Well, I might wait longer for the second generation of digital M. The first generation has a smaller frame.
The current generation of Canon like 5D/1DsII are very good, but if you wait longer you might get better ones. They might have better shadow details and more film like. They will have a lower price.
I can't remember I read from somewhere that Nikon's camera sensor is supplied by Sony. I would expect Sony and Nikon will come up with a full frame more or less at the same time. I have good expectations to Zeiss F lenses. At the moment there are 2 of them, and 2 more waiting to come. ZF 50 1.4 and ZF 85 1.4 are better than the Contax ones.
I gather from my friends that the new Sony alpha 100 is even more plasticky than Sony R1.
One thing I don't understand is Sony's decision to exclude Zeiss from wide angles. In the past I had a Minolta 85 1.4, it is not too bad but Sony is getting a ZA85 1.4. ZA135 1.8 is interesting but it is not a common focal length. I used to have a Minolta 20mm 2.8 and it is really bad, but Sony is making it again rather than reviving a Zeiss 21 2.8.
I suppose Sony could generate a higher revenue by introducting a cheaper system. If it is cheaper more people will be able to buy it. Expensive system is just like the apex of the pyramid, a company would not be able to earn much from it.
The same applied to Hasselblad H system. It is an expensive system. I suppose if Zeiss lenses were used it would make it even more expensive. Less people would buy them and Hasselblad would generate less revenue.
The current trend in the camera industry at the moment is Zeiss exclusion. Zeiss has to make way in strange situations like ZF when she can make lenses after the expire of mount patency.
We expect a brand of its own rather than an existence like symbiosis. We expect to see a brand in the main stream with all the lenses from Zeiss. Zeiss Ikon is not included in this catergory because rangefinder only occupies a very small part of the industry.
The current generation of Canon like 5D/1DsII are very good, but if you wait longer you might get better ones. They might have better shadow details and more film like. They will have a lower price.
I can't remember I read from somewhere that Nikon's camera sensor is supplied by Sony. I would expect Sony and Nikon will come up with a full frame more or less at the same time. I have good expectations to Zeiss F lenses. At the moment there are 2 of them, and 2 more waiting to come. ZF 50 1.4 and ZF 85 1.4 are better than the Contax ones.
I gather from my friends that the new Sony alpha 100 is even more plasticky than Sony R1.
One thing I don't understand is Sony's decision to exclude Zeiss from wide angles. In the past I had a Minolta 85 1.4, it is not too bad but Sony is getting a ZA85 1.4. ZA135 1.8 is interesting but it is not a common focal length. I used to have a Minolta 20mm 2.8 and it is really bad, but Sony is making it again rather than reviving a Zeiss 21 2.8.
I suppose Sony could generate a higher revenue by introducting a cheaper system. If it is cheaper more people will be able to buy it. Expensive system is just like the apex of the pyramid, a company would not be able to earn much from it.
The same applied to Hasselblad H system. It is an expensive system. I suppose if Zeiss lenses were used it would make it even more expensive. Less people would buy them and Hasselblad would generate less revenue.
The current trend in the camera industry at the moment is Zeiss exclusion. Zeiss has to make way in strange situations like ZF when she can make lenses after the expire of mount patency.
We expect a brand of its own rather than an existence like symbiosis. We expect to see a brand in the main stream with all the lenses from Zeiss. Zeiss Ikon is not included in this catergory because rangefinder only occupies a very small part of the industry.
