Future contax

[mikebarger]

Maybe it's a scifi thread after all :0

Mike

 

[BobbyR]

Guys, how about you take the flame war based on stereotypes elsewhere? I'm sure the Germans and the Japanese will do fine without your superior insights on their putative qualities and defects.

The only flame war based on stereotypes is the one in your head.

I answered a gents question; Jaap Jan and I after a bit too sharp exchange, exchanged fact based ooinions, it is arrogant twits such as you sitting on the sidelines espousing superior moral structure that are doing the flame baiting.

 

[mikebarger]

michel

I'm voting troll

mike

 

[Mark Layne]

Keith

Leica sank too much in the M8. It's a dog. Too bad. Perhaps they'll get it right with the M9.

Anyone remember the M5? Another dog. The Minolta CLE was better than the M5.

Neither the M5 nor the M8 are 'dogs'. In fact you will be able to return your M8 for retrofit to future upgrades, who else offers that.
One photographer at the forefront of digital really likes his M8 and he's got everything else.
Mark

 

[elekm]

I hope the Canon "kit" lens isn't considered part of its group of elite products.

 

[pauliej]

Getting back to the thread subject, for any manufacturer (like Fuji is trying to do) to bring about a NEW camera, a HUGE amount of capital is required, for R&D, marketing, production, etc. To recapture this investment requires a particular number of items to be sold, BEFORE they begin to make any profit. How many would Zeiss (or Fuji, etc) need to manufacture and sell to reach this point? I see a lot of APUG'ers reaching for their wallets, but how many will actually be there to buy IF the cameras are actually marketed? How many companies have fallen because the sales went away, because of digital or other reasons? See the recent Polaroid issues today. Where will it all end? Comments please.

Paul

 

[keithwms]

Yes it's true that it takes a big upfront commitment from Fuji and a leap of faith to bring out a "new" film camera. But there are two major points:

(1) They did build this prototype. Now why go to the bother of building a prototype... similar question: why build a concept car?

(2) Based on an interview I saw in C&EN with the leadershp of Fuji I would say that Fuji knows very well that they need to make huge investments in the future and keep looking forward... far forward. Fuji is doing precisely what other companies with really adverse outlooks (e.g. RJ Reynolds) are doing: developing "adjacent" business plans in which one product upholds the business and that transitions gradually into another. So they seek "adjacent" products that benefit from the reputation they have in another sector. They know very well the power of branding.

Anyway, as for Zeiss, like I said before, I think their clear strength is making highly reputable lenses for other bodies. Their ZF lenses are so reputable that even with spartan manual focus capabilities, they are selling briskly. I cannot imagine why they would want to play the body catchup game at this stage. That would be suicide. They know very well that Nikonians like their Nikon bodies and so forth, why fight an unnecessary battle. It's a pity that Zeiss was unable to get past the patent issues with Canon and bring out some lenses for the Canon mount(s); if they could, they would capture a big part of that market too.

Let other companies fight the body battles. Ultimately photography is, and has always been, about lenses. After the dust settles from the manic dslr developments and people realize they've done everything they can within the constraints of the 35mm frame, the main issue will again be: lenses.

 

[BobbyR]

Anyway, as for Zeiss, like I said before, I think their clear strength is making highly reputable lenses for other bodies. Their ZF lenses are so reputable that even with spartan manual focus capabilities, they are selling briskly. I cannot imagine why they would want to play the body catchup game at this stage. That would be suicide. They know very well that Nikonians like their Nikon bodies and so forth, why fight an unnecessary battle. It's a pity that Zeiss was unable to get past the patent issues with Canon and bring out some lenses for the Canon mount(s); if they could, they would capture a big part of that market too.

Let other companies fight the body battles. Ultimately photography is, and has always been, about lenses. After the dust settles from the manic dslr developments and people realize they've done everything they can within the constraints of the 35mm frame, the main issue will again be: lenses.

I am speaking only of slrs, in this reply, but IF and it is not really that long of a shot, auto-focus, or at least availability of some such lenses, becomes an over-riding factor, without its own body, Zeiss will be marketing to a smaller, and maybe dwindling market.
That Nikon stopped them from putting a certain chip in their f-mount lenses has been said to be an unfortunate short-coming, by some on the net.

I found out that Leica is said to be unveiling the R10 at Photokina, partly because (and this is rumor and nothing more) it will have auto-focus lenses, and also because greenie rules forced ceasing production of the R9.

IF Leica does unveil a auto-focus slr, do you think it is in Zeiss' best interest to be, at least among consumer products, merely the manual focus lens maker, even if their lenses are as good as it gets?
Bobby

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Zeiss lenses are a niche product. Many professional photographers (including myself) prefer to focus manually.

The Zeiss-Ikon "IS" the Zeiss Contax. They just couldn't use the "Contax" name, because it was still under license to Kyocera. It is a fine "M" mount 35mm rangefinder at a good price. It is more important who designed the camera and lenses, and who oversees quality control, than where the manufacturing plant is located.

 

[keithwms]

Zeiss could of course claim more market share if they had AF-compatible lenses, but there is probably the simple patent issue: Nikon and Canon are not going to shoot themselves in the foot and license their AF and VR/IS patents to Zeiss. However there are still a lot of people who prefer to focus manually and, particularly for ultrawides and fast(er) primes, there is still plenty of room for Zeiss to move in the market, especially if Sony picks up market share.

Regarding the Leica R line, it is unfortunate that their last offering didn't resonate with the market, I thought the idea of a film/digital modular system with upgradability was a brilliant... just not what the market wanted. I don't see how throwing AF into the mix is going to change that. The bar has already been set very high indeed, and the people who appreciate AF are generally not the same people who wax poetic about bokeh.

 

[charlesh]

I've used a Contax G2 since its inception and have always longed for a G3 to continue using those fabulous G lenses. Given that the G series is dead, I certainly wish something else would come along to make use of those lenses.

 

[keithwms]

Amen to that, the G lenses are fabulous. Say can you mount those lenses on a Zeiss Ikon? Yes you lose AF but still... those lenses are going for a song and they are spectacular.

 

[keithwms]

Anyone remember the M5? Another dog. The Minolta CLE was better than the M5.

Now, now, I wouldn't call it a dog! It is just special. Once the thing is loaded it's dandy. A student presented her M5 to me, unable to figure out anything with it, and I sat down and -without a manual, I am proud to say- figured it out in only 45 minutes. Yes, that's the longest it's ever taken for me to figure out a camera. But once we had the thing figured out, it felt really nice in the hand. Mind you, when we get the first roll developed, we will probably see that I am not as smart as I think.

 

[elekm]

Carl Zeiss AG was always about lenses and not bodies. Zeiss Ikon was the opposite -- it made the bodies but not the lenses (even those marked as Zeiss Ikon were made by a third party).

When Kyocera chose to withdraw from the market, it really left Zeiss in a bad situation -- similar to what happened with the demise of Zeiss Ikon. At least when Zeiss Ikon folded, there were the Rollei cameras as vehicles for 35mm photographers who preferred Zeiss lenses. With the Contax brand gone, there was no longer a current 35mm system.

The decision to build a 35mm rangefinder system, now owned and controlled by Carl Zeiss, certainly didn't come without risks.

With the rise of digital and the marginalization of the rangefinder market, Zeiss had to step carefully. It didn't have any camera body manufacturing capability, and to create that would require a considerable investment in building space, people and training.

That's why the partnership with Cosina made sense. Cosina had created a very nice market niche, and Zeiss was able to take advantage of that. With its own quality control in place, it could have its own rangefinder camera and also have control of marketing, sales and distribution. If it decides to leave a market segment, it will be a decision by Zeiss and not a third party over which it held no control.

In terms of price, it currently sits neatly between the lower-cost Cosina Voigtlander cameras and the higher-priced Leicas. It's not a bad place for it to be. Almost perfect, if you think about it, especially for those who want more than Cosina but aren't able to afford a Leica.

By the way, the Zeiss lenses for the 35mm SLR Rolleiflex SL series are superb -- from the Distagons to the Planar, the 85mm Sonnar and the Tele-Tessars.

Anyway, Zeiss is making some efforts in the autofocus market with the Sony (ZA) mount. Amateur Photographer did a review of the various "kit" lenses and said the performance of the Zeiss lens easily surpassed its counterparts.

Although I would like a German-made Zeiss lens, one that is made in Japan under the strict quality control of Zeiss is the next best thing. Certainly, the Kyocera-made Zeiss lenses were excellent, and the Cosina-made Zeiss lenses seem to be top notch too.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Keith- the Ikon uses a Leica M mount, so the G lenses would be mechanically incompatible. Also, were you to mount them on a manual focus body, you would have to use them strictly at infinity, as there is no manual focus capability in those lenses. To manual focus a G-series lens you have to turn a dial on the body which is electronically coupled with the lens.

 

[keithwms]

Scott, is there no way to make an adapter that couples the G lenses to the ZI and introduces a focusing ring?

Okay, never mind I guess its too complicated

 

[elekm]

There is a place in Japan that makes an irreversible conversion from G mount to the M mount.

Maybe I shouldn't say irreversible. It's possible that maybe it could be returned to a G mount, but from what I saw in a photo, it looked to be irreversible.

For the cost of the conversion, you might as well buy a Zeiss (ZM) lens.

To make an adapter, here's what I think would need to do:

-- Is the aperture handled electronically (even though it has manual aperture settings)? That is, with the lens off the camera, does changing the aperture on the lens barrel stop down the aperture blades? If not, then it's controlled electronically, so you would need to first figure out how to control that manually.

-- The next thing would be to determine the flange-to-film distance of both cameras. If the M mount is shallower, then the adapter might need some type of intermediate lens to account for the longer distance in the G mount. That will degrade the image quality, unless you can develop an optically correct element. Without such an intermediate lens, you will not have infinity focus -- ever. If the M mount is deeper, then you simply need to fill that gap.

-- And then you'll need to create a helical so you can focus the lens. If you don't want the lens barrel to rotate, you would need a double helical mount. If you don't mind having the barrel rotate, a simple helical would do. Of course, you'll need to have the correct helical pitch, call up the correct framelines and ensure that it couples correctly to the rangefinder at all distances to give you accurate focusing.

So it's not simply a matter of saying, "Just make an adapter."

In the end, why bother? Probably too much effort to make it worth it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Elekm-

you're pretty close as to what it would take to do a "conversion", but you've got the issue of the ftf backwards. If the flange-to-film distance on the G-series is less than on the M, you'd need a conversion lens, or live with the fact you couldn't focus to infinity. If the G series ftf is greater than the M series, then you'd just need some kind of spacer ring to bump the G-series flange out to its expected depth. If I recall correctly, the G-series lenses have a manually controlled aperture, so you can operate the diaphragm on or off the camera. The hassle would be the focusing and the lens-mount conversion from the G-series breech-lock mechanism to the M style bayonet mount. That would be an awful lot of custom machine work, to the point it would be cheaper to buy a number of used G2 bodies to keep around as spares.

 

[mawz]

I don't see Zeiss making a 35mm SLR body anytime soon. Leica never did achieve a truly great SLR body, and ZF and ZK lenses work on some of the best 35mm bodies ever made (No Leica body can touch an F series, or the LX or MZ-S Pentax bodies). They do need to start offering CPU-equipped lenses with the ZF line (The ZK's are fully functional on digital and film, being the more modern KA mount with electrical aperture info communication)

As to the Zeiss Ikon and RF stuff, Zeiss is doing well enough with the Zeiss Ikon and ZM stuff for now, and it's not like Cosina will be leaving that business anytime soon (unlike Kyocera). I don't see Contax coming back unless Zeiss decides to get into MF bodies (Maybe a 501CM clone if Hassy finally kills the V-Series bodies).

 

[BobbyR]

I don't see Zeiss making a 35mm SLR body anytime soon. Leica never did achieve a truly great SLR body, and ZF and ZK lenses work on some of the best 35mm bodies ever made (No Leica body can touch an F series, or the LX or MZ-S Pentax bodies). They do need to start offering CPU-equipped lenses with the ZF line (The ZK's are fully functional on digital and film, being the more modern KA mount with electrical aperture info communication)

The LX was nice but it is not in the class of the R8/9 and I mean that literally.

The R8/9 are probably the ultimate manual focus bodies, although the F4 iand LX are in a classes by themselves.

The Pentax beyond the LX are not even close to top bodies from the other manufacturers and the includes the LX.

You will never see a cpu lens in F mount unless Nikon changes its mind.
IF Leica brings out a new camera at Photokina, that may, or may not, have a great influence on what the Zeiss, maybe even Nikon people do.

It is kind of sad, that the photo community seems to have a fit if they cannot have auto-everything.
Something is lacking and it is not in the camera.
Bobby

 

[mawz]

The LX was nice but it is not in the class of the R8/9 and I mean that literally.

The R8/9 are probably the ultimate manual focus bodies, although the F4 iand LX are in a classes by themselves.

The Pentax beyond the LX are not even close to top bodies from the other manufacturers and the includes the LX.

You will never see a cpu lens in F mount unless Nikon changes its mind.
IF Leica brings out a new camera at Photokina, that may, or may not, have a great influence on what the Zeiss, maybe even Nikon people do.

It is kind of sad, that the photo community seems to have a fit if they cannot have auto-everything.
Something is lacking and it is not in the camera.
Bobby

You are correct that the LX is not the same class as the R8/R9, the LX is a full-on Pro-level System SLR(the only one Pentax ever made in 35mm). The R8/R9 are just below the pro bracket, lacking most notably in the viewfinder with it's poor coverage and low magnification (for the coverage, most 100% finders have similar magnification, smaller finders usually run more magnification at that end of the market) and in flexibility in comparison to the LX, which has better (if less flexible) metering, offers a multitude of finder options and a far more flexible TTL flash system.

I've owned the LX, and tried most of the R bodies. I'm unimpressed with the latter, the early ones are better built than the Minolta's they're related to, but share most of the weaknesses (Especially poor eye relief and mediocre viewfinder coverage) and the later ones seem to be very well built but not quite there copies of the Nikon high-end AF bodies. Build is of course excellent on the Leica's, and they have modern(ish) metering systems, but they aren't even close to being the ultimate manual focus SLR's. Frankly, I'll take any of the higher-end Nikons over an R body any day. Better finders, better handling, particularly the single-digit F's from the F2 on. Leica makes superb lenses and RF bodies. They never quite got the SLR body down.

As to later Pentax bodies, the MZ-S is a superb body. While it's lacking in absolute specs (flash sync, fps) it's simply one of the best handling AF SLR's ever made. And rather well built for a body that retailed for under $1000 new when introduced in 2001. And given its aperture-ring oriented design, it's if anything a better MF body than AF body.

As to CPU's in F mount lenses, well Cosina already offers this in the Voightlander SLII line. Zeiss is going to have to at some point simply to expand their market, as too many Nikon bodies don't support non-CPU lenses properly.

If you had to pick an 'Ultimate manual focus SLR', the Contax RTSIII would probably be my call. Or the FM3a for the minimalist.

 

[DanielOB]

If a new Contax see the day it will for sure not be on the par with current Leica. Zeiss went way far ahead of Leica these years. Old Leica lenses are fine but it is not enough so far. Who is buying Leicas any more? or he get M3 on e-bay. Leica pushed themself 7ft under, have a nice trip.

 

[firecracker]

There is a place in Japan that makes an irreversible conversion from G mount to the M mount.

Maybe I shouldn't say irreversible. It's possible that maybe it could be returned to a G mount, but from what I saw in a photo, it looked to be irreversible.

For the cost of the conversion, you might as well buy a Zeiss (ZM) lens.

I can't find the link, but I read something about it in a magazine a whille ago when I was looking for a good lens for my Leica M camera. The cost for the conversion was something like 50,000 yen, which is 400-450USD. I remember there were a few other options such as converting Olympus OM lens mount to Leica M mount at the same price. And my impression was that whichever brand you'd pick you would lose more advantage than gain something from doing it...

 

[haris]

Leica never did achieve a truly great SLR body

I do love Sebastiao Salgado's photographs and he use(d) Leica R6. So, for me, nothing wrong with Leica R bodies. And when you think which lenses go on those bodies, I wouldn't mind have some of those, if only could afford them...