R2a and R3a Info...

[Doug]

mourges: “And if the R3A's outside edges of the frame cover 35mm, why will anyone buy the R2A?”

Composing with the outside edges can be troublesome at closer distances, as you don’t get parallax correction that way. I’ve tried this with a 25mm on my CLE, and the 45mm on the Bronica RF645, and it’s a pain. External viewfinders have even more parallax error; nicely moving viewfinder framelines are best!

taffer: “Also, I read there 'initially the lens will be only in black & M mount'. Does that mean there will be other color/mount options in a future ?”

Interesting observation! I would like a 39mm thread mount, since then I could fit either 50 or 35mm adaptors to bring up the most useful framelines in both CLE and M2. And I’d prefer chrome finish...

Huck: “So far, the hints on the Zeiss website suggest that it will cover the wide angle range of 21-50. ”

I doubt that the ambiguous comment referred to the viewfinder, rather the lens lineup instead. Unless it’s a variable magnification thing, having a 21mm frame would force an unacceptable compromise at the other end, making even the 50 frames very small. I bet they’re just crowing about having so many lenses in that range available right away. But it will be interesting to find out what they really meant by that...

 

[taffer]

taffer: “Also, I read there 'initially the lens will be only in black & M mount'. Does that mean there will be other color/mount options in a future ?”

Interesting observation! I would like a 39mm thread mount, since then I could fit either 50 or 35mm adaptors to bring up the most useful framelines in both CLE and M2. And I’d prefer chrome finish...

That's it ! Another question is which framelines does that lens select when placed on a Leica M ? At this point it's pretty clear lots of Leica users will feel a strong interest about this lens.

Also, there was that CV 40mm external finder, why leave out all the potential LTM users ? 🙂 However, maybe what that sentence means is the lens may be built with the Contax/Nikon RF mount in a future to give some fresh air to the R2S/R2C market.

I honestly think the initial price is already really good, I suppose the non inclusion of an aspherical element marks the price difference with the 35/1.7 ultron.

And the Zeiss puzzle is still unveiled :bang:

It's going to be an interesting month 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

price concern

price concern

OK guys, I see the cameraquest price... not bad... but that's in the US.
Based on your expertise(if any), how much more will the new stuff be in Europe? (Feel free to speculate.) And, in general, how does one avoid paying much more in Europe for the same stuff? Tax on new stuff should be way too much so buying cheap and importing it, i guess, won't work...

😕

A friend of mine on a work related trip to taiwan bought a sony DSC F-whatever digicam, threw away the box, scratched the top plate(!), shot hundred tourist-type pictures, and they still kept on bugging him at the airport in Amsterdam that he should pay taxes 😀

 

[taunusreiter]

MMmmm.. not a bad upgrade for no extra cost eh? 🙂 ... Nothing earth shattering but lots of nice little things, I guess a few will moan about the battery dependence but its not a real issue these days...

if you like no-battery cameras go for a Bessa-R as a backup (if you not already have one). Automatic exposure, electronic shutter and battery independence doesn't go together well, at least not for an affordable price...

If the R3a outer frame edge is usable for a 35mm lens I might have to start saving some $$ 😀

..probably, if you wear no glasses when focussing.. with glasses your eye isn't near enough to see the complete finder viewing field. It least, this is my experience with my Canon-P. And my glasses are quite thin.

Thats simple: R3A for that guys prefering to use more "Tele" stuff, R2A for guys preferring "true" (35mm and lower) wideangles. To me, since I already have a Bessa-L and -R, the R3A would complete nicely.

regards, Frank

 

[Huck Finn]

Huck: “So far, the hints on the Zeiss website suggest that it will cover the wide angle range of 21-50. ”

I doubt that the ambiguous comment referred to the viewfinder, rather the lens lineup instead. Unless it’s a variable magnification thing, having a 21mm frame would force an unacceptable compromise at the other end, making even the 50 frames very small. I bet they’re just crowing about having so many lenses in that range available right away. But it will be interesting to find out what they really meant by that... [/B]

Doug, I thought I'd post some of the quotes from the Zeiss teasers so others can also ponder these inscrutable hints.

"Back with Passion"

"Who has this choice . . .? . . . do you know a system that immediately offers you 5 different focal lengths between 21mm & 50mms?"

"On September 23 (Thursday) you can see more proof of our expertise (on the website)."

"Join us (at Photokina) as we unveil a new innovation that you would have never expected."



My take on it:

1. "a new innovation" makes me think of something digital these days.

2. But it's something "that you would have never expected." I would expect digital, so is it something else?

3. "Back with Passion" makes me think retro - maybe a new twist on something old.

4. "proof of our expertise" makes me think that they will not just be resurrecting something from the past, rather some kind of breakthrough.

5. "a system that immediately offers you 5 different focal lengths between 21 mm & 50 mms." This is the really inscrutable part. The picture shows a fixed focal length lens, so probably not just a lens with multiple focal lengths - although that could be part of it. Why restrict the comment to 21-50? If they are trying to stress their comprehensive lens range, why not 21-90? Zeiss already makes 5 different focal lengths between 21 & 90 - 6 if you count the 35-70 vario sonnar.

In my opinion, a new twist on something old would in fact be a RF camera with framelines for 5 focal lengths, 21-50, in the viewfinder. Something to get excited about - "back with passion." Maybe it would have variable magnifications. That would be truly innovative & would be "proof of our expertise." The Leica-length baseline shown in the picture would enable them to use the low magnification that would be required for wide angle framelines & still have a reasonably long effective base length. Yes, this would make the 50mm framelines small - but maybe 50 wouldn't be its primary function. Maybe that's just something the user would have to live with as a compromise to get the other benefits - the way one has to live with the small view for a 90 currently.

I would run right out & buy such a camera - & would pay a high price for it if required. Sales would be good simply because no one else makes such a camera. If manufactured in M-mount - as suspected - Leica owners would flock to it as well because Leica provides nothing remotely similar - aside from the overlap of 28-50. This would be a truly wide-angle, rangefinder camera.

I can't wait to find out . . . but I'll have to. :bang: 😕

 

[taffer]

1. "a new innovation" makes me think of something digital these days.

2. But it's something "that you would have never expected." I would expect digital, so is it something else?

An hybrid digital-film camera with interchangeable backs ? I wouldn't expect that ! 😀

 

[Huck Finn]

Could be . . . one of the pictures displayed on a teaser - a cityscape in Germany - had a 1:2 size ratio - certainly not a standard 35mm shot unless it was cropped . . . or manipulated digitally. It looked more panoramic.

 

[Roger]

"Panoramic"? Did I hear that word? (he says pricking up his ears...) If they coupled a 21mm Zeiss lens with a 2:1 aspect ratio, yes, that would be borderline panoramic. But it would have to be Xpan type 2:1, i.e., a negative 48mm wide, to be really attractive. And if that aspect ratio were available for all lenses with FLs from 21 to 50, well, WOW! That would be great!! The main problem I have with the TX-1 is the few available lenses (not to mention the price of the 30mm lens!).

 

[Doug]

Pano would be pretty cool, especially if it can be switched back to 24x36 as in the XPan. But I don't see a 2:1 aspect ratio in the viewfinder window, the mask window, or the few through-viewfinder shots I've seen.

The lens mount looks to be M-Leica. I think they'd get a lot of flack with a 48mm wide film frame when all current M-lenses fail to cover the sides, vignetting badly.

And the body casting would have to be stretched horizontally to allow this, wouldn't it? I don't see any external hint of that in the illustration...

If there's a Pano option, I think it'd be done in the APS way by cropping the top and bottom of the 24x36mm frame, masking it to 18x36mm. In this way, all existing lenses will cover the format, the frame counter needn't change gearing, the cast camera frame need only fit the moving mask, an off-the-shelf 35mm format shutter can be used, and the viewfinder only needs a separate set of framelines to move into place.

This would take it out of direct competition with the XPan, and allow much greater flexibility and a much lower price point. What do you think? 🙂

 

[Roger]

Um, er, well, not to put too fine a point on it, I think it sucks. Who needs it? I can trim the top and bottom of my negatives after I see the whole frame, and I might want to take more off the bottom (or more off the top) rather than having even strips blanked off at top and bottom. I agree that there are all sorts of difficulties in going the Xpan route--but I can't help hoping (however unlikely it is) that this is what they plan. But I guess this is only even remotely possible if they plan to go digital and have an upgrade path available. And with even 24 x 36 full-frame sensors prohibitively expensive, who's going to want to wait and pay for a 24 x 48 sensor? Oh dear. I feel depressed.

 

[Jeroen]

Re: price concern

Re: price concern

Based on your expertise(if any), how much more will the new stuff be in Europe? (Feel free to speculate.)

In Germany, the old R costs around 750 euros, I guess the new one will fetch about the same. The same goes for lenses - a 50/1.5 does over 500 euros versus $345 at Cameraquest. And yes, that is quite a bit more. But what can you do? Send an e-mail to mister Gandy...

 

[taffer]

^^^^
Or talk to Dr. Yao...

 

[Pherdinand]

to who?

Thanks Jeroen. That's something i was afraid of. The body will cost as much here as the body and the 40mm together, over the see... :bang:

 

[taffer]

Dr. Joseph Yao: http://www.nemeng.com/leica/004e.shtml

Never dealt with him myself, but so did a friend of mine in Spain, without a single problem.

 

[Doug]

Dr Yao seems well-connected; he offered some of the very first user commentary on the Epson RD1. (It was particularly useful to learn that its RAW buffer allows photos as fast as one can operate the camera)

 

[Tim]

You know, the way they describe it, and given Cosina's habit of selling similar based cams to multiple manufacturers, (Rollei 35RF) what about a Zeiss branded and lensed version of the RD-1?

That's innovative, unexpected, and unashamedly retro.....

guess we will know soon.

tim

 

[Huck Finn]

Tim, the latest teaser on the Zeiss lens: "Guess which lens took this picture." So, maybe Doug is right & it's more about the lenses than about a camera. Zeiss is not a camera builder.

BTW, the camera in the Zeiss website picture doesn't look like the RD-1 . . . if that means anything.

 

[Doug]

FWIW, former Shutterbug editor Bob Shell says flat out that it's a film camera. From various clues, it's certainly based on a Bessa framework.

That still leaves a lot of intriguing questions about the range/viewfinder and other features, price, etc. Certain to have electronic shutter with AE, what with the non-availability of the previous Bessa mechanical shutter. With bottom rewind crank, it won't take the Bessa trigger winder. M-bayonet mount for sure.

What justifies the effort to design a long-baseline RF? (or is it lifted off the Hexar?) Contax tradition? Ensuring that the fast/long Leica lenses will focus properly? Could it be a clue to some other surprising camera feature? Just a way to distinguish the Zeiss-branded product from the pedestrian Bessas, for higher market position and price?

So far, Mr K has tried not to tread directly on Leica's toes. But now he's been forced into AE when he earlier said no. And he's bypassed his own dislike of digital to cooperate with Epson on just that. Is he enabling Zeiss to go toe-to-toe with Leica?

That focal length teaser is still puzzling... If the lenses are rebarreled from the Contax G glass, why do they say 50mm and not 45mm? Huck, is the "vaporware" Rollei 50mm finally appearing or what? 21-28-35-45-50, that's five focal lengths! Why no mention of the 90mm?

I eagerly await the answers! We should soon know...

 

[Huck Finn]

Doug, the Rollei RF project was messed up from the beginning. Who announces a lens in 2002 & stil hasn't produced it 2 years later? No, I don't believe that we will ever see that 50 Planar lens. Rollei-USA is down to its last 35 RF & is not planning to bring in any more, so I assume that it is dead, defunct. Too bad IMO. At $1200 (body & lens), the camera finally makes some sense. Killer lenses. Interesting as well that it is finally getting some advertising in the B&H magazine ads. It went for its first year and a half without a mention.

I agree with you about the odd lens teaser. Like you, I haven't understood either why 50mm & not 45. I can't imagine that they would produce both a 45 and a 50. What would be the point? A 24 or 25 would make more sense.

The sample picture of the camera looks more like a Hexar RF to me than anything else, so could Konica-Minolta be involved? Since their merger, there have been rumors of a resurrected Hexar RF once the merged corporation got its feet on the ground. But why partner with Zeiss for lenses? K-M is more than capable of producing top-flite lenses - & have. Of note here is the fact that the Hexar RF had the same Leica-length baseline as this new Zeiss-Ikon.

Cosina has yet to build a RF body that is not a modification of that same basic SLR body they started with. A new Zeiss-Ikon, built as depicted, by Cosina would be a huge departure for Cosina - although it certainly could be done. I would assume that Zeiss was funding the R&D if that were the case; it wouldn't be worth it for Cosina to take a flyer on it because this is certainly not guaranteed to be a big seller - more of a niche product like most of the RF world.

The other body that it resembles is the Hasselblad x-pan. The interesting slant to this is that it is the one of the three companies that already has a partnership with Zeiss. Of course, Kyocera does too, so they have to be considered as well. Why would Zeiss initiate a new Japanese partnership with Cosina when they already have one with Kyocera? And how did the x-pan wind up in the hands of Fujifilm? Did Hasselblad give it to them? Or was there a third party who built the same camera for both of them & is now building a modified version for Zeiss? The possibilities are endless. LOL

One thing for certain is that this new camera is not built by Zeiss. They are a lens maker, not a camera builder.

Re the shutter, I'd guess you're right about it being electronic. Not only has Cosina gone to an electronic shutter, but Konica had an electronic shutter on the Hexar RF and Contax (Kyocera) has an electronic shutter. Is the x-pan electonic as well?

 

[Doug]

There might be reason for both a 45 and 50mm if that offers a choice of maximum aperture, as Leica does with four different 50mm lenses. The 45 would be f/2 as on the Contax G, and a new 50mm could be f/1.4. And that's when I thought of the long-waited Rollei Planar (wasn't that an f.1.4?)

The Zeiss body looks to be based on the Bessa with a different top and RF (eyeball that hinge for the film door, dead-ringer for Bessa). That shouldn't be too drastic an effort, especially if the RF parts are already available from the reputed third-party company who supplied it to Konica.

I expect you're right about cooperative development, both in engineering and funding. There appears to have been similar cooperation with Epson for the RD1.

Could the Zeiss camera be a chopped XPan? It's clearly not as wide. Seems to me modifying the XPan would be much more challenging than using the Bessa frame. I don't know what the XPan shutter is like, but it obviously has to be bigger.