Leica M9 competitor

<p>Is there enough of a market to support a non-Leica, manual-focus rangefinder digital camera system? It doesn't need to be built like industrial jewelry as a Leica is, but just a quality rangefinder system camera for people who like the functional advantages of such a camera. If Nikon, for instance, were to release a compact, lightweight, interchangeable lens rangefinder built to the standard of the D7000, along with a small series of compact prime lenses, I have to imagine that they'd have a huge winner on their hands.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have to imagine that they'd have a huge winner on their hands.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They would, indeed, have a huge winner, but only in that "big fish in a very small pond" sense of "huge." Meaning, such a camera would appeal to an audience that is a tiny, tiny fraction of their overall camera market. When they make other cameras aimed at very, very small markets (like the people who buy the D3s, for example), the prices - of necessity - go through the roof. Simple economies of scale.<br /><br />Nikon has a large audience with millions of their cameras, anxiously awaiting all sorts of lenses they haven't yet brought to market or upgraded in years. They've got stale DSLR bodies, with people ready to spend money for updated versions. They've got an earthquake/tsunami from which they must still recover. A brand new specialty body with lenses that won't work with all of their equipment might be attractive for a truly small niche audience, but I don't think they'd see it as even close to enough of a market to distract from everything else they've got going on.</p>

<p>Epson tried it a few years ago, albeit without a full-frame sensor. It failed. Nobody else is going to put development money into a cheap-ish manual focus digital rangefinder system, not when there's the micro-4/3 bandwagon to jump on, offering features that significant numbers of people want (autofocus, video, small lenses that are optimized for the format, decent legacy lens support, etc.). I'd love to have what you're talking about, but we're a very small minority.</p>

<p>I can only echo what Matt stated above - such a camera would be a niche product. And I cannot imagine that Nikon (or Canon) will spent the resources on creating such a camera - not to mention the lens system that would need to go along with it. It appears that almost out of necessity, such a camera would need to have the Leica M-mount to allow access to the Leica, Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses - making the endeavor to create such a camera even less appealing. It also seems that the market has so far answered the question in the negative as no one has jumped on the bandwagon. Now if Fuji modified the X100 to allow changing lenses...</p>

<p>The days of the DSLR are limited. In time, they will be the smallest segment of the market. Mirrorless cameras will rule, but they won't be anything like Leicas.</p>

<p>Cosina are capable of doing anything, howsoever crazy it may seem.</p>

<p>What do you actually want? A cheaper body for Leica M lenses or a new (Nikon built) rangefinder system with all new small lenses?</p>

<p>You can google the Epson RD-1 if you want a cheaper digital M rangefinder or get a Leica M8 used.</p>

<p>The rangefinder lost the mass market when the Nikon F1 appeared 50 years ago. Today people want autofocus, auto aperture closing, etc.</p>

<p>I'll bet $1 that Nikon will introduce a mirrorless system in the next year to compete with Micro 4/3, Sony NEX, and Samsung NX. All of the mirrorless systems are autofocus and even if they have a viewfinder it is either electronic or optical without a rangefinder spot. Even the Fuji FX100 in optical viewfinder mode is AF and you just have to trust that it AF'ed to the right thing. Micro 4/3 already has a few compact wide aperture prime lenses.</p>

<p>You can get adapters for Leica M lenses to mount on Micro 4/3, Sony NEX, and the future Ricoh GXR M module. Are you just hung up on having a rangefinder spot to focus with?</p>

<p>As for Cosina, the Epson RD-1 was a Cosina body. A long time ago I read an interview with their CEO Mr. Kobayashi and he was a film fan and didn't care much for digital. They also build the Zeiss Ikon and I think Zeiss would try another stab at the digital rangefinder before Cosina tries on their own.</p>

<p>Just keep saving your money and eventually you can buy a used Leica M9 (or M8)</p>

<p>The rumors are that Nikon's mirrorless is a 2.5x crop. It doesn't make sense to me. </p>

<p>It's hard to build a interchangeable lens rangefinder camera much cheaper than Leica does. The precision requirements to make a rangefinder as accurate as theirs are daunting. Yeah, the ZI camera is maybe $1000 than it's Leica equivalent, as Japanse labor is still cheaper than German and Portugese labor (which Leica uses). Also Mr. Kobayashi is better at engineering to a price point. But $1000 or $1500 less than an M9 isn't enough to make a major change in the market.<br>

The SLR won over the rangefinder because it's really a lot simpler and cheaper to make an interchangeable-lens SLR that focuses accurately than to make an interchangeable-lens rangefinder.<br>

Leica's cost challenge is that the full-frame Kodak sensor is frightfully expensive (I'd guess around $1500 to $2000 in the quantities they buy), and they have to recoup a lot of electrical design expenses over a very modest number of units sold. Moreover, some other company did that design, so there's two layers of profit to be taken.<br>

Remember that in inflation-adjusted dollars, an M9 is about the same cost as an M3 was in 1956, or a Nikon FTn Photomic was in 1965. IN 1964, a silver quarter was worth 25 cents. Now it's $7.53 (today's bullion price for a silver quarter). Now, silver has gone up faster than the cost of living, but it gives you an idea how much the US Dollar has sunk over 45 years. (The cost of living goes up more slowly because things aren't "built to last" anymore.)</p>

 

<p>Of course, Nikon has built some niche products. The F6 is (was?) a niche product, for wealthy amateurs, replacing the F5 for professional press photographers. The S3 and SP reissues were niche collector products.<br>

But full-frame sensors remain frightfully expensive, for good reason. The manufacturing yield is dismal. Let's say you have a manufacturing process where 30% of the APS-C dies on one wafer are of acceptable quality to sell. (This is probably a good ballpark figure.) The same process will only produce 9% of the full-frame dies on the wafer being good. That's because you need twice the area with no defects, and each of these areas has a 30% chance of being any good. Plus, you only have half as many full-frame dies as APS-C dies on one wafer, and the production cost of one wafer is fixed. So the cost per good full-frame die is around 6 times higher than a good APS-C die. So where an APS-C sensor might cost $200, the full-frame sensor from the same line is $1200. Then multiply this by typical markups for electronics (5 to 10 times the parts cost), and you see why full-frame DSLR's remain a "luxury good".</p>

<p>Right: the F6 was (is?) a niche product just like the current D3s is ... but it didn't require an entirely new line of lenses to make it a viable product, just as the D3s hasn't.</p>

<p>There are millions of bayonet M Leica lenses out there waiting to be hung onto full frame cameras. Seems like one ought to come along sooner or later for quite a bit less than than $7000.</p>

GXR pricing is out today on DPReview. 999 USD for body and M-mount module. Nice.

<p>Viewing through the taking lens, either by mirror and pentaprism or by electronic VF, has considerable advantages over a RF/VF system. Many of the advantages of RF viewing, quieter cameras, seeing outside the frame, have been rendered less compelling by recent advances in electronic viewing technology. One example, with the short flange to sensor distance of micro 4:3 you can adapt to almost any lens and still achive accurate frameing and focus. I would think it much more likely that a convergence of optical VF with superimposed electronic viewing will be the way to the future in camera design.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Many of the advantages of RF viewing, quieter cameras, seeing outside the frame, have been rendered less compelling by recent advances in electronic viewing technology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree that TTL viewing has many advantages but how does an EVF help see outside the frame? That is one of my favorite things about using my film rangefinders that I miss when using an SLR.</p>

<p>I agree about the convergence part. My understanding of the Fuji X100 is when in optical VF mode you just have to trust that it AF'ed to where you wanted. They already superimpose electronic info onto the optical display. It would be great if they used the electronic data to superimpose a rangefinder spot in the middle of the optical viewfinder.</p>

 

<p>Walt, I think the superimposed electronic viewing will take care of seeing beyond the frame. Being able to use existing lenses is nice too. With my M4-2 I might be able to mount some SLR lenses to it but would have to scale focus them. Even with nominally compatable RF lenses the cam profile has to be cut to a high degree of accuracy to insure reasonably accurate focus over the entire range from infinity to close up. Sure, there is a good selection, both new and used, of lenses for my Leica M. But the prices! Yikes! For the price of a used 35mm f2 Summicron I could assemble a complete Olympus kit with 24, 35, 50, and 85mm lenses and OM-1 body. In fact, I could add a 50 macro and a 200mm lens and a spare OM-1 body to that kit and still stay within the price of a KEH, bgn grade 35mm Summicron.</p>

<p>Side note; I chose the OM-1 because I think it is the closest to the Leica M concept in a SLR. One could also assemble the same kit in manual focus with Nikon, Canon, or Pentax, for a comparable outlay. I'm not promoting Olympus OM specifically, your personal preference would determine platform selection.</p>

<p>I know, the OP was talking about digital. But when the FF digital back comes out for my OM cameras (this will be about the same time I flap my arms and fly to the moon) I'll be all set! :)</p>

<p>Wait a few weeks and you should see the rumored Sony Nex-7. It will be adaptable to Leica mount lenses, as is the NEX-5. And, it will reportedly have a built-in EVF which is more accurate for framing than a rangefinder. </p>

<p>I have to agree with Luis G. DSLRs have just about run their course.</p>

<p>I've been using a combination of a Fuji X100 and an NEX-5. Once you get used to their quirkiness, it's hard to go back to the bulk of a DSLR and their gigantic zoom lenses.</p>

<p>I guess Fuji or Cosina would be the most likely to come out with something like that. Cosina (Zeiss) already has a line of lenses to put on it. They just need a digital rangefinder body to go with it.</p>

<p>Zeiss remains unconvinced that the technology (and cost) is there to produce a digital M-mount camera via Cosina's cooperation. Have discussed this over the years with Rich Schleuning from Zeiss's USA office and with his colleagues in Germany. They also seem unconvinced that there is a market for more Zeiss ZM lenses, though I have tried to interest them in faster versions of the 28mm and 35mm lenses.</p>

<p> I have wondered if Zeiss was still in business. The Zeiss rangfinder lenses have not been available at BHPhoto for ages. I guess I would like to own a Zeiss Ikon and a few lenses but there are no labs around anymore so it would be pointless to buy into a beautiful film outfit like that. </p>

<p>ross b -<br>

Zeiss is still very much in the business of manufacturing lenses for 35mm SLR and Leica M-mount rangefinder cameras, but most of the activity is concentrated in making lenses for Nikon and CANON digital SLRs (Those in Nikon F mount can also be used on Nikon film SLRs.). As for B & H Photo, they still stock and sell Zeiss Leica M-mount rangefinder lenses (I just checked their website.).</p>

 

<p>ross b -</p>

<p>Don't listen to anyone who may tell you that the Zeiss lenses made under strict Zeiss supervision at the Cosina plant are not Zeiss lenses. The SLR lenses look as well made as the Japanese and German-made Contax SLR Zeiss lenses I own. The ZM (M-mount) lenses are also well built. I own the 25mm Biogon, 28mm Biogon, 35mm f2 Biogon and the 50mm Planar lenses; all are fine performers with the 25mm lens better than the Leica 24mm ASPH Elmarit and the 50mm Planar better than the 50mm Summicron.</p>

<p>John:</p>

<p>Thanks for the reply. I was just curious as the BHPhoto site does list the lenses but they have been out of stock for many months now. For a while I was wanting to purchase a Zeiss Ikon and a couple of Zeiss lenses. .I looked around for several months but could not find any lenses for sale in the focal length that I was wanting. However I finally decided not to buy any more film gear as the only lab around is 50miles away. I tried mail order but I cannot handle it when they lose my film (Like 7 rolls of film). Anyway I believe Zeiss to provide a very high quality product. Having the lenses made at the Cosina plant to their specifications is just how business is done.</p>

<p>Am surprised that B&H doesn't have any new stock. Check Adorama, Classic Connection, PopFlash, Tamarkin, and FotoCare, are among those who do stock Zeiss ZM lenses. BTW ross b, the two most expensive lenses, the 15mm f2.8 Distagon and the 85mm f2 Sonnar are made at Zeiss' Oberkochen, Germany plant.</p>

<p>Hmmmm, the 85m was of the three lenses I wanted. However like I said due to lab closures I am not going to invest. It's a shame as I love 35mm film especially the C41 B/W from Kodak and Illford. Thanks for the information. I will check out those sites just to see what they do have for fun.</p>