machineage111
Newbie
I heard a rumor that Cosina/Epson will be producing an M Mount (RD-2 digital) using the Zeiss logo to compete with the trouble plagued M8. I haven't tried any of the new Zeiss lenses but the Voigtlander/Cosina lenses are often great.
Has this been announced? If so any idea on price?
Thanks,
Joe
Has this been announced? If so any idea on price?
Thanks,
Joe
Avotius
Some guy
I wouldnt call the M8 trouble plagued, just price plagued, and as for zeiss, im sure the idea has crossed their desk a few times. I wouldnt be surprised to see something come from zeiss but no epson involvment in the next 2-3 years.
Bryce
Well-known
I hope so.
40oz
...
I'm not sure why they would. At least pat of the reason for the cost of the M8 is the fact it is an M withthe aditional cost of something like a mid-range Canon or Nikon DSLR. I can't imagine a Zeiss DRF for less than the Epson, so they would be going after only a portion of a limited market. Cheaper than an M8, sure. Competitive with a DSLR, not likely. I'd rather they put out a film camera every several years than risk viability with a digital rangefinder with tepid response and no profits.
But then, I see no future for digital cameras in their current incarnation. They need a sensor that surpasses film, and that is unlikely in the next 50 years, wishful thinking aside. Film isn't a technology that's going away, and digital is still in its infancy. Even the DSLR's are the equivalent of Kodak box Brownies if you consider what they could and should be.
But then, I see no future for digital cameras in their current incarnation. They need a sensor that surpasses film, and that is unlikely in the next 50 years, wishful thinking aside. Film isn't a technology that's going away, and digital is still in its infancy. Even the DSLR's are the equivalent of Kodak box Brownies if you consider what they could and should be.
gavinlg
Veteran
I disagree 40oz (with respect), the DSLR cameras of now have matched and or surpassed 35mm film in regard to resolution, grain/noise control, speed, functions etc etc. Only by personal view can they be not up to the standard of film, and that would be in the look they make (clean, crisp etc)...
Take the 1ds mk2
- the resolution in that is fairly close to MF film! let alone 35 mm
I would love zeiss to make a Digital rangefinder, especially one with a full frame chip. If they did, i would sell most of my film stuff (except my trusty om2n) and all of my canon DSLR stuff and buy 2 digital ikon bodies, and a whole range of ZM lenses.
I think they'd do it properly too - if they could nail the digital rangefinder it would blow leica off the charts for a few years, possibly it could even put them in a bit of trouble unless they update the m8.
All of this is my opinon, I just really hope they make thar d-ikon
Take the 1ds mk2
- the resolution in that is fairly close to MF film! let alone 35 mm
I would love zeiss to make a Digital rangefinder, especially one with a full frame chip. If they did, i would sell most of my film stuff (except my trusty om2n) and all of my canon DSLR stuff and buy 2 digital ikon bodies, and a whole range of ZM lenses.
I think they'd do it properly too - if they could nail the digital rangefinder it would blow leica off the charts for a few years, possibly it could even put them in a bit of trouble unless they update the m8.
All of this is my opinon, I just really hope they make thar d-ikon
A rumor about a digital Zeiss Ikon arises from Zeiss's comments that their ZM rangefinder lenses are made with digital requirements in the design equation. Of course that could just mean suitable for use on Epson R-D1 or Leica M8....
oscroft
Veteran
I've heard people suggest that before, but I don't get it - I thought fine grain 35mm film with a good lens was capable of resolving up to around 30mp? (My scanner gives me approx 15mp scans, and that resolution is about on a par with 400ASA b&w film resolution).
gavinlg
Veteran
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/Cbflowers.htm
have a look at those sorts of things... obviously it's still pretty unscientific, but I get similar results comparing scans from my scan dual IV and my 30d. Not that the scan dual is up to the task of comparing but anyway...
have a look at those sorts of things... obviously it's still pretty unscientific, but I get similar results comparing scans from my scan dual IV and my 30d. Not that the scan dual is up to the task of comparing but anyway...
Olsen
Well-known
- No, it is not. Much of the 15 MP scanned information is noise. That's why a file from a digital camera is smaller, but offers more 'real' information. My scanned MF (Hasselblad, scanned at Nikon 8000 ED) shots are enormous files that equals my 1Ds II files, - possibly with slightly more resolution than my 1Ds II files at 100ASA. At higher ASA the 1DS II pull away, and no high ASA MF film (beond 400ASA) is even close when it comes to resolution and clean & noicefree files. 135-film is way lower than that when it comes to resolution (less than 1/3 compared to MF) and is 'history' when it comes to comparing it with digital cameras with a resolution typical of 10 to 12 mill. pixels. Two thing make me sceptical of a Zeiss Ikon digital camera that is revolutionary in design and has a low price. 1) Zeiss is dependant on good relations with several large digital camera producers which they supply with lenses. - Further, Zess is dependant on buying a sensor from one of the large operators in the market; there are only three; Canon, Sony and Kodak. A sensor from one of the two latter is the most likely, with an extra button on Sony with which Zeiss has a cooperation with today. It is likely that Sony just might make a 1,3 crop sensor for Nikon. Such a sensor could well find it's way into a digital Zeiss Ikon - or Leica... Roumors go that Sony is designing a Full Frame Sensor for Nikon too. That could well be, but such a sensor will hardly be usable in a rangefinder camera; Zeiss Ikon or Leica - or others. Today's sensor technology will not allow it. Sorry. 2) Stephen Gandy, with close relations with Cosina up through the years, say that 'M8 is the only digital rangefinder that is going to be available for the next two years, - or more'. In that timeframe it is just as likely that Leica has a M9 on the market with some of the M8 issues streightened out. But not all. Some of the issues are tied to the limitations given by the lense - sensor distance and at which angles light hits the sensors, and all that. Neither Zeiss nor Leica can do much about that the sensors that are available and around -and will be around for 5 to 7 years ahead, really isn't suited to rangefinder cameras. Those thinking that the digital age - with it's croppy sensor technology could be the end of the use of the excellent M-bayonetted optics around, could well be right. If the M8 isn't all that the economical success as Leica had hoped for, - it could be the end of it... What to expect from Cosina, - with a Zeiss Ikon logo or not, is a 1,5 crop camera close to the RD-1s, let's say two years from now at a price of about 4,000 - 4,500 US$ at the best. With a lower crop number, say 1,3, the price will be 25 - 30% higher and just might be more expensive than Leica M8.... So. Take Stephen Gandy's word for it that the M8 is the only (and the best) digital rangefinder camera that will be around for a good while. And that if it is not sold in enough numbers, it will be 'the end of sivilisation as we know it...' - And then we will all be carrying a D-SLR around our necks. A destiny worse than death, gentlemen.oscroft said:
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
Olsen,
I do caryy SLR and DSLR too.. and I'm still alive!:angel:
But agreed on most 90% of your statement.
I do caryy SLR and DSLR too.. and I'm still alive!:angel:
But agreed on most 90% of your statement.
LCT
ex-newbie
Hard to believe that Zeiss lauch all those lenses (21/4.5 & 18/4 to come if i'm not wrong) for the M8 and the film market only.
iml
Well-known
If Epson ever get involved in making another digital RF I'll eat my hat. I don't think there will ever be an R-D2 and I haven't seen any comments from Epson suggesting they have any interest in making one.
A Zeiss-branded RF is more likely IMO, but beyond supplying the body I doubt Cosina will be involved. They have no experience in digital.
Ian
A Zeiss-branded RF is more likely IMO, but beyond supplying the body I doubt Cosina will be involved. They have no experience in digital.
Ian
Olsen
Well-known
The whole Zeiss Ikon project was started after Kyosera decided to go out of the camera market etc. Then Zeiss had no direct outlet to the camera market for their excellent lenses. Regretably, the whole process of getting the Zeiss Ikon on to the market was some 8 to 9 months delayed. If not more. That is a long time when the wave of digital is chasing you with an intensity not imagined when Zeiss and Cosina first started off their Zeiss Ikon idea. Even though the Zeiss Ikon project must be regarded as a success, for every week in delay they could draw off some 500 cameras in sales. Still I regard a digital Zeiss Ikon made by Cosina as the most realistic contender to Leica M8. But don't expect it to be much better. Or much cheaper.LCT said:
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Olsen, you have described the scene with remarkable clarity.
We might like the look of film and we might like it's charming grain, but it no longer competes with digital in all out clean (maybe sterile) imaging.
I think we can enjoy the connection with our work and the unique way of rangefinder photography without insisting that it is better than digital on an objective level.
We might like the look of film and we might like it's charming grain, but it no longer competes with digital in all out clean (maybe sterile) imaging.
I think we can enjoy the connection with our work and the unique way of rangefinder photography without insisting that it is better than digital on an objective level.
LCT
ex-newbie
Why not cheaper? The market does not need APS-H sensors a la Leica IMHO. Any good APS-C sensor in the ZI body would be OK don't you think so?Olsen said:
40oz
...
fdigital said:
I respectfully disagree with your characterization of current DSLR technology. For starters, resolution is not what it seems. The top dog Canon 1Ds Mk2 has a 4992 x 3328 pixel sensor, which has 1 red and 1 blue pixel for every 2 green pixels. It generates roughly 5.5 MB files. In scanner terms, it would be roughly 1000 dpi. My ~$300 when-new HP film scanner (several years old) has an honest 2400 dpi, which is well above the resolution of the 1Ds Mk2, yet is still not capable of capturing all the detail in even 400 ISO 35mm film, and makes files 4 times the size of 1Ds files (because they contain much more data). A single 35mm film frame contains much more data than the 1Ds is capable of capturing.
People can say what they want, but a full-frame sensor DSLR like the 1Ds Mk2 is not comparable to 35mm film, much less 6x6, even if we are only comparing resolution. "People" claim that Leica lenses on an M body surpass medium format, but that doesn't make it true. The 1Ds might be superior to a crappy scan of a negative, but that's neither here nor there.
But film is about more than resolution. The range of light and dark (# of stops) that films can capture also greatly exceeds the ability of the 1Ds. ISO range is another area where a camera like the much-vaunted 1Ds is lacking. With an ISO range of 100-1600, it again is bested by existing film technology. Hell, I can (and do) shoot Tri-X over a greater range than the 1Ds, and can readily purchase both slower and faster films. And if we discuss operating environments, the 1Ds is not recommended for sub-freezing temps and fast ISO settings will suffer from increased noise as the heat approaches the top end of its envelope (45* C). Film isn't subject to the same limitations - if your camera can handle it, the film probably can too, within some more lenient parameters. Have you ever seen a high ISO color shot from a DSLR? Noise is far, far more offensive than the grain in high ISO color film, and not just to me. The 1Ds might be better here than a lot of cameras, but then, it's also more expensive than almost any other camera. And my argument isn't solely addressing the 1Ds, it just happens to be the camera people like to point to as "proof" that digital is better than film.
And ultimately, the lack of flexibility is what completely kills the digital camera for me. The fact that you get one way to capture a scene is not acceptable. Each sensor responds to light in one way, and that one way every time. You can change the appearance in something like photoshop, but it's not like using infrared film vs. color film vs. B&W. If I want to spend time manipulating each frame in photoshop, I could do so with my negative scans.
Even if money was no object, I don't see ANY advantage to a digital SLR or rangefinder. I'm not getting paid for my photography, I don't ever expect to get paid for the rate which I can pass on images, and I don't like not having a hard copy for posterity. Unless I print everything, my digital files are barely more permanent than the weather. I can scan whatever films I want if digital images are needed, and print the negatives if quality prints are needed. I'm just not seeing any advantages that would attract me to digital right now, the same way I'd have a hard time going to a Brownie box camera instead of my SLR and rangefinders. The drawbacks are way too many for it to be anything but a novelty.
Whether Zeiss ever makes a digital rangefinder isn't going to affect my decisions to buy their lenses. They might have to put some R&D into a digital camera someday, but they've been a lens company for a long time now, so maybe not. They already make lenses for the M system, the Nikon F system, the Sony/Minolta system, as well as various Sony digital cameras and a Nokia cell phone. So it's not like they don't have an outlet for their lenses as it is. I think the Ikon is more a flagship than a lifeboat at this point, but I'm no expert on their finances. I just think if something like a digital Ikon was coming, they would not be coy about it.
Last edited:
CDT
Chris
Getting back on topic: Zeiss did design the new lenses for digital, so a digital Ikon does seem inevitable. All indications are that it is not right around the corner.
sirius
Well-known
On the FAQ of the Zeiss Ikon site that I read back when they were launching, Zeiss said they were planning a digital RF. I think there was suggestion that they wanted to wait till there could be a full-size sensor? It's been a while and a mile or two of rumour that I'm passing on here...
