Trius
Waiting on Maitani
All Zeiss M lenses have been built for use on a 35mm-sized sensor if one is ever produced in an RF. It's on the Zeiss site.
Rumor: Zeiss Digital RF in developmnent
- Thread starter reverie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 91
- Views 15K
All Zeiss M lenses have been built for use on a 35mm-sized sensor if one is ever produced in an RF. It's on the Zeiss site.
Pablito
coco frío
Surely someone with good photoshop skills can throw some gasoline on the fire and come up with a "photo" of the "prototype" like the M9 in the other thread...
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Just snag a shot of a ZI off the Zeiss site and add "-D" to "Ziess Ikon". Me, I'm terrible at PS.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Checking exposure or crop is not the point. If you don't like it, so what? The moment is gone.🙄
Reviewing scenes just captured is a modern luxury that Dr. Ervin Land could never have imagined...best savoured in quiet moments after the action with a larger display than the dinky one built-in.
Of course every manufacturer will include every known feature plus one more in the firmware, plus every cable connections known to man. I just ignore the ones I don't need.
Imitation is easy...a monkey can do it...critical thinking is not.:bang: After critical thinking comes compromising with reality...one step at a time.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Because moments are always followed by more moments. Better to find out now - when you might still be able to do something about it - that you (or the camera) has messed up the exposure than to learn about it hours later.
I just spent a couple hours this evening shooting a portrait for a friend. We were moving around in an area where the light kept changing. There were multiple instances where a quick check of my histogram showed that the M8 metering was off enough that I was getting blown highlights. I was able to very quickly make adjustments.
I'd certainly agree that the LCD can be a crutch. And that it can be habit-forming.
But it's a tool. And at times it can be a very valuable tool.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
My point exactly.
That moment when your friend smiled just so...is gone. And if the light was just right, it is gone too.
Bracketing might give you a fighting chance...I had always wonder why digital photographer don't talk about burst speed and bracketing sequence in firmware.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Except that it did work out quite well. The light wasn't changing THAT fast.
It only takes a couple seconds to check a histogram.
I guess it's just a matter of how a person wants to approach things. You can bracket, knowing that one of every three exposures is going to be good. Or you can spend a couple seconds checking a histogram and then know that every shot is going to be good until the light changes.
I guess I feel the same way about bracketing as you do about LCD viewing. Both represent a way to improve your chances of getting a good exposure. With the histogram, you can know for certain. With bracketing, there remains some uncertainty.
When I shoot film, I'm a bracketing fool. But I seldom see a need to do that when shooting digital.
peripatetic
Well-known
Regarding the auto-adjusting viewfinder. One of the things I love about using a RF with a 35 or 50 lens is that you can see more in the viewfinder than what is going to be shot. I find this to be invaluable in timing the shot. If I want a 100% view then I'll use an SLR.
Regarding the LCD - it's just unnecessary. It's not possible to view a "RAW histogram" there is no such thing. The histogram comes from the JPG and is often a poor representation of what is available from the RAW file properly processed. It's a crude tool. Auto-bracketing is much better. Not having it stops you from chimping and allows you to concentrate on capturing the images. Not putting it in at all means that you could reduce both size and some of the cost of the extra LCD and processing chips. If the camera only captures RAW data you don't even need to worry about setting white balance.
I agree that it is very unlikely to happen of course. But how consumers respond is odd. A ZI digital is a very retro-style object anyway, and people are going nuts for the EP-1.
I think that there might be a market for a ZI that is like the current one in almost every way from the outside, but that just happens to capture digital negatives rather than film ones.
For those that need to check images in the field I think a mini-USB port and an iPhone app would be an awesome solution.
Regarding the LCD - it's just unnecessary. It's not possible to view a "RAW histogram" there is no such thing. The histogram comes from the JPG and is often a poor representation of what is available from the RAW file properly processed. It's a crude tool. Auto-bracketing is much better. Not having it stops you from chimping and allows you to concentrate on capturing the images. Not putting it in at all means that you could reduce both size and some of the cost of the extra LCD and processing chips. If the camera only captures RAW data you don't even need to worry about setting white balance.
