Yet Another Rumour

[Riley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Zeiss Ikon Digital ?

 

Speaking Frankly: Speaking Frankly: Film rangefinder cameras superior to DLSRs? Zeiss gives the old battle a new twist

 

Q: There are rumors that Zeiss will eventually have its own digital rangefinder camera body that will accept the M mount lenses. True or false? Will it be Cosina-made? Full 24 x 36mm sensor?

 

At Carl Zeiss, we can imagine such a camera. But we feel that is not the right time to introduce such a camera now. Today digital technology is still developing fast and the initial value of a digital camera is lost in quite a short time. Carl Zeiss wants to protect the investment of its customers and will therefore require a high level of maturity of products before we can justify to offer them to our customers. At the time we introduce such a camera we want to be sure that the owner has invested in a long term value.

 

1. It is much too early to determine a manufacturer for such a camera.

 

2. Full 24 x 36 is, as far as we see today, for a variety of reasons the preferred sensor size of most serious rangefinder photographers.

[marknorton]

Well, I suppose that lack of value retention is a convenient reason for them to cite for not introducing their own camera. Gets them off the hook while appearing to be all customer-friendly.

 

In reality, I expect they are looking at the M8, wiping their brows and thinking, phew, that could have been us. All the more reason to be grateful to Epson for leading the way and to Leica for building on that. The M8 might have a few warts, but it's a fine camera.

[elviskennedy]

Not to pick on Zeiss but why can't anyone be honest anymore? "Carl Zeiss wants to protect the investment of its customers and will therefore require a high level of maturity of products before we can justify to offer them to our customers." is marketing gobbledygook for 'We don't yet have a product ready for sale'.

 

Does anyone really believe that they are sitting in their board room discussing the concerns of the investments of their (potential) customers? And refusing to sell (they can't 'justify' offering it) a product that they would have spent years and millions of dollars developing because they would feel just terrible if Elvis Kennedy purchased one and two years later it's value was 50% of it's original cost?

 

What so wrong with stating that they are still in the R&D stage? There is no need to lie.

 

Thanks for bearing with my Sunday morning rant. And yes, I feel better now.

 

Elvis

[cocker]

Not to pick on Zeiss but why can't anyone be honest anymore? "Carl Zeiss wants to protect the investment of its customers and will therefore require a high level of maturity of products before we can justify to offer them to our customers." is marketing gobbledygook for 'We don't yet have a product ready for sale'.

 

Does anyone really believe that they are sitting in their board room discussing the concerns of the investments of their (potential) customers? And refusing to sell (they can't 'justify' offering it) a product that they would have spent years and millions of dollars developing because they would feel just terrible if Elvis Kennedy purchased one and two years later it's value was 50% of it's original cost?

 

What so wrong with stating that they are still in the R&D stage? There is no need to lie.

 

Thanks for bearing with my Sunday morning rant. And yes, I feel better now.

 

Elvis

Elvis,

 

You are so right. "Business" and "Honesty" aren't found in the same Dictionary very often these days.

[gdewitt]

So it isn't just US corporations that lie through their teeth!

[Riley]

Im not 'quite' so cynical

the reference to Fuji must mean something has been discussed

[cocker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So it isn't just US corporations that lie through their teeth!

 

No but UK Europe and Japan learned it from them

[larry]

Wow, that's quite the spin about wanting to make a digital camera that retains its value. My Contax G system is presently worth about as much the sales tax I paid on it, thanks in large part to Zeiss's stay-the-course market commitment.

 

Larry

[Artichoke]

Im not 'quite' so cynical

the reference to Fuji must mean something has been discussed

maybe I missed this, but what reference was made to Fuji?

I have fantasized that a Fujifilm sensor might find its way into a RF body, but I have seen no mention of this other than my dreaming out loud on this forum

Fujifilm's SCCD & processing technology has many desirable characteristics for a RF including wider DR, a true 14 bit color ADC and outstanding in camera jpg conversion ...a FF sensor would be extremely costly, but I suspect there would be a market for an exemplary camera such as this

maybe I missed something, but I am intrigued if you had learned of other references to a Fujifilm sensored RF beyond my wild conjecture

[Riley]

maybe I missed this, but what reference was made to Fuji?

I have fantasized that a Fujifilm sensor might find its way into a RF body, but I have seen no mention of this other than my dreaming out loud on this forum

Fujifilm's SCCD & processing technology has many desirable characteristics for a RF including wider DR, a true 14 bit color ADC and outstanding in camera jpg conversion ...a FF sensor would be extremely costly, but I suspect there would be a market for an exemplary camera such as this

maybe I missed something, but I am intrigued if you had learned of other references to a Fujifilm sensored RF beyond my wild conjecture

 

its here

 

2. Full 24 x 36 is, as far as we see today, for a variety of reasons the preferred sensor size of most serious rangefinder photographers.

 

they seem to desire FF, which is pretty much fantasy island, or less performance in wides

either that or they swiped my technology

[stunsworth]

I think one of you is misreading FULL for FUJI ;-)

[Riley]

I think one of you is misreading FULL for FUJI ;-)

 

Steve

if it wasnt so sad it would be funny

you are so right

it seems i left my glasses in the washing machine

 

actually, its pretty funny anyway

 

appologies all

[Vivek Iyer]

This is quite old news.

[Guest Olof]

uhh its ugly !

[Guest flatfour]

I thought the argument for a full frame sensor had been disposed of by the experts as being unnecessary on a 35mm camera.

[Artichoke]

I thought the argument for a full frame sensor had been disposed of by the experts as being unnecessary on a 35mm camera.

there is an advantage for folks shooting WA lenses & this is unquestionably one of the strengths of a RF camera

it is not a deal breaker, but I think FF would be great on a RF

whether it can be done & done at a reasonable price is another matter

[jaapv]

In a sense a full frame is necessary if one wants to push resolution beyond 10 Mp. As it is the pixel size on the sensor, when adapted to the diffraction limit of lenses is equal to the current Mp sizes of the different sensors, i,e approx 8 for APS-C, 10 for 1.3 and 16 for 35 mm. In other words, building a 1.3 20Mp sensor would not result in more resolution, just in two adjacent pixels sending the same information. So if technology would give us the option of a larger sensor in the future M9 (or ZI digital RF) it would result in a 16MP camera.

[leicanewbie]

If all businesses were completely honest in their marketing, nothing would ever get sold.

 

Imagine how many cameras Canon would have sold if they said in 2000

 

" Buy our new 2.1 MPix camera. It's good, but expensive. And oh by the way,

just so you can plan ahead, we're only producing 100,000 copies of these because

we have a 5 MPix camera we're working on which we'll release next year for the same

amount of money"

 

 

Depreciation is a fact of life.

 

Marketing is what sells products. Some marketing focuses on the technical "oooh look

we have auto-focus", while others sell the value " we build cameras to last generations"

 

Whatever it takes to pull you apart from your hard-earned money.

[jaapv]

Ten weeks with the M8 now- time to take stock:

Ten weeks of a roller-coaster ride on the internet, but what were my personal experiences?

The magenta issue:

The first flash shot of Patricia in a black synthetic jumper with a black cat on her lap: horrible.

Twenty minutes internet and a twenty minute drive to the camera shop solved that one.

The use of filters: does it bother me ?

Yes- but the results are fine and flare very much limited. So most is in my mind, not reality.

The banding and the blobs:

I still have to see a blob, but about 5 % of my night shots have some banding, obtrusive in 1%.

The reliability of the camera:

I had a major reset once, but basically it was my own fault for not switching the camera off before putting it into its case where the shutter was half-pressed for hours on end, plus some other buttons.

The battery has some issues and I would dearly like to have a spare one, but I'll let Solms solve that next week.

The quality of the results.

Each shot leaves me stunned. This camera is so much more capable than I am.. Magnitudes better than the Digilux2, which in turn was better than the Canon 20D. The dynamic range and subtility far outperform film in my hands.

Night shots: incredible.

And it is a true Leica M RF.

 

So my decision has been made: The M6 goes, the Digilux2 goes, some other stuff goes and I will buy a second M8 body and live happily ever after.:angel:

 

 

 

This is what I wrote on another forum some time ago. It might answer part of your question

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mjh]

In other words, building a 1.3 20Mp sensor would not result in more resolution, just in two adjacent pixels sending the same information.

If that were true, then there wouldn’t be any moiré in images taken with the M8, would it? Because the lens would take care of any antialiasing necessary for a 10 MP sensor.