Dr Scherle Interview + mystery lens unveiled

I wrote it on the linked site as well, Kyocera bought Yashica who had licensed the name Contax and later stopped camera production, not Zeiss! Think about it when you need a new laser printer and tell Kycoera why you bought anything else.

As to "protecting investment", my Yashica Contax RTS is still fine, so a good investment as I understand it. Same for the Zeiss Contessa from 1962, a very good investment my grandfather made.
The ROI is in what I produce with the tool, not in its resale value.
Same goes for Zeiss Contax RFs and SLRs, anybody using them today to his satisfaction can not deny that they were a good investment then.
 
Nachkebia said:
jaapv : well, they are absolutly right saying digital is not mature, so is RD1 and so will be M8, zeiss can servive without digital rangefinder, leica can not, so everybody is pushing there own! just wait until leica puts digital rangefinder marketing monster, how humiliting all film users will be :)
Click to expand...
I'll be happy to use my M8 and M6TTL side by side. In a year I'll tell which one won! Happily I fit in both categories so I guess neither (or rather both) :)
 
I bought my Contax 139 second hand, plus a 1.4/85 and a 2.8/180mm. I expect they will take pictures for the next 10-20 years. If not I will buy another C/Y body for small money, thus protecting my investment. "Investment" can have different values if you speak about securities or tools. No person paying 3,000 USD for a new Leica lens, or 60,000 USD for a Truck awaits kind of yield. He awaits a long lasting tool.

Since obsolescence is inevitable at any high-priced consumer item, what Dr. Scherle told us in reality that Zeiss isn't ready for the full-frame digital ZI. No real surprise. They will wait and see the sales of Leica's M8 with the 1.33 crop sensor. Clever. Zeiss has plenty of time with it - Leica has not. They need results. Soon.

cheers Frank
 
Last edited:
What I found most interesting in Dr. Schere's comments was the statement that the batteries in the ZI will last for "over 10,000 exposures." This sort of takes the air out of the the argument in favor of a mechanical camera over this electronic one. You're far more likely to need a CLA on your mechanical camera sooner than you'llneed to replace a battery on the ZI, and your camera will be out of commission for weeks while you're waiting for the CLA in contrast to the seconds that it will take to replace a battery. The use of batteries in this case for metering & operating the shutter uses far less power than an SLR running a motor drive & an autofocus motor. SLR batteries will need to be replaced from time to time, but not the ZI batteries.

A second interesting point is his statement that the shutter in the ZI is an improved version of the one in the Bessa cameras: "longer service life, lower level of mechanical vibration, less noise." This confirms what I was told by Zeiss in a private correspondence.

Huck
 
Huck, judging from the batteries in my Contax RTS he must be right, i changed them three years ago and there is no on/off switch on that camera.
 
Batteries are very small, I have 2-3 spare always in my pocket or bag, no problem at all. but again fully mechanical is different beast...
 
As a Leica M user as well as a Nikon SLR user I will probably get this 35/2 Distagon when it comes out. Nikon makes some really good lenses too and the consensus is that the Ai and AiS lenses are superior in built quality than ZF lenses. Performance wise at least the 50mm and 85mm Planars maintain the Zeiss reputation. Now that second hand Nikkors are dirt cheap I wonder if ZF lenses are selling well. Many Nikon users including myself are not convinced ZF is worth the money given one can easily spend a fraction of the money and buy the Kyocera made Contax versions and just as easily slap an EOS adapter on them.
 
Huck Finn said:
What I found most interesting in Dr. Schere's comments was the statement that the batteries in the ZI will last for "over 10,000 exposures."
Click to expand...

I would be happier if they consume a bit more engergy but the Shutter speed LEDs would show up better in bright light.

;)
 
The interview, and the following comments, are a reminder that most Carl Zeiss initiated camera brands has ended in the gutter. (One can wonder why). And the comments by Scherle that Carl Zeiss tries to protect the buyers investments is just laughable in the eyes of, say, ex. Contax users.

Further, rangefinder cameras make poor digital cameras. We shall be remdinded about this when M8 hits the shelves. Vignetting has to be removed by software and prohibits any FF sensors. A hardware fix to this is not in the forseeable future. That is what Scherle is hinting at.

Further, to develop a digital camera costs money. I would guess ten-fold that of the Zeiss Ikon. Possibly more. And you would still not be garanteed a success. Obviously a very risky undertaking. No wonder they are are reluctant to start that development.

There is good reason to believe that it will never be a digital ZM....

That said, I have great joy using my ZM alongside with my 1Ds II, and tons of Hasselblad gear - etc. etc. It produces some extraordinary sharp wide angle pictures, - just as Scherle is claiming.
 
Nikon makes some really good lenses too and the consensus is that the Ai and AiS lenses are superior in built quality than ZF lenses.
Click to expand...

I havent heard of this consensus. I have only seen such remarks from devote Nikon owners who havent tried the lenses. I have 7 Nikons and 15 of their lenses and am curious about the ZF lenses. I have never held one though so I cannot give any concesensus one way or another and just about every Nikon owner locally I have spoke too has never seen a ZF lens either.
 
I own alot of nikon glass, I also own ZF 50, All I can say ZF is not worth it, it is not very sharp wide open, and closed down 50mm f/1.8 nikon is also very sharp....
 
>>I have only seen such remarks from devoted Nikon owners<<

These folks are the target customers for ZF lenses. I don't think there are many Nikon users who believe their lenses are in any way inferior products. Instead, now that Nikon is evolving out of the manual focus business for the most part, Zeiss is filling the vaccuum for what will be viewed as a high-end niche product for discriminating users.
 
As a user of a Zeiss 1.4/85 - C/Y-mount, the ZF glass looks pretty much the same - I have no reason to doubt the statements of Nikon users saying that the Nikkor Manual focus 1.4/85 is a very fine lens as well.
Maybe it is no longer available, or users want to prove something new. Whatever is the case, there is a market for Zeiss, or Cosina who build that lens.

Frank
 
I thought Zeiss was going to reveal follow up lenses to the 50mm/1.4 and 85mm/1.4 Planar ZFs at Photokina. Has anyone found any announcements? I'm disappointed. Even the 35mm/2 Distagon ZF has not been announced, and no data sheet is available.

I'm also disapponted that Leica has no details or MTFs posted for their little 28mm/2.8 Elmarit ASPH. That's one teeny lens I may have to trade for. It looks like you could coat-pocket an M or ZI with a 28mm/2.8 ASPH mounted.
 
Nachkebia said:
SDK : it can still happen right? I mean its not to late yet right?
Click to expand...

I suppose they could be waiting for some press conference later in the convention to "launch" the new lenses. I'd love to see more about the 35mm ZF and the new Macro lens. I like my Micro-Nikkor 60mm optically, but an f/2 metal-barreled macro would be much nicer.

Meanwhile, I'm having fun trying out my new 50mm/1.5 C-Sonnar ZM lens. It seems very nice and the negatives look promising. I'll have to print some next weekend.
 
Well, my workflow is pretty slow. I have to print the images then scan them on a flatbed. I'm afraid it'll be some time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom