Surely the current sales success of the M9 must have Zeiss and Cosina's attention?

Frankie said:
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.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope so, I've got all those RF lenses needing to be used when film finally disappears.
 
There is such a limited market for a FF digital RF that anyone else entering the market would split it so badly that nobody, not even Leica, could make a go of it. It would be an extremely risky move for Zeiss or Cosina to go the digital RF route.
 
I think we all care what Cosina does because without them we're left to the mercy of the piranhas at Solms! :p
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
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
Click to expand...

LOL sorry, I type this stuff as if I'm talking to a buddy at work (where a wink, nod and maybe a cough has meaning) What I'm really saying is sometimes lost on an international audience.

My apologies. ;)
 
Pickett Wilson said:
There is such a limited market for a FF digital RF that anyone else entering the market would split it so badly that nobody, not even Leica, could make a go of it. It would be an extremely risky move for Zeiss or Cosina to go the digital RF route.
Click to expand...



So Pickett ... we know you don't see much future for film and supposing you're right where will this leave Cosina?

As a lens manufacturer and nothing else?
 
Thardy said:
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.
Click to expand...

All of us film shooters know film sales go down slowly. And it's also true that some digital shooters jump back to film day after day... Digital became the product for the masses nearly a decade ago... I can buy as much film -and better ones- as 5 years ago, 10 years ago or 25 years ago. I know it because I've done it for 25 years. Film shooters don't care if other people buy digital bodies: we care for tonal quality, and we don't care if it takes more time. And as your daughter, we use digital when we want, but some of us prefer film, can use it very well (takes time learning...) and have the time or money to stick to it. Any good photographer can have great results from both worlds. In my opinion, a very good photographer can get the best possible results from film. Digital is getting better little by little. I doubt film will disappear while all of use are alive.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Keith, I think probably as a lens maker. I think Cosina has done about all it can do with moving the film RF forward. I can't imagine what they could do with a new model that isn't already WELL covered in their line.
 
Juan, it's hard to argue that with film sales declining quarter after quarter that there is an increased interest in shooting film. Folks are obviously shooting less and less film if sales are decreasing. The only hope is that the decline stops before it is no longer profitable enough for film makers to keep producing it. Only the film makers know where that precipice is.
 
Cosina are an amazing company ... if you own a Bessa and an Ikon you quickly realise the two cameras are worlds apart in spite of coming from the same manufacturer effectively!

The Ikon is a class act and the Bessa is just a budget camera by comparison IMO!

Cosina may just surprise us! (hoping) :D
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Juan, it's hard to argue that with film sales declining quarter after quarter that there is an increased interest in shooting film. Folks are obviously shooting less and less film if sales are decreasing. The only hope is that the decline stops before it is no longer profitable enough for film makers to keep producing it. Only the film makers know where that precipice is.
Click to expand...

In a different thread I just saw you encouraging a guy to buy a film camera (Leica M6).

Is that really good advice, what with film being dead and all?
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
All of us film shooters know film sales go down slowly. And it's also true that some digital shooters jump back to film day after day... Digital became the product for the masses nearly a decade ago... I can buy as much film -and better ones- as 5 years ago, 10 years ago or 25 years ago. I know it because I've done it for 25 years. Film shooters don't care if other people buy digital bodies: we care for tonal quality, and we don't care if it takes more time. And as your daughter, we use digital when we want, but some of us prefer film, can use it very well (takes time learning...) and have the time or money to stick to it. Any good photographer can have great results from both worlds. In my opinion, a very good photographer can get the best possible results from film. Digital is getting better little by little. I doubt film will disappear while all of use are alive.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

I certainly hope not, but then, I used that whole "in our lifetime" line about socialized medicine in the USA to a young physician a few years ago.


"Keep hope alive" ;)
 
Jaques H said:
In a different thread I just saw you encouraging a guy to buy a film camera (Leica M6).

Is that really good advice, what with film being dead and all?
Click to expand...



Pickett doesn't claim that film is dead and never has from what I can remember ... he does however relentlessly (for our own good) point out reported declining sales which can't be denied!

We have to ask ourselves what we'll do if/when it declines to the point where no one wants to make it ... we'll shoot digitally of course, or we weren't really photographers in the first place!

The big question is ... what would Cosina do?
 
Last edited:
Many posting in these forums are perhaps secretly hoping no one will enter the RF field, so as not to upstaging the M9...arguring the field is too small, bad if split further [and might hurt Leica...].

Some also argued that film is forever superior...so the M2/3/4/5/6/7/MP barely affordable but long owned is justified...until the Second Coming in the form of the M8/9; forgetting CV did a digital RF first in 2004.

Many wishfully think that Kobayashi-San really didn't like digital, forgetting that CV is a business, not a cult. The employees got to eat even if the boss only drank Kool-Aid; likewise for arguments against the likelihood that Zeiss might enter the field, already with an arsenal of lenses.

I personally believe the next focusing device might well not be an SLR or an RF system...but EVF...EVIL if you must.

Today, a 800 x 600 x RGB has been achieved via Pany G1/2, so is the Epson chip first used in the Oly EVF. Many who had compared them against conventional VF say they are superb...and I agreed, especially after playing with all available iteration side-by-side in a Tokyo camera super-mart; the Panasonic GF-1 unit is the only poor exception.

Imagine the next evolution is an EVF at 1600 x 1200 x RGB.
 
Jaques, if you want to shoot film, an M6 is a great way to do it. I own now, or have owned, one (or more) of just about every film RF Leica has made. I think the M6 is as good a Leica RF as you could want and are available at (in the world of Leica) a great price point for nice cameras right now.

Sure, at some point they are going to become pretty nicknacks on a shelf when it becomes impractical to shoot film, but right now, they are fine cameras.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Sure, at some point they are going to become pretty nicknacks on a shelf when it becomes impractical to shoot film, but right now, they are fine cameras.
Click to expand...

Well this is the vital point of the question: How long do we have left?

Is it worth preaching doom and gloom if the end of the world is not for another hundred years?

We can all imagine that film will become non-viable sooner or later, but you seem to achieve great pleasure from reminding us all and keeping score on diminishing film sales.
Do you keep a record of this like a second hobby, the way some folks collect newspaper cuttings of house fires or brutal murders?
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Juan, it's hard to argue that with film sales declining quarter after quarter that there is an increased interest in shooting film. Folks are obviously shooting less and less film if sales are decreasing. The only hope is that the decline stops before it is no longer profitable enough for film makers to keep producing it. Only the film makers know where that precipice is.
Click to expand...

I agree totally. Of course the total number of shooters isn't growing, but as some leave it, some (less) return to it, and a few others discover it...

I also think that the worst part of sales declining happened already with the pros going digital after the masses went digital, and I guess some thousands of stable film users can keep film alive, even if a bit more expensive... Japan alone can keep film alive... Film was going to die ten years ago when I went digital. There's plenty of film today... From lots of brands, and lots of kinds from each brand... The big stores here sell a lot of film.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Well, Jaques, if you have been following this forum very long, you know I think it will be in the next few years. For a lot of reasons. But this topic strays far from the intent of this thread.
 
Juan, my most recent experience with the reality of this is when process film that we used in printing newspapers went away a few years ago. There was still a substantial demand for it by small newspapers with small presses. But Fuji, who was the last company making the stuff, suddenly announced it had stopped production, forcing many newspapers to spend substantial money converting to digital Computer to Plate systems. Many could not afford it, and simply stopped printing.

There was a viable market - Fuji was obviously still selling a lot of it - but it just wasn't worth it to them to keep the lines going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top