Why no digital Zeiss Ikon?

Roger Hicks said:
Since the demise of the original Contax in the 1960s, 'Zeiss' cameras have been Zeiss-licensed, not Zeiss-made. 'Zeiss' won't introduce another camera -- ANY other camera --
Click to expand...

Actually Zeiss is making plenty of cameras, such as this, this, this and this. I'd assume that building a digital rangefinder wouldn't be much of a technical problem for them, rather than one of not being worth it.

Too much effort for a market that is, polemically speaking, full of rather picky people with inflated expectations, half of whom will be disappointed no matter what you produce.
 
Last edited:
rxmd said:
Actually Zeiss is making plenty of cameras, such as this, this, this and this. I'd assume that building a digital rangefinder wouldn't be much of a technical problem for them, rather than one of it's not being worth it.

Too much effort for a market that is, polemically speaking, full of rather picky people with inflated expectations, half of whom will be disappointed no matter what you produce.
Click to expand...

Sorry: consumer cameras. You are of course quite right, both about their making cameras and about the potential buyers of consumer cameras.

Cheers,

R.
 
As soon as Cosina can get enough partners (Zeiss Ikon, 'Rollei', etc) to help fund it, there will be a digital ZI. And a digital Bessa. And a digital Rollei 35...
 
Keith said:
I think for Zeiss to jump in and make a digi version of the Ikon would be a mistake ... as good as the ikon is, like the M9, it's based on retro technology from the fifties with a complex fragile focusing system that can't take abuse (shock) without needing to be re-aligned occasionally. If you're going to develop a digital platform for your lenses, why not go the Fuji X100 route and make the M9 look old hat?
Click to expand...

Yep! I think it is time to re-think the digital rf architecture if for no other reason than cost. It would be great to have another alternative.

Best regards,

Bob
 
Well, Mr. Hicks, you may be correct that it was all pure rubbish. But don't shoot the messenger, like Macinaw and Kossi. Maybe, instead of jumping on my behind, everybody needs to go talk to the person who made that statement in the first place...although I can't remember where I saw this statement, or who made it...just remember running across it somewhere...I swear I saw it...not making this up....:)

Well, since you are acquainted with Kobayashi, is there any reason he has apparently decided not to create a DZI? (Do remember the statements on the Zeiss' FAQ, on their internet site, when they first put out the ZI, that their lenses would be "digital ready"). Does he figure it's not worth the time and money involved in putting together a DZI in what's a very small niche market?
 
Paul Luscher said:
Well, Mr. Hicks, you may be correct that it was all pure rubbish. But don't shoot the messenger, like Macinaw and Kossi. Maybe, instead of jumping on my behind, everybody needs to go talk to the person who made that statement in the first place...although I can't remember where I saw this statement, or who made it...just remember running across it somewhere...I swear I saw it...not making this up....:)

Well, since you are acquainted with Kobayashi, is there any reason he has apparently decided not to create a DZI? (Do remember the statements on the Zeiss' FAQ, on their internet site, when they first put out the ZI, that their lenses would be "digital ready"). Does he figure it's not worth the time and money involved in putting together a DZI in what's a very small niche market?
Click to expand...
Dear Paul,

Sorry, didn't mean to shoot the messenger. But equally, as (I think) one of the mods says, don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Unless he has significantly changed his mind, Kobayashi-san just doesn't like digital very much. Nor does anyone I know at Zeiss.

Bringing out a new product is not just a matter of (possible) commercial viability. It's also a question of enthusiasm. You need someone to push a project (as Kobayashi-san did with the lenses and film Bessas). From my understanding, that's how the Epson came about: relatively junior engineers doing something in their spare time.

This may happen again. But equally, I don't know anyone pushing it, and I don't know anyone with a high opinion of the commercial viability of such a project. The key words are I don't know. On the one hand, unlike some of the more rabid fantasists here on RFF, I know the business reasonably well and from close up. On the other, there are plenty of people (and things) I don't know.

Cheers,

R.
 
I'm not so sure that a digital optical rangefinder is the optimal solution for a small high quality camera. Technology has changed and the public, including avid photographers, pretty much demand solutions that work best. Mirrorless cameras will dominate the future market along with small consumer point and shoot. Of course, cell phones may be the most used camera modality of the future. Mirrorless cameras have the potential to provide small, fast and reliable replacements for today's DSLR and rangefinders. The viewfinder technology and sensor refresh limitations will soon be solved. The optical rangefinder is on the way out. That said, I'll shoot with them as long as I can. Zeiss best stick to profitable ventures.
 
Kossi: No prob.

Roger: I guess my concern is that Mr. Kobayahi's feelings aside, like it or not, digital is the way the world is going, and the day will come when film is extinct (not that I am looking forward to this).

bwcolor: Don't be so sure the rangefinder is on the way out. You have to hand it to Leica, for making a camera design from 1954 last as long as it has, and bringing it into the digital age as well.

Yes, I remember the time when Leica was the only company making a rangefinder camera, and it seemed like the last remnant of a dying age--sort of like havin a dinosaur wandering around. But look what's happened since then (including this website...:))

So it would be sad to see the ZI go the way of the buggy whip. I realize the end of the ZI would not mean that much to Zeiss Ikon, but what about Cosina/Voightlander? I don't know if they make any digital cameras, but it would seem to me that if they stick solely with making film cameras, they may be in danger of becoming an anachronism...
 
Dear Paul,

Turn it around:

Rangefinders are a small niche market.

A DRF is an even smaller, more specialized market.

It takes personal enthusiasm and commitment to gamble on such a tiny market, especially with very much higher R&D costs than the Bessa film series. Without the personal enthusiasm and commitment (which he had for a film RF), why bother? It's not as if Cosina needs the money to pay the rent: they make plenty of other successful mainstream cameras.

On top of this, a digital Bessa or Zeiss Ikon would be in direct competition with used M8s (assuming a crop factor) or sufficiently close in price to an M9 that many people would spend the extra (assuming full frame). We're not looking at halving the price of an M9 here. How many people are going to spend even $4000 (and I doubt a ZI digital would cost that little) on a non-Leica DRF?

Of course I could be wrong. It's happened often enough before. But I have a bit more inside knowledge of the business than most people -- it's what I do for a living, after all -- and most of the people I know with a similar level of knowledge, or more, are betting the same way I am.

Cheers,

R.
 
Well, Roger, you might be right.

Of course, I also remember Leica saying it was IMPOSSIBLE to make a full-frame digital rangefinder, no sir, not now, not ever....and viola, the M9 ....( Now if only people would stop suggesting Leica add image stabilization, focus confirmation, etc,etc....)
 
Paul Luscher said:
Well, Roger, you might be right.

Of course, I also remember Leica saying it was IMPOSSIBLE to make a full-frame digital rangefinder, no sir, not now, not ever....and viola, the M9 ....( Now if only people would stop suggesting Leica add image stabilization, focus confirmation, etc,etc....)
Click to expand...
Dear Paul,

Would you be kind enough to quote chapter and verse on that? And who said it? Because when the M8 came out, Stefan (and others) were saying that there WOULD be FF sooner or later: they just weren't sure when.

Obviously one of us is misremembering, and I'd be interested to know (a) which one and (b) how far our memories are at fault.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger,
beside of all other aspects of this lifefull disscussion I don´t understand this point:
Roger Hicks said:
On top of this, a digital Bessa or Zeiss Ikon would be in direct competition with used M8s (assuming a crop factor) or sufficiently close in price to an M9 that many people would spend the extra (assuming full frame). We're not looking at halving the price of an M9 here. How many people are going to spend even $4000 (and I doubt a ZI digital would cost that little) on a non-Leica DRF?
Click to expand...

If Zeiss can made (or let made) a film body for a 1/3 of the price of a m7, why should they can´t make (or let made) a similar digital body for the half price of a m9? A EOS5II cost the half of a m9. Ok, the Canon runs in other quantities, but ... Just curious.
 
haempe said:
Roger,
beside of all other aspects of this lifefull disscussion I don´t understand this point:


If Zeiss can made (or let made) a film body for a 1/3 of the price of a m7, why should they can´t make (or let made) a similar digital body for the half price of a m9? A EOS5II cost the half of a m9. Ok, the Canon runs in other quantities, but ... Just curious.
Click to expand...

The problem lies in finding a full frame sensor with a very shallow lens-to-sensor register and the ability to use interchangeable lenses dating back for 80+ years. The only one so far is the Leica (from Kodak). Most DSLR sensors have several applications. a A ZI FF sensor would be limited to one camera with very limited sales, so the R+D costs per sensor would be very high. This is why the X100 uses a small sensor and a fixed lens.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The problem lies in finding a full frame sensor with a very shallow lens-to-sensor register and the ability to use interchangeable lenses dating back for 80+ years. The only one so far is the Leica (from Kodak). Most DSLR sensors have several applications. a A ZI FF sensor would be limited to one camera with very limited sales, so the R+D costs per sensor would be very high. This is why the X100 uses a small sensor and a fixed lens.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, makes sense... thanks.
 
bwcolor's comment brings up a thought... I'd guess if Zeiss were to produce a competitor to the M9, it would have to be technically advanced and attractive to a somewhat different customer. Maybe a back-illuminated sensor to solve some of those shallow lens register problems. Raise the resolution circa 24Mp. Maybe their own variation on the M mount with electronic communication with the lens, yet allowing traditional M compatibility with reduced function. Maybe a hybrid viewfinder something like the Fuji's but with both AF and a manual RF simulation. With this batch of attractions, and others, a high price might be sustainable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom