BestMirrorlessCameraReviews posted a Zeiss interview. Here are some key info:
1) Asked about the risk of redundancy with the already existent FE 55mm and FE 35mm lenses Zeiss answered that the two new Loxia “simply target completely different customers, and it’s good to start with the core of the portfolio. It’s a new family, completely different not only due to the fact they are manual but also because the typical manual lens Zeiss look is different from anything else.”
2) The best-selling Touit lens is the 12mm lens.
3) Zeiss believes E-mount has a bright future
4) About DSLR future: “It’s not only about the megapixels, but it’s also a tool. They like feeling they have a tool in their hands, and they like it bigger. That’s why this kind of camera will still live for a long time. When it comes to mirrorless, it’s probably a very future-oriented system.”
5) About a possible digital Zeiss Ikon: “I’m not sure if a digital rangefinder camera would have a big enough market.”
Zeiss also made clear the de-clicking key comes for free with any Loxia lenses (it’s only the extra set that costs $28). BestMirrorlessCameraReviews also posted a set of image samples taken with the new Loxia.
Zeiss Loxia preorders:
Zeiss Loxia 50mm f/2 Planar T* Lens for Sony E Mount at BHphoto, Adorama, WexUK, CameraPro.
Zeiss Loxia 35mm f/2 Biogon T* Lens for Sony E Mount at BHphoto, Adorama, WexUK, CameraPro.
Zeiss Lens Hood for Loxia 50mm f/2 Planar T* Lens at BHphoto and Adorama.
Zeiss Lens Hood for Loxia 35mm f/2 Biogon T* Lens at BHphoto and Adorama.
Zeiss 52mm Front Lens Cap for Touit and Loxia Lenses at BHphoto and Adorama.
Zeiss De-Click Key for Loxia Lenses (5-Piece Set) at BHphoto and Adorama.
Zeiss Rear Lens Cap for Loxia E-Mount Lenses at BHphoto and Adorama
0 Responses
About a possible digital Zeiss Ikon: “I’m not sure if a digital rangefinder camera would have a big enough market.”
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
At the right price It will sell like crazy!
Give us a Sony A8 in rangefinder design (but with integrated EVF) – THAT will sell like crazy.
I don’t think integrating an EVF as a separate entity does any good, it just complicates the process. It needs an OVF with an electronic overlay. If they want they could overlay the focus-peaking edges as well, but the patch remains the best principal method, whether digital or analog.
if they know the distance the lens is focusing, you could indeed have a little servo motor move the rangefinder patch, probably wont be quite as good as a mechinical one though.
nothing to stop you having evf and rangefinder viewpiece either
There is so much room for innovation in rf technology (eg. an electronically controlled focus patch). Just because Leica never did it, doesn’t mean there isn’t potential for a really modern rangefinder camera.
I’ve come to realize that the SLR style is useful because of the vertical grip and portrait shooting. I’d prefer a rangefinder body-style, though.
Whats the point of a rangefinder design if it has an EVF?
What’s the point of a DSLR style body design if it’s digital and not film?
What does that have to do with anything? This is about seeing and composing. Why make a rangefinder style body if you are going to be looking through the lens anyway? The great thing about a rangefinder is seeing beyond what your lens is constrained to.
It has everything to do with it. If a camera has an EVF, it doesn’t matter what the shape of the body is. The viewfinder can be placed in the center like an SLR, or off to the side like a rangefinder. Viewfinder placement has nothing to do with the optical properties of the lens because it is being electronically communicated, so what difference does it make what style it is?
Whether it is digital or film has nothing to do with viewfinder placement. Also, that is my point. Just because it’s in the upper left hand corner doesn’t make it a RF design, in my opinion. The decoupling of the lens and viewfinder do that.
You can get your nose beside the camera and have the other eye free (if you want). Although RF technology is antiquated, the design of these cameras still makes sense.
Just because it’s in the upper left hand corner doesn’t make it a RF design, in my opinion. The decoupling of the lens and viewfinder do that.
It doesn’t make more sense if you’re a left eye. They also have that design for the APS-C line. And why is in antiquated? Because it’s manual focus?
OK, replace “design” by “style”.
RF technology is antiquated because it requires additional finders for ultra wide angles and that method of focusing can not keep up with resolutions of current sensors any more when you shoot wide open lenses, long focal lengths etc. As you can focus only in the image center, you have to recompose after focusing which shifts focus as well. Not to speak about the calibration nightmares.
Exactly!
These manager types are so way off.
The “pragmatic rangefinder users” (quoting the interview) are out there.
Leica destroyed the reputation of the technology with their excessive designs and prices, but the rangefinder concept alone is great.
It’s basically Live-View with a HUD, but without the significant drawbacks of electronic displays.
