Rumor: Zeiss Digital RF in developmnent

In some ways, the LCD debate is sort of the last line of defense for film users slowly coming to grips with the digital world.
It's almost as if they think not having an LCD screen makes their cameras less digital. More film-like.
But there is simply no logical argument that supports building a camera without an LCD instead of one with an LCD.
I suppose you could argue that an LCD distracts the user - but that's a matter of will power and not the fault of the camera. If you don't need it or don't know how to use it, just ignore it.
 
So ---- if the Cosina Voigtlander RFs were developed from the generic Cosina OEM SLR body and then the Zeiss rfdr was a development from that and will be a drfdr with Sony image processing package --- can that process be reversed so we could see Cosina being licensed by Sony to use that image sensing/processing package at a slightly later date in a budget drfdr and then even a run of limited edition manual dSLRs for Cosina/Zeiss to sell their new SLR lenses and us to also use our legacy systems of SLR lenses without adaptors and loss of auto diaphragm etc??? (like a better made Nikon FM10 only digi)

I'd buy at least two or three bodies (Pentax, Nikon and Konica mount)
 
doubledan said:
I doubt that Zeiss or any other company will make a digital RF that merely replaces film with a sensor and lets it go at that. I'd accept as many bells and whistles as they could pack into a ZI-style body, so long as I could shut them out and they didn't slow down picture-taking or clutter the design.
Click to expand...

I seemed to have lit up a to-have-or-not-to-have debate about LCD merely because I didn't mention it in my ideal ZMd post a few days ago. I didn't mention it because of an oversight, or closer to the truth...long shut LCD out of my mind, chimping, histogram, changing settings for every scene notwithstanding.

I would be happy if only a decent sensor fixed at ISO 100 [knowing it really has ample under-exposure latitude], hooked up to a battery and a memory chip in exactly the same body...even if I had to plug it into a computer for set up and viewing pictures...and cock my own shutter.:bang:

Learn from the RD-1.

I had even offered financing and hardware contribution to an electronic engineer friend to retrofit Nikon F2's.

Of course every manufacturer will cramp every conceivable gizmo into the firmware, auto-everything and then some.

I simply don't care.:D
 
RF cameras are an anachronism.

In order to attract users away from the huge range of very good DSLRs on the market they will have to be slightly different IMO. The only thing they are best at is decisive moment with bright line viewfinders. For just about everything else a DSLR is superior.

If you wanted to make a "pure" ZI that did nothing but shoot digital negatives it would be possible, all you would need is a tiny LCD showing remaining shots. Everything else could remain the same from the outside. Would it sell enough to make it commercially viable? Probably not. But this is all complete fantasy anyway so get off my case okay?

:)
 
perhaps it would not bring much extra cost to design camera so that it could be sold without LCD, if so specified by the buyer. same or little cheaper than normal ones ? I know I would not buy any digital camera without LCD, but dont what to judge others based on their preferences neither.
 
Well, the optional LCD sounds a bit extreme to me, but then again we are talking about a company that gave us a modern rangefinder, without the rangefinder.
 
I don't see the point of buying a digital camera without a LCD screen. This would be a financial flop. First, nobody except some purists would buy it. Second, was is actually the point? It's not a film camera. Even if you don't watch the screen... you still need it to set the iso, the format, the way the camera work... and, it's been said, to work with the pictures...

You don't like LCD screen; don't look at it :). Nobody is forced to take a peak at the screen at every picture... If you really don't want one... Just stay with film :)

But anyway, I think that if Zeiss put the good ingredient at the right time and the right place, they will beat Leica at their own game... If the DZI would cost 2500... This would be maybe the end... I know that Leica did not made bankrup after the ZI came out... Because we were having the choice between a lot of M mount cameras. Myself, I had to choose between a Ikon and an M6 when the time came for me to buy a rangefinder. The M6 won because I was cheaper and more convenient to what I wantedto do. But this time we will have 3 choice. An "old" RD-1, a really pricey Leica M9, or a Digital Zeiss. No doubt that the Leica will be a really great camera, but if Zeiss but something very interresting into motion, I don't think people will buy it because they don't have the money for the M9 for now ; like it was the case with the RD-1 and the M8.

If the Ikon is enough great to be used as a rich toy and a good proffessionnal camera with a good price, who knows what might happen?
 
NiccaFile said:
My old eyes depend on my DSLR's 'Live View' lcd for tripod work. It's 1000 times better than
ground glass..
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely


I really don't understand the lcd and video angst. You don't have to use it. You can use a dslr in manual, sunny 16 mode if you want. You don't have to shoot bursts. They are flexible and very capable tools. I shooth the Ikon because I like it and I like the glass. I happen to like film too, but not more than digital - it's just another look.

Mike
 
I'm curious. I keep hearing "no-one but some purists would buy it" how exactly does that differ from the people buying the ZI now? :)


P.S. Just spent the day with my ZI, CV 28mm f3.5 Color Skopar and 3 rolls of Neopan. My Canon 5DMkII stayed in its drawer at home.
 
Last edited:
Sony has yet to put the new rear-illuminated CMOS sensors into any of its own DSLRs. I doubt they'd allow their fancy new tech to go into a Zeiss camera before first using it themselves.
Click to expand...
Letting someone else play guinea-pig, and getting early problems ironed out before releasing it in a Sony camera might make sense for them.
 
tbarker13 said:
In some ways, the LCD debate is sort of the last line of defense for film users slowly coming to grips with the digital world.
It's almost as if they think not having an LCD screen makes their cameras less digital. More film-like.
Click to expand...

Oh brother, why drag this debate into it? If someone shoots film and not digital they're not going to care about some digital camera having a screen or not. I have the screen turned off on my M8 & the GRD2 because I don't bother to look along the way.
 
The standard excuse/explanation/argument against a RFd is that the market is too small [to justify the R&D necessary].

The truths are:
  • The future film-user market will be even smaller...just ask any film manufacturer.
  • M-mount lens owners, from Leica to Konica to Voigtlander are all potential customers...so long as a new RFd body price premium is not excessive.
Developing a digital camera is a bullet manufacturers must bite...just ask Konica, Minolta, Contax (Kyocera), Yashica, even ailing Pentax... Waiting for technology to become available is a lame cop out...are you listening Carl Zeiss?

Debating what should be on a RFd is useless...we all have personal preferences. I for one would have gladly bought [and had even offered to finance/contribute in the development] a "digital retrofit" package for my trusty mechanical Nikon's:
Remove the pressure plate and cut a window to mount the sensor package at film plane, place the battery in the film supply cavity and mount a CD or micro CD chip and circuit board where the film take up spool sits... Firmware is available over the Internet.

[A recent D3X cutaway picture shows the full-frame sensor package a mere 5~6mm thick, the circuit another 2mm and the LCD ~10mm.]

imgres


You couldn't be far wrong if you assume the CCD chip is a slide film rated at ISO-125 and just bracket... The extra bits in CCD is like film latitude...applied it in post-processing to even out lens vignetting or boosting shadow details, for now.
​
Film cost, processing and scanning [or equipment/material costs in DIY] amounts to ~$1 per shot in my locale. Spending an extra $1000 in a digital camera premium [or a retrofit] is merely prepaying recurring cost for life [of the camera]. Besides, not mindful of film/processing cost while shooting is liberating.

I have long advocated turning a LCD or Plasma TV into a revolving/changing gallery [been doing that for years]. No printing necessary. Pay for an occasional 300dpi high-resolution print is not a hardship.

Now that the HDTV age is here, you WILL have a 1080p display soon...or someone in your household will nag you to death.

A picture unseen is a picture lost...why bother photographing if you cannot share it.
 
ther e are some things waht they could make better than on digitalcams waht you can buy now:

* loading the battery should be possible inside the camera with a mini-USB port. you could even load your camera on a computer during a log journey. or with a solar panel, there are many different products, they all support mini-USB!

* live view for accurate framing an adjusting the polarizer!
or for use of macro lenses special situations!

* video for HD-video with excellent lenses!

Zeiss: go for it! there is a bigger market waiting for this camera than expected!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom