Rumor: Full frame Zeiss Ikon digital rangefinder in development

[johannielscom]

I took a swing at the Leica FF RF development, and missed by a mile, when they launched it four years before I expected it. I won't make that mistake again. So, I'm back to: "Anything can happen and perceived reasoning has nothing to do with that"

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Rumor: Full frame Zeiss Ikon digital rangefinder in development

By PR admin | August 9, 2009

“Our source claims that Zeiss is working on a digital rangefinder with a Sony sensor, he goes further saying that unlike all the current dRFs the Zeiss dRF will use a CMOS sensor”. (source: ZR)
​

I don't see anywhere on the quoted "rumor" that it's a FF sensor. Unless "CMOS sensor" is now code for "full-frame sensor"

 

[kbg32]

Wouldn't it be great if it took all those wonderful Contax G auto lenses?

 

[hlockwood]

Most likely, Sony has also 'taken over' the Hexar design included in the Minolta deal. (Why did they not continue to use the Minolta brand name is beond me). But they will be faced with the same technical challenges as just anybody trying to make a DRF camera: The steep light angles hitting the sensors which prohibits light hitting the sensor well-bottoms. Thus creating dark corners and color fringes along the edges.

If the microprocessor knows the focal length of the lens in use, the gain of the corner areas of the sensor could be boosted to offset the loss in intensity. Of course, this would also boost the shot noise there and, perhaps, compromise the IQ anyway.

Harry

 

[Sam N]

We're more likely to see a "full frame" M43-style system with electronic contacts and AF lenses than we are to see the same thing with a finicky expensive RF/VF and cammed manual-focus lenses.

Now if someone could manage to put both of those together...

 

[peter_n]

Is Zeiss really doing that much damage to Canon and Nikon lens sales? I can't say that I've ever seen a ZE or ZF lens in person.

I don't know about sales either, but if you inhabit the dSLR forums the Zeiss lenses are extremely highly thought of by those that use them, both in terms of their build quality and especially the optics. It's a powerful message because it's coming from users.

 

[Tim Gray]

I don't know about sales either, but if you inhabit the dSLR forums the Zeiss lenses are extremely highly thought of by those that use them, both in terms of their build quality and especially the optics. It's a powerful message because it's coming from users.

Yeah that's what I meant when I said people talk about them. I should have clarified. Then again, I see all kinds of people on SLR forums talk about using Rokkor 58/1.2s on their 5DII's, and I can't imagine as many do that as one might think from looking online - it might just be a very vocal but very small minority.

Anecdotal, I know, but I've never seen one in person. I've seen people out and about using M's, Ikons, all kinds of RF lenses, Leica R's, all sorts of cheap and expensive DSLRs with cheap and expensive lenses, several MF and LF rigs, but never a ZE/ZF lens. Hence my asking.

 

[Frankie]

We're more likely to see a "full frame" M43-style system with electronic contacts and AF lenses than we are to see the same thing with a finicky expensive RF/VF and cammed manual-focus lenses.

Now if someone could manage to put both of those together...

My main objection to DSLR is not price, buttons, FF or APS, just BULK.

I am a life-long heavy metal Nikon user. I am used to weight. My renewed interest in RF [in the form of an ZM mated only to a CV 40/1.4] is just that...reducing bulk.

The R-D1 had also sparked my fantasy in DRF. The M8/9/10... came after.

For reducing bulk, an M4/3 with a good EVF will do that trick. I am not hung up on FF or any frame. In the digital world, size is measured by [square] pixels, just like real estate in square footage.

[Of course pixel sizes get smaller by the day...and I am not talking about digicams, from the now ancient 12 micron used in the Contax N, to Kodak's 9 then 6.8 then 6 micron sizes, to whatever Dalsa's current equivalent. Fitting pixels into the 645 format was the race...now reaching 60Mp.]

Recently, I was in Tokyo and had the opportunity of viewing through a GH-1, a GF-1 and an EP-1 (optical finder) one after another. I must say the EP-1 optical is still the best, but the GH-1 is not far behind, and the GF-1 is not acceptable. The GH-1 has a 1.4Mp EVF (800 x 600 x RGB).

While the EP-1 optical finder is best, but manual focusing through it is impossble. However, the GH-1 can handle manual focusing-by-wire adequately. [Meaning no cam, no RF, no adjustments...]

Recently Epson announced mass production of an equivalent 1.4Mp LCD with a pixel pitch a mere 12 microns, intended for EVF applications. It is said that the new EP-2 is the first adopter... I will bet the next bout of competition will be 3.24 Mp at ~9 microns... The EVF will only get better.

I had posted in a few thread regarding the fantasy, rumour or wishes in a ZMd. And every time someone will say [with self-proclaimed authority] it's impossible or improbable, mostly because the acute angles some RF lenses projects, or that I have not met Kobayashi-san.

The simple truth is:

• R-D1 avoided that problem (with the help of Kobayashi-san no less) by using an APS size chip (said to have been a hand-me-down from Nikon D100).
• M8 used a slightly larger Kodak chip with micro lens, and M9 did the same trick using the previous generation 6.8 micron Kodak leftover.

Meanwhile, Zeiss's partner Sony was hard at work, developing chips that had shallow wells, new CMOS and stuff most of us don't understand...

To minimise vignet'ting, one could try:

• Using anti-vignet'ting filters; or differentially boosting sensitivities of the pixels (all you need is about 2-stops).
• Use micro lens or a Fresnel lens equivalent...nanoengineering that Zeiss is really good at [they make equipment enabling such production].
• or...maybe try one of them new chips.

Or...rethink the concept of RF photography all together:

• An EVF works now and will be better tomorrow.
• No VF is more direct than an EVF...seeing what the film/sensor sees, before the fact.

No doubt I will be pounced on by another round of sermons......

 

[sojournerphoto]

Yeah that's what I meant when I said people talk about them. I should have clarified. Then again, I see all kinds of people on SLR forums talk about using Rokkor 58/1.2s on their 5DII's, and I can't imagine as many do that as one might think from looking online - it might just be a very vocal but very small minority.

Anecdotal, I know, but I've never seen one in person. I've seen people out and about using M's, Ikons, all kinds of RF lenses, Leica R's, all sorts of cheap and expensive DSLRs with cheap and expensive lenses, several MF and LF rigs, but never a ZE/ZF lens. Hence my asking.

If you lived near me you might spot a 1Ds3 with a ZF35/2 on it, or a Contax 28/2.8

There again if I was just walking around it would be an Ikon with a 50 or 35 or a Ricoh GX100...

Mike

 

[Carterofmars]

If it's priced right I'll be on line.

 

[Trius]

Frankie: Brilliant and thank you. The whole "it can't be done" choir is horribly off key. The real question is will it be done, and how. It strikes me that a lot of people (well, at least those who wind up here,) migrate from current digital cameras to film and RFs to reduce complexity and interface interference in the photo-making process. Currently a lot of manufacturers are focused on WHAT is in the camera, not the how of the camera.

 

[Avotius]

You know I hate to say it....but this is one of those situations I wish the Chinese would come in and copy the concept and produce something usable for cheap. Many of the digital cameras we use now are made in or at least have a lot of components that are made in China, and yet the Chinese dont actually make their own digital cameras (except for a few noname point and shoots which get rebadged as other brands).

Hm...maybe I should start my own camera company haha.....we make point and shoot style cameras with real viewfinders and prime lenses and next project is larger sensors.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

If history has taught us anything, one of those things is that cheap is expensive.

 

[Olsen]

German (and Portugese) labour cost is not at all that expensive. Far lower than Japanese. It is the development cost divided on all to sold units that makes Leica so expensive. I doubt that M9 will exceed 20.000 sold units, like the M8. Compared, Canon sells several hundred thousand DSLR cameras (the ones that create the profit). Of only one model, the 5D II, the sales volume is more than 100.000 units. Divide the development cost of some 25 million € - which I think is a minimum development cost of either M8 or 9, and divide that on sold units, then you see.

If Zeiss/Cosina/Epson were to launch a DRF camera. What kind of sales volume could they reckon with? 10.000 or 20.000 untis...?

 

[wgerrard]

It is the development cost divided on all to sold units that makes Leica so expensive.

This assertion is often made here. I.e., that research and development is a major component of the cost of launching a new camera.

At the risk of being contrarian, I need to ask: How do we know this?

Film cameras are very mature products. No new capabilities need to be developed in order to make one. Leica, in particular, is constrained by market pressure to avoid doing anything that alters the basic design and appearance of its cameras. They have a strong incentive not to spend money developing new capability if it requires altering the camera's appearance.

I understand that design occurs in the sense that someone must layout the look of a new camera, decide where all the parts and controls will go, and then make that happen. But, how much can that really cost when the designers are really only tweaking a decades-old design?

Automobiles have similar design requirements, yet no one claims R&D is a major part of their cost.

 

[ferider]

Agree with you Bill. Even more, price, R&D, engineering and Q&A costs are not really related in this small, enthusiast-driven nieche market. Nobody ever relates engineering costs with consumer price for other luxury items or fashion accessories 😉 Do we know what Leica's ROI is ? Is it 20%, 50% or 70% ? Etc.

Yet "you get what you pay for" is popular at RFF, I am guessing it helps justifying the purchase of big ticket items. Instead of just going more honestly with "I like it and I can afford it".