Mephiloco
Well-known
The cost of making a full frame digital, or even a cropped frame digital, is significantly higher than making a film equivalent. The cost and engineering required to make the Zeiss Ikon were nothing compared to the R&D put into the M9.
Zeiss knows where it's bread and butter is, and it's not in rangefinder bodies, or lenses. I see little reason why they would put a substantial amount of money into R&D towards a digital rangefinder, it seems like a fruitless endeavor considering they can just keep cranking out superspeeds and compact primes at an incredible profit.
For some reason, the RF community is detached from reality in some ways. People keep asking for newer/faster/wider lenses when it's simply not profitable for most companies to produce products in the RF segment. Many of us use 'vintage' lenses primarily, I personally don't own any non-CV rangefinder equipment newer than 30 years old, and I know I'm not alone. Compared to other areas of photography where users buy equipment new and often, RF users more than not buy 2nd hand, which does very little for the producers.
Anyways, I forgot where I was going, but I don't think a digital Ikon is going to happen. Everyone wants something cheaper than the m8 and m9, but it's simply not going to happen, especially considering that a R-D1 still sells for about $1600, even though it was introduced almost 7 years ago, the specs are crap by today's standards, and it's a crop sensor. So basically, people want a digital Ikon that is twice the price of a R-D1, delivers much much better quality images, and is reliable etc etc. I don't see it happening.
Zeiss knows where it's bread and butter is, and it's not in rangefinder bodies, or lenses. I see little reason why they would put a substantial amount of money into R&D towards a digital rangefinder, it seems like a fruitless endeavor considering they can just keep cranking out superspeeds and compact primes at an incredible profit.
For some reason, the RF community is detached from reality in some ways. People keep asking for newer/faster/wider lenses when it's simply not profitable for most companies to produce products in the RF segment. Many of us use 'vintage' lenses primarily, I personally don't own any non-CV rangefinder equipment newer than 30 years old, and I know I'm not alone. Compared to other areas of photography where users buy equipment new and often, RF users more than not buy 2nd hand, which does very little for the producers.
Anyways, I forgot where I was going, but I don't think a digital Ikon is going to happen. Everyone wants something cheaper than the m8 and m9, but it's simply not going to happen, especially considering that a R-D1 still sells for about $1600, even though it was introduced almost 7 years ago, the specs are crap by today's standards, and it's a crop sensor. So basically, people want a digital Ikon that is twice the price of a R-D1, delivers much much better quality images, and is reliable etc etc. I don't see it happening.
macjansson
Newbie
I believe that the chances of a non Leica digital RF are slim. Especially if we're talking full frame ones.
My best bet is some sort of rangefinder-like camera at best. The optical hybrid viewfinder of the Fuji X100 seems interesting but I don't know if it lends itself to the adjustment necessary in order to be useful with an inter-changeable lens system.
Voightländer are now making lenses for the m43 system and if that system becomes big enough then maybe we'll se a digital m43 rangefinder-like camera from Voightländer. That means legacy lenses will have a crop factor of x2 and the only interesting lenses would be dedicated manual m43 lenses. At the moment only one dedicated manual m43 lens exists.
My best bet is some sort of rangefinder-like camera at best. The optical hybrid viewfinder of the Fuji X100 seems interesting but I don't know if it lends itself to the adjustment necessary in order to be useful with an inter-changeable lens system.
Voightländer are now making lenses for the m43 system and if that system becomes big enough then maybe we'll se a digital m43 rangefinder-like camera from Voightländer. That means legacy lenses will have a crop factor of x2 and the only interesting lenses would be dedicated manual m43 lenses. At the moment only one dedicated manual m43 lens exists.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yet, they make rangefinders and rangefinder lenses... must be a labor of love? If so, perhaps someone at Zeiss is clamoring for a digital rangefinder. However, that is the only way something will be built i.e. as a pet project.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Remember, too, it's NOT ZEISS driving this. It's Cosina and (above all) Kobayashi-san.
Zeiss will design/build/license lenses for ANYBODY whom they trust to build a good product and not to degrade the Zeiss name. And, of course, where there's a profit. But no-one I have ever spoken to inside Zeiss has the slightest desire to start designing and manufacturing consumer cameras. Design consists of input to others' designs; manufacture for most systems (except for a few expensive lenses such as the 15/2.8) is done by somene else, e.g. Kyoto Ceramics (Contax) and Cosina (Zeiss Ikon). The only camera I have with a recent Zeiss-built Zeiss lens is my Alpa. Have you seem what 38/4.5 Biogons in Alpa mount sell for?
Cheers,
R.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I assume you're talking about an Alpa 12. Extremely nice cameras by the way. I'm seriously tempted (but have been managing to resist so far).
I suppose you use a roll film back with that Biogon (you don't seem like a digital back sort of person). Does it cover 6x7, and is there much of the shift capability left when using it?
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Roger: As with my other comment, I can't give "chapter and verse." Again, it was something I ran across on one of these websites. (or maybe in LHSA 's "Viewfinder", I can't remember). I don't make a habit of jotting down the the specifics re EVERYTHING I read. So if I'm wrong, so be it.
Anyway, the important point is, there IS a full frame digital Leica M. I'm certainly not complaining.
Anyway, the important point is, there IS a full frame digital Leica M. I'm certainly not complaining.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Paul,
Sorry, I didn't mean to hassle you, but I've read the same thing more than once -- but I've never been able to track down a source, which is why I'm interested. It's always "I read it somewhere," but then, I remember reading in about 1990 that Hitler was still alive and that there was a WW2 bomber on the moon.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, a 12WA. I use it with the Alpa 66x44 back because that's what Alpa recommend. I'll try it with a 6x9 back (my wife's standard on her 12 S/WA with a 35 Apo Grandagon)and see what it covers. I've heard that the Biogon covers 6x7, though believe it or not I've never tried it: I just like it too well on 44x66. There'd certainly be no shift on 6x7 if it does cover: the image circle given by Zeiss is only 80mm.
If I could afford it, I think I'd buy a digi back as well.
Cheers,
R.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Roger: No problem.
(But Elvis is STILL in the building, isn't he?)
(But Elvis is STILL in the building, isn't he?)
Roger, I concede... you are in the business and I'm in fantasy land.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No concession needed -- I thought I was agreeing with you!
Zeiss wouldn't license the ZI name or make ZI lenses (or ZF, etc.) unless people like Dr. Nasse REALLY CARED about consumer cameras/lenses. It's just that they won't originate such projects, and (I suspect) they won't agree to such relatively minor side operations unless there's someone inside the Foundation that is willing to champion them.
Cheers,
R.
tom_uk
Established
I'd like to make one small comment here. Several of the threads have asked (or seem to have asked) why it is that Zeiss, who really don't need to do it, released the ZI: or rather, as Roger has explained, agreed to license their name to Cosina for a camera + a range of lenses, and perform some design input/validation.
Well, as a casual rangefinder user, I have to say that Zeiss were pretty much below my personal radar for a very long time. Then the ZI came along and suddenly their name was everywhere (well, everywhere I was looking). Add to that the fact the comments about the camera were all extremely positive, and I'd have to say that Zeiss got a lot of extremely good marketing out of that decision.
As to whether they'll produce a digital ZI, I personally have no idea, so I'm happy to go along with Roger's view. In any case I am leery about digital RF equipment: I just don't believe it will have the longevity the film equipment has had.
Well, as a casual rangefinder user, I have to say that Zeiss were pretty much below my personal radar for a very long time. Then the ZI came along and suddenly their name was everywhere (well, everywhere I was looking). Add to that the fact the comments about the camera were all extremely positive, and I'd have to say that Zeiss got a lot of extremely good marketing out of that decision.
As to whether they'll produce a digital ZI, I personally have no idea, so I'm happy to go along with Roger's view. In any case I am leery about digital RF equipment: I just don't believe it will have the longevity the film equipment has had.
NazgulKing
Established
There is of course, the presumption that film will be in production forever...
Quercus
Quercus
One of the things that strikes me about CZ is that they are a very different beast to the one that almost had to flee the Kamera (yes the only way to spell it is with a K) business in 1972 when they almost gave the old ZI holding to Rollei is desperation. Remember this may even have included giving away what would eventually become the Rolleiflex SL2000F, arguably the most revolutionary 35mm kamera ever designed.
I do not claim to be an expert on either CZ imaging or the photo industry as a whole but I have in the past been lucky enough to work very closely with Zeiss engineers on a daily basis within the scientific imaging field. And the one thing I know from that experience is that Zeiss has a very different mind set from Leica and this is certainly clear in scientific instrumentation. Zeiss are a massive industrial beast Leica a kitchen workshop by comparison. With to boot more R and D then you can shake a stick at.
If Zeiss did want to make a dRF they would. I really believe that because of the way that Zeiss scientific view the Photographic arm of Zeiss. To Joe blogs in the street (well certainly of a certain age or certain earning potential) is embodied in both eyewear and Kameras - importantly not lenses. Most YashiCon users genuinely believe that CZ made the 139 167 G1 etc.. most Contax buyers in the 80s and 90s bought CZ as a lifestyle choice (IMHO but backed up by the way zeiss scientific engineers talk about the products as well)
When Zeiss lost the Original Ikon brand they lost a lot of shop window at at a time when Olympus Instruments in particular were gaining ground. ( it would amaze you how many microscopes david bailey sold ). The reestablishment of CZ with a YashiCon brand brought back this balance for them. Two shop windows again eyewear and Kameras.
Then the loss of YashiCon took Zeiss totally by surprise. They still do not have the rights to use their own high end brand range name. This left Zeiss with no presence in the Kamera market. No matter how small that presence was it was an important one for the Zeiss brand image. From rumour and hear say at the time Zeiss Photographic management took a roasting over not seeing what was coming.
So Zeiss are left with a consumable shop window at the time which again had the eyewear but also ericsson phones (remember sony got access to zeiss through ericsson - zeiss are never happy with another multi national who move in the same fields as they do - maybe that is why so far no zeiss lenses for the NEX)
So CZ in a hole had few options - build lenses as a high class sigma or leave the photographic world. First option was hard with no license agreements to mount technology (at that time) or build for only open lens mounts. Two choices PK and M - Pentax and zeiss have worked closely over the years both in scientific instruments and also in camera (mainly lens technology) but Pentax photographic in the early 2000s was not the pentax of the ME super MX era - it was not the everyman mount any more.
So that left only one unlicensed mount left M bayonet - Cosina provided the opportunity - who went to who is now an academic argument but it happened and zeiss were very glad that it did.
As far as RD is concerned - Roger is wrong when he implies that CZ put no RD into the ZI(M). They employed Henssler & Schultheis. They are not cheap. So the ZM became the Audi to Cosina's vw or maybe more the Audi to early takeover SEAT.
Zeiss has not continued to develop the ZM range - it doesnt need to: life expectancy in the RF world is decades and for most people the ZMs are a complete range.
Zeiss R and D is much bigger than Leica (who are now almost a subsidiary of Panasonic R and D) and its access to QC mass production much bigger than Leica. It already has enough tie ups with the various strands of Zeiss scientific to gain access to censor technology above and beyond what Kodak has produced for the Leica M9.
So why no dRF .. well it probably has nothing to do with not being able to or not even being able to at a price. (though Roger is correct about CZ having no body production capabilities it would have to outsource but zeiss outsource so much stuff anyway that is a no boner) The M mount is now not CZ main objective ( sorry about the pun). They now have a range of very successful slr lenses, which appear to be developing which means that when you walk into many good camera shops what you see is little white and blue boxes.
For Zeiss it doesnt matter what the lenses go on as long as in enough of the right minds zeiss is still associated with quality glass wear. For zeiss the right minds are the people that are going to authorize the purchase of 50 axio or MCS mass specs.. the suites. Certainly not te lab coats who already know that Schott glass is about the best in the world.
BTW as a little aside...even before the ZI Zeiss had a license agreement with Cosina in the shape of the agreement which allowed Rollei to sell a 40mm sonnar for the rollei 35rf. Schott glass (Rollei (CZ) HFT) in a barrel made by cosina and assembled in Germany.
Will CZ ever make a dRF - probably not - they are not a kamera manufacturer, that was Zeiss Ikon who no longer exist. Will there ever be a zeiss badged dRF (like) Kamera - well who knows. Will it be M mount again personally i doubt it - that filled a need for zeiss. m4/3.. not unless panasonic unbind from leica to build a body , Zeiss AG and olympus already compete for to much of the same business in other fields so they won't build the body. Sony NEX another difficult bed fellow for zeiss but not impossible but only as a lens supplier.
Maybe in the end Zeiss may end up back in bed with their original oriental sleeping fellow and a CZ Pentax development...but i doubt it.
As long as zeiss have a way to have little white and blue boxes on camera shop shelves and the front of amateur photography they have the lost leader that they always have loved.
I do not claim to be an expert on either CZ imaging or the photo industry as a whole but I have in the past been lucky enough to work very closely with Zeiss engineers on a daily basis within the scientific imaging field. And the one thing I know from that experience is that Zeiss has a very different mind set from Leica and this is certainly clear in scientific instrumentation. Zeiss are a massive industrial beast Leica a kitchen workshop by comparison. With to boot more R and D then you can shake a stick at.
If Zeiss did want to make a dRF they would. I really believe that because of the way that Zeiss scientific view the Photographic arm of Zeiss. To Joe blogs in the street (well certainly of a certain age or certain earning potential) is embodied in both eyewear and Kameras - importantly not lenses. Most YashiCon users genuinely believe that CZ made the 139 167 G1 etc.. most Contax buyers in the 80s and 90s bought CZ as a lifestyle choice (IMHO but backed up by the way zeiss scientific engineers talk about the products as well)
When Zeiss lost the Original Ikon brand they lost a lot of shop window at at a time when Olympus Instruments in particular were gaining ground. ( it would amaze you how many microscopes david bailey sold ). The reestablishment of CZ with a YashiCon brand brought back this balance for them. Two shop windows again eyewear and Kameras.
Then the loss of YashiCon took Zeiss totally by surprise. They still do not have the rights to use their own high end brand range name. This left Zeiss with no presence in the Kamera market. No matter how small that presence was it was an important one for the Zeiss brand image. From rumour and hear say at the time Zeiss Photographic management took a roasting over not seeing what was coming.
So Zeiss are left with a consumable shop window at the time which again had the eyewear but also ericsson phones (remember sony got access to zeiss through ericsson - zeiss are never happy with another multi national who move in the same fields as they do - maybe that is why so far no zeiss lenses for the NEX)
So CZ in a hole had few options - build lenses as a high class sigma or leave the photographic world. First option was hard with no license agreements to mount technology (at that time) or build for only open lens mounts. Two choices PK and M - Pentax and zeiss have worked closely over the years both in scientific instruments and also in camera (mainly lens technology) but Pentax photographic in the early 2000s was not the pentax of the ME super MX era - it was not the everyman mount any more.
So that left only one unlicensed mount left M bayonet - Cosina provided the opportunity - who went to who is now an academic argument but it happened and zeiss were very glad that it did.
As far as RD is concerned - Roger is wrong when he implies that CZ put no RD into the ZI(M). They employed Henssler & Schultheis. They are not cheap. So the ZM became the Audi to Cosina's vw or maybe more the Audi to early takeover SEAT.
Zeiss has not continued to develop the ZM range - it doesnt need to: life expectancy in the RF world is decades and for most people the ZMs are a complete range.
Zeiss R and D is much bigger than Leica (who are now almost a subsidiary of Panasonic R and D) and its access to QC mass production much bigger than Leica. It already has enough tie ups with the various strands of Zeiss scientific to gain access to censor technology above and beyond what Kodak has produced for the Leica M9.
So why no dRF .. well it probably has nothing to do with not being able to or not even being able to at a price. (though Roger is correct about CZ having no body production capabilities it would have to outsource but zeiss outsource so much stuff anyway that is a no boner) The M mount is now not CZ main objective ( sorry about the pun). They now have a range of very successful slr lenses, which appear to be developing which means that when you walk into many good camera shops what you see is little white and blue boxes.
For Zeiss it doesnt matter what the lenses go on as long as in enough of the right minds zeiss is still associated with quality glass wear. For zeiss the right minds are the people that are going to authorize the purchase of 50 axio or MCS mass specs.. the suites. Certainly not te lab coats who already know that Schott glass is about the best in the world.
BTW as a little aside...even before the ZI Zeiss had a license agreement with Cosina in the shape of the agreement which allowed Rollei to sell a 40mm sonnar for the rollei 35rf. Schott glass (Rollei (CZ) HFT) in a barrel made by cosina and assembled in Germany.
Will CZ ever make a dRF - probably not - they are not a kamera manufacturer, that was Zeiss Ikon who no longer exist. Will there ever be a zeiss badged dRF (like) Kamera - well who knows. Will it be M mount again personally i doubt it - that filled a need for zeiss. m4/3.. not unless panasonic unbind from leica to build a body , Zeiss AG and olympus already compete for to much of the same business in other fields so they won't build the body. Sony NEX another difficult bed fellow for zeiss but not impossible but only as a lens supplier.
Maybe in the end Zeiss may end up back in bed with their original oriental sleeping fellow and a CZ Pentax development...but i doubt it.
As long as zeiss have a way to have little white and blue boxes on camera shop shelves and the front of amateur photography they have the lost leader that they always have loved.