jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I believe this persistent "rumor" simply results from wishful thinking.
Sure, Zeiss said that they designed their M lenses to be suitable either for film or digital use. In this day and age, why would you design a lens any other way?
"Designed for digital" often means nothing more than choosing the coating for the rear elements to reduce the risk of sensor bounce-back (re-reflection of light from the sensor, to the rear of the lens, and back to the sensor, causing halos and color fringing.)
Sure, Zeiss said that they designed their M lenses to be suitable either for film or digital use. In this day and age, why would you design a lens any other way?
"Designed for digital" often means nothing more than choosing the coating for the rear elements to reduce the risk of sensor bounce-back (re-reflection of light from the sensor, to the rear of the lens, and back to the sensor, causing halos and color fringing.)
V
varjag
Guest
My experience match oscroft's. A 16MP scan is about on par with Tri-X developed in Rodinal: in 5100x3300 pixel scans distant branches resolve about a pixel or two wide (and you do need two pixels to resolve a line reliably).
Olsen
Well-known
Show us! Have you ever tried a 1Ds II?varjag said:
rvaubel
Well-known
The problem that Zeiss may have in introducing a digital rangefinder is what the marketing folks call "product differntiation". Since, in my opinion, the 1.3 sensor is here to stay, at least the RF format. no real advantage can be gained by Zeiss except for price. Price is a big issue (with the Leica being $$$) but really can Zeiss come out with something that is not more than Epson's $3000 RD1? And just about the time they would be ready, Leica would be releasing a much refined and debugged M9. Actually Leicas doing a pretty good job on the debugging side of the equation already. The M8 is however starting to cause a real still among the doubters of the viablility of a digital rangefinder, so, who knows,
maybe the market could support two cameras at the Leica/Zeiss pricepoint.
Rex
maybe the market could support two cameras at the Leica/Zeiss pricepoint.
Rex
sirius
Well-known
jlw it was not a rumour that they were originally planning to develop one. I saw this on their website. It was on the microsite zeissikon.com which has now been transfered to the main website. Whether it is still being developed is a matter of rumour.
sirius
Well-known
V
varjag
Guest
ferider
Veteran
rvaubel said:
They could come out with a sensor with deeper pixel depth, Rex.
Like 24bit per color. Cropped or full frame, deal with the vignetting
in software, with a software menu, instead of via coding.
Everybody always talks about MPixel and sensor size. I am convinced Moores
law will go into noise reduction and color depth into the future ...
You are right, the crop factor will likely remain to keep yields high and
the camera price competitive.
Or an RD with the EBL of the Zeiss Ikon, making the use of longer
lenses with crop factor easier.
Or both.
Best,
Roland.
Last edited:
Olsen
Well-known
Nice pictures from Bergen, - that proves nothing.varjag said:
jjovin
Established
Film versus digital
Film versus digital
If I may contribute my film experience to the film versus digital discussion in this thread. I used to split develop Technical Pan in a variant of Pota developer and easily got 200 lines per millimeter resolution and between 10 and 12 stops of dynamic range. A full frame sensor would have to be over 60Mpx to match this resolution. Not to mention that the dynamic range of a Canon flagship camera is around 8 stops. Kodak stopped producing Technical Pan film because of declining sales.
Now I split develop Ilford Delta 100 in a variant of D23 developer with resolution that can be matched only with a 40Mpx full frame sensor. So, it will take many years or decades before digital cameras match the properties of good films. Since 4 pixels go into reproducing 3 colors, these resolution numbers have to be multiplied by 4. Will we ever see a 160Mpx Canon camera?
Color film is a different story.
Regards to all,
Zoran
Film versus digital
If I may contribute my film experience to the film versus digital discussion in this thread. I used to split develop Technical Pan in a variant of Pota developer and easily got 200 lines per millimeter resolution and between 10 and 12 stops of dynamic range. A full frame sensor would have to be over 60Mpx to match this resolution. Not to mention that the dynamic range of a Canon flagship camera is around 8 stops. Kodak stopped producing Technical Pan film because of declining sales.
Now I split develop Ilford Delta 100 in a variant of D23 developer with resolution that can be matched only with a 40Mpx full frame sensor. So, it will take many years or decades before digital cameras match the properties of good films. Since 4 pixels go into reproducing 3 colors, these resolution numbers have to be multiplied by 4. Will we ever see a 160Mpx Canon camera?
Color film is a different story.
Regards to all,
Zoran
Terao
Kiloran
Regardless of the film vs digital debate (which is kind of off-topic for this thread) all an Ikon D really needs to be for me is an R-D1 with old-fashioned Zeiss QC and decent customer service. Would be nice to have the Ikon RF EBL as well.
