Will the M9 encourage or discourage Zeiss to make a Digital Ikon?

[swoop]

Jason, you are talking about something other than rangefinders. I suspect neither Panasonic nor Oympus have any interest at all in true rangefinder cameras. They may ultimately kill optical rangefinder cameras with their higher end products, but they surely won't participate in the RF market.

I think Panasonic and Olympus certainly understand the concept of the rangefinder.

I imagine not too far down the road we'll see a camera much like the Bessa, Ikon, Leica M from either company. But instead of an optical VF on the left of the body, there will be an EVF. And instead of mounting M lenses. It'll be M4/3rds.

And there you'll have the modern "rangefinder." The same size, shape and handling of a Leica M. But with an electronic viewfinder where there rangefinder and framelines used to be, and a tiny autofocusing lens instead of manual ones.

 

[ZeissFan]

And remember that Zeiss, unlike Leica, doesn't need a digital rangefinder to save the company.

Photography is just one part of Zeiss. They are involved in the medical field, industrial applications, microscopes, semi-conductors, etc. Leica also is involved in other endeavours, but I don't think they're quite as diversified as Zeiss.

And don't forget, they also are heavily involved in the motion picture industry.

For better or for worse, Zeiss appears to take a conservative approach when it comes to business decisions, and producing a digital rangefinder will be a business decision and not one based on catering to a handful of whiny photographers, no matter how it's spun.

If you look at Zeiss' annual report, they are a very profitable company and spend a good bit of money each year on R&D.

 

[DougFord]

[FONT=&quot]Competition; apparently Leica didn’t think the market could support TWO current generation dRF cameras. And it looks like they’ll EOL the M8.x[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The released FFM9 is it. As regrettably, a compact dCL aps-c m-mount RF, is not to be.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There’s only one game in town and the name Leica is on it. I figure that if Zeiss hasn’t started to build their version of the dRF by now, then it ain’t never gonna happen. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The dRF is an anachronism. Incorporating a mechanical focusing device used on cameras in the days of old seems weird, as well as being a costly extravagance. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you turn and look over at the alternatives, the digicam market is morphing form-factors, rf-esque appeal is marketable to a wider audience with less deep pockets. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The rf mechanical focusing device is to be found on only one digital camera that is currently being manufactured; the M9.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It’s highly probable that Leica will be the only company from this point forward and consequently the last company, to manufacture digital cameras with mechanical RF assemblies.[/FONT]

 

[amateriat]

Call me crazy, but i think the dSLR concept, being a hangover from the "fSLR" era, is living on borrowed time. For me, the whole point of digital photography was to get rid of all the bulky, heavy, obnoxious hardware we somehow had to deal with so late in the film-dominant era. I bailed on SLRs because I got sick of stove-pipe zooms and huge-diameter primes. Leica seems to be going in the right direction (albeit at prices I can't touch), but who is leading the charge in terms of mostly-usable gear at somewhat more-earthbound prices?

Panasonic. The same people who make my favorite cordless phones.

That is a bit of culture-shock for me, but this might be the sort of shaking-up that's needed right now, and not just for Leica. People have been fawning over almost each and every dSLR release from the usual suspects; I yawn in their general direction, because it's a form-factor I'd long abandoned, the only difference being that these cameras deal in megapixels rather than moving film past the mirror box at crazy-fast speeds. If anything, it's all gotten a bit bigger on the pro side, and, to me, that's just wrong. But, of course, I'm weird.

Zeiss will bide its time, largely because it can afford to. Camera-wise, they don't have a dog in this fight, and can sit it out catering to the film market with the ZI, while touting the digital-ready aspect of their optics. Meanwhile, I'm eyeing the Pany GF-1'a progress with more-than-casual interest.

Am I being a silly version of Diogenes here?


- Barrett

 

[mfogiel]

I believe, for Zeiss the camera business is really marginal and it probably is being treated akin to a PR department. They will only do something, if it will be a good quality product which will also sell well, so the price point is important. The fact that they have designed the whole ZM lens line with digital in mind (less retrofocus lenses with adequate coatings) means that they surely were considering digital to be a natural follow up to film.

 

[Keith]

For me, the whole point of digital photography was to get rid of all the bulky, heavy, obnoxious hardware we somehow had to deal with so late in the film-dominant era.

When I look at my OM-1 I have to wonder where they went wrong ... imagine a simple full frame digital SLR based around Maitani's design.

I'd have one like a shot!

And who the hell added option three to my poll ... Joe where are you?

 

[veraikon]

Cosina and Zeiss are composing their cameras from the existing constructionkit .
They try to avoid to much R&D.
I don´t believe there are digital parts in that kit.
It is more comfortable to sell the lenses which fit on a digital M.

 

[Keith]

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that Zeiss are in bed with several other companies ... one of which would have the technology to develop their digital pathway.

Whether it be a rangefiner or whatever I find it hard to accept that at some stage in the future any largish manufacturer who is currently producing photographic equipment would not become digitally intentioned for ensured survival in a digital world!

 

[sunsworth]

All of the existing M cameras didn't stop Zeiss from making the Ikon...

Has the Zeiss M experience been successful for them? I hear stories that the lenses sell badly and the bodies hardly at all.

 

[peripatetic]

I got the impression that the Zeiss Ikon and M lenses are kindof a hobby for one of their big-wigs.

It probably makes no difference to their profit figures at all, but as long as it doesn't lose them any money it's probably worthwhile as a marketing thing.

I love my ZI, and in fact one of the things I love about it is that it's NOT a Leica. Which is not to say that I haven't got just as much M9-lust as everyone else.

I also hate the form-factor of the DSLR and am moving inexorably towards getting rid of all my bulky L zooms and using the non-L primes instead on my 5DMkII. I love the image quality and value-for-money of the 5D series, but I don't love the handling, size and aesthetics. Yesterday I left at home my 50L and used a recently re-purchased 50 1.4 instead. It makes the camera much lighter and far less conspicuous. If I can find a way to afford it I will definitely get rid of my Canon gear and get an M9 instead. Unless of course we get a ZI D in the time it takes me to arrange the finance.

I am also very impressed with the M4/3 stuff that Panasonic is doing, but I am also very excited about the LX1. I may have to settle for a GF1 or LX1 as a small camera and keep my 5DMkII as the more versatile solution. Very exciting times.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

peripatetic, for the use most of us put a camera to, the micro 4/3 is a more than acceptable format. We argue FF versus not FF, resolution, etc and most never make a print larger than 4x6 and only post most of our stuff to the web. If we really looked objectively at what we do with our photos, though, and limited ourselves to gear that truly met those needs, a lot of camera companies would have much smaller lines, I suspect.

 

[italy74]

I'm optimistic and think that Zeiss will be pushed not to remain out as they did with the Ikon vs the M7, especially if they can offer the same or better quality at a fraction of the price. With their hype for perfection, sometimes Leica focuses on things that are more appealing for collectors but less appealing on the field.
Zeiss has always been wiser under this aspect

 

[Mackinaw]

ZM lenses selling badly? I doubt that very much. The Ikon perhaps not so much.

I admit to not being very knowledgeable on Zeiss M mount lenses, but have they offered any new lenses recently? Have any of their initial M mount lenses introduced a few years back been redesigned? Leica's been very aggressive of late when it comes to lenses. Lot of new Leica glass out there. Just curious what's been happening over in the Zeiss camp.

Jim B.

 

[wgerrard]

I use rangefinders almost entirely because of their size and convenience. Therefore, I use film. I've also started to acquire darkroom paraphernalia so I can try this wet printing business.

But, as Pickett says, my photos end up on the web. I'm not at all convinced that my Bessa or my M3 or my OM-2N and assorted lenses deliver unique qualities that survive the scan, the post-processing, and the conversion to 72-dpi jpegs. The images my little Ricoh GX-200 produces on full automatic stand up alongside the film stuff. The people who have an interest in my photos expect to see them on the web, and neither they nor I are complaining that we aren't looking at prints.

