ZENIT returned !!!

They can't afford it to be really expensive, because they lack a good brand behind it. Zenit isn't a good brand in this regard :)

If they are smart (reusing old tooling, being minimalist in implementation, outsourcing/leasing/contracting CCD+controller assembly) they should be able to make one for about the current price of entry level DSLRs. *If* they also avoid serious mishaps with QC or design pitfalls it would likely sell. This is a price I'd be willing to pay at least, for a manual, tiny DSLR that can reuse my nice compact RF lenses, rather than command its own line of optics.

Too many ifs of course, so am not holding my breath. But surely would love to see it happen.
 
varjag said:
They can't afford it to be really expensive, because they lack a good brand behind it. Zenit isn't a good brand in this regard :)

If they are smart (reusing old tooling, being minimalist in implementation, outsourcing/leasing/contracting CCD+controller assembly) they should be able to make one for about the current price of entry level DSLRs. *If* they also avoid serious mishaps with QC or design pitfalls it would likely sell. This is a price I'd be willing to pay at least, for a manual, tiny DSLR that can reuse my nice compact RF lenses, rather than command its own line of optics.

Too many ifs of course, so am not holding my breath. But surely would love to see it happen.
Click to expand...

With a 4/3 sensor, which gives a 2x crop factor, the design isn't overly ambitious.. It's not like they target 1.3x, let alone full frame.
 
pvdhaar said:
With a 4/3 sensor, which gives a 2x crop factor, the design isn't overly ambitious.. It's not like they target 1.3x, let alone full frame.
Click to expand...
Yup, doesn't sound overly ambitious. Still, I can't get rid of feeling that it's an April Fool's joke.. tho it wasn't published that day, and same decision of KMZ board mentioned at the company website.
 
varjag said:
Yes, it talks about 4/3 sensor, as that's the one they plan for....Text also mentions that parts of original Narciss are likely to be "adapted and reused", must be a way to save on entirely new production line. My guess is molding forms for chassis. That also explains the modularity perhaps. The article suggests a pentaprism and no LCD configuration is default, replacable with digital sensor/LCD back combo.
Click to expand...
That makes sense to me; why build a big(and sometimes huge) camera for a small sensor? A camera and lenses sized to the sensor rather than replicating the 35mm sized chassis and lenses seems more elegant to me. I am happily surprised that there are any parts of the Narciss production tooling still around, though. And the "pentaprism and no LCD" configuration would mean one thing at least--longer battery life.
The Zenith 408 that's mentioned, that was/is a digi 122/412? In other words a "standard" sized DSLR based on the last generation 35mm Zeniths?
How can we encourage KMZ to concentrate on the Narciss as the basis for their DSLR? And are any of the designers from the Pentax Auto 110 :D still around(and how do we get them to lend a hand with this idea?)?
This is getting interesting!
Rob
 
pvdhaar said:
With a 4/3 sensor, which gives a 2x crop factor, the design isn't overly ambitious.. It's not like they target 1.3x, let alone full frame.
Click to expand...

Uh ... so what? :confused: ;) The purpose of the Four Thirds Standard "is to standardize an interchangeable lens system for digital cameras." In Olympus' words, a "digital from the ground up" effort, not relying on legacy bodies, lenses, etc. Whether one agrees with that, or agrees completely or not, is not the point.

As sensor technology improves, the smaller sensor will become increasingly viable in more applications. Olympus has wide lenses that are specific to 4/3s, e.g. the 7-14ZD which is by all accounts a stunning lens, so the argument of not having good wide lenses for a smaller sensor size holds no water. They can do it, so can others.

The market has shown that smaller cameras with "pro" features are a big part of the digital SLR market. A manufacturer who comes along and makes an inexpensive four thirds body that has such a short register distance opens up the market incredibly, especially given the price point for the camera.

So assuming this is real, not an April Fools stunt, gets funded, etc., I see it as a real positive. Already I can mount my OM Zuikos and other SLR lens mount brands on a four thirds body via adapters. The prospect of using LTM and M lenses as well is very exciting. I'm not banking on this particular effort, but if there is simply a proof of concept here, it's a good thing.
 
pvdhaar said:
With a 4/3 sensor, which gives a 2x crop factor, the design isn't overly ambitious.. It's not like they target 1.3x, let alone full frame.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that, isn't the 4/3rd system a specification on how to interface with the sensor, not how to make the sensor. Case in point, the newer E-system cameras (410 and 510 and the yet to be announced successor of E-1) uses a completely different sensor than the older ones. And from sample pictures, the new sensor improves the image quality considerably.

My point is, don't write out the 4/3rd system to be completely inferior to other systems yet. It may prove to be a good design choice.
 
shadowfox said:
My point is, don't write out the 4/3rd system to be completely inferior to other systems yet. It may prove to be a good design choice.
Click to expand...

Nobody has written off the Pen cameras as a load of BS, have they? They are essentially film 4/3rd cameras, being half frame and all.
 
Assuming the whole thing is not only a retarded april's fool joke, this would be the first SLR and DSLR camera able to use LTM (eventually* M-mount) glass, without infinity focusing issues (beat me if I'm wrong). *Not shure about M-mount, because the short 27.8mm base-flange-distance alone is not enough to carry a M lens - there should be an M mount bayonet or the ability to put a M-adapter. Couldn't find this out on the babelfished site.

So we would have a compact DSLR, able to carry our old LTM stuff. Shoot digital with a 2.8/53mm Industar 61LD - makes a 2.8/106mm - with DOF of f5.6 as the small sensor enlarges the DOF (if you compare prints of the same size). My 28/3.5 Color Skopar would be a 56/3.5 with f7.0 DOF, the 15/4.5 Heliar a 30/4.5 with f9.0 DOF. The 135/3.5 could turn into a new sniper on that camera...

Hmmh, I must agree with Peter, this 4/3 sensor design with 2.0x crop isn't too ambitious. Nice toy, maybe useful for snapshooting with terribly much DOF. Sharp from 1.25m to infinity like my first camera, a 1960ies Kodak Instamatic. But I'd probably prefer a Sigma DP1 or Ricoh GRD unless the Zenit is obscenely cheap.

Didier
 
I'll believe that they're actually developing it when I see it, and I'll believe that they're producing it the moment I see one in a shop. It's all nice to announce things and stuff, but Russia has a mediocre track record producing good consumer electronics, let alone digital cameras, while they have had their share of announcing and even presenting interesting products that never came, from Kometas to TTL FEDs, or that were too complex for the companies to manage, such as the Kiev-90.

Some comments:

Didier said:
So we would have a compact DSLR, able to carry our old LTM stuff. Shoot digital with a 2.8/53mm Industar 61LD - makes a 2.8/106mm - with DOF of f5.6 as the small sensor enlarges the DOF (if you compare prints of the same size). My 28/3.5 Color Skopar would be a 56/3.5 with f7.0 DOF, the 15/4.5 Heliar a 30/4.5 with f9.0 DOF. The 135/3.5 could turn into a new sniper on that camera...
Click to expand...
It makes little sense to specify DOF in terms of an f-stop, and numerically it's actually misleading. It's obvious that there would have to be new wideangles - a 28/f6 doesn't really cut it anymore. Shooting a 50/1.5 Sonnar on such a camera would give a very nice portrait lens with beautiful OOF, though.

Didier said:
But I'd probably prefer a Sigma DP1 or Ricoh GRD unless the Zenit is obscenely cheap.
Click to expand...
Both don't have interchangeable lenses, are not very interesting for portrait shooters, and don't give you terribly narrow DOF, the Sigma's f/4 lens is especially unimpressive in this respect.

Philipp
 
Didier said:
Hmmh, I must agree with Peter, this 4/3 sensor design with 2.0x crop isn't too ambitious. Nice toy, maybe useful for snapshooting with terribly much DOF. Sharp from 1.25m to infinity like my first camera, a 1960ies Kodak Instamatic. But I'd probably prefer a Sigma DP1 or Ricoh GRD unless the Zenit is obscenely cheap.

Didier
Click to expand...

Didier,

I must ask where did you get the idea that 4/3rd *standard* (not "sensor") is not capable of nice bokeh (or DOF rendering, whatever) ??

Take a look at this simple sample, I got it after just a brief search on flickr for Olympus E-1 samples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tengsama/369853567/
DISCLAIMER: this picture is not mine.

I just choose the E-1 because no one can argue that it's a "toy" :)

As for the Sigma DP1, doesn't it have f4 max aperture, wouldn't that render more DOF than say, a dinky $10 OM Zuiko 50mm/1.8 which you *can* put on any 4/3rd compatible cameras?
 
shadowfox said:
My point is, don't write out the 4/3rd system to be completely inferior to other systems yet. It may prove to be a good design choice.
Click to expand...
Please don't take my comment on the 4/3 sensor as a statement on the 4/3 standard. That's not what I intended it to be.

A 4/3 sensor is smaller than an APS sized one. That doesn't mean it's a toy, it means there are less hurdles to jump. Larger sensors imply measures to deal with light fall-off, which for cameras with a register of 28mm is a tremendous problem. See how much time and effort it took Leica to get the M8 to materialise.

I think a lot of us would be baffled by the amount of R&D money that went only into handling and overcoming the reduced dynamic range caused by light fall-off at Leica for the M8, and for that matter, at Canon for the 5D..
 
If Russian could not make it right, someone else will pick up the idea. The 28.8mm 3/4 system DSLR could be a very popular camera that use a wide range of old optics including those 35mm sine optics. Some Zeiss 35mm cine primes could equal the best photographic lenses in image quality if not better.

It may be possible for those P/S digital cameras to use an interchangeable mount with an even shorter registration distance as sensor quality improves.:D

Zhang
 
Before this news I was thinking "if Zenit would come with a Dslr it would probably be a camera with a M42 or Pentax or Nikon Bajonet." Such a camera would bust al the myths about older lenses nowadays stated as "optically left behind" by some photo dealers.

There are great pictures taken with a Dslr and a M42 adapter with older lenses, I even saw ones taken with an I-50 showing very good results.

However a Smaller camera Narciss like can also be a good market. It reminds me of the Small Olympus Pen F I read about a while ago. When the new Zenit is produced and the price is in my range, I might consider getting one :)
 
Comrades, let's face it. Digital is decadent capitalist revisionist crap!

You want digital, scan the negatives from your FED NKVD Trudkommuna!
 
xayraa33 said:
No news of a Zorki version of this in the works?
Click to expand...
In fact there is no news of this actually being in the works.

I can show a few drawings & wooden blocks myself and tell the world what a great camera I'm building.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom