Who... Digital BESSA R5

[BrianPhotog]

- Considering that I want a camera for taking a lot of pictures and not a fetish item.

Epson RD-1

- Considering that I want to take it with me all the time, has to be a tank and easy to repair.

Built like a tank (mechanically)? Leica M8. A Bessa wouldn't be put together as well. Easy to repair (mechanically)? Epson RD-1.

- Considering that I want to spend my money in good lenses and accessories.

Epson RD-1

- Considering that I want simplicity and ergonomics.

Epson RD-1

- Considering the background and the future develop of the camera.

Best candidate at the moment? Leica

My dream and my vote is for the Digital Bessa R5

Why? It would be an RD-1 with a higher price tag (more expensive for Cosina to outsource the sensor and electronics then Epson to outsource the chassis and shutter).

And that's why I don't understand the point of the initial question.

Is it just because people are expecting a dirt cheap digital rangefinder (pockets before logic)? Ain't gonna happen yet no matter who it's made by or what is "stripped off". In a few years when the technology matures to the point where its evolution slows down and R&D expenses aren't as great, sure. But not now.

Even if Mr. K was interested in producing a dRF (which he isn't)...

Who makes the sensor and supporting firmware/electronics? It'll have to be outsourced since it's extremely doubtful that Cosina would invest the time and money in sensor R&D just to catchup to everyone else. That being the case, would you pay more then the current RD-1s (maybe 30%+ more since Cosina will be outsourcing everything except chassis, shutter, and assembly) for an R2a with a 6MP sensor? No LCD? Who cares? LCD screens are dirt cheap and plentiful. It won't cheapen the price.

And yet at least once a month someone says "hey, how about a digital bessa"?

Why not just get an RD-1s? It'll be cheaper. Discontinued? Well, that's probably because you guys are spending too much time thinking that the RD-1s is still too expensive and hoping that a "digital bessa" would be even cheaper. Won't happen. Should have just gotten the RD-1. I don't get it. But maybe it's just me.

 

[mascarenhas]

The LCD itself is cheap, but LCD screens end up dragging with them extensive image processing in-camera, needing firmware that is expensive to create (writing software is very expensive!). Throw away the LCD and your firmware just needs to read from the sensor and write a RAW file to the card. I don't know how much of the R-D1 budget was firmware development, but don't think it was peanuts...

That said, I don't believe Cosina will do a RxD, either... but we can only hope one of the digital players will notice how well the R-D1 is keeping its price and take a shot of the market.

 

[RML]

A digital module that could be put inside the camera (a la digital film) would need to be designed specifically for each mount seperately. Would that result in one for M, LTM, M42 etc? I doubt it. But if for M mount, I'd be interested in it.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I think Canon could jump in to the game with CV tomorrow to produce a sub $2000 digital RF. Certainly they have the technology, the R&D would be limited to the details of adapting dumb'd down versions of their DSLR sensor/processors.
The question is, why in the world would they want to? Are they desperate to sell 10,000 or so sensor/processor combinations? Surely that's too small a number to make much of an impact on their finances. Most importantly for Canon, such a camera would not sell any Canon lenses.

If by some miracle they were to take any of their recent sensors and make something like the R-D1, I'd be first in line for it. I just don't think it'll ever happen.

 

[Sparrow]

I think Canon could jump in to the game with CV tomorrow to produce a sub $2000 digital RF. Certainly they have the technology, the R&D would be limited to the details of adapting dumb'd down versions of their DSLR sensor/processors.
The question is, why in the world would they want to? Are they desperate to sell 10,000 or so sensor/processor combinations? Surely that's too small a number to make much of an impact on their finances. Most importantly for Canon, such a camera would not sell any Canon lenses.

If by some miracle they were to take any of their recent sensors and make something like the R-D1, I'd be first in line for it. I just don't think it'll ever happen.

I don’t think they need CV Steve, I’ve thought for some time Canon have all the components, soft/firmware, sensors, and prototype lenses and bodies. They even have some idea of the market having seen the re-issue of the Nikons, the Bessas and RD1, they have little R&D to do, it’s new market sector for them, and they have the prestige of being the first to get a dRF right!!
Then again who would want a Canon Pd with a full frame sensor and a modern f0.95-50mm……………. dam I just drooled on the keyboard

 

[Trius]

Discontinued? Well, that's probably because you guys are spending too much time thinking that the RD-1s is still too expensive and hoping that a "digital bessa" would be even cheaper. Won't happen. Should have just gotten the RD-1. I don't get it. But maybe it's just me.

Well, I DON'T think it's because people are thinking the R-D1s too expensive and thus sales are not at a high enough level. Unless sales were through the roof, I doubt Epson would be interested at all. The R-D1 was the project of one person and a few folks he convinced. It was never a corporate imperative to get into the digital capture market, much less the dRF market, such as it is. The fact that the camera even exists is a bloody miracle.

Kobyashi-san got into the film RF market because of passion, and he had the business sense to make it a success. Even if he doesn't like digital capture, if he saw a real business case, I think he would make the move because he seems to want to serve photographers, not just his own preferences.

 

[BrianPhotog]

Well, I DON'T think it's because people are thinking the R-D1s too expensive and thus sales are not at a high enough level. Unless sales were through the roof, I doubt Epson would be interested at all. The R-D1 was the project of one person and a few folks he convinced. It was never a corporate imperative to get into the digital capture market, much less the dRF market, such as it is. The fact that the camera even exists is a bloody miracle.

Kobyashi-san got into the film RF market because of passion, and he had the business sense to make it a success. Even if he doesn't like digital capture, if he saw a real business case, I think he would make the move because he seems to want to serve photographers, not just his own preferences.

part of my point was that the business case wasn't there, no matter what was stripped off

 

[shadowfox]

Hmm...

Why not put an option for Digital Nikon SP?

1. Nikon Engineers clearly like their RF camera enough to release two special editions (the 2000 S3 and 2005 SP). They even painstakingly reverse-engineered the originals. How's that for dedication to quality?
2. They have a modern design and tooling for an RF camera (thanks to no.1)
3. Nikon knows how to make a good digital sensor
4. Nikon SP already looks like a digital with all of its framelines
5. Mr.K is not in charge (btw, who really knows what he thinks anyways besides Mrs.K)

I think if it ever produced, it'll give M8 or even M9 a run for their money.

 

[ballfresno]

3. Nikon knows how to make a good digital sensor

not nitpicking, just curious: I thought Nikon used Sony sensors?

In any case, I like this idea -- it's probably the most likely possibility (even if still very low probability).

 

[shadowfox]

not nitpicking, just curious: I thought Nikon used Sony sensors?

In any case, I like this idea -- it's probably the most likely possibility (even if still very low probability).

Eric, a short googlin' turned up articles on Nikon made sensors since 2003. This one is one the latest news:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07080901nikonimagesensor.asp

I am not saying they don't ever buy or cooperate with Sony, but I'm sticking to my statement above

 

[ballfresno]

Thanks for the link. My reason for believing that Nikon bought (some?) sensors from Sony comes from a number of discussions that took place when Sony were acquiring Minolta's dSLR products etc.

 

[sam_m]

pretty sure nikon uses sony sensors by and large, although the d2h and d2hs used a nikon made, (or at leased nikon designed) sensor.

From dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2h/):

"Nikon's new JFET (Junction Field Effect Transistor) LBCAST (Lateral Buried Charge Accumulator and Sensing Transistor array) sensor appears to be similar to CMOS technology but achieves higher speed data transfer allowing the camera's impressive eight frames per second shooting rate. Nikon claim it has:

• Instant Startup
• Higher Speed
• Higher Resolution
• Lower Power Consumption
• Low Noise (Minimal Dark Noise)

A little digging returned the following facts:

• The sensor was designed and developed solely by Nikon
• Research and development into this type of sensor started ten years ago
• The sensor has a 3-T (three transistor) design compared to Canon's 4-T (four transistor) CMOS sensor
• It is an X-Y Address-type Sensor with noise-cancelling functions
• The sensor uses JFET's instead of MOSFET's (CMOS normal) in the cell amps
• The sensor has microlenses and a low pass filter
• The sensor does not have an electronic shutter (requires a mechanical shutter)

While Nikon are currently keeping this exclusive sensor technology close to their chests they assure us that more detail and output from the LBCAST sensor technology will be made available later."

 

[CodeMonkey13]

It won't be the Camera...

It won't be the Camera...

I submit that it Will not be the camera that rally kills the film community, but the lack of the medium itself! THe manufacture of film is a very capital intensive process. It doesn't lend itself well to "boutiqueing". Most of the great pro film has been subsidized as pro loss leaders by the consumers who bought TONS of consumer grade film. How much longer is Kodak/Fuji/Agfa... going to be able to maintain this commitment? You may still be able to develop any film you shoot so not really care if the labs go by the wayside. But with out the raw film to begin with... Just wait until some bean counter takes a close look and speaks to the new CEO about cost savings to increase the next quarterly statement.

Just some Brain Droppings
Lonnie

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I submit that it Will not be the camera that rally kills the film community, but the lack of the medium itself! THe manufacture of film is a very capital intensive process. It doesn't lend itself well to "boutiqueing". Most of the great pro film has been subsidized as pro loss leaders by the consumers who bought TONS of consumer grade film. How much longer is Kodak/Fuji/Agfa... going to be able to maintain this commitment? You may still be able to develop any film you shoot so not really care if the labs go by the wayside. But with out the raw film to begin with... Just wait until some bean counter takes a close look and speaks to the new CEO about cost savings to increase the next quarterly statement.

Just some Brain Droppings
Lonnie

Manufacturing of film is capital intensive, but sells of color negative films for third world and cine films are still strong. The future of slide films looks a little less sunny, but since the factories still exist, I think they can make profit even from slide film manufacturing at the time being. Sales of large format slide films have actually increased since year 2000! Nobody really knows what will happen after 5 or 10 years, but nevertheless I am quite certain you can still buy at least color negative and probably B&W films in 35 mm and medium format in year 2020.

Currently the film community is doing rather well and there are even quite a few people experimenting with film who used to shoot digital only. Not all of them will continue to use film after the initial experiments, but some will.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I don’t think they need CV Steve, I’ve thought for some time Canon have all the components, soft/firmware, sensors, and prototype lenses and bodies. They even have some idea of the market having seen the re-issue of the Nikons, the Bessas and RD1, they have little R&D to do, it’s new market sector for them, and they have the prestige of being the first to get a dRF right!!
Then again who would want a Canon Pd with a full frame sensor and a modern f0.95-50mm……………. dam I just drooled on the keyboard

Canon can do anything they want...of course. They have the resources.
I still think a partnership would be smart though.
CV has a well accepted and working platform on which to build and they have a line of lenses in production with the right mounts. Without a partner like that, Canon would have to resurrect old lens designs and put them in production in M-mount.
I still don't think Canon would be motivated to do anything like this, but I'd love to see it.

 

[trittium]

someone NEEDS to make a new digital rangefinder in a reasonable price range. I wish canon would make a cheep plastic rangefinder in m-mount. Why canon? Because they have the marketing ability and have good consumer confidence.

I think the problem with digital cameras is that they have a lifespan like electronics (ie cell phones, ipods). After 4 years you get a new one because the technology is old. The consumer (and IMO most rangefinder shooter) don't want to spend $5000 for a camera body that will be old news in a few years. I know M8 users will disagree, but look at the RD1. It is still a great camera, but cheap point and shoots have more mega pixels now.

I say, Give me a cheap plastic body, m-mount, a full frame sensor, 28 35 50 90 frame lines, and I'll be happy.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I think the problem with digital cameras is that they have a lifespan like electronics (ie cell phones, ipods). After 4 years you get a new one because the technology is old. The consumer (and IMO most rangefinder shooter) don't want to spend $5000 for a camera body that will be old news in a few years. I know M8 users will disagree, but look at the RD1. It is still a great camera, but cheap point and shoots have more mega pixels now.

I say, Give me a cheap plastic body, m-mount, a full frame sensor, 28 35 50 90 frame lines, and I'll be happy.

Megapixels matter very little beyond 5 or 6 MP. A 12 MP camera does have 41% more resolution than a 6 MP camera (yes, 41%, since only linear resolution is perceived by the human brain), but unless you are printing really big or cropping to less than 2/3 of the original frame, it really does not matter in real life. In addition, the more than 6 MP P&S sensors are really noisy and practically unusable beyond ISO 200.

An affordable M mount full frame digital camera is not going to happen in the near future. Light fall-off problems prevent that. If you wanted a cheap M mount camera you would probably have to use a 4/3 sensor (2:1 crop factor) or something similar, so that you would not have to resort to expensive special solutions like Leica had to do with the M8. However, I personally think that it would not be such a bad idea, even though you would have to redesign all the wide angles.

 

[mdspace]

I was an egoist...

I was an egoist...

Hi everyone, I want to explain why I considered just these four options. In my personal opinion and point of view, these four options are the more reliable to appear on scene.

First I apologizebecause I was a little egoist, but...

- I know the possibility of a digital Nikon RF is important, we just have to watch the recently Nikon “S3” and “SP”, nevertheless, simply it’s not a M-mount camera and I doubt they will produce a digital RF M-mount camera because they already step in their own market in the RF world with their own mount. Many of us in this forum are involved with L and M mounts lenses.
- I didn’t include a digital Canon RF, because I think they are not interested at all in the RF market. They stopped producing L-mount lenses many years ago and we haven’t seen a Canon RF camera.
- I didn’t include a digital Hexar RF, because like we know they toke another direction many years ago with the Hexar AF and principally the present Konica-Minolta plus Sony are not interested any more in the retro photography style like we love.
- I didn’t include a digital Russian RF camera option because the Russian mechanics are awesome (inclusively they introduced me to the RF world, been a proudly owner of a Smena8), but the digital stuff and the mechanics are different, good example, the Leica M8, not offence.

I remark that this is my personal point of view, but we can have some surprises, don’t give up!!!

Cheers to everybody there!!!

 

[Ewoud]

I submit that it Will not be the camera that rally kills the film community, but the lack of the medium itself! THe manufacture of film is a very capital intensive process. It doesn't lend itself well to "boutiqueing". Most of the great pro film has been subsidized as pro loss leaders by the consumers who bought TONS of consumer grade film. How much longer is Kodak/Fuji/Agfa... going to be able to maintain this commitment? You may still be able to develop any film you shoot so not really care if the labs go by the wayside. But with out the raw film to begin with... Just wait until some bean counter takes a close look and speaks to the new CEO about cost savings to increase the next quarterly statement.

Just some Brain Droppings
Lonnie

Agfa photo is longgone.... (al though there were rumors on the Photokina about investors wanting to re-start production of some agfa products)

I miss my MCP and MCC printing paper.. :-(

But n e way like Dr Strangelove I think film will be with us for at least 10-15 more years.
Think of the millions(billions?) of 35mm camera's made world wide, we might have a few less choices though.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Agfa photo is longgone.... (al though there were rumors on the Photokina about investors wanting to re-start production of some agfa products)

Some Agfa products have in fact re-entered production. At least the Vista consumer color negatives are being produced. I also heard a semi-reliable rumor that some Precisa slide films have re-entered production. The manufacturer is probably Ferrania or some of the former eastern block film factories, all of which will happily make film for other brands than their own, since they have little brand recognition outside their respective countries. Alas, no information about the Agfa B&W negatives.

As sad as it was, Afga was already losing ground to Kodak and especially Fujifilm in the 1990s. They simply were not a large enough company and their R&D could not keep up with the pace of the two giants. The same was true with Konica photochemical products. The digital age was just the straw that broke the camel's back.