I agree that it is very unlikely to happen of course. But how consumers respond is odd. A ZI digital is a very retro-style object anyway, and people are going nuts for the EP-1.
I think that there might be a market for a ZI that is like the current one in almost every way from the outside, but that just happens to capture digital negatives rather than film ones.
For those that need to check images in the field I think a mini-USB port and an iPhone app would be an awesome solution.
dfoo
Well-known
I don't see why you think its not possible to view a raw histogram. The raw file should be simply the data directly from camera sensor. Each data point represents the amount of light captured by the sensor at that location. This data can of course have a representative histogram...
ZeissFan
Veteran
I must agree with the others that any digital camera without an LCD will be a commercial failure. There are certain features that are expected in today's marketplace, and this is one of them. An articulated screen that would rotate and allow the user to stow it when not needed would serve well for those who don't want to use an LCD. In fact, I would like this, as most LCDs seem to accumulate marks, smudges and scratches at an alarming rate.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I guess everyone works differently. But for me, this statement could not be further from the truth.
To me, bracketing is an archaic practice that occasionally comes in handy with digital shooting. The only time I personally use it on a digital camera is when I'm shooting landscapes and want a variety of exposures to choose from. Other than that, the "crude" histogram seems to offer me all the exposure guidance I need.
And I have to question the idea that it would be cheaper to build a camera without an LCD viewer. I'm not a manufacturing expert. But it seems to me that since the potential market for one of these LCD-less cameras would be so much smaller, the cost per unit might actually be higher.
And even if that's not the case, it's not like a digital camera can be built without some sort of LCD screen. There has to be something there for the menu commands. There has to be some way to change the range of settings on a digital camera - things like ISO, EV settings, Color Space, self timers, disk formatting, noise reduction, etc. Admittedly, some of that could be handled with analog dials and switches - but not all of it.
bwcolor
Veteran
Design a full frame rangefinder that meets the requirements of those of you that want everything the way it was thirty years ago and we have a financial failure and no more digital rangefinder from Zeiss. If you don't want to use modern aspects of this supposed new camera, then I'm sure that there will be an option for turning off the LCD, or whatever feature that you don't like. For me, I like to have options, especially when purchasing a high price digital camera.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
A built-in LCD is handy for initial and field camera settings. However, I tend to set camera in Raw mode, daylight white balance and maximum resolution and leave it at that...just like using film.
[I had never used Scene Modes, face recognition, smile detection...don't need it.]
An LCD is also handy if you must chimp or check the histogram after every shot...rather than capturing the decisive moments...more suitable for studio work.
There are more people with iPhones than those wanting a dRF camera. An App is not out of the question. If Zeiss/Sony is smart, they would even make an App for a Sony iPhone-equivalent.
Crude or not, no one ever frame a perfect histogram for display.😀
[I had never used Scene Modes, face recognition, smile detection...don't need it.]
An LCD is also handy if you must chimp or check the histogram after every shot...rather than capturing the decisive moments...more suitable for studio work.
There are more people with iPhones than those wanting a dRF camera. An App is not out of the question. If Zeiss/Sony is smart, they would even make an App for a Sony iPhone-equivalent.
Crude or not, no one ever frame a perfect histogram for display.😀
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
For 35mm and 50mm lenses, a bright-line RF finder is ideal for me and I pay extra to have it.
However, 90mm is marginal with a RF viewfinder anyway, so with Live View I'd gain that, 135's and longer while still using a small camera. A miniature pop-open viewing hood would seem appropriate to this purpose. Closed shut, no distractions. Open, sunlight glare is minimized.
Maybe even simpler, a pop-out mirror that reflects the LCD upward so that it could serve as a waist-level finder. If it could work, I could go with waist level viewing for some things a la TLR.
However, 90mm is marginal with a RF viewfinder anyway, so with Live View I'd gain that, 135's and longer while still using a small camera. A miniature pop-open viewing hood would seem appropriate to this purpose. Closed shut, no distractions. Open, sunlight glare is minimized.
Maybe even simpler, a pop-out mirror that reflects the LCD upward so that it could serve as a waist-level finder. If it could work, I could go with waist level viewing for some things a la TLR.
Paul T.
Veteran
Sorry - you're in La La land! Even if you're so purist as to insist you will never review a photo - unlike 99.9% of digital SLR users - you will still need to update firmware, delete photos to make space on your memory card, and other basic management functions, without which your purist camera will be about as useful as a brick, but not as decorative.
doubledan
Member
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.
Having used the G1 for some time now with ZM and Leica lenses, I'm not even sure I would insist that a digital ZI be a pure "rangefinder" so far as focusing mechanism goes. I can manually focus my Elmarit 90 much faster and more accurately on the G1 (where it = 180mm fov) than on my film cameras. In fact, if someone came up with a good fast 12mm prime for the m43 cameras, designed to avoid both the smeared corners we get with wide-angle M lenses, and the distortion and CA of the kit lenses released to date, I might just commit to that system altogether and stop dreaming about an M9 or ZI digital.
Dan
Having used the G1 for some time now with ZM and Leica lenses, I'm not even sure I would insist that a digital ZI be a pure "rangefinder" so far as focusing mechanism goes. I can manually focus my Elmarit 90 much faster and more accurately on the G1 (where it = 180mm fov) than on my film cameras. In fact, if someone came up with a good fast 12mm prime for the m43 cameras, designed to avoid both the smeared corners we get with wide-angle M lenses, and the distortion and CA of the kit lenses released to date, I might just commit to that system altogether and stop dreaming about an M9 or ZI digital.
Dan
sojournerphoto
Veteran
An EVF al a Ricoh GX100 could be useful for longer lenses, in addition to the optial VF/RF.
Something intersting also, is that the Canon 5D2 in live view mode uses and electronic first curtain and mechanical second curtain. This makes it quieter and faster than the earklier live view cams that close the shutter before firing.
Mike
Sam N
Well-known
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. I think a digital ZI is still at least a couple years off.
One nice thing others haven't mentioned: Sony has experience with in-body image stabilization, so it's possible that this theoretical camera could be sporting this feature.
Also, I don't understand all the hubbub about LCD screens. A digital camera without an LCD is retarded and not going to happen for a vast number of reasons. A flip-out screen is also a no-go if you don't want your camera to be much thicker than a traditional ZI or M. Viewing angles on modern screens are so good that the relative utility of an articulating screen is somewhat lessened.
If you want a digital RF without a screen, just buy an R-D1 and keep the screen shut. Have fun trying to get consistent spot-on exposures 😛
One nice thing others haven't mentioned: Sony has experience with in-body image stabilization, so it's possible that this theoretical camera could be sporting this feature.
Also, I don't understand all the hubbub about LCD screens. A digital camera without an LCD is retarded and not going to happen for a vast number of reasons. A flip-out screen is also a no-go if you don't want your camera to be much thicker than a traditional ZI or M. Viewing angles on modern screens are so good that the relative utility of an articulating screen is somewhat lessened.
If you want a digital RF without a screen, just buy an R-D1 and keep the screen shut. Have fun trying to get consistent spot-on exposures 😛
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Polaroids! I have a Polaroid back for my Nikon Fs...
Seriously, I wouldn't give much for the chances of a no-screen digital camera either, and I'm sure you're right about flip-outs, but I will say we did pretty well with getting spot-on exposures when we shot tranny film in Leicas for several decades.
As for a digital ZI, I'd be surprised. The market is tiny, and the technical problems are formidable. Leica has much more of a stake in getting it right than Zeiss/Voigtländer. But I've been surprised before.
Cheers,
R.
Similar threads
