namelast
Member
That's simple: because Zeiss did not have to make cameras to survive, they were producing (and still are) a wide array of products. Leica (camera) was and is producing ONLY cameras, for this reason they HAD to produce a digital M (even a "rushed" one like the M8) or they would have gone very bad.
The Ikon was produced I think because it did not represent a huge expense of money (since Cosina had already all the needed know-how), and it was probably seen as a nice pull for ZM lenses.
Again my point:when mirrorless technology will be affordable then and only then Zeiss may be tempted to partner up and produce a digital Ikon.
Unless... well as you know Zeiss produces microscopes and they have a partner to fit digital cameras to them...
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Zeiss is not in a position right now where it needs to create a digital ZI.
Furthermore, just because the ZI is much less expensive than an M7, doesn't mean that a digital ZI would be much less expensive than an M9 (whatever its price turns out to be).
Zeiss would have to be able to sell a ZID for not just less than an M9, but much less. Enough less to take away sales from the M9 and enough less that it would fall into the realm of affordable for a lot of RF enthusiasts. And I would bet money that that sweet spot doesn't exist. At least not right now.
Furthermore, just because the ZI is much less expensive than an M7, doesn't mean that a digital ZI would be much less expensive than an M9 (whatever its price turns out to be).
Zeiss would have to be able to sell a ZID for not just less than an M9, but much less. Enough less to take away sales from the M9 and enough less that it would fall into the realm of affordable for a lot of RF enthusiasts. And I would bet money that that sweet spot doesn't exist. At least not right now.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Namelast: I find it hard to argue with either of your last two posts.
I think Paddy's right too.
Cheers,
R.
I think Paddy's right too.
Cheers,
R.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
I am well aware that Zeiss does not have to produce any consumer products to survive. Has anyone heard of, or seen or fondled a 112Mp (8,000 x 14,000) Z(I [Zeiss/Intergraph] DMC [Digital Mapping Camera]...starting at $1.5 million++? They have now sold over 100 units.
Zeiss took long vacations in the consumer camera business often, from Ikon, to Contax and even Voigtlander [the original].
The Z(I DMC uses a 12 micron Dalsa chip (actually a set of 4). The engineering will make you cry. A simple FF RF camera is no challenge...if they set their mind to it.
Zeiss took long vacations in the consumer camera business often, from Ikon, to Contax and even Voigtlander [the original].
The Z(I DMC uses a 12 micron Dalsa chip (actually a set of 4). The engineering will make you cry. A simple FF RF camera is no challenge...if they set their mind to it.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Supposedly, they have the lenses for a digital camera because their line of ZM optics was designed from the ground up with digital imaging in mind.
And unlike Leica, they have no obligation to make a digital camera compatible with 70-year-old Leica lenses. First, they derive no revenue from the sales of Leica lenses -- new or old. And second, a digital body that works best with Zeiss lenses would further drive sales of their own optics.
And unlike Leica, they have no obligation to make a digital camera compatible with 70-year-old Leica lenses. First, they derive no revenue from the sales of Leica lenses -- new or old. And second, a digital body that works best with Zeiss lenses would further drive sales of their own optics.
Uncle Bill
Well-known
A Zeiss Ikon M film camera or a Leica M6 and a Nikon Coolscan scanner IS THE cheaper alternative and you have money left over for a trip. It never ceases to amaze me people go ga ga over technology that will depreciate by 80% in five years.
The M9 may have Leica engraved on the body, it does not mean it will last as long as my M3.
wgerrard
Veteran
If we assume that the M-mount market will not quickly flock to any digital that uses less than a full frame sensor, then a critical issue in determining the price of any FF digital RF becomes the cost of the sensor.
Anyone, then, know what it costs to buy a FF sensor from an OEM?
Anyone, then, know what it costs to buy a FF sensor from an OEM?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Some certainly weren't -- the 21/4.5 and 50/1.5 are obvious examples -- and from talking to Zeiss lens designers I'm not sure what 'with digital imaging in mind' would actually mean, as telecentric designs involve compromises in other directions, most notably colour correction (which at this level is more important for utimate resolution than for gross colour fringing).
As others have pointed out, a FF RF is not something you can pull out of a hat. There's a lot of R+D involved, and currently there's only one sensor suitable -- and I imagine there's some sort of exclusivity agreement on that one.
Finally, any RF that isn't Leica mount is going to have incredibly limited appeal, because the only lens choices will come from the manufacturer who introduces that mount.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Cheaper?
Let's ignore the fact that you're comparing second-hand with new, and focus on how much you shoot. Let's take an M9 at $7000 and write it down by 80% in 5 years (though I think you have that figure hopelessly wrong too). That's $5600, or near enough $1100/year.
Assume as little as $5/roll for processed C41: another estimate weighted in your favour. At 220 rolls/year the M9 pays for itself in 5 years and you still have the camera at the end of it, just as capable as ever.
Use figures which are in my view more realistic, 50% depreciation and $10/roll, that's $700/year and 70 rolls. There are those who spend $15/roll or more...
And you've had the pleasure of using it and saved a hell of a lot of time in going to the lab (or processing and sleeving the film yourself) and onscanning, the latter of which is pure drudgery.
