time
Established
Do you know Leica has patented the digital RF?
If not, I do not know why CV and Zeiss ZM do not enter the digital stage. If there is an Epsen RD2/Voigtländer RD or an Zeiss Ikon Digital, I think it will be an bug issue for Leica.
If not, I do not know why CV and Zeiss ZM do not enter the digital stage. If there is an Epsen RD2/Voigtländer RD or an Zeiss Ikon Digital, I think it will be an bug issue for Leica.
Brian Puccio
Well-known
Maybe they're only going to make one if they know it will be profitable. They are in business to make money. Look how well Epson's did.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I think Zeiss did comment that they were considering making a digital RF in the future.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Probably because there isn't a viable market for another digital RF.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Zeis commented that they were not able to build a full frame DRF that could compete with the M9 in price, so they were not going to build one.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
You can't just make any digital RF and succeed. You've got to have a cult camera, so enough folks will buy them to wear as jewelry to subsidize those few who actually buy them to use. Neither Zeiss nor Voigtlander have that panache.
sparrow6224
Well-known
It's a huge investment and involves all sorts of outside contractors and all that. Zeiss' Ikon is made by Cosina. Cosina seems absolutely dedicated to manual focus analog cameras and lenses. And how large is the rangefinder market? Are there known numbers? I'm sure the marketing people have some idea. It might be about the same size as for Lionel trains. So you take the rangefinder market, lop off all the Leica people, lop off all the people who want nothing to do with digital, lop off all the people who can't pay, what, probably $2000 for a camera anyway; I know I'm gone at this point. Especially when, if I wanted to use my lenses digitally, the Lumix GF1 is fabulous, as are other micro 4/3 cameras and NEX cameras and the like. So lop off those people too. What do you have left? And I'm surprised at Rob-F's report about Zeiss because I don't think that company even makes cameras.
Mcary
Well-known
Actually patenting something doesn't in any way prevent someone else from producing a similar product. In very simple terms what it does is prevent them from using the same or very similar methods to produce an exact or close copy. As long as their design and final product differ from the original patented item other companies are free to produce and sell similar items.
The patenting process is design to both protect ideas and to foster competition and is not designed to create a monopoly on an idea for set period of time.
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
RF users are perhaps 1% of all NEW camera market, payoff is not here, ask Epson RD-1.
Fuji thinks otherwise. Technically, is it an interchangeable lens digital RF? No. Is it an RF? no.
But from a practical standpoint, it is. The market overlaps.
Mackinaw
Think Different
You got it. How many M9s' did Leica make last year? 12,000 - 14,000? That's an absolute pittance.
Jim B.
acetonic
Member
The president of CV says he is not interested in playing the digital game. The constant upgrading to new models would drive him out of business.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly what are you thinking they might patent?
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
myM8yogi
Well-known
From a very quick search, I can see:
The WATE external viewfinder is US7706682BB.
The angled viewfinder attachment is US2006232858 (not granted yet).
The rangefinder 1.7x viewfinder magnifier is US6621986BB.
What looks to my unqualified eye like a class of lens designs that facilitate lens assembly is US6992845BB.
The black and white lens coding and in-camera recognition system US7848634 BB.
US publications have been cited since this is an English language forum.
Protection for the 90mm TE Macro close focus adapter has only been saught in Japan JP4486394B2 and Germany DE10354716B4 (presumably the manufacturing locations of perceived competitors in the rangefinder market).
So we can see that plenty of M9 accessories are patented. However, the actual optical rangefinder system in the M9 camera is old, so has fallen out of patent protection, as has the lens mount, obviously. The M9 digital sensor was developed by Kodak, so they probably got those rights subject to a collaboration agreement. Likewise, software development would have been outsourced, and that would not be patentable in Europe anyway (though protection is available in the US for software).
So, at first glance the answer does look to be purely economic if you can get Kodak on board for the sensor, which is by far the newest technology in the camera. But if the Leica attorneys did their job with the presumed Kodak collaboration and supply agreement, this should not actually be an option. And rightly so - shouldn't Leica benefit from the success of this product after putting all of this together when nobody else seemed to have the interest or the vision to pick up where the Epson RD left off? Good for them.
Out of interest, does anyone know a patent number for the Kodak sensor with offset microlenses? I presume they did patent it.
The WATE external viewfinder is US7706682BB.
The angled viewfinder attachment is US2006232858 (not granted yet).
The rangefinder 1.7x viewfinder magnifier is US6621986BB.
What looks to my unqualified eye like a class of lens designs that facilitate lens assembly is US6992845BB.
The black and white lens coding and in-camera recognition system US7848634 BB.
US publications have been cited since this is an English language forum.
Protection for the 90mm TE Macro close focus adapter has only been saught in Japan JP4486394B2 and Germany DE10354716B4 (presumably the manufacturing locations of perceived competitors in the rangefinder market).
So we can see that plenty of M9 accessories are patented. However, the actual optical rangefinder system in the M9 camera is old, so has fallen out of patent protection, as has the lens mount, obviously. The M9 digital sensor was developed by Kodak, so they probably got those rights subject to a collaboration agreement. Likewise, software development would have been outsourced, and that would not be patentable in Europe anyway (though protection is available in the US for software).
So, at first glance the answer does look to be purely economic if you can get Kodak on board for the sensor, which is by far the newest technology in the camera. But if the Leica attorneys did their job with the presumed Kodak collaboration and supply agreement, this should not actually be an option. And rightly so - shouldn't Leica benefit from the success of this product after putting all of this together when nobody else seemed to have the interest or the vision to pick up where the Epson RD left off? Good for them.
Out of interest, does anyone know a patent number for the Kodak sensor with offset microlenses? I presume they did patent it.
myM8yogi
Well-known
I know what you are saying Mike, but the wording is somewhat unclear in my opinion. A granted patent DOES prevent unauthorised parties from carrying out the patented invention if their infringing practice falls within the scope of the claims as granted. Mike is talking about working around the claim language in order to produe an equivalent product/process that does not literally infringe.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Trying to perpertuate a myth, started by folks who can't afford Leica
. I would say that 95-98% of M9s are user cameras. And the 500 M9Tis have indeed mostly disappeared into the vaults of collectors/investors. So - 500 cameras on 20.000? Is that a subsidy?Mcary
Well-known
Really trying to understand the reason for posting something like this? I mean if you feel the M9 cost too much for what it delivers that's perfectly understandable. But why assume the majority of people buying them are a bunch of rich folks that are only interested in having the latest fashion accessory. Ever think that they just might not have have as many commitments as you or maybe they just have different priorities?
Simply put its about what you're willing to give up to get what you want.
RZetter
Member
I think the "digital game" is slowly becoming a thing of the past. Let's face it, most modern digitals are pretty great, and they don't desperately need improving.
Example: The Canon 5D. It's a solid camera with a great sensor, and it's 5½ years old now. I see no need to upgrade.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Which, as you say, is not quite the same as patenting a digital rangefinder.
Rather than patents, the argument seems more compelling that (a) comparatively few can make one; (b) that making a competitive camera significantly cheaper than a Leica is more difficult than the fantasists imagine and (c) nobody can see a profit in it anyway.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Quite easy to understand. As you say, Simply put its about what you're willing to give up to get what you want.
Lots of people would love an M9, but because they either can't or won't afford one, they have to convince themselves it's not worth the money and that it's only bought by those with more money than sense. They, on the other hand, pride themselves (falsely, in my view) on having more sense than money. 'Sour grapes' comes to mind.
Cheers,
R.