harvey_edelstein1 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Doug, Mr. K of Cosina said he doesn't like digital he runs Cosina like a hobby doing things for the small base you say he cannot make a profit from and seems to make a profit nonetheless. Zeiss, a lens maker needs to partner with chip and camera makers to sell lenses, that means partners and extra cost. Epson, partnered with Cosina and used a Nikon D70 chip and the result a camera that took pictures no better than a D70 at 3 times the price. Since is was so expensive for its era it did less well than expected. Leica, still using the same sensor since June 2003, and it needs cut filters at times, no weather seals. Nikon and Canon selling to many of us G9, G10, 5D and D300 and D700 making it less and less likely we will keep our M system long enough for someone to sell us a camera with 18 month old sensor for 2x the cost. The only hope it seems to me would be Fuji, Panasonic or Sony for various reasons I think make sense but don't think that they have bothered to evaluate the idea. We just don't have a white Knight because Konica, Minolta who made M rangefinders have gone out of business and Pentax was taken over and is now a shadow of its former self. Even rival Contax branded camera is out of business. Its likely that the Pany G1 is the next best thing for us but its a 2x crop and a different mount. Of course they could make an M mount but then they would need a whole new camera and they already have the 2 type 4/3 mounts to work on to keep them busy. Keep in mind I say using 18 month old last gen sensor and electronics APS sensor and nothing else that cannot be found in a $500 dslr we should have a camera selling for double the price. We have been waiting over 10 years. Hand me down gear for the best lenses ever made, how disappointing is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rui_lebreiro Posted October 13, 2008 Author Share Posted October 13, 2008 Kelly, you got an interesting point there. So let's take R-D1s body w/ no need for all the R&D cost - cast, electronics, rangefinder.... - and put there a Sony CMOS equal to the one on Nikon D90, or even the 10MP CCD that previously equiped D80/D200, to cut cost even more. W/ all the R&D already payed, i assume this cannot be too expensive. Boy, and what a fantastic camera that would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rui_lebreiro Posted October 13, 2008 Author Share Posted October 13, 2008 Harvey, It's curious to note that even if in those days a R-D1s used to cost 3 times the D70 and performed no better, as you say, today one cannot sell an used D70 for more of $200-300 (if lucky!) and an used R-D1 can worth $1800 or something like that. After all... we seem to have a market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug herr Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 "<I>Keep in mind I say using 18 month old last gen sensor and electronics APS sensor and nothing else that cannot be found in a $500 dslr we should have a camera selling for double the price. We have been waiting over 10 years. Hand me down gear for the best lenses ever made, how disappointing is that.</I>" <P> Either there are lots and lots of really dumb camera companies, passing up easy profits... or your assumptions are off-base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 The RD-1 had/has a high price tag because of only a few thousand units were made. One wonders if the tooling has not already been scraped. Here in the USA accountants/bean counters sometimes carry the tooling's worth on the company's books/ledgers as worth alot of money; and it gets purposely scrapped to save taxes. <BR><BR>Also I wonder if the RD-1 camera could hold a larger than 1/1.51 sensor; or did they do something dumb like have the casting features in the way.<BR><BR>The Epson RD-1 HAS TO COST 3 times what a Nikon D70 cost; they have the same sensor; but the D70 had say 100 times the sales volume sold.<BR><BR> This has been mentioned about end about a dozen times above but doesnt seem to register.<BR><BR> Its like making 3 new Epson RD-1 CUSTOM FREAK cars with all new body panels; new inside; new frame; new chrome; new radio, new rims and it has the same engine as a dumb Chevy car sold in the hundreds of thousands. Harvey and Rui are saying why doesnt the Epson RD-1 with gull wings; tail fins, 24 inch wheels, rocket pods, moon roof cost the same as the Chevy because they have the same engine. They would if Rui and Harvey pull out their credit cars and pay off tooling and development costs of the Epson.<BR><BR> In reality its the actual sales of the consumer items that pays the tooling costs; and its ALOT per unit for a low volume item; and its low for a high volume item.,<BR><BR>Thus its not rocket science why a RD-1 cost 3 times more than a D70; it has to due to the low production volumes; ie basic manufacturing stuff. <BR><BR><b>Why does shooting 2000 high school portraits cost less when doing them in one location; versus visting each of the kids 2000 houses and shooting 1 photo at 2000 different locations? </b><BR><BR>@fin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey_edelstein1 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 The RD1 was built by Cosina with their R rangefinder bodies, so castings are not a problem. Cosina no doubt used their own shutter from their $500 R film camera. You guys can see that R&D largely already from other products. The same idea was in action when the Nikon F6 came from the D2 parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 <i>The next generation mid range dslr will likely have no instant return mirror and its problem of vibration and sound because the electronic lcd VF will make the camera as quiet as a rangefinder.</i> <p> Yes, from smaller makers like Olympus, but for Nikon or Canon, no. The optical viewfinder doesn't suffer from sensitivity to stray light (like LCDs do), so it's viewable just as well in bright sunlight as in a dark interior. It has no timing delay unlike LCD live view systems (which is a huge problem for live view). In any case, if such cameras do come out, they won't be called DSLRs but something like interchangeable lens digital cameras. Manual focusing using the LCD is a big PITA for hand-held / moving subject photography. Basically you need to zoom in (which takes time and prevents you from seeing the composition while focusing) to see the detail you're focusing on (the unzoomed whole image view is insufficient for accurate focusing). I don't expect LCDs to be serviceable for hand-held manual focus operation in practical terms for the next five years at least. <p> Vibration problems? Not a problem for me, subject movement is a problem far before mirror affects things. Noise - ok, for indoor photography it would be useful to have a large sensor interchangeable lens digital with no mirror, but I doubt it would be serviceable with fast wide angle lenses at wide apertures - the above mentioned problems with LCD display and accurate focusing. Autofocus is way too inaccurate for f/1.4 and faster lenses with 3D subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john fleshin Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Rui, Jorge can tell you the real reason Ford sold the T,---- the parts business, he could give away the car and just sell the parts, people are still buying them. And, Jorge, you and I want a nice size lens, with possibly the capacity for a bit of single malt, I can see it on your desk, about an f1.2 about 200 ml? A bit more seriously, it is a niche market, and they have a kind of dynamic balance, the nature of the patent for the G2/G1 Contax could be a strength. There are plenty of folks with some lenses to draw in market for such a body in digital, and the possibility exists of selling more lenses in various developments, would be a plus, as Ford might have made more from the parts on a Model T than the car. The car people could have made many of the cars accept the same wheels, mufflers,and mechanical parts in general, but surprise, they did not. A little different is good for business, and check the evolution of lens mounts, I have a couple Mamiya 35mm lenses if any one is interested?. The Contax has a name and a following-- some people are converting the best glass to M mount, in the US and in Japan, not cheap. Jorge, can you get your machinist on this? OTOH, If there was an RD2 with an upgraded chip and any kind of reasonable price, I think many of us would give it a hard look in the $2K park. Six MP is OK, and I would love an RD1 with a 28mm in the trunk at all times, but I get more comfortable with Ten and up for the 11x14 size to fit on Jorge's walls. And, as in the "day" there are some fixed lens that may succor us through the years we are waiting for "our" camera to emerge, it is one choice and many fixed lens RF film cameras have cult followings. I personally like the Fuji MF RF's. Does not Canon have a few that you would not feel unarmed with if it was the camera in hand at an interesting event? Could interchangable good glass be somehow fitted to one of these? If someone does make an upgraded M Digital at a reasonable price, and has a stable of lenses, I am reasonably sure they will sell their glass not only to their clents for their bodies, but to other M fanatics. (Fanatics in a nice way of course, but cult, and a degree of lack of rationality seem to fit in with my use of a 135mm Hektor and Summarit this weekend, and there is nothing wrong with using some of this "junque" for fun, well not too wrong) Leica has always been complex, and perhaps a church to be worshipped at for amateurs? Contax, "should" attract and reconnect with their "orphaned" customers, and the rising tide would raise the used and newly created market for the Zeiss glass for them. Contax might have to raise itself from the grave as well, but I am hoping for classic films and photo paper to do the same, so why not? It is all speculation and a gamble, I make suggestions, but do not pretend to be able to dial up a company and ask them to divert their efforts from making yet another wonder P&S for the popular market, but it is pleasant to think about. Hope springs eternal. From our lips to perhaps Mr. K's ears? Finally, for those who made it this far, both in the thread and my post, (anyone still counting words?) is there not news of someone with an new interchangable lens digital RF from Photokina? Is this a serious camera? Personally, my favorite post in this thread is something I have dreamed of, the digital roll of film I could put in the IIIf on Jorge's desk? Jorge, we both need a personal lab assistant who can quickly process our prints, maybe HCB was really ahead of his time? I will come down and help in the interview process, ;-) Finally, the digital Nikon RF will of course use my S2 lenses, with the supplied adapter to LTM. ;-) Hopefully, as this stuff seems to last forever in Cyber heaven, we can look back at this post in Ten years, when the large cheap sensors are common, and see how close we came in theory. I have a good 50's article on those flying cars we should be getting any day now. Regards, and Jorge, I expect the usual payment in November, John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Harvey Re <i>You guys can see that R&D largely already from other products. </i> Here I have a Bessa R and Epson Rd-1.There are may differences between these models.To place sensor in a Bessa R series cost time, money, design and CAD work. unless there is slave labor in Japan. The analog dials, motors, many many dozens of parts on the Epson RD-1 are use in NO other camera; they had to be designed from scratch; each part even if its "sort of off the shelf requires a spec; inspection; meeting with vendors; who TOO want a LARGE volume to get the prices low.. <BR><BR>The design and layout and tooling costs money for a fully custom design like the Epson RD-1.<BR><BR>These "costs" are either paid for by robbing a bank; robbing employees pensions; or robbing "profits" for another product to float an iffy pet project one; <b>OR for a rational manager they are paid for by actual sales of the product; the Epson RD-1. </b> All these custom dinky parts have a real cost thats spread over a dinky weak sales base; a few thousand units. Thats why a Epson RD-1 costs more than a Nikon D70; or a 1981 DeLorean cost more than a Ford escort in 1981.Its the giant sales volume that makes the development and tooling costs low per unit. If one is always going to ignore real world costs on an item then you will always be wishing why a taxi doesnt charge a few cents per mile; or Kodak doesnt selll film for a dime per roll.; or wedding shooters shoot a wedding for 50 bucks.<BR><BR> If it cost only 2 million to design and tool a working RD-2 camera thats still 1000 bucks per camera as an added REAL cost; ON TOP of the high volume "wrung out" cost if it has a paltry 2000 unit build.Thus thats why there is a 1000 dollar bill added to that 500 buck dlsr ;and thats with ZERO profit. Thats why the Epson RD-1 had to be priced at 2 to 2.5 grand; its to pay for the development and tooling costs. <BR><BR>At teh other extreme is the Hannah Montana camera that might have a 200k to 2 million units sold; thus the 2 million would be 10 to 1 dollar costs; but 2 million is way too high for such a simple camera.. Typically is way less development an more advertising with a kids camera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 There is no exact firm curve of how many mythical 10 megapixel Epson RD-2's one could sell in two years versus it sales price; its a murky guess at best even if alot of decent polling is done..<BR><BR>The development and tooling is alot easier to get a rough estimate. <BR><BR>The review boards who "vote" on prospective new product proposals want to see a return;an decent internal rate of return for the money they invest or they might as well just not invest any money; ; they also rank them by risk of failure of development and market failure. <BR><BR>They want products that cost nill and will make a boatload of cash flow; not iffy products in an an iffy market. <BR><BR>Your pet "gizmo"is competing with the other groups pet project.<BR><BR> When there is alot of risk then the chaps who vote wantt a better payoff; or a wider safety margin.. <BR><BR>Current the market for digital RF cameras is super small;and here many folks want a camera to be made below its real costs; ie the Leica welfare camera. <BR><BR>The pickle is to sell a 500 to 1000 dollar digital M RF would require alot of volume to payoff the development costs which might be say 20k to 50k units; not the current 2k level. If a company forks out the dough and sells a unit at 500 bucks many would be happy as lark;unless their bum was tied to the project if it failed Thus maybe folks could donate their retirement funds for companies to build iffy projects and "feel" the swings if if fails or is a winner. <BR><BR>Many "startups act abit like this; you are the young engineer who works on weekends for a non public company and get paid in shares; not cash. After awhile you have thousands of shares in a sortof company thats not yet public and when the company burns out you have alot shares that are worth zero. You hope you are with the next Microsoft and not Goobers 200 buck RF digital camera idea. In So Cal thats how the slave labor worked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_s__indiana_ Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 One thing I find interesting about this thread is all the comments that go like this: "There's not a market for this, because if there was, it would have been produced already" This assumes that all companies make wise decisions all of the time. I think what's going on right now in the US economy proves this isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 John (Fleshin), Why are you bent on ruining my already hineous reputation? <g> >>Jorge, can you get your machinist on this<< I could, but the results wouldn't be acceptable. For that you need *real* exacting tolerances, not 100ths of an inch. OTOH, if all you need is a way to attach the lens, lets hack a CV LTM2M adapter. That would be feasible. Off thread, just returned from a weekend in Lake Zirahuen with the Panasonic LX3. Found out that all I need is a decent viewfinder and a fast-focusing algorithm in a small body. Pity the LX3 won't remember the last zoom position used. Check my latest uploads.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick j dempsey Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Corporate short sightedness combined with consumer ballessness. Basically most people want a camera that looks just like everyone elses camera, so Nikon and Canon (the biggest boys) spend most of their time making cameras that look like each others while everyone else struggles to pick up their slack. It's certainly not because of what's possible. However, the new Olympus Micro Four Thirds machine promises to be the digital equivalent of an RF camera. BTW, your Epson R-D1 was a Cosina product just like the "Voigtlanders" so it's the same heritage as the new Voigt film cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran__ois_p._weill Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 For those who think there is no market for a high end full format digital rangefinder : Let's compare the price of existing things : Imagine the following situation : A Leica M owner has an M7 and wants to go digital with an M8 : He already has the following lenses : Elmarit 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit 28mm f/2 Summicron 35mm f/2 Summilux 50mm f/1.4 Summicron 90mm f/2 The switch to the M8 implies, because of the cropping factor buying a Tri-Elmar wide... The total cost in France of this operation which includes (all prices taxes included) : The M8 proper : € 4800 The Tri-Elmar : € 4495 The Tri-Elmar finder : € 668 6 x IR filters (averaging € 100 apiece) € 600 amounts to € 10563 Now he decides to compare with the maount necessary to buy a Nikon D 700 and Zeiss ZF lenses with about the same specs, field of view and quality his M-mount lenses have : D 700 : € 2500 Distagon ZF 25mm f/2.8 : € 836 Distagon ZF 28mm f/2 : € 1075 Distagon ZF 35mm f/2 : € 836 Planar ZF 50mm f/1.4 : € 599 Planar ZF 85mm f/1.4 : € 1195 The grand total is € 7041 I have used the most comparable lenses and of course buying Nikon primes or even Nikon high end zooms will have probably even limited even more the total spendings. I have not considered the possibility for this M7 owner to sell all his Leica gear including the lenses which will even lower the expense. Now what will be the available budget to obtain comparable spending with a full format DRF in M-mount which doesn't require IR filters on each lens to operate properly in all circumstances ? The lenses are already owned, so the spendings for lenses will be nothing. If we consider the budget to get the complete Nikon + Zeiss gear amounting to € 7041 and consider this amount as the available budget for the M owner, we see he can afford a M-mount full format body up to € 7041 ! How many M users who have already a bunch of M lenses will accept to pay this price to go digital while keeping their chersished lens and using them at their nominal FOV ? Beside, I don't know exactly the value of an M7 sold in the second hand market today, but I guess € 1500 is a minimum so to say the total effective cost will be 7041-1500 = € 5541. So, more or less the equivalent of the M8 (€ 4800) and 5x IR filters (€ 500) without the Tri-Elmar ... If there's a market for the M8 (mainly from M owners), then, there is even more a market for a full frame M mount DRF even at a slightly higher price ! ... I too consider there is no immediate possibility to provide an entry to medium level M-mount full format DRF and neither a true market for another cropped format M-mount in the $ 1500 range, but I'm convinced a high end, full format M-mount DRF has far better market perspectives than the M8 provided it is built like a rock, get rid of the M8 design flaws and quality control problems and is equivalent in high ISO performance to the Nikon pro DSLR's. Because its main market will be a considerable part of the ones who already owned M-mount lenses. As El Fang said, it is not the price of the M-8 which is a problem per se, but rather what it brings in return and I add what it implies in terms of additional spendings. FPW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 The IR filter issue is what bugs me about buying the M8 since I have a boatload of LTM lenses will a scattered trange of filter sizes. IF I could even get filters for them it would cost more than my RD-1!n <BR><BR> Its been brought up many many times; Patricks comment of <I>It's certainly not because of what's possible.</i><BR><BR> Its not the issue if a company can make another digital DR; its whether it will pan out as an investment. This concept sems hard for many to understand. <BR><BR> Its like GM could make some cars that get 1 kilometer per liter; it just in not wise; its insane. <BR><BR>Its not Corporate short sightedness to want a return on a risky project like a low volume camera iffy camera; but sanity. <BR><BR>Everybody wants the other chap to take the risk; few folks here will paypal say Nikon 1,000,000 bucks to start a iffy project.!:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kens Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Why the Tri-Elmar? Get an 18mm ZM instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john fleshin Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Jorge, thanks a whole bunch, now I have to go out and buy another pocket digital. I think I will just add it to your tab-- or add a bottle of single malt, after which I will think my shots are much better. Nice shot, you are going to have to make some prints for me, have you made some A4's yet from this file? And, are you telling me your machinist does not have time away from making diving gear? And Sorry, I know when folks here see my name in connection with you, your reputation suffers, just tell them I am the poor relation who shows up for the odd free meal. ;-) You should post the Capa link, BTW, as I am not mentioned at all. ;-) Will talk to your secretary soon. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey_edelstein1 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Please read the new Post on the Electronic lcd view finder, the Panasonic G1 is neither a RF or an Slr as we know them but it eliminates shortcomings of both by using new live view technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Really, here are some stats from a year ago. Leica's total production (all models)...about 15000/yr. Nikon....70000/mo for ONE model. Yes...that's year vs month. You think there's big money to be made with a DFR (at any price range)...you build it. I'll promise you I'll visit you in debtors prisonn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rui_lebreiro Posted October 16, 2008 Author Share Posted October 16, 2008 Bob, It's very clear to me that Leica doesn't "make money" (big money!) because they don't want to. Any marketing expert will tell you it's a sin what Leica does. They allow themselves not to take advantage of the Big Name they have on the market, keeping their goal on small niches. Some dream of having... other have and don't use. This is only one more example of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_clark Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Well, I pretty much agree with François. So many self professed experts here claininfg they know what the market can sustain. The fact is that the market has got plenty of holes in it obvious to many - some niches could be dangerous to fill since it could cut profit margins from other lines - and NO BODY knows how well well-designed camers at the right price filling these holes would sell until they go onto the market. And please don't tell me there are marketing experts who know these things - we already have a financial market meltdown thanks to 'experts'. The fact is, there has been no DRF that takes M lenses, with D700 like picture taking quality, D700 like reliability, at a D700 price point and an M8 size. Until there is there is no one who knows how many that could sell. The problem so far, as François pointed out, is that a non full frame M8 is just too expensive, when a) it's not really what most M users want, and b) when you have to buy more lenses to go as wide as on the M6 - so, $5000 + another $ 3-5000. This obviously puts so many people off when DSLR's offer so much, for so much less. Leica needs to bite the bullet, move away from the 'handmade' digital camera twaddle for Chri'sake and collaborate with Panasonic, say, and get them to produce a cheaper body full of modern electronics with better reliability and cheaper production techniques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_clark Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 "I said it above, I will say it again - Most people want zoom lenses." No doubt you'll still be saying it till doomsday, and I'm sure it's largely true. It does not, however, mean that there are not other significant niches that could sell well, if the price, quality and functionality are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rui_lebreiro Posted October 16, 2008 Author Share Posted October 16, 2008 Totally agree, Robert! on both comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Robert; Leica didnt release a full frame digital M mount Leica they brought out the M8 with a non full frame sensor because thats what they could do. <BR><BR>There has never been a full frame digital M mount camera yet. <BR><BR>This risk of how to actually make one that works ok with super wide angle lenses; PLUS the thin market makes it a big gamble; its never been done before. <BR><BR> The whole design of having a short register distance of 27.8 for M mount with a 24x36 mm full frame has a totally different physical geometry than a Nikon F's 46.5mm flange distance. <BR><BR>Even if a full frame Leica M9 came out; what if then all folks are now bitching that their super wide angle lenses dont work well anymore with the steep angle of incidence on the corner light rays? Would then these folks fork out several grand for digtial versions that are retrofocus; or would they jsut skip teh issue and buy a dlsr for 1/3 the price and same Megapixel specs?<BR><BR>One has a technical issue to try to fix and a camera thats never been built before; plus a thin market filled with folks who want to pay LESS than items tooling costs; plus developing this product during a world recession in which high buck items are not selling well. <BR><BR>The M8 and old RD-1 do not have high sales volumes; the "dreamers" on this thread want a new Leica M9 or clone that has a full frame sensor that costs way less than the current offering(s) ; but has magically a full frame sensor; that magically works with old super wide angle lenses. <BR><BR>One has a techincal risk that it cannot be built at any price; with an unknown development cost since its never been done before; coupled with an thin iffy "market" of some old folks who waht it sold below cost. Its like a bunch of old farts dreaming of a Buick Straight 8 engine car that gets 50 miles per hour; GM COULD design such a car if it was nuts. <BR><BR>Where the market is not clear at all and its thin; its a HUGE warning sign to not bet ones company on an iffy project that has a techncial risk of never working. <BR><BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rui_lebreiro Posted October 17, 2008 Author Share Posted October 17, 2008 Ei, w/ the price tag Leica puts on every camera, they're supposed to do very difficult tasks, those never achieved before, right?! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now