Fujifilm isn’t getting this, desperately playing out LCDs against Optical Viewfinders, but not integrating them.
The first real, pragmatic rangefinder will define a new market and sell like hotcakes, you couldn’t convince me of anything else.
“like hotcakes” About three people world wide.
Good argument.
In your opinion. smh
Why the fascination with rangefinder cameras, they were OK in their heyday but not something worth revisiting in this age of electronic viewfinders with focus magnification and peaking. It’s a technology of the past and it should stay in the past, good riddance.
Best street photography camera-style.
And yes, that’s a niche. So again, that’s why they don’t release such camera.
I suppose, but we’ll never really know until we see an affordable digital rangefinder camera. Look at ho well the X100 did with its faux-rangefinder! There is a market for a simplified camera experience.
A market for an antiquated camera experience.
x100 isn’t a simplified camera. It has all the same bells and whistles as everything else except it sucks at manual focus. Some people prefer the rangefinder experience. I know I shoot better with my M and a7r than I did with my D800.
I didnt mean that theX100 was simplified. I just meant that consumers are open to the idea of it, and especially the form-factor.
Yes it was; forty years ago.
Longer than that, 50-60 years ago.
It is still the best platform for street photography. Pre-focus, and wait for your frame. Open both eyes. Oftentimes, manual focus is quicker than autofocus. And it’s quiet and small.
you can do this with any slr too, you don’t need a rangefinder to prefocus, in fact that’s possibly the worst reason for liking rangefinder cameras. Manual focus is never quicker than autofocus, I think what you mean is prefocused wide angle lenses with large DOF is faster than bothering with AF. Again, nothing you can’t do with a DSLR. The advantages of a rangefinder have nothing to do with prefocus
I was merely describing how I shoot street sometimes. And a 1.00x or a .91x viewfinder will best a DSLR any day if you’re shooting with both eyes open. Handling a rangefinder is easier and simpler. And a lot of rangefinder glass has lovely witness marks, unlike modern AF lenses. Further, I can often focus by feel and estimated distance because RF lenses have hard stops. The whole process is cleaner and better with a rangefinder, though it can obviously be accomplished with an SLR as well.
I own four Leica! two Zeiss, one Bronica and two Mamiya rangefinder cameras. Zeiss has repeatedly said never… I believe them and I love to use rangefinder cameras! but the market is very small within a shrinking market for non-cellphone cameras… Never..
The answer to Q4 begs the question – Why, I would like to know, does everybody relate mirrorless to small bodied cameras (apart from the fact that manufacturers have not had the foresight to provide us with any other option).
Once they get autofocus up to speed – and that is a must – , there is no reason why mirrorless technology can’t be put into an ‘A’ mount DSLR sized body (in both C and full frame sensors), along with IBS and all the other specs a DSLR camera user requires, for those who need a large comfortable unit to hold their big lenses. I would also add a tilt/swivel screen for those who need to get the camera in awkward places when shooting wildlife (and for those who are not physically capable of bending far or lying down on the ground etc).
So many people do not want a small bodied camera for so many reasons and the ‘E’ mount supporters should open their minds to that fact and not deride SLR sized cameras so much.
Samsung put a mirrorless into a bigger “DSLR style” casing. Most people thought that camera will deliver better image quality…
It’s just a matter of bad habits. If you want better handling with large lenses, simply add the vertical battery grip available for A7 series.
“It’s just a matter of bad habits.”
Love it! 🙂
And the perception that mirrorless = mft.
“Zeiss also made clear the de-clicking key comes for free with any Loxia lenses (it’s only the extra set that costs $28).”
Everyone knows this better than the Admin and also know that it is a spare that can be bought additionally.
Seriously, why do I keep seeing SAR Admin comments questioning this? We’ve all known it since Day 1. And it can be done with a flathead, besides.
For people right at the heart of photography Zeiss have some barking made notions!
The size of the market of those who will buy a lens (and necessarily a body to hold it) to get a particular look, as opposed to focal length and other performance, is very small indeed.
Certainly, every photographer would like a fast lens, with dreamy bokeh, and sharpness to cut your fingers on, all in the one package (preferably with superfast focus, built like a tank yet light and compact, and cheap…LOL), but until you have a great specific need then basic angle of view comes first. You then buy the best you can afford with the characteristics you prefer.
People will buy a 70-300 f4.5-5.6 before they would get a 70-200 f2.8 before they would get a 135 f1.8 before they would get a 135mm f2.8 STF. Not that everyone wouldn’t love to get the latter, but the needs for that are the least.
I’d bet my house that the numbers sold of each type exactly reflect my point!
Effectively, here they are saying that they want to cater for this small market before addressing the needs of a much greater audience!
Either Zeiss are barking mad, or it is simply making use of existing items repackaged in another shell to squeeze out every sale they can for the least expenditure.
This is all conjecture, without any facts.
What else is new………
And when you go out amongst people taking photographs, you always see a much greater number of people with top line lenses, as opposed to kit and the more budget priced.
I daresay I could get the precise figures, but unless you’re an idiot you know damn well that the numbers sold will reflect exactly the order they were written.
All of which is entirely beside the point which is that I think Zeiss are wrong in their assessment. Of course, if you would rather have an endless selection of 55mm lenses, rather than any other focal length, feel free to disagree.
Then again, it seems all posters who hide behind anonymous avatars are happy to make quick hollow and snide remarks.
Since when Zeiss caters for the mass? I might not agree with their choice of the initial release, but I understand their reasoning. They somehow think that most people going for this kind of small package would do street and people photography (just like most RF shooters would be). 50 and 35 are the essential focal for such application, and hyperfocal focus (hence the MF lens with distance scale) is highly valuable. Even if they release different focal length, most would switch to an AF lens eventually. So yes, they know what they are doing, and simply focus on that. I think later release would be just modified version of the existing ZM line regardless.
Perhaps not the mass market Sigma might cater to, but I assume that they are still keen to sell as many units as they can feasibly produce.
I suspect that this would be far greater than the numbers of ‘street shooters’. Indeed, I would imagine there are far more well-heeled landscape photographers, but wide angle seems a distant hope for them.
face it Peter, you’re just spouting a load of bollocks and you know it, you’re borderline trolling for attention.
Oh, the wit, the delightful repartee, such sharpness of mind.
Why is it that people hiding behind anonymous identities feel the need to post stupid insults? You clearly have nothing of worth to say, have no valid opinion, and probably less intelligence than a moron.
I daresay you couldn’t.
You’ll have to explain what part of my remark was snide, you seem quite good at it. I thought it was plain English.
It is entirely reasonable that one could, with research, determine the proportions of lenses owned and used, and my comments are based on reason.
Given that it is merely my opinion (why should I not offer it on a stage set for just such a purpose?), when you state it is ‘conjecture without facts’ then such a comment is absolutely snide and plainly so. Otherwise why did you even post?
I, on the other hand, see no reason to be snide. I do not hide, will only post when I have something to say or feel the need to defend my position, and will tell someone they are an idiot when they demonstrate exactly that.
haha… I do love a logical fallacy.
Ah, I see. Anything you deem to be negative is snide. Sorry, I didn’t realise your ego was so fragile.
I see you made the snide remark about being anonymous again. Tut.
What logical fallacy? It seems you like big words but have no idea of the meaning.
And no, you did not offer an opinion. You could have responded by saying, “I disagree because…”, or “I think the opposite for this reason…”, but you didn’t. It is a true irony that you accused me of ‘conjecture with no facts’ when that is the very essence of your snide comment (I suggest you look up the meaning of the word ‘snide’).
It would seem that you have come to a battle of wits unarmed. I suspect you will have to get the last comment, but I’ll have no more of it.
Yeah, it’s probably best you stop digging the hole.
“People will buy a 70-300 f4.5-5.6 before they would get a 70-200 f2.8”
I wouldn’t and no one I know would.
So everyone you know has £1300 to spend on a particualr lens?
If that’s not what you meant then I suggest you read my post again and try to comprehend it a little more accurately.
I have only owned 70-200, not 70-300 and not everyone is forced to buy Sony’s overpriced 70-200 2.8. There are less expensive options (particularly for non Sony shooters, but there are good vintage a-mount lenses such as The minolta 70-210 f4 is a good lens available for under $100.
I never suggested anyone is forced to buy anything, merely pointed out the usual motives for a purchase in the first place and how I think Zeiss are completely wrong in their reasoning for replicating the same focal lengths in another line.
Of course, if you are happy to be able to choose between many 55mm lenses, rather than having a good selection of different focal lengths, by all means applaud Zeiss for their welcome support in that aim.
I think it’s bonkers.
The 135 STF is the best lens among them. Shows what people know.
Or maybe you don’t get it. Works quite well for Apple. Or Leica.
No, I don’t get it, which is my point. Also, I’m not sure how this relates to Apple and Leica. If Apple for instance, having just come out with the iphone6, then produced an iphone6 (little bit different but performed the same) I’d question their sense too!
Question what? The tremendous amounts of money they are making? That is their point.
Questioning that they release a 35mm and a 50mm when they had just released a 35mm and a 55mm, rather than a wide angle, or a short telephoto.
If you think I am wrong for wondering, why do you think SAR felt the need to ask Zeiss and post the questions and answers here? Clearly, they were scratching their heads too, but if you think it makes perfect sense then perhaps you might criticise SAR for the article in the first place.
You say “they” like it is Zeiss who released the first two primes. They just carry the name, nothing more. And I find the exlanation from Zeiss to be rather logical.
I think it is a little more than ‘just carrying the name’. They would certainly be party to the manufacturing and be well aware of the numbers involved.
As to the logic, it is an explanation, but I think it flawed. Given the clamour for a larger range of FF e-mount lenses I would have thought it made more sense to begin by matching the best-selling Touit, at 12mm, which would also generate a demand for the ‘Loxia look’, if indeed it is so special. That would transfer over to the other focal lengths as they are introduced to complete the line up.
As far as I know, it really is just the name. I could be wrong. You do have a point, of course. Making other focal lengths might’ve been a more sure way of selling more, but I guess they consider the Loxia line to be sufficiently different, i.e. that it addresses a different type of audience. I would agree with that idea and I think you would disagree. That is probably where our opinions differ, I’d guess.
Just like Leica, Zeiss is a luxury brand that caters to a very specific small niche. They aren’t going for the general consumer, but prefer to sell low-volume, high-profit margin products to people for whom money is not in short supply. Their customer base is small but very loyal.
I can accept that to a degree, but I still feel that they would profit more if they had expanded the range of available focal lengths first, rather than compete with their own offerings.
Indeed, they say in their own responses that the 12mm Touit is the best seller of that line!
Would it not have been wiser to begin there?
I would consider digital Ikon with a hybrid VF ala Fuji or just simply a digital Ikon with an EVF.
Either would be commercially viable since one of the main attractions of a Leica M/M9 is the FF sensor optimized for M lenses, the form factor and the MF operation only.
Since the Ikon would invariably be cheaper than the M, say $3,000 with a custom Sony 24/36mp sensor, it would be a boon for those looking for that form factor with the lenses, modus operandi, sensor and what not.
I would suggest doing it with an EVF simply because RF mechanism need calibration periodically and that calibration is an added cost.
Also, Zeiss Ikon, in the minds of a lot of customers who can’t afford a Leica, sounds better in their confidence than Sony (sorry, but you know its true)
Zeiss won’t make a digital Ikon. Never going to happen. It would be a complete waste of resources for them.
I have had a chance to use the Loxia 50/2 on my A7. It is really smooth in operation and very nice bokeh as far as I can tell from only a few very quick test shots!
Pics or it didn’t happen.
these phrases dont get old dont they!? its like the beginning of the internet again…
everything gets old, but the point is still a good one. Claims of goodness must be substantiated, it’s not like it’s hard to host a couple of shots online these days. It’s obviously just someone bs’ing if they don’t share.
Now these I like! If anything could make me ‘consider’ a switch from my A-Mount, it would be these two lenses.
Show your blue rings with pride but put tape over Sony’s orange rings. Put tape over all of Sony logos. Spread the word.
Spray paint the logo on the strap (I do)! Important! 😉
Actually an E mount FE camera that looks like M mount Zeiss Ikon may be a tempting proposal. They need to get the A7 internals and just pack them in a more photographic bosy, may be add something like the Fuji hybrid viewfinder – mixing classic rangefinder and digital.
That would be great! I’m a former M shooter but like an idiot I sold my super primes.
“They like feeling they have a tool in their hands, and they like it bigger”….um.. are we still talking about cameras?
Lol! So 1dx owners are compensating?
$84 for the lens hood alone, that is one hell of a lens hood! 🙂
Oh Zeiss and Sony…
1. Stop making manual focus lenses.
2. Stop making lenses slower than f2.8.
I know it’s hard to do, that’s why we’re not doing it ourselves.
Wrong topic to whine to. These ones are faster than f2.8.
Why stop making manual focus lenses? Because some people aren’t great with MF lenses or prefer them? God forbid people want to shoot video.
For travel and less bulk I wouldn’t mind the manual focus. I took my A900 with ZA135 & ZA 50 on a long trip in Europe and man-o-man was it a pain.
Look at LEICA … All manual and now they did remove rear screen from camera body because that is what true and real photographer is looking for … No gimmicks!
Being 100% focus on subject which is photographed is what photography is all about.
I’m a former Leica shooter and I had some of the best primes ever made. My eyesight was fading and my hand steadiness became a problem so I jumped over to Sony. Later I corrected my issues but it was too late. The price of replacing my Leica gear today would be more than 2.5 to 3-times the price I paid.
We see how fools dream “real photogs” are meant to be.
Lol, no gimmicks. Buy a brush then and start painting. Or even better, get the purest experience, break a branch and draw in the sand. No gimmicks!
What I find curious is that the Zeiss guy is named ANDREAS
ADMIN: WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ?