Whats preventing CV from going 'upmarket'?

[Uncle Bill]

How about continual improvement of the current Cosina Voightlander product line? I don't think Cosina has the R&D bucks to fund creating a digital rangefinder so I would put that fantasy to bed, especially after Leica's experience with the M8.

Digital rangefinders are real sub niche market of a niche market. Most real photo journalists are lusting after a Nikon D3. If you want the "digital rangfinder" experience look into the Ricoh GR-D or that new Sigma DP-1 that is being ready for launch.

 

[Frank Petronio]

IDK, I think there are enough digital camera components out there that Cosina could buy Sony sensors and XYZ LCDs and sub out the UI and they'd be there.... Just give us something like a modern RD-1 and watch them sell 20K $1500 bodies and a boatload of lenses. Nikon D80 quality is just fine.

 

[etrigan63]

Photogs are lusting for the D3 because of it's outrageous ISO performance. The bloody thing goes up to ISO 12800 or something ridiculous like that. This month's LFI has an article about a new sensor technology similar in concept to Foveon (RGB at each photosite) but using a single receptor (instead of three) and layers of color filters. Seems simpler to produce and can get much higher pixel counts than Foveon (who plays a little numbers game with theirs).

 

[BillBingham2]

Because it's not their business model

Because it's not their business model

This is not Pres Ks business model.

The Bessa L, T and R were all based upon the same chassis as many other SLRs that were built for other companies (e.g. FM-10, OM-2000) so his tooling was mostly there already. A bit of tweaking to remove the mirror box and change the meter and shutter, but much lower cost than starting from scratch.

His early lenses came out slowly but I believe were done to keep his engineers busy during slow times in his main efforts (High End Government and Projector Lenses). He saw a market niche and tried it.

The niche grew and acceptance was perhaps better than expected thanks to the Internet, RangeFinderForum, and marketing by Stephen G.

The R2 was helped along by the Rollie RF effort and from there he listened to folks like Tom A, Stephen and others as to where he should go.

The only stumble I can see that he made was miss judging the Nikon/Contax market. I think that market was too small because of the lack of a large base of lenses that were interchangeable. The difference between the S and C mounts kept many folks out of that market. Other than that his approach has been much closer to home runs than any other company I've watched of late.

You can see him moving upscale with lenses, but I doubt he will go there with camera. Do we really need another upscale camera? Lots of good used Leicas out there, ZI is not too much money and what's wrong with the Bessa today. The price is not too out of line that if you trash one you could get another. They may not last 25 years, but at the price point is 15 enough?

I'm very happy that he is moving upscale with lenses and bringing out the SLII line. I think that is where the money is for him. If he adds the Canon and 4/3s mounts to the SLII line when he expands it I think he will clean up.

B2 (;->

 

[peripatetic]

On the topic of P&S and EVF, I saw in another forum that someone was using the Canon G9 with a VC 35mm viewfinder. Which I though was rather clever.

And of course the DP1 will be available with a 28mm viewfinder.

 

[jbf]

IDK, I think there are enough digital camera components out there that Cosina could buy Sony sensors and XYZ LCDs and sub out the UI and they'd be there.... Just give us something like a modern RD-1 and watch them sell 20K $1500 bodies and a boatload of lenses. Nikon D80 quality is just fine.

Personally I'd damn well be happy with D80 quality so long as I knew that the digital rangefinder produced would have support for some years to come. I dont want to buy a digital camera that's gonna literally last 2 years and have no future support for fixes, etc.

(ala RD-1)

 

[infrequent]

from cosina's perspective there is little reason for them to go digital. they are working a niche. if they go digital, they are just another digital manufacturer. that said, i would like to see the RD1 rise like a phoenix!

 

[Ronald_H]

I have the distinct impression that the CV Rangefinders are the indulgence of one man, not so much a sound business venture. One man that has given the world a decent camera with excellent lenses for a tiny market + some nice innovations & accessories.

It may not be a popular opinion, but I think CV could destroy Leica. If they wanted, they could make stuff that matched Leica's for half the price. But I think they don't want that. CV's entry into the RF market has probably helped Leica sales, not hurt them.

So I think CV does not go upmarket because Mr. Kobayashi does not want to see Leica die.

 

[JTK]

RD1 would have done better if Gandy had distributed it. He seems to have forced CV into mechanical improvements (rangefinder reliability, less plastic)

Take a look at relative sensor sizes and noise here (includes 5D and 2 cameras with optical finders):
http://blog.paran.com/foveon/24785998

 

[Ronald M]

Like it or not, the future is digital. There is no upmarket for film cameras. The only market for film is people who will not go digital for whatever reason. So now we can sell some film, but film cameras, it think not let alone upscale.

Upscale is digi to 99 percent of the people. They do not even buy prints, they put the pics in the computer.

 

[John Noble]

You don't do chassis by CNC, because:
- It means milling from a solid, camera sized block of metal, removing 95% of material
- It means a lot of unnecessary wear to cutter heads
- It means time, which is very expensive for multi-axis machines you'd need for such a job.

The only manufacturer making cameras this way I know of is Alpa. You can check their prices, and ask yourself how many would be willing to pay even half of that for a Bessa.

In mass production moldings/castings surpass CNC pretty quickly, and even low scale manufacturers like Leica find them more economical. That's why R9 looks like R8 and probably like R10, and that's why we shouldn't expect big exterior design departures from M8 in M9.

I can see where I implied that something like a camera chassis wouldn't be cast, but that's not what I meant. In any case, the cost of tooling isn't in the materials, it's in the labor ... which is a lot cheaper (due to CAD/CAM/CNC) than it used to be.

With that said, an awful lot of low- to medium-volume parts are being manufactured in machining centers these days: load a bar of stock in one end, and parts come out the other. Operator time is more expensive than machine time, so automation really drives down costs.

Not that an elaborate machine would be needed for something like CV's upmarket chassis: a little $30-40k 4-axis mini Haas would probably crank out 20 chassis/day all by its lonesome, and wasting 95% of a 4 lb. bar of 6061 is no big deal--just sell the scrap back at a small loss if it bugs you.

Yes, I've been involved in product development.

 

[-kk-]

It may not be a popular opinion, but I think CV could destroy Leica. If they wanted, they could make stuff that matched Leica's for half the price. But I think they don't want that. CV's entry into the RF market has probably helped Leica sales, not hurt them.

my sentiments exactly. interesting to read everyone's response here. I do believe CV can improve on their bessa range, by incorporating things like brass body, longer EBL etc. Perhaps this will be on a ZI price point, maybe a bit more. Basically, i believe a bessa thats 'built to last forever' ala leicas will have a market. It just seem to me there's a general acceptance that bessa ownership is the entry level to the M-mount world, and that ownership inevitably leads to a leica. (Gross generalisation i know, but i think the trend is there). Perhaps a premium bessa can capture some of this market?

i do agree however that lenses is prob where the money's at, and where they're really good at (witness he 35/1.4 buzz..... rarely do i see so much banter/interest about a product that sells for almost twice an existing product, with very slight variation ie 40/1.4).

As far as digital... now if CV would team up with sigma and use their foveon chip. hmmmmmm...

 

[back alley]

i think cosina has a market because they sell gear that is affordable, value priced and works well.
if they went 'upmarket' and needed to charge more many would complain and not buy anything new from them.

look at the new 35/1.4, lots of negative comments because it costs more than the 40/1.4.

and everytime someone asks about the zi there are so many responses that say to buy a used leica for the same price. why would it be any different for a cosina bessa body?

joe

 

[-kk-]

and everytime someone asks about the zi there are so many responses that say to buy a used leica for the same price. why would it be any different for a cosina bessa body?

thats a really good point, didnt think about that. The leica mystique is a double edge sword for Leica themselves, but it seems its also something that no one else in the RF field can compete with (even zeiss).

 

[Leighgion]

The definition of "upscale" is rather fluid, but I can say I'd be very into a Bessa that had a quieter shutter.

 

[tom_uk]

and everytime someone asks about the zi there are so many responses that say to buy a used leica for the same price. why would it be any different for a cosina bessa body?

I recently bought a s/h M6ttl, but by default rather than on purpose. I went to a dealer, and s/h Leica was all they had (plus new Leica). If they'd had a ZI I might well have bought one. I definitely wanted to handle the camera before buying, so M6ttl it had to be....

 

[BNF]

Isn't the Zeiss Ikon already the upmarket Cosina Voigtlander?

It was a good decision to go upmarket with Zeiss. This eliminated many of the questions about selling a CV made camera at nearly twice the price as their own top model.

I recently bought a s/h M6ttl, but by default rather than on purpose. I went to a dealer, and s/h Leica was all they had (plus new Leica). If they'd had a ZI I might well have bought one. I definitely wanted to handle the camera before buying, so M6ttl it had to be....

^I found the exact same thing. And, months on, I still have not been able to find a dealer with an Ikon in stock - let alone one of each color to compare.

A camera's tactile rating is very important - I too want to handle it before buying. Even now as I look for a 2nd M body, I want to go with an Ikon, but keep falling back to an M6 at the same price - because I can't find an Ikon.

 

[luketrash]

What went wonky in my R3A was the shutter. These cameras have double curtain shutters which are similar but different to their SLR counterparts. Enough parts in the later R cameras differ from Cosina SLR cameras that they might as well take the next step and release quiet, Leica style cloth shutters to finally make everyone feel warm inside. It's not the shape of the Bessa that worries me. It's the reliability at this point. I just got another R2A to replace my R3A and I hope it lasts a long time. I only got about 100 rolls of film out of my R3A.

The cheapest feeling part of the whole camera is the snappy shutter that looks just like every shutter in every SLR camera I have from the early 1970s-present.

I'm of the belief that full frame sensors are going to do nothing but come down in price. I don't need the extra resolution. I need the same lens characteristics of them being used on 35mm film. It's ridiculous to me to have a nice 50mm lens only to have it behave in a telephoto manner on an M8 body. I bet in the next three years, you'll be seeing full frame sensors on the ~500 dollar entry level DSLR bodies. It'll just get cheaper and cheaper to incorporate that technology into cameras like these.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I bet in the next three years, you'll be seeing full frame sensors on the ~500 dollar entry level DSLR bodies. It'll just get cheaper and cheaper to incorporate that technology into cameras like these.

Quite likely, but the difference lies in demand.

Because of the short flange/sensor distance you can't just stuff an SLR sensor (over 40mm flange to sensor) into a rangefinder (under 30mm flange to sensor): you have both vignetting problems and (as Leica demonstrated) IR filter problems.

Solving these problems costs money, and if you're only selling a few thousand cameras a year, the cost of the solution per camera is much greater than if you're selling tens of thousands of cameras a year.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Sam N]

The only reason I got an M RF instead of an old LTM is that Bessas exist. I wasn't ready to spend $1000+ on a film camera. I would love a Bessa that looked less dorky (tall), had a longer baselength, and had a silent shutter, but then it would cost almost as much as a used M6.

It may not be a popular opinion, but I think CV could destroy Leica. If they wanted, they could make stuff that matched Leica's for half the price.

Aren't they already doing this with ZM?