Why not a new MF rangefinder?

[victor4]

Zeiss has come out with a 35mm Leica replacement, the Zeiss Ikon.

Complete with a whole new set of lenses. Presumably aimed at the more

well heeled crowd.

 

I can't help but wonder how many folks would have been willing to buy

into a newly designed ZEISS MF rangefinder. One that was dependable

and of top quality, with a decent complement of typically excellent

Zeiss lenses.

 

Some would argue that the Zeiss Ikon is future digital compatable. If

the 35mm Ikon is then so could be the MF, one would think.

 

The potential for increasing future sales, to me, would seem to be

very good. 35 is quickly becoming 'old hat', primarily due to the

advent of good quality digital. But MF film, especially 6x7, can

still perform very well and substantially cheaper than comparable

quality MF digital.

 

I for one certainly would have bought into such a system at this

point. Is anyone else in agreement or am I just delusional. This

query has nothing to do with digital. I just want a decent quality

very dependable MF rangefinder. One that is 'affordable', as opposed

to the Alpa. One that is small and lightweight, like the Mamiya 7ii

only better build quality.

 

So my question is...How many people would have bought the new Zeiss

system if it had been a 6x7 MF rangefinder? Just curious.

 

vic... :)

[johnmarkpainter]

To sidestep your question a bit....

 

The Zeiss camera is meant to draft off of the Leica market. A 6x7 MF would have to draft

off of the Mamiya or Fuji market.

 

jmp

[bob haight]

I would give it a look. I think the Bronica R645 ( a great camera) was disappointing in sales and MF may not jump on a new camera. The 35mm folks have more collectors and people who acquire unlike MF bought mostly for use.

[donald_brewster]

Well, I'm quite happy with the Mamiya 7ii so I doubt I'd be in the market. Hard to see how'd Zeiss could improve on it. What's your beef with the Mamiya 7? Build and dependability seem fine to me. Lenses are fabulous. Maybe I'd like a 110mm lens, or be able to focus the 150, but other than that . . . .

[eric friedemann]

"Why not a new MF rangefinder?"

 

 

1. I'm told Fuji has completely discontinued production of their MF RF cameras.

 

 

2. Sales of the Bronica 645 RF have been mediocre, with the camera and standard 65mm lens rebated down to $1,149 U.S.

 

 

3. Sales of Mamiya 7 equipment have been mediocre, with the equipment being heavily rebated. And look at the weak prices on ebay.

 

 

Would I like to see another MF RF camera? Sure, why not. Do I think the manufacturer would be certain to lose money? You know it.

 

 

Note that along with the new Zeiss 35mm film camera, there are already plans for a digital version of the camera with lenses like the 15mm f/2.8 Distagon being produced with such a digital camera in mind. As such, the Zeiss 35mm film camera may be less of a crap shoot.

[simonpg]

Victor, great topic!

 

I for one certainly would. But for the likes of Zeiss, I can image it's a sepcialist market - limited volume potential.

 

Firstly, I think Zeiss' announcement is about it deciding to manufacture Leica M mount lenses since Leica's patent is near expiration (I'll stand corrected if wrong) and that the Zeiss-Ikon brand may be resurected (died in the late 1950/60s) at which time (I'm not an historian so may be a bit wrong on some of this) Carl Zeiss went back to optics only; Voigtlander and Contax brands were sold off etc. etc..

 

Secondly, I think the Contax rangefinder may be where the Zeiss M mount optics first get used (again I'll stand corrected).

 

Thirdly, it seems that Zeiss is looking for market growth which is currently constrained in the segments where it currently sits - 35mm rangefinder (Contax) and 6x6 MF (Hasselblad).

 

A top end MF rangefinder (and I understand that the Mamiya 7 is just that) which is compact and easy to use is a great complement to an MF SLR system or stand-alone - just as a Leica M is such a good complement to a a 35mm SLR kit.

 

Now, I sense a feeling of de ja vous.....

 

Let me see.......... I already have one Zeiss-Ikon MF rangefinder (no, 6 to be truthful) and 3 have superb Zeiss lenses by today's standards: a 6x6 Zeiss-Ikon Ikonta; 6x9 Zeiss-Ikon Ikonta; 6x4.5 Zeiss-Ikon Ikonta; a 6x6 Super Ikonta with a Zeiss T Tessar 75mm f2.8 coated lens and 2 earlier models. Everyone is wonderful, easy to pack and capable of great images - folding MF range-finders.

 

Yes, I always pack a Super Ikonta with my Hassey kit - in the bush i set up and can wander around with the SI and get some shots I may have otherwide missed with my tripod mounted Hassey.

 

My point is that like what has occurred in some other industries (Swiss watches and motor vehicles) we are seeking more clever markerters go through iconic brand comapnies' cupboards and picking up some old ideas and finding new opportunities to apply them in a new era.

 

Yep, this is all getting very interesting.

 

By the way, if you have any old folders of good repute (Voigtlander Bessa or Perkeo with V's best optics or late Super Ikontas with good Zeiss optics), polish them up; exercise their shutters and watch their values grow.

 

Have fun.

[herve_laurent]

Hello victor,

 

I could not agree with you more... that is for the need of a well built mf rangefinder with

great lenses. One of the thing which is disappointing is that any development in MF

(analog or digital ) seems to revolve around 4.5cm X 6 cm, which is not a very pleasant

format for me . Sure , the mamyia rangefinders ( M6 and M7) produces great pictures

thanks to their great lenses but they are poorly built. yes , i can hear those who would

write that they never had a problem with them. good for them but it does not make the

mamyia 7 a camera well built ( I mean comparable to an hasselblad or a rolleiflex)

the bronica failed because there is no tele and also the vertical composition is confusing

for many people

Also the lens maximum aperture and minimum distance are very limiting. One of the

reasons of this is because mamyia choose synchro at all speeds to please wedding

photographers. Doing away with the leaf shutters in the lenses will have provided faster

and more compact lenses and would have avoided the clumsy procedure for lens change

there is a great need for a 6x6 rangefinder in MF

the economic argument is only half valid. MF manufacturers do not establish their

forecasts on heavy sales

[kelly_flanigan1]

Maybe Rochester is going to release a Medalist III; for 120! :)

[david_goldfarb]

Yeah, how come in the age of latter-day Zeiss-Ikons, Voigtlanders, Adox, and the like, no one wants to resurrect the Folmer and Schwing brand? Personally, I'd like to see a new Zeiss Juwel.

[jan_brittenson]

Gimme a Mamiya 8D with a 40-50MP capture device, in 645 RF form factor with lenses fully capable of driving the imager. Instead of LCDs and tons of buttons and other feeping creature infestation, make it as small and power frugal as possible (even if it means 1 fps). A ZD size imager with 44MP and leaf shutter lenses specially designed for it would be excellent.

[WAn]

>How many people would have bought the new Zeiss system

>if it had been a 6x7 MF rangefinder? <br><br>

 

Victor, I very probably whould. (I'd prefer 6x8 but I understand that it is just me and Japaneses...) -- Well, something like Mamiya 7 with with more close focus ability (much tighter portraits). Or just a scaled Leica MP with central shutter...<br><br>

 

Ideal lens setup for me could be<br><br>

 

55 or 65/4<br>

80 or 90 /3.5<br>

160 or 180 /4<br>

<br>

 

-- of course faster versions are highly welcome, even at expence of partial blocking the viewfinder. And damn large rangefinder spot!<br><br>

 

Zeiss surely could have addressed the film flatness issue raised by them, shift focus issue, and some other. <br><br>

 

I wouldn't mind the Leica-level of prices if the quality is appropriate...<br><br>

 

My condolence.<br><br>

---End Of Technodreaming --

[eric friedemann]

Herve, years ago, I bought a crispy, new 500cm ... which was jammed right out of the box. I returned it and got a second 500cm ... which was in for warranty repairs twice in three years.

 

By way of contrast, I've a pair of Mamiya 7IIs, I think, going on three years. Zero problems.

 

Obviously, anecdotal discussions like this on reliability don't take the place of statistics. And I've never data that shows Hasselblad cameras being more reliable than Mamiya cameras, let alone that Hasselblads have better build quality than Mamiyas.

 

I applaud the Mamiya 7IIs being clad in rubber and ballistic plastic plastic- this keeps the weight down. If Mamiya 7IIs were metal-on-metal MF versions of Leica M cameras, they would weigh a ton.

 

If you have statistics showing that metal has superior qualities in camera body parts, I'd love to see it. My anecdotal experience is that metal dents and plastic cracks, but if you drop any camera from four feet onto cement, it will almost certainly be going to the repair shop.

[jimdesu]

>, but if you drop any camera from four feet onto cement, it will

> almost certainly be going to the repair shop.

 

Not my converted Medalist! =)

[christopher perez]

<i>Maybe Rochester is going to release a Medalist III; for 120! :)</i>

<p>

With a new multicoated rendition of that fabulous Heliar formula 105mm f/3.5 Ektar mounted in a #0 Copal shutter? Count me in! :-)

[jack paradise]

Color MF is dead. Period. The pros have moved to digital. Portraiture, event photography (marriages and the like), still and studio photography is now almost exclusively digital. And large 35mm users like newspaper have also moved to digital.

 

The only holdout are the mf b&w photographer. They're the ones who will carry on mf film use but is the market large enough for a new camera ? Don't think so. Bronica SLR's will no longer be available after october 2004. Tells you a lot about the state of the market.

[photom]

Jan, I like your Mamiya 8D RF concept with a 48X36 sensor. Maybe even new smaller shutter lenses desinged for this format size with a faster shutter speed (1/1000 or higher). Maybe with auto or manual focus option. Perhaps the back is removable for cleaning and upgrading. Wow.

[mike_elek]

> The Zeiss-Ikon brand may be resurected (died in the late 1950/60s)

Zeiss-Ikon, the camera manufacturing company, folded up shop in 1972, I believe. Production of the Contax camera stopped around 1960-62.

 

> ... at which time (I'm not an historian so may be a bit wrong on some of this) Carl Zeiss went back to optics only.

 

Carl Zeiss never made cameras ... with one exception. Zeiss-Ikon made cameras. The only camera to ever carry the Carl Zeiss name was the Werra -- made from Carl Zeiss Jena of then-East Germany. Carl Zeiss has only made camera lenses but never cameras. This is the first camera (well, you could argue second) to carry the Carl Zeiss logo.

 

> Secondly, I think the Contax rangefinder may be where the Zeiss M mount optics first get used (again I'll stand corrected).

 

Carl Zeiss AG never made any lenses for the M mount for the general public, except for the 16mm Hologon. Carl Zeiss Jena of East Germany made some of its lenses available in the LTM and possibly an M-mount, though I can't recall seeing any.

 

The Contax mount is radically different from the Leica M mount. In fact, the standard 50mm Contax lens could never be used on a Leica or any camera, because it has no ability to focus independently of the body. It has no helicals. The focusing mechanism is built into the body.

[mike_elek]

> Color MF is dead. Period. The pros have moved to digital. Portraiture, event photography (marriages and the like), still and studio photography is now almost exclusively digital. And large 35mm users like newspaper have also moved to digital.

 

Newspapers largely abandoned medium format in the 1960s. Magazines, and studio/wedding photographer have been the primary users of medium format because of their demand for higher quality.

 

A UK magazine recently reported that some wedding photographers have returned to film because digital has been unable to correctly record fine detail in wedding dresses and dark tuxedos. Hell hath no fury like an angry bride (or worse yet, any angry bride's mother) on your case.

 

> The only holdout are the mf b&w photographer. They're the ones who will carry on mf film use but is the market large enough for a new camera? Don't think so. Bronica SLR's will no longer be available after october 2004. Tells you a lot about the state of the market.

 

The state of the market is that there are too many systems available, and there have been too many for some time. This "survival of the fittest" is part of the market. Same thing happened with 35mm SLRs in the 1970s. Let's see: Who's no longer with us? Petri. Mamiya (in 35mm), Topcon, Konica (SLRs), Contarex (story in itself), Rolleiflex, low-cost Nikkormat, Ricoh, Kowa, Yashica (guess it turned into Kyocera) though there aren't any Kyocera-branded SLRs, Alpa (when did that happen), probably others.

 

The MF market was always more niche than 35mm. Clearly, that market has shrunk. Before it's all over, some others probably will be gone from the market. Does that mean the other users tuck tail and run? Well, yeah, probably some of them.

 

But for MF users who shoot MF because of the larger negative and excellent tonality, digital isn't currently filling those needs. Will it? Who knows. The advance of technology dictates yes. But newer isn't always better -- witness the P&S market of the '80s and '90s and the horrible cameras to come out of that era.

[herve_laurent]

there is a lot of viable otions to produce a film-based rangefinder MF these days contrary

to what has been written here. let me explain why.MF rangefinders price have always been

based on lower sales volume. Today , after Bronica retreat, only the mamyia 7 II is in

production.outside a questionable built, it has seriuos limitations in terms of lens

openings, minimum focusing distances and use with the telephoto which is inherent with

the design of a rangefinder. furthermore , to sustain unfounded beliefs in the short term

disapperance of 120 films , a camera manufacturer would have to develop system with a

mixed used analog digital through different bodies or interchangeable backs.

For those who think that the 8 or 11MP are closing the gap with the quality produced by

MF, please keep in mind that all the numbers are given for ASA speed of 100 or lower.

even the new, $$$$ digital backs don't allow shooting in 400 ASA which is today the

standard at least for film ( ok not for slide)

there is no doubt that the B&W photographers constitute more than ever a strong part of

the MF crowd and to beat an hand hold picture made with the TRI-x in 120 the digital is

not even close. and when you add all the weight of the battery chargers and additional

batteries and what have you, any TLR or rangefinder MF is at least as light as the new pro

DSLR. food for thought!

[photom]

Respnse to Herve: Agree on the weight comparison except perhaps the new Canon D20 which is even smaller (Although D20 will not likely compete with a Mamiya 7). The comparisons of film and digital are made at ISO/ASA 100 because at higher speeds the digital is so much better in quality than film, it is no comparison. In particular, above 400 speed that is. It is only the digital backs that have a limited range of speed. The Canon offerings I believe go up to 3200.