jky
Well-known
If this does have some substance to it ... plenty of reason to hang back on buying an M9!
It's not a rumour that Leica would be currently enjoying I would imagine.
...hope it doesn't cause Leica to bring out an M9 only to have an M9.2 with its upgrades soon after...
sirius
Well-known
Well all these m-mount lenses they have been making, are they really only for use with film? That seems a little short sighted. I wonder if they will start coding the lenses? I bet that is under patent even though the m-mount is no longer.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
The release date is obvious...Photokina 2010...assuming there are some substance behind the rumours.
But why not:
When a DSLR or a DRF achieved full frame, the mega-pixel war is at truce.
Like it or not, film is not popular items at retailers anymore.
Besides, using film practically limits ISO choices between 25~400...having 1600+ on a dial is a luxury. Film color balance choices were only three, how much more do we now need? Real photographers don't need multiple scene modes...we know how.
Zeiss's excuse of not offering digtal at the introduction of ZM is now a little lame.
But why not:
- Zeiss is optics. Zeiss lenses need a future.
- Despite all sorts of negative comments, the M8 established that not all of us want/need auto-focus, multi-scene modes...the RF or M-culture thrives on first understanding photography.
- Battery, memory card, firmware and other related technology are not new anymore. Sony has a warehouse full of it.
- Sony is capable in developing new CCD or CMOS technology...they had done a few things in the past.
- Bracketing is cost free.
- An "A" setting for the ISO speed dial.
- A built-in eye-piece magnifier dial in the circular view finder hump...changing the 0.72x into a 0.85 for the 50mm and 1.0 for the 85mm lenses.
- A battery/frame remaining window replacing the current frame counter.
When a DSLR or a DRF achieved full frame, the mega-pixel war is at truce.
Like it or not, film is not popular items at retailers anymore.
Besides, using film practically limits ISO choices between 25~400...having 1600+ on a dial is a luxury. Film color balance choices were only three, how much more do we now need? Real photographers don't need multiple scene modes...we know how.
Zeiss's excuse of not offering digtal at the introduction of ZM is now a little lame.
Last edited:
peripatetic
Well-known
^^Sounds like a nightmare to me^^ Why not just use an SLR?
I'm all in favour of a ZI digital though
FF capture. RAW only in DNG format. No LCD screen. Camera should look outwardly identical to ZI. Little greyscale LCD for remaining shots. I'd happily ditch all my Canon gear.
*sighs longingly*
bwcolor
Veteran
I want a limited screen for a histogram. You don't need to look at it if you don't want to.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
^^Sounds like a nightmare to me^^ Why not just use an SLR?
I'm all in favour of a ZI digital though
FF capture. RAW only in DNG format. No LCD screen. Camera should look outwardly identical to ZI. Little greyscale LCD for remaining shots. I'd happily ditch all my Canon gear.
*sighs longingly*
In comparison to an SLR, the RF viewfinder is always awkward...but in exchange for a bright and always in-focus view.
I use Nikon's, has been for decades. However, I won't buy a D3 or D3X, or even a D700 because of the bulk and weight.
Nowadays, I long for a travel-anywhere one lens/camera outfit. My ZM is mated only to a CV 40mm f1.4.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Exactly - and nothing more. But I want it able to show me a raw histogram and not just a jpeg conversion.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Having just spent two weeks with the ZI and left the 1Ds3 at home, I am looking forward to the day this happens very very much. It wouldn't make the slr redundant, but would be a perfect complement. I would actually prefer a higher pixel count than the 12Mp that seems to hold everyone's attention since the D700 was released. In real world shooting the 21Mp 1Ds3 (and presumably the 5D2 and D3x) are simply amazing at low light work.
Mike
Acliff
Established
If this is true, which I hope it is, if it retains m mount and has IS built into the body like the other Sony's, this could murder a m9
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
With live-view and built-in IS, such a camera could displace my dSLR entirely.
djonesii
Well-known
There is a pretty large market with possibly much larger margins the consumer market just waiting to be tapped. No crop so wides are wide, and fast normals are normal. It needs a RF, and for me, if you display the histogram which I need, you may as well display an image which is really not a requirement.
Dave
Dave
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
There is just no way Zeiss, or any digital camera maker, is going to introduce a camera without an LCD to view images. Such a camera would be a commercial failure in this day and age.
Other than the cost savings from not having a screen, what possible advantage would you gain by eliminating the LCD?
While a few film purists might like such a camera, I'd argue that many more people see it as a reason to avoid the camera.
The best you could hope for is the RD-1 style approach where you can hide the screen if you don't want to use it.
Other than the cost savings from not having a screen, what possible advantage would you gain by eliminating the LCD?
While a few film purists might like such a camera, I'd argue that many more people see it as a reason to avoid the camera.
The best you could hope for is the RD-1 style approach where you can hide the screen if you don't want to use it.
I would like to see a digital ZI
but I don't believe that is where Zeiss wants to put their R&D budget.