Terao
Kiloran
ErikFive said:Yes. And the same price tag. Or cheaper
If it came in at less than $3000 I'd be happy. Any more and I'd think twice, assuming my R-D1 was still doing the job.
V
varjag
Guest
It proves that film registers a line that resolution of output file from scanner's CCD (at 3600 dpi) can barely support. And this picture is not especially good, shown here because I mentioned trees, Tri-X and Rodinal in my initial reply.Olsen said:
Let me clarify, am into film *not* for resolution; I do realise that at some point sensor technology will run circles around the best of film; I do realise that for pictorial purposes all resolution in either medium is already there. But am growing a bit tired of armchair imaging experts who enthusiastically echo each other's statements and reinforce pet theories in forum and blog posts without actually trying anything.
So, first you effectively call me bluff, and now you appear to be in concise denial. If you found a flaw in my example please state it here, if anything to educate me.
40oz
...
fdigital said:
Very informative post. Thank you. I was just going by Canon's published specs when talking about ISO and temp range.
I also wasn't trying to dog the 1Ds, I was merely using it as an example because you mentioned it in a previous post. How many full frame DSLR's are out there? How do the majority of DSL's compare to the 1Ds - essentially the same, or not as good at high ISO, lower resolution, and smaller size? Is a $6000 DSLR relevant when talking about digital being comparable to film? Or is a camera like that a clearly "special case," with drawbacks of its own? It's kind of like pointing to a Koenigsegg or a Saleen S7 to demonstrate points about the power output of factory car engines.
I think the bulk of the evidence demonstrates that current digital sensor tech is not capable of matching film. Film is cheap, readily available, easily changed, durable, flexible, and mature, while digital sensors are none of those things. There are obvious exceptions with major drawbacks for every benefit. If I was getting paid to produce images with a fast turnaround, I'm sure I'd love DSLR's, but I'm not, so I don't. There's nothing there for me. And I'm not alone.
CDT
Chris
Can we end the film versus digital debate in this thread? Digital works better for me. If you prefer film, I don't mind.
Getting slightly more on topic: I was just reading Sony is coming out with a new sensor (1.1x crop). Of course, that doesn't mean they are going to put it in a rangefinder, but it's nice to see nearly full frame sensors becoming more common. Plus, I'm not a big fan of Kodak sensors based on my olympus experience the mix results from the M8.
Getting slightly more on topic: I was just reading Sony is coming out with a new sensor (1.1x crop). Of course, that doesn't mean they are going to put it in a rangefinder, but it's nice to see nearly full frame sensors becoming more common. Plus, I'm not a big fan of Kodak sensors based on my olympus experience the mix results from the M8.
einolu
Well-known
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
still, larger formats have better tonality and more dof, but thats about it.
but didnt this start as a dikon thread? i read somewhere that zeiss didnt want to make one until they could make it full frame...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
still, larger formats have better tonality and more dof, but thats about it.
but didnt this start as a dikon thread? i read somewhere that zeiss didnt want to make one until they could make it full frame...
einolu
Well-known
40oz said:
the canon 5d is in the $2000 range, but that still isnt really cheap.
i saw a pentax k110d on amazon for under $400 with a lens. i think i will buy that soon just to play around with it...
Last edited:
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
40oz said:
Digital sensors surpass film today. In fact the Canon 1DsMkII is right there with scanned MF. Digital imaging is a mature technology and film is already a nich technology. As for truly surpassing film, go use on of the new Leaf digital back and you'll know film just can't compete with image quality.
gavinlg
Veteran
It's been indicated ont he zeiss website in recorded interviews that they are only looking for a "full frame" option at this point, and will lay off making the camera untill it is viable to use that technology without being deathly expensive.
gavinlg
Veteran
johnastovall said:
Exactly.
Some of those digital backs are insane. Ever played with a hassie h3d? We had one at my university - the resolution from that is just out of this world. You really couldn't comprehend it until you saw it.
Even in a film in 135 or 120 did outresolve a digital image from say - a canon 5d which is about 2k us, you would need a scanner worth that amount or more to be able to capture it digitally. I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Australia, I think theres only about 1 lab in the whole of Queensland that actually does wet printing for film. The rest scans them with some lowly epson flatbed or scan dual IV. I have a scan dual IV, and it in no way matches outright quality of my 30d.
As someone mentioned before, please please please read this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
There it is, the proof in the pudding, and thats only the older 11mp 1ds compared to MF film, and even an MF drum scan. Go on and look.
This digital/film discussion is important to the topic of the digital ikon due to the fact that people still have their facts wrong on the 2 mediums.