Why no digital Zeiss Ikon?

[Alm3000]

I'm sure this question has been asked on the forum but I would really like to know. Now that Leica has created the FF M9, why doesn't Zeiss want to make one? They spent money making a film version just when digital was picking up and that was a waste IMO. So now that they know there is a market for a digital rangefinder, especially a less expensive one, they are holding back. I would buy one and ZM lenses too.

 

[Matus]

Yes - this was discussed before. Zeiss guys of course never said "no, it will not happen under any circumstances", but I think that to get a well done FX digital RF is not going to be cheap. The sensors are special (to allow wide angle lenses without retrofocus design) and probably costly.

I guess it can be done for $5000, but probably not for $2000 right now. Just my opinion. Maybe a price guide could be price of a new M9 minus price difference between Ikon ZM and M7.

Get the M9 in the mean time while waiting 😛

 

[Neare]

I don't think the ZI was a waste whatsoever. Zeiss pulled off a great camera and you have to hand it to them for doing so.
I think these high end companies have a mindset of creating professional tools with renown, rather than simply putting out some 'improved' version rubbish every month to keep up the income. This is why they have so much respect in the photographic world, quality not quantity.

Why is there no digital rf from Zeiss? Funding would likely be the reason.

Zeiss is an optical company, not a camera manufacturer. If they want to design a digital version they have to outsource its production. This is expensive, development is expensive, rights to sensors are expensive.

And then if they were to make a profit on this, they would be selling a camera near enough the price of the M9.
Now give most Joe Blog's the choice between a Leica (a company that is worshiped by gear loving photographers) or Zeiss's "hey let's test the waters" camera, which would sell better? The Digital RF market is out of most photographers grasps anyhow, the market isn't that large when you look at the numbers.

If Zeiss could make a drf and sell it making profit for $2000, they probably would.

 

[user237428934]

Most people here belive that they won't be able to build one that is significantly cheaper. When the solution is too close to the M9 they won't sell enough I think.

 

[noimmunity]

They spent money making a film version just when digital was picking up and that was a waste IMO.

The Ikon is a fabulous, highly reliable camera. I can't count how many frames I've clicked through on mine, must be in the tens of thousands...Hardly a waste! Digital could pick up and fly through the heavens, I'd still want to shoot film while looking through that superlative viewfinder! Heaven is right here, right now :angel:

But, sure, everybody 'in the niche' wants a ZM digIkon

 

[Viktor Sebastian]

I'm sure this question has been asked on the forum but I would really like to know. Now that Leica has created the FF M9, why doesn't Zeiss want to make one? They spent money making a film version just when digital was picking up and that was a waste IMO. So now that they know there is a market for a digital rangefinder, especially a less expensive one, they are holding back. I would buy one and ZM lenses too.

Because it is a very big engineering challenge to create a FF sensor that works with rangefinder lenses especially wide angles. (Colour shifts, vignetting, sharpness losses etc. ) I would imagine that the existing technological patents that enable the current solution (Leica M9) are probably owned by Kodak and Leica.

 

[Nettar]

Sebben, I'm sure you are right that "the existing technological patents that enable the current solution (Leica M9) are probably owned by Kodak and Leica." Another company won't be able to build and sell Leica M9s without getting into trouble. But some of the innovation that is crucial to the the technology is less restricted than one might think. For example, the Fuji X100 will apparently have Leica-like (or perhaps I should say, Kodak-like) repositioned microlenses: The "positioning of the microlens on the sensor of the X100 has been customized to allow the capture of light rays with up to a 20 degree angle of incidence," to quote Fuji. And, I gather, the sensor will be from Sony, not Kodak. Now, Sony and Zeiss have a good relationship... No, let's not go up that path! Nettar

 

[Paul Luscher]

I'd also read somewhere that Leica essentially begged ZI not to develop their own digital rangefinder. Something to do with Leica's fears that another--and cheaper-- digital RF in Leica's small niche market would kill it....

 

[Mackinaw]

I'd also read somewhere that Leica essentially begged ZI not to develop their own digital rangefinder. Something to do with Leica's fears that another--and cheaper-- digital RF in Leica's small niche market would kill it....

You read this where? If you're going to say something like this you better be able to cite some legitimate references.

Jim B.

 

[kossi008]

Yeah right, and the first strategy of the free market is to always do what your competitor begs of you?

 

[Ronald M]

I can imagine it killing Leica and Zeiss may not want to do so as many of their lenses are used on Leicas.

They would have to undercut Leica by a significant amount if they were to sell any.

 

[Keith]

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?

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'd also read somewhere that Leica essentially begged ZI not to develop their own digital rangefinder. Something to do with Leica's fears that another--and cheaper-- digital RF in Leica's small niche market would kill it....

Dear Paul,

Wherever you read it, it's pure rubbish. See others' comments, above and below.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Well. mackinaw and kossi, I can't remember where I read this, Just remember running across it on one of the photo websites discussing this very question...maybe even this one....