Stephen
but I don't believe that is where Zeiss wants to put their R&D budget.
Stephen
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
It just strikes me as odd that Zeiss isn't making a push in that arena.
You'd think the company would like to guarantee its lenses will always have a market. Obviously film isn't dead and may never die. But clearly digital is the growth path.
Maybe Zeiss just has a lot of faith in Leica's ability to continue making digital rangefinders.
You'd think the company would like to guarantee its lenses will always have a market. Obviously film isn't dead and may never die. But clearly digital is the growth path.
Maybe Zeiss just has a lot of faith in Leica's ability to continue making digital rangefinders.
kuzano
Veteran
The answer on NO LCD is simple....
The answer on NO LCD is simple....
Those who don't want it can simply cover it with leatherette. Surely a couple of camera covering companies will have some snakeskin, lizard and colored coverings before the camera hits the street.
The answer on NO LCD is simple....
Those who don't want it can simply cover it with leatherette. Surely a couple of camera covering companies will have some snakeskin, lizard and colored coverings before the camera hits the street.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
In comparison to an SLR, the RF viewfinder is always awkward...but in exchange for a bright and always in-focus view.Originally Posted by peripatetic
^^Sounds like a nightmare to me^^ Why not just use an SLR?
I'm all in favour of a ZI digital though
FF capture. RAW only in DNG format. No LCD screen. Camera should look outwardly identical to ZI. Little greyscale LCD for remaining shots. I'd happily ditch all my Canon gear.
*sighs longingly*
I use Nikon's, has been for decades. However, I won't buy a D3 or D3X, or even a D700 because of the bulk and weight.
Nowadays, I long for a travel-anywhere one lens/camera outfit. My ZM is mated only to a CV 40mm f1.4.
I ditched my complete Nikon D300 set for an M8 and have only looked back for the 135mm f2.0 DC-Nikkor I included in the deal. But I would not have had a body to shoot it from, so thats a done deal. Travelling lighter now and all-RF too, I can recommend it for sure!
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Maybe we finally have nagged Sony enough on the Hexar RF for them to produce a Zeiss-Ikon badged dRF, created under Zeiss supervision?
That way, Sony do not have to share Japanese technology with a non-Japanese company (as Japanese companies seem to be prohibited that) and Sony can deliver on the necessity of a worldwide service network as well.
Maybe the Digital Zeiss-Ikon will look like a Hexar RF?
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
I neglected mentioning an LCD merely because of an oversight. I have no intention of causing a debate as it seems to have happened now.
However, I always question the value of a camera-mounted LCD because:
- Once the camera has been set up, what are the likely changes in the field? White balance, image size...what else?
- Why mount it on the camera body if no "live view" is possible?. Viewing after the fact is just that...after the fact.
- Checking the LCD after each shot defeats the whole purpose of spontaneous shooting RF style...some members call that "street photography".
- Keeping your eye in the view finder is more important...especially in no-cost bracketing. Any camera these days has enough memory for three shot bursts...no?
- Reviewing pictures afterwards can be done using a device that would accept the memory chip directly...I vaguely recall Epson offers a 80GB model.
Besides, such an App can be used on another camera...save wasting yet another LCD.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
My proposed ZMd design is based on my shooting MO:
Despite available automation, I prefer to focus lens, set f-stop and cock shutter manually...I will use auto-wind if the occasion encourages it. I must be allowed to do something or use my 4 decades of experience.
I use AE more often these day...especially after the AE on my ZM earned my trust.
- Set up the camera for Raw and Maximum resolution...I couldn't do otherwise on film anyway. So buy a few GB worth of chips...they are cheap and last a long time.
- Set white balance to daylight...I don't do much night shooting [eating/drinking is more important]. If I must, I use a flash.
- Bracket shots...why not, film is now free, no?
- Set the bracketing sequence to be: 0, -1/2, -1 EV [if supported by camera firmware]...digital shooting is much like using slide film, expose for highlights and let shadows fall as they may. [Brightening a scene up later in software is easy.]
- Shoot first, review later...after best efforts in capturing the moment.
Despite available automation, I prefer to focus lens, set f-stop and cock shutter manually...I will use auto-wind if the occasion encourages it. I must be allowed to do something or use my 4 decades of experience.
I use AE more often these day...especially after the AE on my ZM earned my trust.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Seems like a lot of trouble to go to just to check to make sure you like the exposure, crop, etc.
The thing is, this is one of those arguments that's really sort of pointless. It would be so bizarre for a company to bring a digital camera to the market without the abilty to review shots immediately. Reviewers would ridicule the camera and its maker. Most potential users would dismiss the camera without a second thought.
It would be akin to selling a new car today without air conditioning. People simply expect it to be there. And if it's not, you lose a good chunk of potential buyers.
This is only going to be amplified for a company (Zeiss, for example) bringing its very first digital camera to the market. If they ever do make a digital rangefinder, they'll want as broad a market as possible. Not a niche within a niche.