If quality inkjets were cheaper, I'd likely have gone that route instead of trying to shoehorn a smelly darkroom into very limited and uncooperative space. I may still buy an inkjet if the wet side of things doesn't appeal.

In all that, I think I'm reasonably typical.

If Panasonic or Olympic or anyone else rolls out a small and convenient autofocus digital with interchangeable lenses and an EVF that is usable in both bright and dim light, I may be running some ads here.

 

[Thardy]

I'm not at all convinced that my Bessa or my M3 or my OM-2N and assorted lenses deliver unique qualities that survive the scan, the post-processing, and the conversion to 72-dpi jpegs.

I can tell you that the process you just described will produce very nice 11*14 prints.

 

[wgerrard]

I can tell you that the process you just described will produce very nice 11*14 prints.

Wet, inkjet, or both?

 

[ZeissFan]

Probably early 1900s, Carl Zeiss has always had a customer for its photographic lenses.

I think two things happened that changed that:

1) Kyocera's decision to exit the camera business.

2) Hasselblad's move away from its traditional 6x6 cameras and toward the Fuji-produced gear, starting with the XPan.

Kyocera's move probably hurt more, because at that time, it had an extensive line of 35mm and medium format gear.

In the 1970s, the demise of Zeiss Ikon left it without a major customer for its lenses, although it was still supplying Rollei (for the Rollei 35, Rolleiflex SL 35, SL66 and twin-lens reflex cameras and others).

The tie-up with Yashica to produce a Contax SLR once again gave it a major presence in 35mm. Note that the Contax bodies were never branded Zeiss. The Zeiss Ikon is the first camera since the mid-1920s to be branded Carl Zeiss. Of course, I have to qualify that by saying that there was the Carl Zeiss Jena-branded Werra from East Germany and some Carl Zeiss-branded Contarex Hologons that were finished by Zeiss employees after Zeiss Ikon folded.

In an earlier note, I hope that I didn't give the impression that photographic lenses were a side line for Zeiss. I only wanted to point out that Zeiss isn't solely dependent on sales of camera lenses to be profitable.

As well, we know that Zeiss has a number of deals in place, supplying lenses to Sony for digital still and video cameras, for Nokia cell phone cameras and Logitech. It looks as if the Rolleiflex cameras will soon be gone -- a shame. I would love to see Zeiss take over Rolleiflex, operate it as an independent unit and produce a small number of medium format and some new advanced compact 35mm cameras. But I guess that's not going to happen.

In the meantime, we can have some great conversations about when or if we'll see a digital version of the Zeiss Ikon.

 

[35mmdelux]

I admit to not being very knowledgeable on Zeiss M mount lenses, but have they offered any new lenses recently? Have any of their initial M mount lenses introduced a few years back been redesigned? Leica's been very aggressive of late when it comes to lenses. Lot of new Leica glass out there. Just curious what's been happening over in the Zeiss camp.

Jim B.

great designs arent re-designed every couple years; see M3, 35mm/50mm Summiluxes, Noctilux.

 

[Mackinaw]

great designs arent re-designed every couple years; see M3, 35mm/50mm Summiluxes, Noctilux.

No argument from me, but you can argue that the reason Zeiss hasn't redesigned any of their M-mount lenses is because the market just isn't there. Why spend money on a redesign if the current lenses aren't selling well?

Which, of course, is just a guess on my part. Nobody on the "outside" knows if they sell a lot of M-mount lenses or just a few. But Leica, with all their new lenses, has raised the bar. I'll be curiuos to see if and how Zeiss responds.

Jim B.

 

[wgerrard]

If Zeiss and/or Leica ever appear ready to go belly up, what are the chances that another company that currently sources lenses, technology or brand name from them would simply buy them and run them as a subsidiary? Presumably, with greatly reduced product offerings.

E.g., would Panasonic buy Leica just to retain the marketing value of that brand for some of their products??