Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think Cosina has the ability to manufacture a camera of very high quality. I also think that Cosina chose to make a RFDR camera line of modest cost because they determined that is where they could get sales, as Leica has the high-end market pretty much cornered. Although that market is almost vanished. It seems Zeiss has chosen to come to market with a camera at a price about 1/2 way in-between the Voigtlander "M" mount cameras and Leica's "M" mount camera at tomorrows prices. It has a resemblence to the style of the old "CL" although wider. I think this is a good strategy IF the camera has the "feel" of a better camera than the Voigtlander "M" cameras. It certainly has good looks going for it. Although I have to admit the R2a and R3a feel pretty darned good (I have an R2a). I don't see the new Zeiss camera as taking sales away from Voigtlander, rather I see it taking sales away from Leica M7, as that is the feature set it most closely imitates. I have 9 CV LTM lenses, and they are very good. I am very pleased with them for use on my Leica "M" and LTM mount cameras. The CV "Ultron" and "Nokton" series lenses are excellent. It may be that Leica will get out of series production of "M" film cameras entirely and just have the "ala carte" system, as they have stated that a digital "M" will not be built on the traditional cloth focal plane shutter of the current "M" cameras, rather it will have a vertical travel metal focal plane shutter like the R9 has. If so, then the Zeiss will be the only "high end" film "M" mount RFDR camera left in series production. Gene McCluney >Gene, >My point about the dressed up Bessa took into account buying habits of >rangefinder users going back more than thirty years. There have been >a lot of challengers to Leica in the RF arena going back to the >thirties. Zeiss Ikon left the market in 1961, Nikon effectively quit >the market at about the same time, Canon left the market in the late >sixties, Konica left the market what two years ago? The Bessa's are >selling pretty well on price but are viewed as a semi-disposable by >the users: if I don't like it I only spent $X and that isn't much to >lose. > >Another consideration would be that Leica users, who constitute the >bulk of RF users have been spoiled by a very good design that has been >mostly extremely well built. Anything new to the market is compared >to an M and that is a very high standard. > >You mention the Kyocera offerings. It was the Zeiss lenses that >appealed to the purchasers. I have been ghosting the Contax Users >group for years and not very many people were pumped by the bodies. >We should all admit that the initial offerings were not that durable. >Finding a good example of an RTS or a 137 that has been used hard is >almost impossible. Compare that to an SL, an Nikon F or a Canon F1 >that seem to thrive on hard use. I have a 167 which while it has some >clever engineering ideas that make using the camera a pleasure I would >never say the build quality made me happy. (I bought the camera as a >platform for the 50 1.4 and the 85 F2.8 which while superb in imaging >are a little lacking in build quality compared to a Leica lens or a >Canon FD or a mid production Nikon AIS lens or a Pentax 42mm lens.) > >I will also go back to the Konica RF. This was a well engineered >camera with a very useful AE function, a thoughtful built in motor >drive, a good low magnification viewfinder, and some very competant >lenses. Yet it failed in the market place even though it was >significantly less than an M. > >So, while I hope that the new ZI is a rampaging success, I will not >hold my breath. If the camera has the build quality of the original >Contax II and a viewfinder as bright or brighter than a new MP then it >might sell significant units. However, if the build quality is only >as good as the 45mm pancake lens that Cosina makes for Nikon then I do >not think it will fly. For what it will sell for you can purchase a >M6 of most flavors and pay DAG or Sherri to do a complete CLA. This >is the same reason that Leica is having a difficult time of it, much >lower numbers of film pushers and a whole lot of very fine used >cameras out there. > >Also bear in mind that we have only seen prototypes. The camera >introduction has been moved back a substantial amount of time. The >Zeiss folks may be rethinking the film business. I hope it is to drop >a 8MP sensor in. > >Please don't get me wrong, I really hope that this camera makes it. >Not only will it offer choice for a film dinosaur like myself, but it >will likely lead to a good quality digital RF which would make me very >happy. > >Don >don.dory@gmail.com > >On 6/28/05, Gene E. McCluney <mccluney@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >I am not so sure that the Zeiss offering will do all that well. The >> >Konica RF was and is a pretty good rangefinder with a much better than >> >average rangefinder and good ergonomics. Build quality was also >> >nothing to complain about. Yet this camera did not succeed in the >> >marketplace. >> > >> >The Zeiss offering is going to be a dressed up Bessa, I am not sure >> >you can dress up a Bessa enough to get 2.5 to 3 times the price. If >> >the rangefinder works well with parallax correction in the close range >> >that the lenses allow for then that might compensate for a percieved >> >lack of build quality. >> > >> >Snip >> >> >> >> >0.02 >> > >> >Don >> >don.dory@gmail.com >> > >> >> I honestly don't know how to get across to people that the Zeiss is >> definately NOT a >> "dressed up" Bessa. The ONLY things it has in common with the Bessa >> cameras are >> the Copal shutter, which is used in a zillion other cameras including >> most of the >> popular digital DSLR's, and the "M" lens mount. >> >> There is no single common body casting between the Zeiss Ikon and any >> Bessa, >> the RFDR is different, the viewfinder is different, the advance lever >> is different, >> the rewind lever is different (and on the bottom) >> >> The Zeiss Ikon has final quality control by Zeiss. It is Zeiss >> reputation that is >> at stake here, not Cosina. >> >> The only way it could be MORE different from the Bessa is if it were >> made by >> some other manufacturer. The only common denominator is the >> manufacturer. >> >> Are we going to belittle ANY camera body from Cosina? Just wait and >> try out the Zeiss Ikon before making such statements. >> >> Are all the recently discontinued Contax SLR's and AF cameras just >> "dressed >> up Kyocera's?" If that were the case, then wouldn't one be >>better off getting >> the "Yashica" SLR equivalent of the Contax SLR? They did make a Yashica >> slr with the Contax lens mount. >> >> Is a Leica CL, just a "dressed up" Minolta because that is who made it, >> or >> rather is it a unique camera that has its own merits which happened to be >> made for Leitz under contract by Minolta. Just like the Zeiss Ikon is a >> unique camera with unique features made for Zeiss by Cosina. >> >> I will grant you that the Zeiss Ikon is not going to be a runaway >>best seller, >> but that is because of the nature of the photo market, not the quality of >> the camera. RFDR cameras are a "niche" market, which happens to >> be going through a "boomlet" at the moment. I'll bet it will sell better >> than the Konica RF because of the Zeiss Ikon brand recognition in >>association >> with pro quality cameras and pro quality optics. >> >> >> Gene McCluney >> who owns Bessa and Leica and Zeiss Contax cameras and likes them all. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information