My dear Mackinaw: I simply said I READ this somewhere. I did not vouch for the truth of it. If somebody knows for certain one way or the other, I would certainly be happy to hear from them.

Please note,I am simply making a comment. I am not engaging in a debate, nor offering testimony in evidence in a court of law. So I don't think there's any need to get prosecutorial and demand I provide chapter, verse and line of some kind of authority, for what I said...🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well. mackinaw and kossi, I can't remember where I read this, Just remember running across it on one of the photo websites discussing this very question...maybe even this one....

My dear Mackinaw: I simply said I READ this somewhere. I did not vouch for the truth of it. If somebody knows for certain one way or the other, I would certainly be happy to hear from them.

Please note,I am simply making a comment. I am not engaging in a debate, nor offering testimony in evidence in a court of law. So I don't think there's any need to get prosecutorial and demand I provide chapter, verse and line of some kind of authority, for what I said...🙂

Dear Paul,

I'm not demanding chapter and verse. Just pointing out that it's pure rubbish. I'm pretty well acquainted with Leica, Zeiss and Kobayashi-san and I don't believe that anyone who had the faintest acquaintance with any of them would propagate such drivel. But who would admit to what they said to a competitor?

Cheers,

R. (LL.B.)

 

[tlitody]

zeiss are probably doing very nicely since the demise of contax. To sell to the 35mm market they introduced the ZI and also rehashed the contax lens designs and produce them with pentax, canon and Nikon mounts. So whilst I'd like to see the contax brand revived, I don't see that there would be any money in 35mm format for zeiss which they aren't already making by selling lenses to canon and nikon users. So the rumour, that someone posted somewhere, that if contax were revived, it would probably be MF digital, would make about the only sense for zeiss IMO as the hasselblad system is so expensive. So a cheaper contax full format MF camera with zeiss lenses would be a very attractive option to pros and highend enthusiasts alike. Or perhaps a contax MF body that takes zeiss lenses and phase0ne backs. So they don't have development costs of sensors and just concentrate on the body and lenses which is what they did with contax and ZI.

 

[kevin m]

I'm pretty well acquainted with Leica...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63595

 

[Sam N]

Zeiss is in a pretty good position now. People are spending so much on M9s that they end up not having enough money to buy Leica lenses and go for the ZMs. :-D

 

[Olsen]

I'd also read somewhere that Leica essentially begged ZI not to develop their own digital rangefinder. Something to do with Leica's fears that another--and cheaper-- digital RF in Leica's small niche market would kill it....

I hardly think that Leica finds it troublesome that neither Zeiss nor Voitländer have made excellent M-rangefinder cameras. These cameras only increase the interest for the M-system as a whole and increase the 'M-market' as a whole. I bought a ZM first. Then I bought a M8 and a 2.hand MP. Others have bought a Voigländer camera as a start into the M-sytem, I am sure.

Far more troublesome are the fine range of cheap M-lenses from both Voigtländer and Carl Zeiss that 'eats' it's way into the M-market. While the M8 and the M9 have contributed to the continuance of the M-system, - at great risk and limited profit (if at all) on Leica's hand, both Voigtländer and Carl Zeiss have prospered enormously, indirectly, from the M8 and M9 sales. If it hadn't been for that Leica has developed and made available the M8 and the M9, neither Voigtländer nor Carl Zeiss would have had a M-market to serve today. While the M-system has been a risky affair for Leica lately, it has been hugely profitable for Zeiss and Cosina. They must be laughing all the way to the bank.

It is worth noting that Leica will not allow it's preferred dealers to sell neither Voigtländer nor ZM lenses. It is, first of all, the lenses of Zeiss and Cosina that is the problem for Leica. Not the event of a new competing M-camera. Quite on the contrary. That would contribute to the continuation of the M-system without Leica spending a dime.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If Zeiss stopped making (or licensing) ZM lenses tomorrow, it would have a negligible effect on their bottom line. They're a huge company, run as a trust, and given to taking the long view. They rarely take risks, because they don't have to.

Likewise, Cosina's Voigtländer started out almost as a paying hobby for Kobayashi-san. It has paid very well, but they have plenty of other strings to their bow.

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 -- but if someone comes up with an attractive proposal for licensing the Zeiss name to put on a new camera (which was what happened with Contax and Zeiss Ikon) then I'm sure they'd go for it.

Finally, when most people ask why Zeiss doesn't offer a competitor to the M9, they mean, why don't they make a cheaper competitor to the M9. Various people from Zeiss have said at various times that it would be difficult or impossible to make a camera that was significantly cheaper -- 'significantly', in this case, meaning 'enough cheaper to woo people away from M9s'. Suppose they made an even better camera than the M9 costing 50% more than an M9. How big do you think the market would be?

Cheers,

R.