ZI digital

[flatop222]

Since there have been no leaks about an upcoming ZI digital, I hope ZI is still planning to produce a digital rf. If yes, I expect ZI is aware of the bashing Leica is taking with the problems encountered on the M8 and takes care not rush the ZI digital to market.

Anyone have any knowledge about a ZI digital rf?

George

 

[x-ray]

Zeiss should partner with Canon on this. Canon has the goods and has for some years. This is all it would take to knock leica out of the saddle.

The problems leica is having is nothing new to the digital world. Canon, Nikon and others have had every possible thing go wrong that could go wrong and now it's leicas turn. This is exactly why now I never buy the first run untill ALL the major bugs are out. Let someone else beta test with their hard earned money.

 

[flatop222]

re: ZI digital

Where would they get a full frame sensor? Kodak and Canon are the only full frame sensor producers I am aware of, not sure that means anything as I am in the last 10% to hear of anything new.

I suppose Sony has one as they have made noise about a professional camera, but I also have not heard anything there either.

I guess I will keep just plugging along with my Canon S70 and Minolta A1.

Thanks,

Geiege

 

[drewbarb]

I chatted with the Zeiss rep last weekend at the Photo Plus Expo in NYC about a ZI Digital. He said that they were going to wait a bit and see how the M8 does, and what users have to report about it before bringing a product to market. This seemed non-comital, and of course they have to be cagey, but I pressed on. I mentioned that it seemed clear from the marketing info when the new Z.I. first arrived on the market that they seemed to be planning for a digital camera down the road, and his response was "Well, yeah- that's the intention, obviously. Give it a year..."

For what it's worth.

 

[x-ray]

I think Zeiss is being very smart. Hopefully they are working on one and will have a FF sensor with 16 or more MP's. Even if the M8 was functioning perfectly from the beginning the 10mp is on the fringe of very limited use in the pro world. I use digital 95% of the time in my commercial studio and use canon 1DsMKII's. The 16.7 mp takes care of most of my clients needs but 10mp would only meet about 1/3 the requirements. For the rest of the time I shoot film, 4x5 or 8x10, and high res scan.

I would still like to see canon / zeiss get together. I think one of the big problems with the M8 is the Kodak sensor. Remember back to the 14N saga and how Kodak never got a proper working camera and then dumped their customers and cameras. I don't think the DMR uses a Kodak sensor and there hasn't been any real issues with it. Possibly if Leica would use the same sensor as the DMR then they would have a working camera. To me the idea of FF is great but I never really had a problem with the 1.3X of my old 1D canon.

 

[ZeissFan]

I like the idea of Canon and Zeiss working together. I'm not a fan of Canon, but I'll admit that it's done a great job with its 1Ds/1DsII.

As for digital, I don't want anything but full frame. I bought a 25mm Biogon so I could use it as a 25mm Biogon and not as a 32mm lens (1.3x) or worse yet a 40mm lens (1.6x)

 

[Bosk]

I think Zeiss is being very smart. Hopefully they are working on one and will have a FF sensor with 16 or more MP's. Even if the M8 was functioning perfectly from the beginning the 10mp is on the fringe of very limited use in the pro world. I use digital 95% of the time in my commercial studio and use canon 1DsMKII's. The 16.7 mp takes care of most of my clients needs but 10mp would only meet about 1/3 the requirements. For the rest of the time I shoot film, 4x5 or 8x10, and high res scan.

Just curious x-ray, do you find there's actually a big difference between 10 megapixels and 16.7?

I ask because I'm under the impression that Megapixels are a bit of an overrated statistic, and that in terms of possible enlargements pretty much any DSLR over 6 megapixels is capable of respectable A3 prints.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This is exactly why now I never buy the first run untill ALL the major bugs are out. Let someone else beta test with their hard earned money.

But it's a collectable! 😀

Canon and Nikon got very very burned (the Canon 10D with the infamous "focusing issue" was tame compared to this, but made worse by Canon's arrogance during that time) Nikon was burned on similar IR-related issues. The difference is, they (Nikanon) clearly segmented their products aimed at different user bases. Leica has just started doing this; let's see what compromise they reach in their quality standards vs. what the consumer wants (addressing, of course, their wish to put the least obstacles in front of their sensor as possible).

And I agree, I also wait a while before getting something "new"; I just got my Canon 5D last month, after examining lots of samples.

The raw files I've seen from the M8...this is not a big deal. It needs to be fixed, yes, but please! 😛ffft: I've seen enough that I'd rather see this first-hand.

The one review I am really waiting for is, as dumb as it may sound to many of you, the one from DPreview. Askey checks stuff I'm concerned about.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I ask because I'm under the impression that Megapixels are a bit of an overrated statistic, and that in terms of possible enlargements pretty much any DSLR over 6 megapixels is capable of respectable A3 prints.

I make 12x18 inch (is that A4?) prints from shots taken with the 6.3MP Canon 10D and 300D, without a problem; just as long as the when-shot quality is at least "JPEG Fine". I do use the Bipolar Smooth algorithm to enlarge the image to 300dpi, 12x18.

 

[sebastel]

A4 is (roughly) 11x8 inches
A3 is (roughly) 16x11 inches

gabriel, your 12x18 prints will be just a little bit bigger than A3.

cheers
sebastian

 

[x-ray]

Just curious x-ray, do you find there's actually a big difference between 10 megapixels and 16.7?

I ask because I'm under the impression that Megapixels are a bit of an overrated statistic, and that in terms of possible enlargements pretty much any DSLR over 6 megapixels is capable of respectable A3 prints.

There's no substitute for MP's. I speak from a professional point of view on this. I'm now finding art directors setting a minimum of generally 12 MP and sometimes 10MP cameras for a shoot. 10MP is generally the absolute minimum pixel count that most will accept.

To answer your question, in the graphic arts world yes there is a difference. If the image reproduces larger than the default file size (1DsII - aprox. 11x17 inches) the less upsampling the better. Litho reproduction is quite different then inkjet. I find for critical work that a properly processed and shrpened tif from a raw file will easily do 150% if handled properly. Above that I feel it really starts to suffer. I'm being very critical here but so are my clienrts. Art directors want the ability to crop to any degree they desire. The larger the file the better. Also many times the images shot are used for multiple uses. You never know where and how an imge will be reproduced and at what size. It might run as a 2x3inch in one ad and a double page spread in another. next week it might be blown up to a 10x15 foot print for a trade show.

For the general consumer that shoots family and vacation pix the 10MP should be fine. I don't think most folks print larger than 11 inches. Even a 6mp will more than do this.

I think that many of the potential M8 buyers are just buying because of a perceived improvement in quality and the name Leica. In general most of these people couldn't tell the difference in a file or print from a high end P&S and particularly a digital rebel. I'm not putting anyone down just stating my observation and opinion. One lesson learned out of the M8 deal is that Leica is just like every other company, they drop some bombs from time to time and no company is perfect. As much as I like Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and Canon, all make duds from time to time and each have flaws.

 

[jlw]

Zeiss should partner with Canon on this. Canon has the goods and has for some years. This is all it would take to knock leica out of the saddle.

Why would Canon want to do that? They're successful enough that they don't need a partner, they prefer a photography world dominated by DSLRs and compacts, and they wouldn't want to dilute all the marketing emphasis they put on the quality of Canon optics by bringing Carl Zeiss lenses into the mix.

(How would they make that into an advertising theme? "Now Canon's world-renowned line of quality lenses is joined by the family of Carl Zeiss lenses, which are... um, just as good but, like, in a different way, you know?")

As for knocking Leica out of the saddle, Canon doesn't care about sitting in that saddle. Leica's entire annual profit probably amounts to a gnat's eyelash of what Canon makes on just one of their multiple lines of business.

 

[jlw]

There's no substitute for MP's. I speak from a professional point of view on this. I'm now finding art directors setting a minimum of generally 12 MP and sometimes 10MP cameras for a shoot. 10MP is generally the absolute minimum pixel count that most will accept.

Sad to say, I find this is true, and the main reason is that marketing people -- the ones who are the bosses of the art directors -- are morons.

These are the people who tell you that they want a photo of their new product blown up to 4 by 6 feet for a trade-show banner, and when you tell them you'll need to schedule a photo shoot for the image, they'll say, "Oh, can't you just use the one that's on the website? That's where I got the one I put in my Powerpoint presentation, and it looked fine on my laptop."

You laugh, but I hear variations of this almost every day...

 

[kbg32]

I think Zeiss is being very smart. Hopefully they are working on one and will have a FF sensor with 16 or more MP's. Even if the M8 was functioning perfectly from the beginning the 10mp is on the fringe of very limited use in the pro world. I use digital 95% of the time in my commercial studio and use canon 1DsMKII's. The 16.7 mp takes care of most of my clients needs but 10mp would only meet about 1/3 the requirements. For the rest of the time I shoot film, 4x5 or 8x10, and high res scan.

I would still like to see canon / zeiss get together. I think one of the big problems with the M8 is the Kodak sensor. Remember back to the 14N saga and how Kodak never got a proper working camera and then dumped their customers and cameras. I don't think the DMR uses a Kodak sensor and there hasn't been any real issues with it. Possibly if Leica would use the same sensor as the DMR then they would have a working camera. To me the idea of FF is great but I never really had a problem with the 1.3X of my old 1D canon.

I'm glad someone else remembered the fiasco with the Kodak cameras and sensors. They all looked great on paper, but couldn't perform due to firmware issues. This is the one thing that kind of makes me tur.n away from the M8

 

[kbg32]

Stock agencies will only accept files from cameras producing a minimum of 12 megapixels.

 

[jaffa_777]

if 12MP's is the limit does this mean there are no pros shooting 35mm film anymore? How is a company like magnum surviving with alot of there photographers shooting leica film bodys? Is 35mm really obselete? Or is it just for enthusiests and hacks now?

 

[rogue_designer]

if 12MP's is the limit does this mean there are no pros shooting 35mm film anymore? How is a company like magnum surviving with alot of there photographers shooting leica film bodys? Is 35mm really obselete? Or is it just for enthusiests and hacks now?

My old agency (citystock) would accept very good scans from 35mm film, provided the grain was negligible, or if you had a particular assignment for which the grain was an expected and requested element.

If the shoot was digital, they would sometimes accept smaller files, but their stated preference was from cameras matching the first gen Canon 1ds... So I stuck with film.

Most of what I shot was 120 or 4x5 tho - so resolution and clarity was not an issue from scans on those.

--

There is a difference between reportage and stock - and film is still very much alive and kicking. It's harder for reportage to justify the wait for processing/scanning.. but editorial shooting still is often left up to the shooter for their preference.

 

[x-ray]

Sad to say, I find this is true, and the main reason is that marketing people -- the ones who are the bosses of the art directors -- are morons.

These are the people who tell you that they want a photo of their new product blown up to 4 by 6 feet for a trade-show banner, and when you tell them you'll need to schedule a photo shoot for the image, they'll say, "Oh, can't you just use the one that's on the website? That's where I got the one I put in my Powerpoint presentation, and it looked fine on my laptop."

You laugh, but I hear variations of this almost every day...

Your words are so true that it's not funny. The digital knowledge of most AD's is about the same as the average house wifes. I deal with it almost every week and it's not funny anymore.

While i was posting this reply I had a call from a client that I've worked with since 1972. I shoot for one of his largest clients and shoot the MKII in raw and process to 47.5 meg files. The repro size is generally large. He just called to give me file numbers to process and retouch and wanted me to email them to him. We've gone over this many times that I can not email files that large but every time he asks the same question.

 

[x-ray]

if 12MP's is the limit does this mean there are no pros shooting 35mm film anymore? How is a company like magnum surviving with alot of there photographers shooting leica film bodys? Is 35mm really obselete? Or is it just for enthusiests and hacks now?

You have to look at more than Magnum. Compared to Seven years ago there is virtually no pro shooters shooting film now. I can't really say accurately but I generally shot 2,000 rolls of 35mm per year and an average of 300 rolls of 120 per month plus sheets. All this was commercial work in and out of the studio. I probably shoot more film now than any other photographer in my area and this year i've shot about 50 sheets of E-6 and a dozen rolls of 120 E-6. For my documentary work I shoot an average of five to twenty rolls per week of B&W.

Magnum and possibly a small percentage of Geographic work is shot film. All the magazines i shoot for require digital. For these kinds of projects I think this is what digital does best. I was looking at a new Geographic last evening and I commented to my wife how digital has brought the image quality up. It's easy to see the difference with digital being much cleaner and generally looking better. There is a high degree of certainty with digital. When I'm on assignment I know I have the shots in the can, so to speak. I carry a laptop and check everything before I leave the location. If a client is with me then they approve the shots and we move on. No issues with labs and x-rays in airports. Burn multiple DVD's of the raw and you're safe.

I still love film for certain jobs. I'm shooting the annual report for a very large national coal company in the next couple of weeks. I wish I could shoot film but they insist on digital. I sjhot the annual report for them last year and it was digital then too.

As to Zeiss and Canon, Canon wides are not great. Canon makes exceptional medium tele to long glass but not the wide end. Canon is aware of this but has not introduced anything in that range. With a partner like Zeiss Canon could solve that issue and add another camera like a DZI that would capture a small part of the market but it would expand their base of body and lens sales. Remember these guys are all about increasing revenue and expanding business. Remember Leica / Minolta and Zeiss / Yashica were married.

 

[Olsen]

- i think it is quite a while before we will see a digital ZI. First of all because it takes more than a few shoemakers to make a television.

First of all they have to buy a sensor. Who wants to sell them one? And why? And to what price? What volumes can be expected? Zeiss and Cosina can't promise much. To have a good sensor is like having a great battle ship. With a thing like that you make strategic moves on the high seas. You don't fiddle around with - yes - a couple of shoemakers.

Then they have to design all the hard- and software between the sensor and the memory card. Something far beond the familiar technology of both Cosina and Carl Zeiss. And Leica too, as we are about to learn. This knowledge is the core in the new digital camera business. And it is not widely distributed. To put it mildly. Canon runs off with 80, yes, eighty (!) percent of all the profit of the digital camera business as a whole! In this battle field nobody can garantee that even Nikon will survive....

Full frame Leica or ZI? Forget it! At least for another four to five years. We have to see some ground breaking science making history first. Nano tech, or something in that line.

Canon and Zeiss? They hate eachother! That's why Canon won't share interface info with Zeiss to make Zeiss lenses on Canon EOS cameras. A sad fact for Canon users, actually.

The Canon people are, obviously, feeling a lot of 'asian loss of face' when Zeiss claim they can deliver better lenes to Canon's cameras. With good reason. Because Canon is getting a lot of undeserved pepper on their alledged lack of optical quality these days. Much of this critique is amateurish bull... with fine little understanding of what kind of optics it takes to make a FF sensor with 16 million pixels shine. And shine even at 1250 ASA mind you. Match that, anyone in the business! And with fine little credit left for all the fine glas that Canon do indeed make.

So. If anyone of you wants to buy the best digital camera in the business; buy a Canon EOS 1Ds II. What is obvious is that Leica M8 will not even be close.