture a color image and then to convert to black and white.
Pluss a b&w sensor is cheaper! why pay for a colour sensor if you shoot black and white?
This is another reason to SEPARATE Sensors from cameras.

Ernesto

 

[ernesto]

There are lots of companies that works on the Sensor Fields that have no Photo Brand name:

www.betterlight.com
www.leafamerica.com
www.leafamerica.com
www.mega-vision.com
www.fujifilm.com
www.phaseone.com
www.sinarbron.com

Hope this will become real!!!

 

[didotcicero]

As NickTrop tried to point out mr. K is just not interested in making a digital Bessa (it simply wouldn't be profitable for him).

We have to accept this. In Japan analoque photography is still very popular so film will stay for a while (we might have to import it from Japan in the far future, but who cares 😉 )

I'm still looking forward to the moment that Leica AG decides to sponsor me with a Lecia M8 (which -probably- never will happen, but please let me keep this dream)

 

[ernesto]

As NickTrop tried to point out mr. K is just not interested in making a digital Bessa (it simply wouldn't be profitable for him).

That is just what I see!

So the way for him, iis getting rid of the digital problem, letting other to deal with it, meanwhile keeping for himself the Optical and Mechanical Solution.

This is the OPOSITE Leica did! They tried to deal with everything but they do not have the same expertise as in film area. The result is that Users, and Leica brand is sufering because of excesive ambitious of Leica. They should accept they do not have the digital know how.

Cosina, accepted it, and is not being involved in digital projects.
But, what I say, is that you do not have to stay offering film products only, to avoid dealing with Digital Tech.

Cosina can offer a digital solution leting others to do the Digital Part, by adopting the Digital back concept with their Bessa models.

Am I being too crazy?

Ernesto

 

[joykafka]

Unlike most cameras of a format larger than 35mm, a 35mm RF's body structure is not born for an exchangeable digital back in my eyes, due to, just my guess, the existence of an RF's original back lid, different shape and size of the back, different relative shutter's position, etc. Besides, the size and weight after adding a digital back to a compact 35mm RF ...

These can all be overcome but then it would cost much more than simply another Digital RF, way beyond affordable budget of an amateur.

In my opinion, some revolution, or at least leaping renovation, might need to take place in the industry to make this concept come true for 35mm RF's.

 

[DelDavis]

All of this digital resistance seems awfully shortsighted to me. Of course people accept that the product may be far behind the bleeding edge in five years. So what? Digital has its great advantages, and of course so does film. I think any camera maker worth its salt should be advancing the state of the art in digital and film (for I believe film *will* be around for quite a while, but I am ready to hop to digital whenever a worth camera presents itself). People will buy digital, even if it's not perfect! The industry needs to be kicked in the pants.

Maybe it's the extra glass of wine talking. I shouldn't post this late at night.

 

[bmattock]

Every so often, someone posts a question about why a solution cannot be found that puts a digital sensor into a film camera, thus converting the film camera to a digital camera - or even a convertible camera, capable of using either film or an easily-removable digital sensor.

On the surface, this makes sense. And there were several dot-com startups that tried to do just that. They poured billions in investor money down a sinkhole, then disappeared. However, that was some years ago - technology is better now.

And indeed, as you say, there are companies that specialize in making digital backs for medium-format and large-format cameras, some of which were originally film-based. Perhaps you did not notice that these cost upwards of 30,000 USD, and some of them are tethered, meaning they cannot be easily taken on assignment, or they are not instant, such as the 'flatbed scanner turned sideways' solution.

Likewise, Kodak's digital SLR cameras were based on existing Nikon and Canon film SLRs (the DSC series). They were eagerly adopted by media, but they have since moved on to lighter and less-expensive makes, and Kodak is out of that business as of the 14/n - a nice full-frame Nikon-based camera.

Leica also tried to do this - the Modul-R, which turned the Leica R8 or R9 some swear is a wonderful thing indeed, and about to take the market by storm. Well, they've had a couple of years now, and I think they've sold maybe a couple hundred of them worldwide. Not a big mover.

Some hackers have tried to insert the guts of a digital camera into existing film cameras, with varying degrees of success. Oh, it can be done, but there are many obstacles to overcome. Not least of which is convincing a mechanical shutter and aperture to communicate with a digital sensor, and of course there is the problem of the tiny sensor turning your standard 50mm lens into something like a 270mm telephoto if you put a standard 1/1.25 sensor into a 35mm film camera.

In the long run - it was a great enough idea that many have tried to do it. It is certainly technically do-able. But the truth is, the amount of engineering necessary to do it isn't worth it to the companies who have the money and engineering expertise to do it.

In other words, as I've said for years - we are not the market. Camera companies in general do not care one whit about us and our love of old rangefinder cameras - we represent the tiniest fraction of their paying clientele, not worthy of attention. No Joe Sixpack wants a digital sensor he can shove into his old Kodak. He wants a nice new digicam, and that's what he is going to get.

Companies like Cosina-Voigtlander (and to some extent, Leica and Ilford) represent the few companies that actually notice we exist and are willing to market to us. I'm grateful for that, but they don't want to make a digital insert for film cameras.

So it is not going to happen.

Sorry, I'd like to have a nice digital insert for my old film cameras too.

 

[DelDavis]

Companies like Cosina-Voigtlander (and to some extent, Leica and Ilford) represent the few companies that actually notice we exist and are willing to market to us. I'm grateful for that, but they don't want to make a digital insert for film cameras.

So it is not going to happen.

Sorry, I'd like to have a nice digital insert for my old film cameras too.

But Kobayashi -- from that quote, anyway -- didn't appear to be talking about just digital backs. He's talking about digital cameras from the ground up. There's money to be made there, I think! But I may be wrong. If only I were interested enough to develop a spreadsheet.

At any rate, I'd seriously consider buying a Cosina or Zeiss made digital rangefinder. I'd accept less than full-frame if I needed to if there weren't the obvious rush-to-deliver issues that plague the M8. Although full-frame is truly what I desire, but I'd be willing to pay a handsome sum for it. What's-his-face head of Leica has even alluded to the issues that were the result of the rush to produce the M8. Fine. Of course there are issues. I may not buy an M8, but Leica are out there, giving it a go, and apparently making some money doing it. I appreciate Leica for this.

I admire a patient approach by these companies, but I do think they could be earning some net profit while they work out the kinks. Like it or not, many aspects of our culture are becoming digital, and a resistance to this tide makes those resisting seem irrelevant!

 

[bmattock]

But Kobayashi -- from that quote, anyway -- didn't appear to be talking about just digital backs. He's talking about digital cameras from the ground up. There's money to be made there, I think! But I may be wrong. If only I were interested enough to develop a spreadsheet.

I think there is not. I suspect that enterprising souls with money to invest would have done such a thing already, and the fact that several venture capitalized firms have gone poof in the attempt is fact enough.

At any rate, I'd seriously consider buying a Cosina or Zeiss made digital rangefinder. I'd accept less than full-frame if I needed to if there weren't the obvious rush-to-deliver issues that plague the M8. Although full-frame is truly what I desire, but I'd be willing to pay a handsome sum for it. What's-his-face head of Leica has even alluded to the issues that were the result of the rush to produce the M8.

You are aware of the ill-fated Epson RD-1, aren't you? Cosina-made, Bessa-style M body, digital sensor. Withdrawn from the market, last I heard.

I admire a patient approach by these companies, but I do think they could be earning some net profit while they work out the kinks.

Profit is a funny thing. People who don't have it tend to think that any profit is good, and a thing will be made if a profit can be earned on it.

But that's not true, and it is easy to demonstrate.

If you have 10,000 USD in a bank account, insured, earning 3%, and another bank offers you 10%, also insured and guaranteed, you'd be a fool not to take the higher offer. That's profit to you, but we seldom think of it that way.

A company can make profit - they think - of a certain percentage (ROI), with a certain investment of money, people, capital resources, and time. But if they feel that they can make a better profit putting those same resources to work doing something else - guess what?

So saying that "if it makes a profit someone will do it" is not necessarily true. It can be profitable and no one will do it - because it is not profitable ENOUGH.

 

[DelDavis]

...and the fact that several venture capitalized firms have gone poof in the attempt is fact enough.

citation needed.

You are aware of the ill-fated Epson RD-1, aren't you? Cosina-made, Bessa-style M body, digital sensor. Withdrawn from the market, last I heard.

Good point. Not too familiar with the history, but who the H-E-double-hockeystcik in the mass market has heard the name Cosina or Bessa? Zeiss rings a bell for the semi-average Joe, so does Leica. Marketing is key! To be a success you need to sell not just to the enthusiasts [read: Us], but to the wannabe enthusiasts. Cachet is key!

Profit is a funny thing. People who don't have it tend to think that any profit is good, and a thing will be made if a profit can be earned on it.

That's not what I meant to suggest. You're extending my comment beyond it's original intent. I am very well aware of relative rates of return and keep track of them in my personal investments, but I do believe the market is begging for something between a digital SLR and a digital point-and-shoot. Something with exchangeable lenses. There is a place where money can be made, and a company can leverage their digital SLR or digital microscope (in the case of Zeiss) experience.

 

[bmattock]

citation needed.

Sorry, Del, I can't. I did a quick search of RFF - there have been several angry threads about one such company, called, as I recall, "Digital Film." They made some great promises, had a nice website, sucked up a lot of venture capital, and went poof. They were claiming a new round of financing was in the works and would soon be back with a vengeance, and that got lots of people excited here, but not I, because I lost a fortune in the dot-com bubble, and I knew they were goners. Smart me, but sad me - I wanted it to be true. If you can find the threads, good luck - I could not. But trust me, this is not the first time (or even the dozenth time) we've had this exact same thread run on RFF.

Good point. Not too familiar with the history, but who the H-E-double-hockeystcik in the mass market has heard the name Cosina or Bessa? Zeiss rings a bell for the semi-average Joe, so does Leica. Marketing is key! To be a success you need to sell not just to the enthusiasts [read: Us], but to the wannabe enthusiasts. Cachet is key!

Epson is pretty well known, it was sold under the Epson brand name. Perhaps not well-marketed - but there you go.

I would say Joe Sixpack knows the Epson name better than the Zeiss name - in the USA, at least. Hunter Sauerbraten might know Zeiss better.

That's not what I meant to suggest. You're extending my comment beyond it's original intent. I am very well aware of relative rates of return and keep track of them in my personal investments, but I do believe the market is begging for something between a digital SLR and a digital point-and-shoot. Something with exchangeable lenses. There is a place where money can be made, and a company can leverage their digital SLR or digital microscope (in the case of Zeiss) experience.

Well, Zeiss is clearly experimenting, as they continue to introduce lenses made for the tiny minority of 'us' that are out here - the recent Nikon F mount, Pentax KA mount, and of course M mount lenses, etc. But unless I am mistaken - all made by Cosina. They're not actually investing in manufacturing themselves. And if they are not, then the only company to make a "Zeiss" digital rangefinder would be...Cosina. And they've refused on several occasions. They don't want to do it.

And we've been down this discussion thread, too. Many have claimed that like or not, Cosina would be drug kicking and screaming if necessary to make a digital rangefinder because the market demands it. Hmmm. I notice most of those folks have pretty much shut their yaps now.

We are not the market. We are not even a tiny fraction of the market.

We hate to think of ourselves as insignificant, but we are. And that's that.

 

[DelDavis]

Many have claimed that like or not, Cosina would be drug kicking and screaming if necessary to make a digital rangefinder because the market demands it.

Many have claimed, but what's Cosina's stance? Have you asked them? When I indicated my interest to Zeiss in a digital rangefinder, as part of their lengthy response they said, "...there is a great interest for a digital Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera on the market."

Methinks we will see one some day, especially since they continue to develop these fabulous M-mount lenses. In my opinion they have no choice but to develop a good non-SLR digital camera with interchangeable M-mount lenses if they wish to remain in the camera business. If they do not wish that, then I wish they would quit toying with my emotions!

We hate to think of ourselves as insignificant, but we are. And that's that.

Well, that may be true. For now. But that's only because we're all still shooting film.

 

[bmattock]

Many have claimed, but what's Cosina's stance? Have you asked them?

Personally? No. But I have read every interview with Cosina spokespeople and Kobayashi-san that have become available, and if I am not mistaken, herr head barkeep has had the odd chucklefest with him. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but Kobayashi-san seems to still be quite down on Cosina making a digital camera. They don't want to. He's said it several times. I'm not sure what 'asking them' would do.

When I indicated my interest to Zeiss in a digital rangefinder, as part of their lengthy response they said, "...there is a great interest for a digital Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera on the market."

Methinks we will see one some day, especially since they continue to develop these fabulous M-mount lenses.

It's all opinion, Del. Yours and mine. Those who have predicted a digital rangefinder have so far been met with the RD-1 fiasco and the magenta-colored M8. I won't say you're wrong - I'll say history appears to be saying you are.

Well, that may be true. For now. But that's only because we're all still shooting film.

I shoot both, with great enthusiasm. Photography is not a religion to me - I don't play sides. I use what works for me, I use what I like, and nobody tells me what I ought to use or like.

Photography is a divisive little hobby, in my opinion. We divide ourselves by brand favorites, then by film versus digital, then by lenses and even down to new Velvia versus old Velvia. I remember having heated discussions with pals who swore they'd never touch a camera again if Kodak did not IMMEDIATELY put Panatomic-X back on the market, wrote letters to Kodak to that effect, planned boycotts and bus trips to Rochester, and so on. When they weren't bashing each other over the head about Canon versus Nikon, that is.

Find two photographers, find 10 opinions. Everybody knows what is going to happen next, everybody knows they can predict - or force - things to happen their way.

I laugh at all of them. I just like to take pictures.

And now I have to go check the inside of my eyelids for light leaks. It's supposed to snow 10 inches here tonight, I'll be shoveling in the morning - probably not much photography either.

 

[DelDavis]

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but Kobayashi-san seems to still be quite down on Cosina making a digital camera. They don't want to. He's said it several times. I'm not sure what 'asking them' would do.

Cosina can go take a flying-leap then. I enjoy their products, but they need to wake up and smell the bits and bytes. (Again, I'm still feeling my last glass of wine, so take all this under the requisite consideration).

It's all opinion, Del. Yours and mine. Those who have predicted a digital rangefinder have so far been met with the RD-1 fiasco and the magenta-colored M8. I won't say you're wrong - I'll say history appears to be saying you are.

History is no predictor of the future, in my opinion. Things are moving too quickly. The M8 was a toe in the water. A child-like first attempt. The future will quickly meet and surpass my expectations, I expect (haha!)

I shoot both, with great enthusiasm. Photography is not a religion to me...

Okay. What's the point? I shoot both film and digital, too. And, yes, with great enthusiasm. But it is my opinion (one of the many of which you wrote) that digital is the image-making realm of the future. Film will be reserved for boutique practitioners. It seems obvious to me that digital will be available in whatever damn format we want before long. But, yes, that's my speculation.

Find two photographers, find 10 opinions. Everybody knows what is going to happen next, everybody knows they can predict - or force - things to happen their way.

Yes, but what does saying this add to the discussion? What do you think will happen in the digital realm that is relevant to us?

And now I have to go check the inside of my eyelids for light leaks.

Same here. Sleep well.

 

[Keith]

I always find it ironic when Japanese execs make statements about where their companies will and won't go product wise. Kobayashi-san will keep saying this right until the point where he decides to make a digital camera because to discuss the possibility of a digital Voigtlander now would be bad bussiness in any exec's thinking. They need their loyal fan base of film users for finacial viability of the products they are currently selling.

Soichiro Honda ... the founder of one of the world's largest motor companies swore publically on many occasions that they would never manufacture a two stroke engine due to it's ineficiency and levels of pollution. When the market demanded it they went on to make millions of them and the rest is history!

 

[Jamie Pillers]

My money is on Ricoh

My money is on Ricoh

I love my Bessa and those fine little CV lenses. However, I'd bet that as soon as someone like Ricoh figures out how to build a low-noise, fast aperture camera with a zoom lens range similar to what we like in rangefinders (24 to 110mm or so), we'll all be buying one ... as back-up of course 🙂 Ricoh clearly is interested in this idea... the GRD cameras and the GX100. They're still too noisy and not much good in low-light, but don't you think Ricoh wants what we want? Of course! They're just waiting for the sensor engineers to figure the problems out.

I agree with several of the people who have commented on this thread: As much as we'd like to Cosina take this task on, they don't appear to even be in the race at the moment. Canon, Sony, or Nikon appear to be racing, but my bet is on Ricoh.

 

[joykafka]

... but my bet is on Ricoh.

Mine would be on Sigma DP-1 with 3-layer Foveon x3 Sensor, similar to the essence of colour film, and whose sensor size is APS-C.

Only concerns so far are "operational", such as inconvenient MF and lack of an optical VF. "Technical-wise", I believe there would be improvements, such as a larger aperture, anti-flare, exchangeable lenses....