rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi Mike,
So your estimate for the "major variable" of labour costs rests on three assumptions, some of which are rather weak. On the other hand we don't have to resort to this kind of reasoning, because we have hard statistics for labour costs; for example this one using data by the German Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft on hourly labour costs in manufacturing:
Assuming this is vaguely accurate, it shows that if labour costs were the issue, it would have made much more sense to outsource production to Eastern Germany, where it's relatively cheap and where there is a flourishing optical industry in Jena (incidentally the former Zeiss center). So au contraire, labour costs alone probably aren't the issue; I'd assume the issue was rather the complications and costs for setting up volume production of rangefinder lenses beyond the "specialty" 15 and 85mm, which are unnecessary if you have an experienced outsourcing partner available.
You are making a lot of assumptions. Firstly, we don't know that Zeiss has the capacity to make extra rangefinder lenses in significant numbers in Germany; I would assume that they would have to build this capacity up, and then it's cheaper to outsource to someone who has. Cosina probably has a lot of processes for outsourced production of 35mm lenses already in place, since that's how they make their money, while Zeiss would have to set that all up anew. Secondly, we don't know if production processes are really similar or nearly identical. Thirdly, you only have Zeiss' word that quality control is similar or nearly identical.ZeissFan said:
So your estimate for the "major variable" of labour costs rests on three assumptions, some of which are rather weak. On the other hand we don't have to resort to this kind of reasoning, because we have hard statistics for labour costs; for example this one using data by the German Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft on hourly labour costs in manufacturing:
Assuming this is vaguely accurate, it shows that if labour costs were the issue, it would have made much more sense to outsource production to Eastern Germany, where it's relatively cheap and where there is a flourishing optical industry in Jena (incidentally the former Zeiss center). So au contraire, labour costs alone probably aren't the issue; I'd assume the issue was rather the complications and costs for setting up volume production of rangefinder lenses beyond the "specialty" 15 and 85mm, which are unnecessary if you have an experienced outsourcing partner available.
R2-D2
Established
Get yourself a Sony Alpha 100 and a Zeiss Sonnar T* 135/1.8 ZA. Well, it's not a rangefinder, but you would't want to focus that lens on a rangefinder anyway...ZeissFan said:
ferider
Veteran
Glad you straightened that up, Phillip.
Note also Canada and Portugal in the above chart (thinking about Leitz).
Roland.
Note also Canada and Portugal in the above chart (thinking about Leitz).
Roland.
Sparrow
Veteran
Sorry to toss a spanner in the works; but you would need to also know the productivity of each plant before could make a guess at a cost per unit.
:angel:
:angel:
ferider
Veteran
Sparrow said:
And equipment, depreciation rate, labor availability, taxes, government
funding, etc. AFAIK, there is Zeiss equipment and there are Zeiss
employees @ Cosina, which makes it less transparent.
But: lower costs of labor are not the reason for CV lenses to be cheaper,
than for example Leitz lenses. Given that most western quality processes
originate in Japan, a better "German" quality control neither.
In any case, I think the 85/2 is being assembled in Germany due to the
floating element (Zeiss has built floating element lenses before).
I'm not aware that Cosina has.
Roland.
Sparrow
Veteran
I wasn’t suggesting that Roland, I’m a design director in a manufacturing environment so I am aware just how difficult it is to cost a product accurately even when you have all the numbers, without them we’ve no chance IMO.
thomasw_
Well-known
rxmd said:
true, but i was expressing a M-mount RF wish, even if not realistic
though i find that my L 135/4 does what i want in most light conditions.rxmd
May contain traces of nut
But that's not what I'm trying to do; the discussion at this point was merely about averaged labour costs in general on a per-nation comparison... and as far as the rest goes, well, we know that Zeiss decided against in-house production of rangefinder lenses, and maybe we don't go wrong in assuming they knew what they were doingSparrow said:
:angel: Philipp
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I can't believe that Cosina, if it hasn't built floating element lenses before, cannot figure out how to do it, and do it well. It's not a new design feature. I'm thinking it's more likely CZ wanted to have the lens made in Germany for prestige purposes.
Mazurka
Well-known
KoNickon said:
It IS new for RF lenses. Like I said, the floating elements must interact with the RF cam correctly, a constraint that doesn't apply to SLR lenses.
ZeissFan
Veteran
That certainly might be true about production capacity, but the bottom line is that in this instance it's cheaper for Carl Zeiss AG to pay Cosina to build their lenses than for them to make it themselves.
And doing this still required an investment by Zeiss in terms of equipment and training.
I'm a bit surprised that Zeiss didn't consider the Jena plant. But possibly it made more sense to consolidate production of lenses and bodies in one location.
With labor typically being the largest cost for most companies (in so-called capitalist countries), ... oh, heck, forgot the original question. Doesn't matter. In the end, Japanese labor is still cheaper than West German labor.
And doing this still required an investment by Zeiss in terms of equipment and training.
I'm a bit surprised that Zeiss didn't consider the Jena plant. But possibly it made more sense to consolidate production of lenses and bodies in one location.
With labor typically being the largest cost for most companies (in so-called capitalist countries), ... oh, heck, forgot the original question. Doesn't matter. In the end, Japanese labor is still cheaper than West German labor.
fuwen
Well-known
Besides the use of floating elements, Zeiss also mentioned that a complicated non-linear range finder mechanism need to be implemented to sure focus accuracy to the close range.
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
ZeissFan said:
But it isn't! It might be cheaper to use facilities already equipped for mass production of the non-specialized (e.g. the floating elements in the 85 and the complexity of the 15), but the bottom line is that the labor costs for individuals is the same be they Japanese or West German.:bang:
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
toyotadesigner said:The issue of the shortage of the 85mm is not the manufacturing process, it lies in a different area. However, I'm not entitled to post details, the only thing I can say is: be patient and be surprised
So what do you know that we don't, about an already-released lens?