Popular Photography magazine article

[wlewisiii]

Patents still only last 17 years (IIUC) unlike the recent rape of copyright laws. There is no licesnse needed to use the M mount any more. All any manufacturer needs is a copy of the original patent and, if they did it correctly in the first place, the mount should be easy to duplicate.

William

 

[bmattock]

http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm

"The M bayonet patent expired in November of 1998, opening the door of opportunity for M copies."

 

[DougK]

Thanks for the link. Whether I agree with Mr. Keppler's points or not I always enjoy reading his articles. He's the only reason I still thumb through Pop Photo at all.

Just for grins, after reading the article I went to ye olde camera shelf and pulled down my Bessa R. Who would've thunk in this modern era that a company would produce this camera? I think I fell in love with the camera all over again.

I have some TMax 400 I was saving for my Natura S (if it ever arrives) but I just might have to load up the Bessa tomorrow and go for a walk... it's been very patient with my digital flirtations and deserves a special treat.

 

[ch1]

Patents still only last 17 years (IIUC) unlike the recent rape of copyright laws. There is no licesnse needed to use the M mount any more. All any manufacturer needs is a copy of the original patent and, if they did it correctly in the first place, the mount should be easy to duplicate.

William

I'm not a patent lawyer, so not familiar with the law on this (either domestic nor international). Apparently patents cannot be "renewed".

One reason I ask is that I was wondering why the now-FSU versions of Leicas (Feds, Zorkis etc.) remained all LTM after the M-mount came in? I kind of "guessed" that Leica moved to the M-mount (in part) to estop the SU under international patent law from continuing to make camera bodies and lenses that were compatible with its products.

 

[wlewisiii]

My understanding, George, is cost. The cost of retooling for the M mount vs. Thread mout was just too high. There were at least, to my knowledge, 3 prototype M mount lenses (including a 40/1.8 I'd just about kill for ... 🙁 ) but despite what you may hear, even the soviets had to live by basic economics overall.

William

 

[Paul T.]

I suspect licensing fees for M mount are zero. They (and Zeiss) waited for it to be 50 years old before they produced one - I think that was why the early VC cameras were screw mount...

 

[bmattock]

My understanding, George, is cost. The cost of retooling for the M mount vs. Thread mout was just too high. There were at least, to my knowledge, 3 prototype M mount lenses (including a 40/1.8 I'd just about kill for ... 🙁 ) but despite what you may hear, even the soviets had to live by basic economics overall.

William

Were the FSU cameras/lenses not intended mostly for internal (FSU) countries? I mean, they didn't sell much to the West, did they? At least, I don't recall hearing much about Zorkis and Kievs until a few years ago. So I would reason that if they had 100% of the market without any competition, there might not be any real pressure on them to change - and cost would be a factor, all right, especially when they devoted so much of their GDP to defense.

Just a guess.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[VinceC]

My understanding is that Soviet countries and clients (they weren't "former" at the time) kept making LTM cameras for much the same reason that the Kiev was produced almost unchanged for close to four decades: lack of competition and a bureaucratic disincentive to innovate. Not easy to come out with a new model when the non-photog regional and national directors are insisting you first meet your quota on the existing model.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

We used to have 'Russian' cameras in EU countries back in the sixties. Maybe they were never sold to the US or there was a trade ban?

 

[Palaeoboy]

I havent ever read any articles by this guy before but its factually wrong in a couple of points. 12mm f8 biogon? Sorry no such lens. He then goes on how it wasnt matched until the 12mm f5.6 Voigtlander but it was in fact was the 15mm f4.5 Heliar that matched the 15mm Hologon and the 12mm Voigtlander became the widest at a later point when it was released.

Secondly, the Bessa Rangefinder is not based on the CL's. Someone else who I wont mention claimed this fact and was quickly quashed my Stephen Gandy and Mr K that this simply isnt true. You could claim they both have narrow baselengths but even then they arent the same.

 

[Mazurka]

Secondly, the Bessa Rangefinder is not based on the CL's. Someone else who I wont mention claimed this fact and was quickly quashed my Stephen Gandy and Mr K that this simply isnt true. You could claim they both have narrow baselengths but even then they arent the same.

The RF's may not be identical, but it doesn't mean Cosina's design was not "based on" the CL.

The "quashing" probably did not include any schematics, right?

 

[Bertram2]

>>They've already done that in conjunction with Epson - the RD-1.<<

The $3,000-plus RD-1 demonstrated that there's a specialized D-RF market. However, a camera in the $1,000 to 1,200 price range would be a realistic price for what most people are willing to spend ... in line with the D-SLR prices.

It won't come ever anyway. Because this is what "Mr. Cosina" himself says again and again. Since years ! The RD-1 is an Epson camera not by chance.

bertram

 

[rvaubel]

I would assume Leica's patend on the M mount has long expired.
Rex

 

[Finder]

The Epson RD-1 was a financial failure. Epson lost a lot of money with that. I would not hold out too much hope for an RD-2. I have a feeling the RD-1s is an attempt to clear out stock. Certainly Cosina will not be going in the direction of digital rangefinders for some time if ever. And because of the customer base, digital rangefinders will alway be more expensive than their DSLR equivalent. I think the era of the rangefinder will end with film.

 

[Dougg]

The Epson RD-1 was a financial failure. Epson lost a lot of money with that. I would not hold out too much hope for an RD-2. I have a feeling the RD-1s is an attempt to clear out stock. Certainly Cosina will not be going in the direction of digital rangefinders for some time if ever.

Hi -- Is this your own take on the situation, or do you have supporting industry sources?

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Isn't there a new Panasonic digital camera recently shown with a Leica lens?

Clicky

 

[Finder]

Hi -- Is this your own take on the situation, or do you have supporting industry sources?

If you are asking whether this statement comes from information from within the industry, then yes. If you are asking if there are puplic documents supporting my statement, then no. At least in regards to Epson. My prediction about Cosina is an educated guess, but it is hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

 

[Solinar]

Isn't there a new Panasonic digital camera recently shown with a Leica lens?

The new Panasonic DMC-L1 DSLR is a going to be a step up from the Olympus Evolt 4/3'rds digital SLRs.

The camera which uses a through the lens porro mirror viewfinder is not a rangefinder, but it is drop dead gorgeous.

As far as I know, the Panasonic DSLR has only been shown underglass.

 

[Solinar]

The Epson RD-1 was a financial failure. Epson lost a lot of money with that. I would not hold out too much hope for an RD-2. I have a feeling the RD-1s is an attempt to clear out stock. Certainly Cosina will not be going in the direction of digital rangefinders for some time if ever. And because of the customer base, digital rangefinders will alway be more expensive than their DSLR equivalent. I think the era of the rangefinder will end with film.

Cosina is only the subcontractor for this camera. Epson provides the electronics. Whether or not the camera was a success for the mass market, it does provide a digital platform for a vast array of Leica mount lenses and that is significant.

 

[Finder]

Cosina is only the subcontractor for this camera. Epson provides the electronics. Whether or not the camera was a success for the mass market, it does provide a digital platform for a vast array of Leica mount lenses and that is significant.

But if no one can make a digital rangefinder financially successful, there are not going to be many more. Obviously, the supply of M-mount lenses does not mean a camera based around them is going to make money. And that is the significance of Epson's experiment. Companies cannot operate at a loss. Other companies are not going to jump on the bandwagon if they don't see the leader making it successful.