Olsen
Well-known
I will try not to repeat myself; my humble experience with scanning with a Nikon 8000 ED and both 135 and medium format leaves little room for doubt to what I have earlier stated. I have seen, on the Net, scans of MF which was a little better than the 1Ds II, but with far more expensive scanners. So, one could argue, a cheap '1Ds II' killer is one of the many Hasselblad 500 with a 80 mm 2,8 Carl Zeiss lense to the price of 500 $. Zeiss themselves claim that a certain B/W film overgoes digital in resolution when used with a 135 camera. The scans I have seen looks dull and contrastless and really not usable to anything than showing exactly that. In all practical instances high quality digital D-SLR overgoes anything 135, I am sorry to say. Further; 'noice' from high ASA film is far worse than anything out of a 1Ds II as high as 1250 ASA. At least. I chased tracks of a lynx family, mother and two cubs, the New Years Eve of 2004 with my 1Ds at minus 18 degrees C for a whole day and had a workable camera the whole time. Not even my EOS3 could have done that. I carried a reserve battery, but never installed it. The battery capacity of the 1Ds II is even better. Actually, noice levels at high ASA is lower at low temperatures than at extreme hot temps with these cameras. I can agree with you that the MF format possibly exceeds these high resolution D-SLR cameras in resolution. But for 135 it is, at best, a theoretical issue with some weird films that has only a narrow field of use. Otherwise I agree with you that MF gives far better resolution than any Leica lenses. Take the Hasselblad 905 SWC (Zeiss Biogon 38 mm 3,5). That equals the ZI 25 mm 2,8. The first produces 3,6 times higher resolution because of the larger negative size. I have them both and find that to use the latter is like playing with a model railway for a fully uniformed railway man.40oz said:
gavinlg
Veteran
40oz said:
I just want to correct something here - mainly this part:
" The range of light and dark (# of stops) that films can capture also greatly exceeds the ability of the 1Ds. ISO range is another area where a camera like the much-vaunted 1Ds is lacking. With an ISO range of 100-1600, it again is bested by existing film technology. Hell, I can (and do) shoot Tri-X over a greater range than the 1Ds, and can readily purchase both slower and faster films. And if we discuss operating environments, the 1Ds is not recommended for sub-freezing temps and fast ISO settings will suffer from increased noise as the heat approaches the top end of its envelope (45* C). Film isn't subject to the same limitations - if your camera can handle it, the film probably can too, within some more lenient parameters. Have you ever seen a high ISO color shot from a DSLR? Noise is far, far more offensive than the grain in high ISO color film, and not just to me.
The range of light that film can capture isn't more than the 1ds. Its pretty similar really, and the difference in outright dynamic range are neglegible... However, film has a much smoother dropoff in the way it cuts both highlights and shadows, when as the digital image has more or less a "cut point" where it suddenly drops the information, rather than the smooth shoulder of film. This is slowly improving as the sensors develop - especially in the canons.
Not only that, the new fuji sensors in their s5 pro have extended dynamic range abilities due to having both highlight dedicated and normal photosites on its sensor. In fact I have seen proof in an image, that the fuji s5 can be overexposed by 2.5 stops to the point where the image is all white, and the information can be brought back to the point where it almost looks like a normal image. Thats impressive!
Secondly, the 1ds mkII has an ISO range of 50-3200. The new 1d mkIII has an ISO range from 50-6400, and the 1ds mkIII coming out this year will follow suit.
I don't believe that the noise/grain performance from film is anywhere near as good as that of the canon digital images. Have a look at these links, please look subjectively and not with "film colored glasses"
1d mkIII @ 3200ISO, unedited
http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/EOS-1D_Mark_III_ISO3200_Goalie_DPP.jpg
1d mkIII @ 6400ISO, unedited
http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/EOS-1D_Mark_III_ISO6400_Goalie_DPP.jpg
I also have a 30d and it is bloody excellent with noise at high ISOs, it's very very useable at 1600 (if I expose perfectly it is nearly noiseless) and definetly useable at 3200 (especially if exposures right on)
If you can find a film which performs better than that at those sensitivities, please let me know and I will buy bulk of it. I have tried superia 1600 and found it to be very grainy with a large loss of color saturation. Not so impressive. I think it's commonly accepted that the canon DSLRS trounce film in high ISO performance.
The other thing I have to get right is the temperature thing that you mentioned - DSLRs are fine in sub 0 temperatures. How do I know? Because I've taken my 30d which isn't even totally weather sealed like the 1d series all over canada during their winter, which was quite cold at some times, and had it hanging off my shoulder most of the time. Temperatures were pretty often around -10 to -15 degrees celcius which is quite a bit below freezing, especially up on the glaciers. It also got snowed on and rained on, and even the battery life wasn't affected much. I still got about 300-500 shots out of 1 battery. Also in increased heat, 45 degrees C etc, the camera is also fine.... I know because I live in Australia, and sometimes we get up around that temperature. Not only that, but those higher temps barely affect noise at high ISOs, and even if they do, it's not noticeable.
I love film, but I also work in photography and film is basically not useable unless its for special reasons like a traditional PJ wedding or something... In the whole of my photography, I use 50/50 film digital. Mostly film for personal, and mostly digital for work.
Before anyone says it, this is very relevant to the digital zeiss ikon discussion... I think people need to know more about digital before they turn their back on it, much like people need to know more about film before they turn their back on it. Admittedly the latter is more important.
Even if the Digital Ikon was a 1.3 crop - I'd buy it.
Last edited: