Speaking Frankly: Film rangefinder cameras superior to DLSRs? Zeiss gives the old battle a new twist

Having attributed the appearance and apparent success of the Cosina-made Voigtlander Bessa 35mm film rangefinder cameras and lenses to the  contrary mind of the company's president, Hirofume Kobayashi, I had not expected a staid, conservative, old school company also to get into the act. However, as you know, Zeiss did just that with the just becoming available Zeiss Ikon camera plus seven Carl Zeiss lenses.

Why? SLRs defeated rangefinder cameras in the 1970s, leaving the superbly made, still highly capable Leica M cameras as technical relics. Autofocus likewise did in 35mm point-and-shoot rangefinder cameras during the same period. It only remained for megapixels in the last few years to obliterate virtually every 35mm and 120 rollfilm camera. But in enthusiastically trashing all this, have we let somethings valuable slip by us?

I ask asked a major planner of the new Zeiss camera and lenses, Dr. Winfried Scherle, Vice-President and general manager in the Camera Lens Division of Carl Zeiss AG to defend the decision. His answers to my somewhat sticky questions, on behalf of Carl Zeiss, did no such thing.

They went on the attack.

Q: With more and more amateur and professional photographers switching to digital cameras, and Leica M sales static if not dwindling, is there really a market for a Zeiss Ikon film rangefinder camera? If so, where and why?

There are demanding photographers who find the images resulting from even the best digital cameras lacking in some aspects. Those who are familiar with the whole gamut of  quality inherent in a very well taken photo may find the Zeiss Ikon to be the most compact and versatile tool of taking such photos.

Images captured on film can be safely stored and reliably retrieved over time spans of more than a century. On the other hand, digitally stored data are often subject to sudden loss within less than a decade. Therefore Hollywood stores all important movies on silver halide film, even if they were digitally taken.

Film capture still provides better dynamic range, higher sensitivity to light without image artifacts and the ability to capture long exposures of over 30 seconds. With the wide range of transparency and negative films on the market, the photographer has many choices to suit their own personal tastes in the form of color reproduction, resolution and film speed, etc. While digital post processing can replicate some specific film stock characteristics, this type of retouching takes considerable time and requires a high degree of experience. The portability of the Zeiss Ikon system, coupled with a choice of high quality films, puts the emphasis back into creative picture taking and away from the drudgery of digital post processing.

Photographers like this exist almost anywhere in the world, particularly in Japan, China, North America, and central Europe. We would like to give these people the right tool and that is the reason why we introduced -- besides a lot of digital products -- the ZI system.

Q: With Sony developing a large Carl Zeiss lens group for its new DSLR cameras, why would consumers need a rangefinder camera instead?

Compared with a SLR, a rangefinder camera is a very different photographic tool.

1. SLR viewfinders are darker than RF viewfinders, and they are darkest -- totally black -- when this is most objectionable: in the very moment of exposing the image receiver (film/sensor).

2. The moving mirror of an SLR causes mirror slap, which limits the resolving power of the lens + camera combination clearly below the level which the lens could achieve. RF cameras don’t have this drawback. And SLR cameras are louder due to the moving mirror.

3. SLR cameras and their lenses are bigger and heavier, almost twice that of a RF camera and lenses (see picture at right comparing a 2/35 ZM for Zeiss Ikon rangefinder cameras and the 2/35 ZF for Nikon SLRs). This allows you for example to take much more discrete pictures.

4. SLR cameras are much slower in terms of “shutter lag.” With a fast RF camera and their shutter lag of only 20 milliseconds, a photographer can precisely capture the very phase of a motif in motion which he or she likes most.

5. DSLR’s have very high power consumption and require hefty battery packs, while the Zeiss Ikon only takes two tiny batteries -- each the size of a pea -- which lasts for over 10,000 exposures. This has many benefits to the travel or nature photographer who may not have the ability to recharge batteries in the field or want to deal with the weight of carrying spare batteries.

 

Q: While Kyocera was manufacturing Zeiss lenses for the now discontinued Contax line of cameras, Carl Zeiss had a real presence in Japan supervising Zeiss lens quality. Does Zeiss have the same for the new Japanese made M mount lenses and Zeiss Ikon camera bodies?

Yes, Zeiss today has that same presence.

Q: Picture for picture, in what way will the new Zeiss camera and lenses show superiority over top level DSLRs and their best lenses, such as the Canon L lenses.

The Zeiss Ikon camera, being free of mirror slap, easily reaches twice the resolving power of even the best DSLR, be it handheld or from tripod.

1. Wide-angle photos taken with the Zeiss Ikon camera and Carl Zeiss ZM lenses are much sharper, crisper, more detailed than even the very best result from the very best SLR.

2. Those who have used the camera extensively have achieved photos with stunning details, previously not achievable on anything smaller than medium format.

3. Today films are available with much higher performance than digital sensors.

Q: There are rumors that Zeiss will eventually have its own digital rangefinder camera body that will accept the M mount lenses. True or false? Will it be Cosina-made? Full 24 x 36mm sensor?

At Carl Zeiss, we can imagine such a camera. But we feel that is not the right time to introduce such a camera now. Today digital technology is still developing fast and the initial value of a digital camera is lost in quite a short time. Carl Zeiss wants to protect the investment of its customers and will therefore require a high level of maturity of products before we can justify to offer them to our customers. At the time we introduce such a camera we want to be sure that the owner has invested in a long term value.

1. It is much too early to determine a manufacturer for such a camera.

2. Full 24 x 36 is, as far as we see today, for a variety of reasons the preferred sensor size of most serious rangefinder photographers.

Q: Do you see the new Zeiss Ikon camera and lenses being sold as an additional system to a consumers' DSLR or as a substitute?

The Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera can complement a SLR or DSLR very well for photographers who understand which viewfinder concept is best for which photographic idea. For example, telephoto and macro applications are the domain of the SLR. In wide-angle and most landscape photography the RF has the edge.

The experienced photographer therefore considers the Zeiss Ikon camera an addition to his toolkit rather than a substitute for a SLR/DSLR. But we also know photographers that work almost 100% with rangefinder cameras.

Q: In which parts of the world do you think sales of your new camera and lenses will be most successful?

1. We do know that many camera lovers in Japan want to own this camera or already do so, and we see increasing interest in other Asian countries such as China.

2. We also know that many photographers in North America want to use it for street photography and photojournalistic work.

3. In Europe, semi-professional architecture photographers, travel photographers and “photo poets” prefer it over much bigger, much slower, cumbersome, more expensive photographic tools.

4. We also see it being the ideal camera system for the photo purist. Regardless of film or digital capture, this is the kind of photographer who takes more time composing and creating the image than editing from a large selection and applying post processing techniques to "save" the image. These photographers are methodical in their approach and gravitate to the best equipment available to realize their creative vision.

Q: Why didn't Zeiss insist on a higher speed shutter mechanism instead of the same one that Cosina has been using for all its film SLRs and Bessa cameras for years?

At 1/2000s the shutter in the Zeiss Ikon camera is twice as fast as the one in a more expensive alternative, which has been accepted by the market for decades.

The shutter in the Zeiss Ikon camera is an improved version (longer service life, lower level of mechanical vibration, less noise) of a durable all metal device manufactured in industrial quantities by a Japanese shutter specialist, thus ensuring operational reliability, value for money, and availability for years to come.

 

Comments

[dupodup]

Funny battle, who to blame Kyocera or Zeiss.

On my side I will blame Zeiss.

They clame to be a lens maker but when comes time to service the lens my N50 was refused by zeiss and sent to Kyocera for repair through a dummy agent who has told me fairy tells and stupide excuse during 6 MONTHS!!!!

In between my ND body and my 17-35 need services I send it straight ahead to Kyocera in JP. All has been serviced for free (taken under warranty)and I get my stuff back 15 business days after sending it (when you know that UPS takes 4 Business day to deliver rfrom Paris) ie they only keep the stuff in their hands 7 business days!!!!

I am more than grateful for kyocera and their engament to service their product andn= Zeiss product up to March 2015! They do, Zeiss do not.

Eric.

[Robert Chow]

Scherle must be amazed that anyone would opt for an SLR over a rangefinder.

[A Koshy]

After observing Zeiss over the past several years, I believe they are stuck in a bygone era. Just reading the above interview has convinced me that they will continue to harken back to the almost-dead era of "film", until they have no more legs to stand on and will either wind up operations or will be bought out by some investors. The new buyers hopefully will have no qualms about dragging a reluctant Zeiss to the modern era. But I do agree with him that current technology will not allow the introduction of a sensor that will cover the entire 35mm imaging circle, into a rangefinder, and meet the exceptional quality standards that one expects from Zeiss...but to embark on a digital diatribe and promote film was being a bit behind the times.

In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy my Zeiss binoculars - 7x45 from the Nightowl series and the 20x60s professional.

[William Sommerwerck]

Dear Burt;

We haven't spoken in a few years. I'd like to talk with you about the abysmal, contemptible quality of user documentation, and what (perhaps) Pop Photo might do to improve things. You can get in touch with me at grizzledgeezer@comcast.net.

Thanks!

[william j cody]

so, everyone is unhappy that things change. cameras and lenses come and go. hasselblad continues to make the v series cameras, despite all amateur user expectations. this is because professional users support this format. also the h series is not holding up too well.
film? it will be readily available 100 years from now. don't believe it, go ask fuji.
digital?
can't decide on a format
can't decide on a capture method
can't use them in serious inclement weather
can't keep the image sensor's clean
and perhaps the most important issue is the incredibly short life and cluttered "features" all digital imaging bodies now posess.
it is a dumbing down of making pictures.
really think you're good.
take 20 rolls of tri x and one camera, lens and no light meter.
let me know how your photos come out.
then, we can talk about light.
cody

[Ainuddin Mohamad]

I love most of the Leica M cameras but they are beyond my budget.

The most I can do is to look at pictures of Leica M cameras and pics taken using them.

I wonder whether there is club of owners of Leica cameras in Malaysia.

[FrankG]

Wow! The Zeiss Ikon seems like the one for me. Which one's better, the black one or the silver one?

[Peter Krauss]

I sure got a KICK out of Will Cody's comment - ha ha! So true! Even two years later! I couldn't resist but to comment myself...For all you commercial pro's, for whom image making's fist goal is getting a paycheck, second is most efficient workflow, you can afford the latest digital technology and it makes fiscal sense for you to upgrade your gear every two years, go for it! Digital is for you, no argument from me whatsoever. Me? I make pictures because I enjoy it and I don't make a dime from it. Neither do 99% of the other dimbats posting here who are all a-rage about someone daring to proclaim that there are still a few merits to a simple, purist, higher quality than you'll ever see camera that still uses film. The photographs I produce from my silver negs may or may not have that holy grail digital, noise reduced, grainless IQ that you brag about so incesstantly, but my photographs do have a soul and you sure can't claim that. I'll stick to my backwards, stuck in the past, obsolete (hardly) and antiquated film and I'll keep making real photographs and with the same camera I started with, long after your batteries have died and gone.....just my two bits

[marine binoculars]

i used also Zeiss camera,and it produces some great images and especially the pixel it was so bright that i can even see the graphics.