Anyone interested in the New Carl Zeiss Ikon?

[chungyan_chow]

http://www.zeissikon.com/distributors.htm

looks very promising, I have to say

[frank granovski]

I'm sort of interested but it's not titanium and I haven't seen one yet.

[aizan_sasayama]

titanium still draws a premium?

[frank granovski]

For the price, the Ikon should be titanium.

[Karim Ghantous]

Nice looking system. However, I'm surprised that the camera isn't digital from the get-go. Not that they shouldn't have a 35mm version, but for goodness sakes, many photographers are just begging for a digital body for their M lenses (not necessarily to replace their 35mm bodies though) and all we get is yet another film camera.

 

As good as the Epson RD-1 is, and as awesome as it is that someone actually gave us a digital rangefinder, it still isn't quite what most shooters are looking for. But hey, at least someone is trying.

 

It reminds you of those excellent, superb films that either aren't on DVD yet or took ages to get mastered. You ask yourself, "Why? Why did it take such a long time for such masterpieces to be available on DVD?" Same idea here.

[websterforrest]

I for one can say with confidence that I am definitely not interested in this camera. What's the point? Why buy this instead of a real Leica? That's what it comes down to for me. The difference in price between an Ikon and an M7 (if it's automation that you want...) is what, 800 euros? It's the same question again - why is everybody making film bodies for the M mount, and nobody is making a viable digital body? If Leica is stupid enough not to make a digital M mount body, you'd think Zeiss would be smart enough to step in if they are all gung-ho on designing a new body for a market that is a) on the way out, and b) totally dominated by one manufacturer already who themselves are drowning in poor sales. Sheesh. Shouldn't we write a nice letter to Mr. Kobayashi and as him to step in? If you read this forum (which I wouldn't be surprised at), Mr. Kobayashi, can you design a digital M body so that Zeiss and Leica lens production lines don't die? There's a screw-mount digital camera (woah) but not an M... or am I missing something? Please tell me I am.

 

Webster

[websterforrest]

Seems as I was typing my response, Karim was thinking the exact same thing - sorry for the apparant duplication, Karim's post was only visible to me after I had submitted mine.

 

But that's two votes at least for a digital M body!!

 

:)

 

Webster

[peter_evans4]

<p>At least it's not rhodium. The "rhodium" Hexar (AF) is a rather too

feminine pink.</p><p>I hope that Cosina sell them by the tens of

thousands, no, the hundreds of thousands, even the millions. And that

they cost a lot, too.</p><p>Why? The more of these that are sold, the

less money is available to buy the <a

href="http://www.yamaha.co.jp/news/2004/04100501.html">Yamaha

"easy trumpet EZ-TP"</a>. There's an enormous ad for this at Yoyogi

station (Yamanote line, southbound, southern end of the platform). The

idea is, the average <s>joe</s> tarō stands on his veranda

serenading Tokyo on his Wunderhorn (arduous exercises not

needed).</p>

[paul t]

I hope they sell in millions, so I can buy one used.<p>

It's interesting that the RF is about as accurate as an MP/M7 with .85 finder,

yet has the visible 28mm framelines of the .58 finder.<p> Is it true that both

these finder magnifications will soon only be available via à la carte? And

doesn't the price premium you'll have to pay for that more or less exceed the

retail price of the ZI?

[bill_marshall1]

Who says Zeiss isn't working on adigital body?

[chip l.]

Not counting lenses, if the "premium" for the Ikon body is more than 25% over the Bessa

R2A, R3A; and there is nothing in body quality to make it worth it, then it will be an also

ran.

[socke]

Chip, longer rangefinderbase and automatic brightlines are the obvious differnces.

 

The ZI has some parts in common with the Bessar R2a/R3a, but they are not identical.

 

And it looks better :-)

[bill_marshall1]

Why do you say that, Chip? The two bodies have completely different specs. Supply & demand in this digital age may doom all of these RF projects, but if there is a demand for rangefinders, I would think that there would also be a demand for one with substantial upgrades over the R2A/R3A but priced substantially lower than a Leica. You're suggesting that build quality is the only factor which eill make consumers willing to pay more; Zeiss is gambling that consumers will pay more to get more features. The market will eventually determine the price niche, which I suspect will be lower than the opening price, if for no other than the fact that lower prices in Japan will lead to similarly lower priced grey market imports.

[bill_marshall1]

Sorry to be repetitive, Volker, but I guess that I was typing while you were posting. Since you mention obvious differences, I will add closer minimum focus distance & built-in 28 mm frame lines as two other obvious differences.

[Aoresteen]

I am very interested in the 50mm Planar lens.

 

As to why no digital body yet a bit of logic will help.

 

1. Since Cosina is making the ZI body and makes the Epson RD-1, they COULD have made the ZI digital from the get go. But they didn't.

 

2. That means that Zeiss didn't want to be a "me-too" design to Epson.

 

3. Zeiss has stated that they ARE considering a digital version.

 

4. The best way that they could trump Epson is to make the ZI-D a FULL FRAME digital camera 14 megapixels.

 

My prediction is that when the ZI-D is released in October (my guess!!!) it will have a full frame sensor.

 

That would cause a LOT of buzz and put a lot of presure on Leica!

[martin_shakeshaft]

Quote:Webster Forrest , mar 04, 2005; 05:28 a.m.

I for one can say with confidence that I am definitely not interested in this camera. What's the point? Why buy this instead of a real Leica? That's what it comes down to for me. The difference in price between an Ikon and an M7 (if it's automation that you want...) is what, 800 euros?

--

In the UK the price quoted is ?1000 that's half the price of a Leica - suddenly I am interested!

[ben z]

I've got all the Leica M 35mm cameras I will ever need, so I'm not interested in the Zeiss. I would very much like to see their digital offering, or for Cosina (who makes the Ikon body) to base a successor to the RD1 and sell it for the same $3000. The reason I find the RD1 not worth what they're asking, is the short base rangefinder and manual frame selection. Even if Leica can stay afloat past its current situation, they may not be able to get their digital M body to market by 2006 as originally planned. And even if they do, it will probably be at least twice the cost of an M7.

[david_kieltyka1]

I doubt we're gonna see a digi-RF with a 24x36mm sensor any time soon. The R-D1 with its APS-size sensor has corner falloff issues with wide lenses. Imagine how much worse this would be with a larger sensor! It'll take new technology applied to sensor design, lens design or both to overcome this. Which isn't to say these things won't happen, of course...I just don't expect to see it all come together in the near future.

 

I am curious to see how the wider Zeiss M lenses perform on the R-D1. This should give us a clue as to how Zeiss intends to proceed digital-wise. If the wide Zeiss lenses provide even illumination on the R-D1 I think this will prove to be far more significant than any resolution differences between them and their Leica or Voigtländer counterparts.

 

-Dave-

[bill_marshall1]

Dave, Sean Reid's current project for Luminous-Landscape is a test of fast wide angles for the RD-1, including four of the new Zeiss lenses. I imagine he'll have something for us to read next month.

 

I have also read in the aftermath of the Leica financial woes that insiders report that Leica is still planning to release their digital M in 2006.

[mike_elek]

The RD-1 has light falloff because of the non-digital compatible lenses being used, not because of the sensor.

 

As Carl Zeiss has clearly stated, these lenses are made to be compatible with digital from the start. That means, you should get no vignetting when used with the Epson digital.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if a digital camera is being developed as we speak. It's much easier to design with a clean slate and a lineup of fully compatible lenses, rather than develop a camera to work with lenses designed 50 years ago -- when a computer with a fraction of the power of your mobile phone took up a building.

 

If you think about it, it's much eaiser to design a film camera first and get that to market. That gives you time to develop the digital camera.

 

Of course, very few of the Leica diehards are going to shell out money for a Japanese camera -- no matter whose name is on it.

[david_kieltyka1]

>> The RD-1 has light falloff because of the non-digital compatible lenses being used, not because of the sensor. <<

 

Well, the sensor is what causes the lenses to be "non-digital compatible," no? :-) It takes two to tango. A sensor designed to accomodate traditional RF lens designs would also solve the issue, though in a different way. Perhaps we'll eventually see a bit of both: more digital-friendly lenses and more non-perpendicular light-friendly sensors.

 

>> As Carl Zeiss has clearly stated, these lenses are made to be compatible with digital from the start. That means, you should get no vignetting when used with the Epson digital. <<

 

IMO in the absence of proof skepticism is justified. I know what Zeiss has said. How the lenses actually perform in the real world is what I care about. I intend to see this for myself on my R-D1 once they become available.

 

-Dave-

[andrew_hall1]

>As Carl Zeiss has clearly stated, these lenses are made to be compatible with digital from the start. That means, you should get no vignetting when used with the Epson digital.<P>

 

I believe <b>reduced light fall-off (compared with traditional designs) when used with the ZEISS digital</b> would be closer to the truth. Relevant graphs have already been published on the Cosina website.

<P>

As for the original question: yes I'm very interested and look forward to trading-in my flaring, slow-syncing, slow-loading M6TTL 0.85. Shoot me if you want. :P

[robert goldstein]

It's hard to believe that Zeiss is introducing this camera simply to compete for a share of the shrinking market of RF film camera users. (But you can bet that Leica is very worried that much of that share will come from its own.) I would be very surprised if Zeiss does not have definite plans for a digital RF. They may even beat Leica to market with it. When that camera hits the streets, I will consider it seriously. What the heck, I may even consider the film version. My guess is that the lenses will be incredible. And I don't really care if they are manufactured in Germany or Japan.

[frederick_muller]

I'm going to be very keen on the 15mm f2.8 Zeiss. In my view the rectilinear ultrawides are biggest gaping hole in the M system.

[bill_marshall1]

In light of all of this talk about lenses designed for digital use, it is interesting to re-read the latest installment on the Zeiss Ikon website. It states: "Cosina . . . primarily manufactures lenses for digital projection."

 

Now, I know Cosina primarily as a manufacturer of crappy SLR lenses & cheap camera bodies prior to their Voigtlander project. However, maybe there is more to this company than what meets the eye. Zeiss has said that this new lens line is developed from their "cine lenses" designed for "movie production," which we know has been digital for many years. So, we have the marriage of a company that designs lenses for use in digital cinema production with another company that manufactures lenses for digital projection. It makes one wonder. Maybe it wasn't just Cosina's recent success in budget-conscious rangefinder manufacture that brought them together with Zeiss.

 

The second interesting new fact on the website is confirmation of a rumor that I had read late last fall in a Chinese(?) journal that the relationship between Zeiss & Mr. Kobayashi began 2 1/2 years ago at Photokina, 2002. Even allowing time for the relationship to become solidified, this suggests that the two companies have already been working together on this project for two years even though we only found out about it 6 months ago. They may be further down this road than we have realized. With 2 years of research development already behind them, they may be trying to beat Leica to the puch in terms of introducing a digital camera even though they have been saying publicly that a digital rangefinder is a long way off.

 

Food for thought . . .