Neare
Well-known
Indeed, and it will not stabilize for a long time to come. The lessening sales to the producers is due to the fact that less retailers buy film for stock purposes. This will continue for a number of years, even to the point when film becomes special order.
We have to stop measuring film sales to what they once were, when film 'was' photography. Now it has to be treated as a niche in the market. So sales wise, it is best to look at it from ground zero.
______
Now, if possible, to get a DRF with live view (add on an EVF too.. and HDvideo
), RF focusing. M mount it, you've got the best of both worlds and I would assume that it could become a fair contender that Cosina could justify an slight price hike on it. The DSLR market could too be tempted by its design.Benjamin Marks
Mentor
The key thing about the m-4/3 camera is that you are focusing through the lens like an SLR, rather than having to machine and maintain a mechanical linkage with the lens. No more "back-focus" issues, no more micro-calibration of near-focus. Just stop down, focus and shoot.
I think where Leica has been brilliant is in understanding that for their market segment that making the machine of choice less available has actually increased its desirability. I think the big barrier economically to the FF version of the m-4/3 cameras is the price of the sensor. It seems intuitive to me that with consumer electronics, as you move up in price, your potential market shrinks. But Leica has found a sweet spot where they can charge an outrageous price for their flagship product AND maintain a backlog of orders. Well done Leica. Not so good for me though, as their product is about 1.5-2x the price that I am willing to pay for any camera body. Just to be clear, this is my problem, not theirs . . . but Zeiss, Cosina and others must be looking at those numbers and thinking, "So if we produce a FF successor to m-4/3 that costs $3.5K, who is our target market? Well, it is all the folks who are buying Canon1Ds, 5Ds, Nikon D3x's, Sony whatevers . . ." The m-4/3 experiment has proven to me that there is great value in a cross-platform body. I haven't even really used the 17/2.8 lens that came with the durn thing. My one frustration is the sensor size.
Ruby monkey: to me the sensor size question is just an issue of lens-selection. I really like 50's and 35's in 35mm terms. A 24mm lens on a smaller sensor preserves the field of view only; near-far relationships, depth of focus . . these are all optical properties that don't scale. Despite the comically huge selection of lenses that I can put on the E-P2, in practical terms I find that I am choosing 40mm and wider for most grab shots, with a majority at 28mm and wider. I just don't own as many of those lenses.
I think where Leica has been brilliant is in understanding that for their market segment that making the machine of choice less available has actually increased its desirability. I think the big barrier economically to the FF version of the m-4/3 cameras is the price of the sensor. It seems intuitive to me that with consumer electronics, as you move up in price, your potential market shrinks. But Leica has found a sweet spot where they can charge an outrageous price for their flagship product AND maintain a backlog of orders. Well done Leica. Not so good for me though, as their product is about 1.5-2x the price that I am willing to pay for any camera body. Just to be clear, this is my problem, not theirs . . . but Zeiss, Cosina and others must be looking at those numbers and thinking, "So if we produce a FF successor to m-4/3 that costs $3.5K, who is our target market? Well, it is all the folks who are buying Canon1Ds, 5Ds, Nikon D3x's, Sony whatevers . . ." The m-4/3 experiment has proven to me that there is great value in a cross-platform body. I haven't even really used the 17/2.8 lens that came with the durn thing. My one frustration is the sensor size.
Ruby monkey: to me the sensor size question is just an issue of lens-selection. I really like 50's and 35's in 35mm terms. A 24mm lens on a smaller sensor preserves the field of view only; near-far relationships, depth of focus . . these are all optical properties that don't scale. Despite the comically huge selection of lenses that I can put on the E-P2, in practical terms I find that I am choosing 40mm and wider for most grab shots, with a majority at 28mm and wider. I just don't own as many of those lenses.
Last edited:
je2a3
je
For another point of view, I'd like these manufacturers to realize a niche market unfolding to ensure that film (at least B&W) will be available to buyers of their lenses and film camera bodies...but maybe it's a wild dream?
Mackinaw
Think Different
Let's not forget that Leica is only going to sell a whopping 12,000 M9s' this year (from Leica's Stefan Daniel).
Jim B.
Jim B.
user237428934
User deletion pending
.
Offer them a FF RF for roughly the same cost... Sounds like a win-win to me*.
* People requiring macro/tele, adv. flash, AF and all the other sissy-boy features notwithstanding.
That would be 1800-2000 EUR when I take the 5D price as comparison. Even the Epson with it's huge crop factor was more expensive when it came out. I don't think it's possible for a reasonable price.
dfoo
Well-known
8.4mio in revenue minus the retailers profit. Hardly a surprising number if the daily production is only 35 a day!
jarski
Mentor
luckily camera makers dont need our lecturing of whats niche market for them and what not. if market hadn't been there, M9 would have flopped. Leica brand alone cannot keep sales going, otherwise M5 would have been huge success in -70's.
Last edited:
Symeon
Established
A century old, very soon
A century old, very soon
Contax and Cosina, and for that matter many other Japanese companies, have never produced "fetish" 35mm cameras, Leica has. One shouldn't overlook this fact, as for fitting "third party" optics to Leica M we all know it's a compromise, and definitely not a long term investment. Photographers think one way, collectors another and lovers of pretty things still another way, and Leica knows this.
regards.
A century old, very soon
Contax and Cosina, and for that matter many other Japanese companies, have never produced "fetish" 35mm cameras, Leica has. One shouldn't overlook this fact, as for fitting "third party" optics to Leica M we all know it's a compromise, and definitely not a long term investment. Photographers think one way, collectors another and lovers of pretty things still another way, and Leica knows this.
regards.
NickTrop
Mentor
Surely you're familiar with the '08 Pop Photo interview with CEO/founder of Cosina, Hirofumi Kobayashi. He addressed a lot of this...
Speaking Frankly: The Contrary Mind of Hirofumi Kobayashi
I had what I thought was a brilliant idea for Kobayashi. Just as he had made basic, inexpensive 35mm SLR camera bodies with various lensmounts, why not do the same for digital cameras?
"Look at the short life of digital SLRs and their continuously falling prices," rejoined Kobayashi. "Why should I get into that mess?"
http://www.popphoto.com/Blogs/Speaking-Frankly-The-Contrary-Mind-of-Hirofumi-Kobayashi?page=0,1
Interesting article of a smart business guy, obvs... I would encourage anyone to read it if you're unfamiliar with it. I also think that Cosina makes the lion share of its revenue making lenses for other companies... Cameras are a side buisness/labor of love for Cosina... Cameras are electronic gadgets now, primarily... Though they essentially look the same as they used to (for the most part...) These are not electronics companies. If these companies wanted to get into the digital game in a capacity such as this they would design a camera - or perhaps not even get that much involved, and lease their name out to the supplier at this point.
Speaking Frankly: The Contrary Mind of Hirofumi Kobayashi
I had what I thought was a brilliant idea for Kobayashi. Just as he had made basic, inexpensive 35mm SLR camera bodies with various lensmounts, why not do the same for digital cameras?
"Look at the short life of digital SLRs and their continuously falling prices," rejoined Kobayashi. "Why should I get into that mess?"
http://www.popphoto.com/Blogs/Speaking-Frankly-The-Contrary-Mind-of-Hirofumi-Kobayashi?page=0,1
Interesting article of a smart business guy, obvs... I would encourage anyone to read it if you're unfamiliar with it. I also think that Cosina makes the lion share of its revenue making lenses for other companies... Cameras are a side buisness/labor of love for Cosina... Cameras are electronic gadgets now, primarily... Though they essentially look the same as they used to (for the most part...) These are not electronics companies. If these companies wanted to get into the digital game in a capacity such as this they would design a camera - or perhaps not even get that much involved, and lease their name out to the supplier at this point.
Last edited:
thrice
Established
12000 * 6995 = 83.94 million
jarski
Mentor
M9 prod.manager Stephan Daniel characterized dSLR's as shark pool in an interview (69 min clip) before launch.
Last edited:
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
It might not now but it soon will be.
I think Cosina and Zeiss are simply waiting for 'full frame' sensor prices drop to where they can build digital Bessas and Ikons not more expensive than their analog versions today. I even bet the blueprints are more or less ready today.
Might take another 2 or 3 years but not very much longer. We are not talking rocket science here -- it's simply a matter of economics of scale (of FF sensors).
Thardy
Mentor
Nobody really cares what CV does anyway, and once film is gone, so are those cheap cameras.
Last edited:
ampguy
Mentor
it's just for marketing
it's just for marketing
Once they solve the edge and corner issues, FF is the new "super high megapixel" fad.
But this is good for the M8, it will be a long time before the thin aa and ir filter model will come back as a vintage reissue.
it's just for marketing
Once they solve the edge and corner issues, FF is the new "super high megapixel" fad.
But this is good for the M8, it will be a long time before the thin aa and ir filter model will come back as a vintage reissue.
Thardy
Mentor
It only looks like many people are returning to film. The few still using it just congregate in fewer places making the numbers look large or growing. As Wilson Pickett keeps pointing out, film sales continue to decline. These statements are not just coming out of his head, they come from figures actually released by companies that produce film.
So if these numbers are true, you can induce that the people who even CLAIM to be using film are using less of it. Just because we on RFF, APUG, and some hipsters using LOMO cameras make a lot of noise about film doesn't mean huge numbers are jumping into the film pool.
My daughter took a film based photography class a couple of years ago when she was 16. After she kicked a$$ in that class and won the academic award, she promptly returned to her digital and became the sports editor on her school's yearbook. She said "I can't be bothered with shooting only 36 exp. rolls, running to the darkroom, making contact sheets, etc.. I have a lot of work to do!"
I had figured that at least she would be in film lover's camp.
To back track a little, I have heard that people are really going for film in Japan. Maybe they can use enough film to induce manufacturers to keep producing film cameras.
Last edited:
Mablo
Well-known
If I could buy a FF digital rangefinder which would be M/M39 compatible for $500 I might be tempted. But this option remains in the parallel universe for the time being so I'm not interested really. The less people use film gear the better for me.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It's hard to evaluate what Cosina may do just because Kobyashi has made a statement that he sees the digital market as poison based on his perception of the DSLR. Sure some DSLR's are crappy throw away items that become landfill very early in the piece due to their technollogy becoming over run quickly by competing cameras from a multitude of companies.
There are DSLR's out there though that do hang around for years because they still do their job adequately ... the 5D Canon (original) is still owned and revered by a lot of people as is the D200, D70 and so on ... the lower end of the prosumer market is where all the throw aways live!
Cosina are in the business of manufacturing cameras and lenses for profit not fun so for their CEO and founder to state that he sees no future in the company involving itself in digital is so short sighted that he's obviously talking out of his hat!
I personally thought (swore) I'd never own a full frame digital camera but when the price eventually came within my reach I jumped on one and although it's a lump of a thing it cost a quarter of what they're asking for an M9 in this country and it's output is indistinguishable from it's rich cousin to my eyes! I would have happily paid twice the price for the benefits and advantages of a full frame digital rangefinder but not four times the price.
There are DSLR's out there though that do hang around for years because they still do their job adequately ... the 5D Canon (original) is still owned and revered by a lot of people as is the D200, D70 and so on ... the lower end of the prosumer market is where all the throw aways live!
Cosina are in the business of manufacturing cameras and lenses for profit not fun so for their CEO and founder to state that he sees no future in the company involving itself in digital is so short sighted that he's obviously talking out of his hat!
I personally thought (swore) I'd never own a full frame digital camera but when the price eventually came within my reach I jumped on one and although it's a lump of a thing it cost a quarter of what they're asking for an M9 in this country and it's output is indistinguishable from it's rich cousin to my eyes! I would have happily paid twice the price for the benefits and advantages of a full frame digital rangefinder but not four times the price.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
You think?
Maybe in the very short term it may benefit you but ten years from now when the only place you can get 35mm black and white film from is those tossers at Lomo for twenty dollars a roll you may not be so smug!
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
A frontal perspective can never see what’s behind [the subject].
A frontal perspective can never see what’s behind [the subject].
CV earned a place in these forums starting with LTM lenses. Screw threads are not patent’ able…even 39mm/26tpi odd balls.
Then the M-mount patent expired…50 years after birth, so VM mounted lenses soon emerged…and cameras to boot.
Then CV sub-contracted the building of the Epson R-D1 in 2003/4…essentially an adaptation of a recently discontinued Bessa-R body with a Nikon D-100 APS-C sensor. [Those who argued that a Leica or Zeiss or a Bessa could not be adapted take note.]
No doubt Epson would have imposed standard trade restriction clauses in the contract…to prevent CV from making a convenient knock-off soon after the small [10~12,000 unit] production run. Unfortunately, it took 3 iterations to complete [in 2009]. Perhaps we will hear noises by 2012…some 3 years after the last R-D1x.
[Elsewhere in these forums, an R-D1 serial number survey was conducted. It seems the R-D1 run was ~3500, the R-D1s another 3500, and perhaps the R-D1x run had now made up the contract balance.]
While CV was handcuffed in digital RF, it subcontracted the building of the Zeiss Ikon…and lenses, bidding for its time.
Funny thing, in a short decade, CV has accrued more experience than Leica for the RF and shutter iterations…not to mentions its original RF experience when Kobayashi-San [Senior] sub-contracted the built of the Konica S3, Minolta 7S.
I know, I know, Kobayashi-San is said to dislike digital…upgrading cycle too short etc. etc. Perhaps it was merely the Japanese face-saving way of saying we are restricted [by Epson] to even try; and/or we don’t have [our own] capital [yet] to play…
I am sure the CV R-D1 engineer team knows that grafting the newer 12Mp Nikon APS sensor is not much different from using the 6Mp D-100 unit.
As to development cost: consider Sony did the NEX, APS-C sensor and all for a MSRP of ~$600. AND, Sony did supply the FF 24Mp sensor to Nikon’s D3X…now reaching ISO 12,800.
Leica is hardware and glass. The much self-celebrated micro-lens solution to vignette’ ting is just that…hardware and glass, via Kodak.
With a usable ISO 12,800, loosing a stop accommodating an anti-vignette’ ting filter is doable…digitally. An AV factor ~1.4 is enough to deal with lenses with FoV as wide as 90-degrees.
Before anyone argues that Zeiss couldn’t, be aware its recently introduced RMK-DX aerial camera now reaches 130Mp using a 7.2u monolithic Dalsa CCD. The Zeiss engineer I had spoken to openly says the next step is using the newer 6u Dalsa CCD, interchangeable lenses and all. Dalsa also has a FF CCD in its product offering.
Zeiss might yet surprise us all…playing the trump card close to the chest, as might Kobayashi-San.
A frontal perspective can never see what’s behind [the subject].
CV earned a place in these forums starting with LTM lenses. Screw threads are not patent’ able…even 39mm/26tpi odd balls.
Then the M-mount patent expired…50 years after birth, so VM mounted lenses soon emerged…and cameras to boot.
Then CV sub-contracted the building of the Epson R-D1 in 2003/4…essentially an adaptation of a recently discontinued Bessa-R body with a Nikon D-100 APS-C sensor. [Those who argued that a Leica or Zeiss or a Bessa could not be adapted take note.]
No doubt Epson would have imposed standard trade restriction clauses in the contract…to prevent CV from making a convenient knock-off soon after the small [10~12,000 unit] production run. Unfortunately, it took 3 iterations to complete [in 2009]. Perhaps we will hear noises by 2012…some 3 years after the last R-D1x.
[Elsewhere in these forums, an R-D1 serial number survey was conducted. It seems the R-D1 run was ~3500, the R-D1s another 3500, and perhaps the R-D1x run had now made up the contract balance.]
While CV was handcuffed in digital RF, it subcontracted the building of the Zeiss Ikon…and lenses, bidding for its time.
Funny thing, in a short decade, CV has accrued more experience than Leica for the RF and shutter iterations…not to mentions its original RF experience when Kobayashi-San [Senior] sub-contracted the built of the Konica S3, Minolta 7S.
I know, I know, Kobayashi-San is said to dislike digital…upgrading cycle too short etc. etc. Perhaps it was merely the Japanese face-saving way of saying we are restricted [by Epson] to even try; and/or we don’t have [our own] capital [yet] to play…
I am sure the CV R-D1 engineer team knows that grafting the newer 12Mp Nikon APS sensor is not much different from using the 6Mp D-100 unit.
As to development cost: consider Sony did the NEX, APS-C sensor and all for a MSRP of ~$600. AND, Sony did supply the FF 24Mp sensor to Nikon’s D3X…now reaching ISO 12,800.
Leica is hardware and glass. The much self-celebrated micro-lens solution to vignette’ ting is just that…hardware and glass, via Kodak.
With a usable ISO 12,800, loosing a stop accommodating an anti-vignette’ ting filter is doable…digitally. An AV factor ~1.4 is enough to deal with lenses with FoV as wide as 90-degrees.
Before anyone argues that Zeiss couldn’t, be aware its recently introduced RMK-DX aerial camera now reaches 130Mp using a 7.2u monolithic Dalsa CCD. The Zeiss engineer I had spoken to openly says the next step is using the newer 6u Dalsa CCD, interchangeable lenses and all. Dalsa also has a FF CCD in its product offering.
Zeiss might yet surprise us all…playing the trump card close to the chest, as might Kobayashi-San.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Nobody?
Lots of people here and out of here care about what CV did and will do, especially people who know about photography. Both in film and digital worlds.
Cheap?
Leicas are cheap too, at least 95% available and in use around the world... If you think Leicas make better photographs, shame on you, but I respect your opinion even if it's as wrong as public.
Cheers,
Juan