Sure, for B+W, film beats digi hollow, at least for me, and if you like the look of colour film or if there are other reasons to use it (lack of battery charging facilities, for example, or archival permanence), then it makes sense to use film; but unless you shoot very little, saving money is nowadays a poor argument.
Cheers,
R.
swoop
Well-known
I did the math on this once. When first trying to rationalize getting the M8.
After college I started a job at a magazine. And did all my work with the M7. Because I had time to develop and scan my film before I had to submit my photos.
Eventually the workload became the issue that decided on me getting the M8. I couldn't switch to a DSLR. Because I just wasn't used to working that way. The M8 would allow me to keep my visual style and utilize professional quality lenses I already owned.
That alone made it worth the money. Then I thought about the cost of film. A roll of Kodak Portra 400NC costs $5.79. Development at duggal costs $8 a roll. But they cut it into strips of 6. And they include archival sheets. So that's $0.39 for every click of the shutter. I can't tell you how many clicks I have on my M8 prior to me getting it upgraded in February. But in the 22 months prior to that. It was probably around 15,000. I barely used the thing because the focus was off. but it became mandatory for me to compensate and use the camera regardless when I started working at a newspaper in June '08. In February when I sent it in, it became the perfect digital camera and everything I've expected. Since February '09 I've put 7,500 clicks on that new shutter. At $0.39 a click. That comes out to the equivalent of $2,700 worth of film and development. If you also total that estimated 15,000 shutter clicks prior to the upgrade, that's another $5,400 in film and development.
For me the M8 has already paid for itself. In decreased workload. In job performance by submitting images faster. In not having to change my visual style. And in film and development costs.
Personally, it's going to be a lot easier to justify the expense of the M9.
After college I started a job at a magazine. And did all my work with the M7. Because I had time to develop and scan my film before I had to submit my photos.
Eventually the workload became the issue that decided on me getting the M8. I couldn't switch to a DSLR. Because I just wasn't used to working that way. The M8 would allow me to keep my visual style and utilize professional quality lenses I already owned.
That alone made it worth the money. Then I thought about the cost of film. A roll of Kodak Portra 400NC costs $5.79. Development at duggal costs $8 a roll. But they cut it into strips of 6. And they include archival sheets. So that's $0.39 for every click of the shutter. I can't tell you how many clicks I have on my M8 prior to me getting it upgraded in February. But in the 22 months prior to that. It was probably around 15,000. I barely used the thing because the focus was off. but it became mandatory for me to compensate and use the camera regardless when I started working at a newspaper in June '08. In February when I sent it in, it became the perfect digital camera and everything I've expected. Since February '09 I've put 7,500 clicks on that new shutter. At $0.39 a click. That comes out to the equivalent of $2,700 worth of film and development. If you also total that estimated 15,000 shutter clicks prior to the upgrade, that's another $5,400 in film and development.
For me the M8 has already paid for itself. In decreased workload. In job performance by submitting images faster. In not having to change my visual style. And in film and development costs.
Personally, it's going to be a lot easier to justify the expense of the M9.
larmarv916
Well-known
Ok..roger let's llok at this from a cold reality of what Zeiss can get. Lots of former Leica users. A full frame Digital that will be maybe less than 1/2 of the M9 cost. It will use all leica lenses and will have the standard viewfinder that allows for excellent sharp mechincal focus...unlike the .68 of the M9. It will give every Leica user a major cost savings. The M9 is designed to NOT make use of the longer lenses by taking away accuracy of focus. Also you will not need a accountant to tell you how to deprciate it! This camera is as misguided at the world beater the Leica CL...Also I bought Leica to get a focal sharpness advantage this M9 is taking away any advantage I get from my .85 or M3's .92 viewfinder! There is no technical improvement of image sharpness with the M9 ! None not one. All you get is the priviledge of paying.
binky
Established
Why are we relying on ZI to make a FF digital RF as an answer to Leica? I would love to see ZI come out with a FF digital RF, but if Epson (or Cosina) or Panasonic or Olympus comes out with something a bit closer to the current M8 than RD1 at a non-Leica price, I'd jump at it.
Anyway, I'd be surprised that companies out there didn't notice that the Lumix G1/GH1 and Olympus EP1 are selling well, and that enthusiasts are using "hacks" to use their RF lenses on these small sensors. These are bodies that can be got for a reasonable price albeit with a 2x image penalty. It would be interesting to see how these will evolve and how they will impact other camera makers.
Anyway, I'd be surprised that companies out there didn't notice that the Lumix G1/GH1 and Olympus EP1 are selling well, and that enthusiasts are using "hacks" to use their RF lenses on these small sensors. These are bodies that can be got for a reasonable price albeit with a 2x image penalty. It would be interesting to see how these will evolve and how they will impact other camera makers.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
WHY and HOW could it be 'less than half' the cost of the M9?
'Lots of former Leica users'? There aren't that many Leica users to begin with. And if you're already a Leica user, clearly it won't give you 'a major cost savings', because you already have the Leica.
No, I'm sorry, I think you are indulging in wishful thinking about the size of the market and the possible price of a Zeiss digital RF. As I've said before, if anyone reckoned they could build a digital RF at a profit for less than the M8, let alone the M9, they'd probably have done it. The real question is, why wouldn't they? My suspicion is because they share my view of 'cold reality', not yours.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
(Highlighted): Well, exactly. I really don't think it's going to happen. But even a crop sensor is not all that easy, unless you use a really small crop such as APS-C or four thirds and then there are no fast wide-angles -- and fast lenses and wide-angles are what RFs are about, for many people.
Cheers,
R.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I don't know what world you live in. They'd get about three former Leica users, in particular none of the die-hards because for those it's Leica or nothing. Has the ZI gotten lots of former film Leica users? ZIs have been selling, sure, but it hasn't taken the M world by storm and put the M7 out of business. Don't even get me started on "less then half of the M9 cost", that's wishful thinking at best (this is the equation, barely, for companies that have economics of scale working for them). In all probability it won't come. Deal with it.
Last edited:
binky
Established
Point taken, Roger. That's why I haven't jumped on getting an EP1/G1. The m4/3 lenses available are a bit lacking, and the conversion of my manual wides become normal or tele. That's why an Epson at 1.5x still looks attractive as an alternative.
John
John
wgerrard
Veteran
That would mean that the FF sensor is not responsible for at least half the cost of the M9. If not the sensor, what else is in there that boosts the cost that dramatically above say, an M7? The cost of and finding room for the other electronics can't be the issue.
I don't see Leica or Zeiss or Cosina building the fabrication facilities needed to produce sensors. They will need to source them from an OEM. Therefore, the biggest factor in determining the availability and the price of any FF RF will be the OEM cost of FF sensors. E.g., if Cosina could buy FF sensors at $500 each, they might be more inclined to consider a FF RF.
This is somewhat similar to the PC market, where the price difference between a mainstream machine and a cutting edge machine is primarily due to the cost of the CPU and the changes needed to leverage it.
Pavel+
Established
Roger, all of your supositions are astute but hinge on forgetting the idea, the possibility, that Leica is not making extreme per unit profits.I think they are. As a company roughly 1/5 the size and far less diversified (read the financials of both) Leica NEEDS and depends on what are probably extreme margins.
I wonder what the profit margin is but would not be surprised if the actual manufacturing cost not including R&D is only half the price being charged.
If (and we are of course simply speculating here) it costs $3,200 to make and the rest goes to pay off R&D which is always high for a new product by a small company in marginal health - then a larger aggressive company could easily expect higher volume by undercutting Leica's price and sell the product at half with margins more in line with the norm.
That could kill Leica.
On another note, the new way is not ever going to be with rangefinders. I mean volume ... never but a diminishing thing. What panasonic is doing ... that is the future just as Leica was once ... in the world of brownies.
I doubt then that Zeiss would want to bother ... unless of course it becomes a runaway success for Zeiss. Then I think it would be a brief success if other players cut in.
I wonder what the profit margin is but would not be surprised if the actual manufacturing cost not including R&D is only half the price being charged.
If (and we are of course simply speculating here) it costs $3,200 to make and the rest goes to pay off R&D which is always high for a new product by a small company in marginal health - then a larger aggressive company could easily expect higher volume by undercutting Leica's price and sell the product at half with margins more in line with the norm.
That could kill Leica.
On another note, the new way is not ever going to be with rangefinders. I mean volume ... never but a diminishing thing. What panasonic is doing ... that is the future just as Leica was once ... in the world of brownies.
I doubt then that Zeiss would want to bother ... unless of course it becomes a runaway success for Zeiss. Then I think it would be a brief success if other players cut in.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Pavel,
If they need those profits to stay afloat, they aren't extreme margins. Stop and think about what defines an 'extreme margin'...
You're assuming it's possible to sell very large numbers of digital RF -- 10x to 100x as many, maybe (think Canon vs. Leica). I don't know anyone else with a knowledge of the market making the same assumption.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
Roger, I have no way of knowing Leica's margin on each sale. But, it makes sense to me that it is higher than Canon's or Nikon's. Leica sells into a different market. So far, that's worked. Leica has sold relatively few expensive cameras and managed to stay afloat. Can it do that selling a $7000 camera? Who knows?
I think the real marketing opportunity will be for the company that rolls out a rangefinder-sized full frame no-mirror digital autofocus camera on the model of Micro 3/4 along with a line of reasonably competent but affordable lenses. I.e., something with no crop factor and reasonably fast wide angles lenses, where "reasonably" means f/2.0. It would help to have a good viewfinder, but even without that I think it would attract a lot of RF users who want to go digital. I question how many RF users are really wedded to the RF focusing model.
I think the real marketing opportunity will be for the company that rolls out a rangefinder-sized full frame no-mirror digital autofocus camera on the model of Micro 3/4 along with a line of reasonably competent but affordable lenses. I.e., something with no crop factor and reasonably fast wide angles lenses, where "reasonably" means f/2.0. It would help to have a good viewfinder, but even without that I think it would attract a lot of RF users who want to go digital. I question how many RF users are really wedded to the RF focusing model.