Why still no follow-up to the R-D1?

[anselwannab]

So it has been about 13 years since the R-D1 came out. I can understand why Epson was cool on an R-D2, but I'm surprised that Leica is still alone with M mount rangefinder cameras.

Why hasn't Cosina/Zeiss brought out a replacement? I understand the market is small, but perhaps that could be addressed with something like a Kickstarter campaign. I think if it had V-lander/Cosina or Zeiss name on the front it would go better than a printer company bringing out a camera.

I still want the winder lever...

 

[CameraQuest]

I don't have the details - Epson did not publicly share them SFAIK.

Strangely enough the RD was a GREAT design for its time,
that was killed by Epson's terrible terrible practically non-existent marketing and poor customer service.

Had Epson corporate done a good job with the RD1, we might well happily be on the RD10 by now.


Why Epson went out on a limb with R&D and investment to produce the R-D1
and then intentionally dropped the ball,
is indeed a very interesting mystery.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Just have a look Epson's corporate vision: http://global.epson.com/company/corporate_vision/ I don't see an Epson R-D2 there....

 

[anselwannab]

Just have a look Epson's corporate vision: http://global.epson.com/company/corporate_vision/ I don't see an Epson R-D2 there....

I have zero confidence or interest in an Epson branded camera. It was a Cosina/Voigtlander camera anyways. Frankly, with the ties to Nikon, I'm surprised that they didn't bring out a digital S series, or even a digital Canon P camera. Both of those companies I think could benefit from reminding photographers about their dominance at different times in camera tech.

You look at Fuji's success and the Nikon dF's demand and used prices, why there aren't FM3As, Canon A1 or F1Ns in digital form really surprises me. I think the advances in camera tech actually create enough space for these kinds of camera's to be viable.

 

[CameraQuest]

I have zero confidence or interest in an Epson branded camera. It was a Cosina/Voigtlander camera anyways. Frankly, with the ties to Nikon, I'm surprised that they didn't bring out a digital S series, or even a digital Canon P camera. Both of those companies I think could benefit from reminding photographers about their dominance at different times in camera tech.

You look at Fuji's success and the Nikon dF's demand and used prices, why there aren't FM3As, Canon A1 or F1Ns in digital form really surprises me. I think the advances in camera tech actually create enough space for these kinds of camera's to be viable.

It was not a Epson branded camera.

It was an Epson camera produced in part by Cosina.

ALL marketing was done exclusively by Epson.

 

[back alley]

look at a crowd of people at a social event...over 90% of them are shooting with phones...another digital by canon or nikon or epson or cosina cannot compete with those damn phones.

 

[rbelyell]

in the long run it will be only unique products--like (but-not-limited-to) a digital rangefinder--that will compete with phone-photography.

 

[back alley]

i'd be very happy if it were true...

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

It was not a Epson branded camera.

It was an Epson camera produced in part by Cosina.

ALL marketing was done exclusively by Epson.

Actually, it was Epaon branded. It had the Espon name right on it. Am i misunderstanding what you mean.

 

[CameraQuest]

Actually, it was Epaon branded. It had the Espon name right on it. Am i misunderstanding what you mean.

that depends upon the use of the term.

Nicca produced Nicca cameras. Nicca camers with a Tower top plate were Tower branded, but not Tower cameras.

The R-D1 was not a Cosina camera branded with a Epson top plate.
It was a Epson camera partially produced by Cosina.

 

[TXForester]

in the long run it will be only unique products--like (but-not-limited-to) a digital rangefinder--that will compete with phone-photography.

Not sure that is true of a digital rangefiner. I would think compact cameras would compete with phone-photagraphy, because they are small, easy to carry and tend to be better photographic tools. However, I've seen a few posts here over the last few years saying compact camera sales have been declining.

One alternative and don't think it made it far was a Samsung phone made like compact camera. Think of something like the Canon S100 with a phone and apps added. To me that would be a great tool. A camera with a real zoom, relatively fast lens, larger-than-phone sensor and still retains the usefulness of a smart phone.

 

[Godfrey]

I suspect there was no follow-up model because Epson lost money on the project, for whatever reason.

That's the usual reason a line of product development is cancelled.

G

 

[anselwannab]

You guys are arguing semantics and I'm not going to disagree with Stephen on the details of the camera. It sure did look like a Bessa and it had a Sony sensor, IIRC. I'm guessing Stephen's point is that the critical electrical engineering of implementing a sensor into a film body was done by Epson engineers, and maybe those components were sent to Cosina for incorporation?

My interest in that is limited to what impact it would have on the production of a follow on- I'm guessing that the technology has far outstripped the R-D1. Maybe there are some IP or market restrictions- I don't know.

I'm glad Stephen joined the discussion and I'd really value hearing what he thinks might be a viable way to get an alternative to Leica's position in M digital cameras. Crowd funding seems like a really viable way for someone with the engineering needed to potentially get this going.

Like I said, a Zeiss Ikon body with a Sony FF sensor? Heck even the last generation would be OK- or the A7RII after is obsoleted in the next year or so.

How do we get the band back together?

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

that depends upon the use of the term.

Nicca produced Nicca cameras. Nicca camers with a Tower top plate were Tower branded, but not Tower cameras.

The R-D1 was not a Cosina camera branded with a Epson top plate.
It was a Epson camera partially produced by Cosina.

Thanks...I get what you mean.

 

[jsrockit]

look at a crowd of people at a social event...over 90% of them are shooting with phones...another digital by canon or nikon or epson or cosina cannot compete with those damn phones.

The people that shoot with phones were never going to buy a Epson though.

 

[JMQ]

The people that shoot with phones were never going to buy a Epson though.

John, I shoot with my iPhone...and for 80% of the time, it does what I need to do. I use my RF carema for more serious shots....like shooting in prisons 😀

 

[Godfrey]

...
My interest in that is limited to what impact it would have on the production of a follow on- I'm guessing that the technology has far outstripped the R-D1. Maybe there are some IP or market restrictions- I don't know.
...
Like I said, a Zeiss Ikon body with a Sony FF sensor? Heck even the last generation would be OK- or the A7RII after is obsoleted in the next year or so.

How do we get the band back together?

Having worked for a high tech company for nigh on thirty years producing hardware and software products, my opinion is that the answer to your question is simple: money from an audience willing to buy the product in volume.

The problem is that any new camera model is going to cost several million dollars at a minimum for development and, if there's insufficient market to buy the products and return a profit, there's no point to getting involved.

My understanding is that somewhere near 10,000 R-D1 and derivative model cameras were manufactured and sold at about $2900 each. That puts gross revenues at $29M to pay for development, production costs, distribution costs, distributor profits, and dealer profits. The cost of manufacture of products like this tends to be about 1/4 the MSRP, so the cost per camera was about $750. If we can optimistically say that the development costs were $2,000,000, that means that something like $200 per camera came out of Epson profits to pay for development costs alone. That's a huge percentage and pretty much obliterates the profit (usually 8 to 10 percent of MSRP to the manufacturer).

So the way to get a new camera into production is to prove to a manufacturer that it can be done with an economical development cost AND will sell at a rate that returns that 8 to 10 percent profit on the investment. This is a tough thing to do in a falling market like the present camera equipment market.

G

 

[rbelyell]

The people that shoot with phones were never going to buy a Epson though.

yes, youve said that several times, so im just not quite sure what the end point is...which seems much bigger than 'epson products'. the point seems to be 'forget cameras'? if so, then categorization as rf, dsl, mirrorless or whatever seems quite irrelevent, no? the logic of the phone-photo point leads inexorably to 'no new nonphone cameras will sell', and thus it seems like an end point to further discussion on any new hardware. im just not sure how else the rest of us should deal with that point and its a tad exasperating.

 

[jsrockit]

John, I shoot with my iPhone...and for 80% of the time, it does what I need to do. I use my RF carema for more serious shots....like shooting in prisons 😀

I understand, but I believe he said social situations. I took this to mean every day people not interested in photography other than to capture a moment.

 

[jsrockit]

yes, youve said that several times, so im just not quite sure what the end point is...which seems much bigger than 'epson products'.

Huh? MY comment was pro Epson. I meant that Epson could make a new RF because the people that shoot phones were never going to be potential clients. I don't use my phone for photography because I like a more robust camera which offers me functions tailor made for photography.