The latest Epson costs $3000... why would it be cheaper for cosina or epson to make a better camera?
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Lemme see ...
- Advances in production efficiencies
- Lower costs for sensors and perhaps other electronic components
- Higher sales volume than R-D1 due to improved design and market expansion resulting from M9's high profile but even higher price
- Higher sales volume than R-D1 due to Zeiss' brand recognition and commitment to marketing
- Higher sales volume than R-D1 due to Zeiss' brand recognition and commitment to post-sales service
- I could go on ...
DNG
Film Friendly
Since this thread started (2007). Only 1, ur 2 DRF have been introduced. M8.2, M9
Yes, Maybe the M9 may increase the market share.
But, is it enough to re-introduce the Epson?? maybe a Mark II.... 12mp 1.3x crop, with Live-View.. and a VF CORRECTED for the lens mounted...50mm lens will bring up a 65mm frame line. Frames for 35mm FL (28mm mounted), 50mm FL (35mm mounted), 65mm FL (50mm mounted), 105mm FL (75mm/90mm mounted)
So, the corrected Frame Lines...35/65, 50/105, Not perfect, but workable with popular lenses. 28/35/50/75/90
Which means the lenses need to be coded I guess. OR, you could input the lens manually via a dial..it would save the coat of a remake of the RF/VF assembly.
Maybe.... have to see how the M9 goes (which seems to have plenty of back orders)
Make the price around $3,000.00 USD.
It may be closer than we think. or not
Yes, Maybe the M9 may increase the market share.
But, is it enough to re-introduce the Epson?? maybe a Mark II.... 12mp 1.3x crop, with Live-View.. and a VF CORRECTED for the lens mounted...50mm lens will bring up a 65mm frame line. Frames for 35mm FL (28mm mounted), 50mm FL (35mm mounted), 65mm FL (50mm mounted), 105mm FL (75mm/90mm mounted)
So, the corrected Frame Lines...35/65, 50/105, Not perfect, but workable with popular lenses. 28/35/50/75/90
Which means the lenses need to be coded I guess. OR, you could input the lens manually via a dial..it would save the coat of a remake of the RF/VF assembly.
Maybe.... have to see how the M9 goes (which seems to have plenty of back orders)
Make the price around $3,000.00 USD.
It may be closer than we think. or not
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Probably not. Possibly, but not probably. I'm not optimistic either.
The thread was started and was an answer for a question that had already been answered with the R-D1. That product & its technology are at the sunset of their lifespan due to Epson not really upgrading the R-D1x.
Considering that there are only a few players in the CCD/CMOS game, those are the companies which would have to provide the imaging sensor and the engine to drive it. Canon, Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Kodak. Kodak already has Leica as its cash cow, so does Panasonic. Sony has Nikon and Canon makes their own chips.
Camera bodies are always sold at almost zero profit for the company. The money is in lenses and accessories. That said, why would anyone bring out a full frame or large frame (1.3x) RF camera that could use lenses from any other mount? An FD mount Canon RF would be optically compatible with every SLR lens from every SLR manufacturer (except Konica) that produced manual lenses from the 1960's to the present. This is due to lens registration and would seriously cut into a company's profits. The FD mount is still protected by copyright and Canon would never license the mount + registration to another company. That's just insanity.
If someone like Leica were to bring out a live-view RF that was compatible with M lenses, it would change the whole market because there would be no limit to what lenses could be used on the body with simple adapters.
ALL of this conjecture is simply that and as others have said it before me, no matter who puts out the product, it is going to have a tiny market share and thus will be set at a price to match = highest price point / professionals / collectors / wealthy in order to make up the cost of the product and the risk. Looking at the R-D1 and its retail price, this new fantasy camera would not come to the market for less than $3000 and if it were full frame + from Leica/Canon/Nikon then the price would be above $5000.
And everyone would drag out their fantastic SMC Takumars and not buy any new lenses 'cause the old ones work so well. No camera companies make money on used gear.
The thread was started and was an answer for a question that had already been answered with the R-D1. That product & its technology are at the sunset of their lifespan due to Epson not really upgrading the R-D1x.
Considering that there are only a few players in the CCD/CMOS game, those are the companies which would have to provide the imaging sensor and the engine to drive it. Canon, Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Kodak. Kodak already has Leica as its cash cow, so does Panasonic. Sony has Nikon and Canon makes their own chips.
Camera bodies are always sold at almost zero profit for the company. The money is in lenses and accessories. That said, why would anyone bring out a full frame or large frame (1.3x) RF camera that could use lenses from any other mount? An FD mount Canon RF would be optically compatible with every SLR lens from every SLR manufacturer (except Konica) that produced manual lenses from the 1960's to the present. This is due to lens registration and would seriously cut into a company's profits. The FD mount is still protected by copyright and Canon would never license the mount + registration to another company. That's just insanity.
If someone like Leica were to bring out a live-view RF that was compatible with M lenses, it would change the whole market because there would be no limit to what lenses could be used on the body with simple adapters.
ALL of this conjecture is simply that and as others have said it before me, no matter who puts out the product, it is going to have a tiny market share and thus will be set at a price to match = highest price point / professionals / collectors / wealthy in order to make up the cost of the product and the risk. Looking at the R-D1 and its retail price, this new fantasy camera would not come to the market for less than $3000 and if it were full frame + from Leica/Canon/Nikon then the price would be above $5000.
And everyone would drag out their fantastic SMC Takumars and not buy any new lenses 'cause the old ones work so well. No camera companies make money on used gear.
ReneSpudvilas
Perrennial amateur.
And everyone would drag out their fantastic SMC Takumars and not buy any new lenses 'cause the old ones work so well. No camera companies make money on used gear.
Good point...! Reminds me of customers who come into my store, talk to me for half an hour, grab some advice, and then go home to find everything on ebay used, or for cheap.... I understand it, of course, because we all have a bottom line, but the used lens market is probably one of the biggest problems that zeiss/cosina/leica face....
Good point...! Reminds me of customers who come into my store, talk to me for half an hour, grab some advice, and then go home to find everything on ebay used, or for cheap....
I understand it, of course, because we all have a bottom line, but the used lens market is probably one of the biggest problems that zeiss/cosina/leica face....
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I don't know if it is anywhere in this post, but who do you think makes the Zeiss Ikon? None other then Cosina.
imokruok
Well-known
Something I don't see on the list that I would gladly take over all of them: a digital Contax G2.
parsec1
parsec1
OOOHHH Yes Please
hugh
Member
Well you'd have to raise Contax from the dead first. I never used their rangefinders but I used their slrs and they were AMAZINGLY well-engineered and designed cameras with great lenses so I can understand your wistful enthusiasm for that brand as I sadly sold all my Contax equipment when Kyocera pulled the plug on them.
gilpen123
Gil
Basically economy of scale. Most toolings to create the body are there already. My only wish, please make those RF patches robust. Btw, I voted for Zeiss anyway it's Cosina also.
By all means, go on... I'm not convinced yet.
Last edited:
jarski
Veteran
yes and Kyocera sits on top of orphaned G-system patents, so even if somebody else would be interested to continue, its not so strait forward.
quite a pity as tech-wise it should not only be possible, but also more affordable than before
Dwig
Well-known
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
The market price for a digital M-mount RF camera is $3,000~7,000. The R-D1 and M8/9 bracketed the price range.
These models had also proved that RF fans do not insist on auto-focus, anti-shake, million scene modes...while AE option is welcome, non-vignetting on wide-angle lenses a must, FF is naturally better but crop factors tolerated...
Sony NEX has proved that APS-C parts package (sans RF) could be packaged and retailed at ~$600.
An EVIL finder now retails at ~$250. The Zeiss RF net cost is ~$600 (price difference between the Ikon and the Ikon SW). Even a Leica RF can be purchased new on eBay at ~$500.
FF CCD/CMOS is long available from Sony (Zeiss's partner) at 24MP, APS-C is of course available and now used in NEX. They all have ISO capability far higher than whatever Leica can squeeze out of the older 6.8u Kodak chip.
CV had long proved it can retrofit old RF camera. The R-D1 was merely a digital conversion of a just-discontinued Bessa-R2.
Kobayashi-San is said to dislike digital...more likely a face-saving way of saying CV was and is still under "non-compete" provision in the contract building the R-D1. [Epson is not so stupid as to paying for R&D then allow CV to make a cheaper/better knock-off soon after. 3~5 year term is normal.]
The original R-D1 run (contract) was reported to be 12,000. Elsewhere, an R-D1 serial number survey indicated that the runs of R-D1/1s/1x would have fulfilled that contract...in '09. Perhaps we would hear D-Bessa noises by '12.
The digital upgrade cycle is indeed short, but will slow down or stop at FF. I am sure the M10/11/12 will not be larger than FF...or the image circle of all available lenses will not cover the frame size.
Had Leica not stuck with the off-set micro lens distribution pattern for those 6.8u Kodak chip, they would have used the newer Kodak 6u chip available already in '08...24Mp at FF.
[Dalsa has a FF chip at 7.2u...17Mp. Dalsa sells chips to anyone, including Zeiss who built million-plus dollar DMC and RMK-DX aerial cameras all based on Dalsa chips. Sony is not the only source.]
The R-D1 CCD (Nikon D-100) is now doubled in MP (Nikon D-300). What is next?
Obviously, the best way is designing a digital camera by first perfecting a fast and upgradeable CPU...Nikon Expeed style. Next is a CCD module mounting method that can be factory or service depot swappable. And, make sure your lenses are tele-centric in design. Don't worry about supporting Leica legacy lenses...most of them are in collectors' glass cases anyway.
As to CV as a company, the employees got to eat...even if Kobayashi-San can survive on only drinking Kool-Aid.
Time is ripe for Zeiss to make that move. Its subcontractor CV had accrued enough experience building the R-D1. The Sony 24MP chip is now mature and well in use. Zeiss has an arsenal of lenses that was said to be compatible to digital in the outset...
Original quote: "When digital sensor technology takes another leap or two, accepting the high incident angles of a wide-angle M-mount lens to the corners of a full format sensor, you can count on us to come up with high performance digital systems that will satisfy even the truly passionate. And your Carl Zeiss T* ZM-mount lenses will be ready."
Zeiss has not added too many lenses since the introduction of the Ikon. Does that mean all available lenses are ready [for digital]?
These models had also proved that RF fans do not insist on auto-focus, anti-shake, million scene modes...while AE option is welcome, non-vignetting on wide-angle lenses a must, FF is naturally better but crop factors tolerated...
Sony NEX has proved that APS-C parts package (sans RF) could be packaged and retailed at ~$600.
An EVIL finder now retails at ~$250. The Zeiss RF net cost is ~$600 (price difference between the Ikon and the Ikon SW). Even a Leica RF can be purchased new on eBay at ~$500.
FF CCD/CMOS is long available from Sony (Zeiss's partner) at 24MP, APS-C is of course available and now used in NEX. They all have ISO capability far higher than whatever Leica can squeeze out of the older 6.8u Kodak chip.
CV had long proved it can retrofit old RF camera. The R-D1 was merely a digital conversion of a just-discontinued Bessa-R2.
Kobayashi-San is said to dislike digital...more likely a face-saving way of saying CV was and is still under "non-compete" provision in the contract building the R-D1. [Epson is not so stupid as to paying for R&D then allow CV to make a cheaper/better knock-off soon after. 3~5 year term is normal.]
The original R-D1 run (contract) was reported to be 12,000. Elsewhere, an R-D1 serial number survey indicated that the runs of R-D1/1s/1x would have fulfilled that contract...in '09. Perhaps we would hear D-Bessa noises by '12.
The digital upgrade cycle is indeed short, but will slow down or stop at FF. I am sure the M10/11/12 will not be larger than FF...or the image circle of all available lenses will not cover the frame size.
Had Leica not stuck with the off-set micro lens distribution pattern for those 6.8u Kodak chip, they would have used the newer Kodak 6u chip available already in '08...24Mp at FF.
[Dalsa has a FF chip at 7.2u...17Mp. Dalsa sells chips to anyone, including Zeiss who built million-plus dollar DMC and RMK-DX aerial cameras all based on Dalsa chips. Sony is not the only source.]
The R-D1 CCD (Nikon D-100) is now doubled in MP (Nikon D-300). What is next?
Obviously, the best way is designing a digital camera by first perfecting a fast and upgradeable CPU...Nikon Expeed style. Next is a CCD module mounting method that can be factory or service depot swappable. And, make sure your lenses are tele-centric in design. Don't worry about supporting Leica legacy lenses...most of them are in collectors' glass cases anyway.
As to CV as a company, the employees got to eat...even if Kobayashi-San can survive on only drinking Kool-Aid.
Time is ripe for Zeiss to make that move. Its subcontractor CV had accrued enough experience building the R-D1. The Sony 24MP chip is now mature and well in use. Zeiss has an arsenal of lenses that was said to be compatible to digital in the outset...
Original quote: "When digital sensor technology takes another leap or two, accepting the high incident angles of a wide-angle M-mount lens to the corners of a full format sensor, you can count on us to come up with high performance digital systems that will satisfy even the truly passionate. And your Carl Zeiss T* ZM-mount lenses will be ready."
Zeiss has not added too many lenses since the introduction of the Ikon. Does that mean all available lenses are ready [for digital]?
Last edited:
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I don't forsee the cost of sensors coming down in the near future. My opinion is not uninformed, though I'm no mystic; I work in the semiconductor industry.
The continual cost reductions we've seen across the board in consumer electronics are due to the application of Moore's Law (actually a mere observation that transistor density doubles every 18 months or so), such that the physical size of integrated circuits becomes smaller (meaning more can be fit onto larger silicon wafers, making their per-piece cost much lower) while at the same time the reduced geometries means signals travel shorter distances in these circuits, reducing heat loss and improving speed and performance (implying their initial price can be sold in the market at a level sufficient to recoup upfront investment costs).
The problem with sensors of specific format sizes (full-frame, APS-C, u4/3, etc.) is that, by definition, their size can't shrink to follow Moore's Law. Therefore their manufacturing efficiencies will not continue to increase. There are a few other methods to improve cost on such products, such as reducing labor cost (moving fabs to China, for instance), but the increasing cost and complexity of the manufacturing tools themselves negates many of these potential cost-savings. This is why, more and more, chip-making is being consolidated to fewer and fewer big players. There's talk of going to 450mm-sized wafers, for increased cost efficiency per chip; but the tooling costs are prohibitive to any but the largest few firms (Intel, Samsung, etc.).
OTOH, point-and-shoot sensors do follow Moore's Law; they aren't tied in to a specific physical size as dictated by a format standard; their pixel density can continue to increase as their physical size decreases, meaning their per-unit cost becomes more efficient, as does their yield (how many function on a given silicon wafer being effected by surface area in relation to circumference; the chips near the wafer's edge typically don't yield as well, such that larger wafers imply higher yields, all else being equal).
The rest of the camera - the peripheral logic and signal processing circuits, and the camera's mechanical and optical components - can continue to be made cheaper, at lower cost, but these format-defined sensors themselves will not become much less expensive.
*Joe
iwaki
Member
so in the end, until we see a full-frame sensor that is able to deal with the high incident angle of wide angle lenses, it's not quite possible yet for Cosina to do it (at a reasonable price point). Unless they create software compensation profiles a la M8/M9.
All these talks about backlit sensor from sony has started but we have yet to see a full frame sony or nikon DSLR using this sensor. Infact i don't even know if these sensors can really deal with the M-mount high incident angle.
Given the niche market nature of rangefinder, unless until those capable sensor becomes the mainstream, the price point will probably end up being near to what Leica has to offer with M9.
If Cosina comes out with an R-D2, i'll sell my M9 and use the rest of the money to buy more lenses ;-)
Call me stupid or biased, but i still prefer the R-D1 ergonomics compare to M9.
mn4367
Established
So true. I can handle the M9 pretty well, but having ISO, exposure compensation and battery available on the R-D1 at a single glance is far superior.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
In reality, the vignetting in the so called high incident angle lenses (even a 21mm lens with 90-degrees FoV) is no bigger than a filter factor equivalent of 1.414, or 2/3 of an f-stop [a filter factor of 2 is 1 f-stop]. Using up 1 f-stop worth of CCD ISO sensitivity to neutralize vignetting is not such a hardship...if the CCD is sensitive enough, like the Nikon D3s at ISO 12,800.
The trick is to tell the camera CPU what lens is mounted. Leica M8 used a 6-bit B/W bar-code in the lens mount...or in the M9, menu selectable; plus the much self-celebrated off-set micro lenses of course. The R-D1 support that to a degree in post-processing.
There are only 3 variables in exposure setting: ISO, aperture and shutter speed. ISO was frozen at film selection, as was WB [only daylight or tungstung]...until now.
Adding an "A" setting in the ISO dial is not so difficult. Likewise adding "AE" in the shutter speed dial. Unless one wants auto-everything...
This thinking lead me into looking at retrofitting the M bodies, also my Nikon F and F2, FM. FM3A.
A CCD's native ISO speed is ~100, with ~4 stops of underexposure latitude. If someone handed me a camera said to be pre-loaded with this film/sensor, I simply shoot away...sunny 16 with minus 4 stops latitude...
Of course, I was almost busted by the Thought Police.
Last edited:
pluton
Well-known
agree--only a moron would turn down the capability to check his/her exposure in the field, without having to wait for processing. -KB-
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Although it may sound strange to you, some of us prefer not to check the image that soon, and get a good exposure without much help and without being totally sure that soon about having got it... And I own a pro DSLR... But when I use it I don't look at the screen... I just do the same I do with my film cameras... Compose and shoot... Ah, and the best of the game: see the images other day... But when I was younger I checked the screen... I just got bored.
Cheers,
Juan