Chuck A
Chuck A
kidigital said:
I am in Kurt's boat. If Dirk can't mail them out then perhaps someone can take some orders for the people in the USA and send them out for postage and a small finders fee.
I should have bought this when I first saw it!
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
The patent is incredible. Functionally, I can see no difference between Leica's so-called invention and the Galilean telescope Kalart offered for its rangefinder system 50+ years ago. These little telescopes would fit on most any Speed Graphic with a Kalart rangefinder. Leica did not invent anything here.
Unfortunately, the reality is that us folks don't have the money to spend fighting the hollow-souled pettifoggers who'd happily argue Leica's case and the outfits who should aren't likely to do so over an eyepiece magnifier.
Unfortunately, the reality is that us folks don't have the money to spend fighting the hollow-souled pettifoggers who'd happily argue Leica's case and the outfits who should aren't likely to do so over an eyepiece magnifier.
Bob Parsons
Established
See: http://www.xs4all.nl/~lommen9/focuspot/index.html and http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/kalart-focuscope.html
It's difficult to tell if the Kalart magnifier is Galilean which gives an upright virtual image or two positive lenses giving an inverted real image. On second thought Jason is correct, it has to be Galilean to be practical.
The patent examiner seems to have missed this, a strong case for an invalid patent due to "prior art" I would think.
Bob.
It's difficult to tell if the Kalart magnifier is Galilean which gives an upright virtual image or two positive lenses giving an inverted real image. On second thought Jason is correct, it has to be Galilean to be practical.
The patent examiner seems to have missed this, a strong case for an invalid patent due to "prior art" I would think.
Bob.
Last edited:
pfogle said:Dirk, since the eyepiece on the R-D1 is the same screw thread as the Nikon FM/E etc, is it not perfectly legal to sell them in the states as eyepieces for these cameras? You could even state that they are NOT to be used on a rangefinder because of the patent
Maybe this works, maybe not - who can say for sure? A friendly Canadian patent agent in training was kind enough to do an assessment of the Leica mags for me, and in his opinion the devices do infringe. They same may go for these. There may be a way to invalidate the patent by proving prior art, but who wants to do that job?
If you would like to organise yourselves privately, I am happy to do my part and provide an incentive, e.g. bulk discount (private message or emails please). Just make sure that you are aware of the potential implications.
Dirk
anselwannab
Well-known
At least in the US, can't you provide the information to the patent holder and if it invalidates their patent they are supposed to pull the patent? Or at least this is the first step.
I agree that this is all BS. I wonder if a Leica insider could shed some light on why they patented this, and who was the bone-head that thought it was a good idea.
Mark
I agree that this is all BS. I wonder if a Leica insider could shed some light on why they patented this, and who was the bone-head that thought it was a good idea.
Mark
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Unfortunately, it looks as if Leica would have a dodge around the argument that the Kalart magnifier (and the assorted eyepiece magnifiers offered for SLRs since at least the late 1950s) constitute "prior art."
Their patent text spends a lot of time describing the benefits of magnifying the image of a combined range/viewfinder, noting that this would provide not only greater focusing accuracy but a larger viewing image when using small frame sizes.
So, they could claim that their patent applies specifically to an eyepiece magnifier for a camera with a combined range/viewfinder, whereas the Kalart device is for the rangefinder only, and the SLR magnifiers were for SLRs.
Which, to the average man on the street, would be an outrageous scam, since the whole idea of patents is supposed to be to protect inventions, not just slightly different uses of things that already exist and are well-established. To said Joe Average, it would be outrageous to think that you could build a gizmo and have it be "innovative" when held up to the eyepiece of one kind of camera, but a "patent infringement" when held up to the eyepiece of a slightly different kind of camera, when it's the exact same gizmo!
This is what I was thinking in my earlier post, when I speculated about obtaining a patent for some well-established device based on thinking up a slightly different USE for the device. For example, how about a patent application for "Apparatus for Securely Deleting Data from Flash Memory Devices," comprising "(1) a roughly cylindrical part having a weight roughly in the range of 1 lb - 10 lb and composed of iron, steel, or other heavy metal and formed so as to be capable of sustaining repeated impacts; and (2) a tubular or oval-shaped part affixed to the first part at a right angle, having a length of approx. 10 - 36 inches and composed of wood, fiberglass, or other rigid material, formed so as to provide a handle by which the first part may be swung to generate impacts, for the purpose of reducing the physical structure of the flash memory device to a non-readable form."
Wouldn't it be obvious to anyone except a patent examiner that I was trying to obtain a patent on the sledgehammer, and that it would be silly to grant such a patent merely on the grounds that I was proposing it be used to smack memory cards rather than spikes, chisels, posts, thumbs, and all the other things sledgehammers have been used to smack since approximately the dawn of history?
Their patent text spends a lot of time describing the benefits of magnifying the image of a combined range/viewfinder, noting that this would provide not only greater focusing accuracy but a larger viewing image when using small frame sizes.
So, they could claim that their patent applies specifically to an eyepiece magnifier for a camera with a combined range/viewfinder, whereas the Kalart device is for the rangefinder only, and the SLR magnifiers were for SLRs.
Which, to the average man on the street, would be an outrageous scam, since the whole idea of patents is supposed to be to protect inventions, not just slightly different uses of things that already exist and are well-established. To said Joe Average, it would be outrageous to think that you could build a gizmo and have it be "innovative" when held up to the eyepiece of one kind of camera, but a "patent infringement" when held up to the eyepiece of a slightly different kind of camera, when it's the exact same gizmo!
This is what I was thinking in my earlier post, when I speculated about obtaining a patent for some well-established device based on thinking up a slightly different USE for the device. For example, how about a patent application for "Apparatus for Securely Deleting Data from Flash Memory Devices," comprising "(1) a roughly cylindrical part having a weight roughly in the range of 1 lb - 10 lb and composed of iron, steel, or other heavy metal and formed so as to be capable of sustaining repeated impacts; and (2) a tubular or oval-shaped part affixed to the first part at a right angle, having a length of approx. 10 - 36 inches and composed of wood, fiberglass, or other rigid material, formed so as to provide a handle by which the first part may be swung to generate impacts, for the purpose of reducing the physical structure of the flash memory device to a non-readable form."
Wouldn't it be obvious to anyone except a patent examiner that I was trying to obtain a patent on the sledgehammer, and that it would be silly to grant such a patent merely on the grounds that I was proposing it be used to smack memory cards rather than spikes, chisels, posts, thumbs, and all the other things sledgehammers have been used to smack since approximately the dawn of history?
Chuck A
Chuck A
It looks like Leica was devious here. I really don't see how they were able to patent this device the way they did. I could see them patenting the threads to go onto their eyepiece, thereby making it impossible to market a third part magnifier for THEIR cameras. But to be able to take an existing device and say that it was being used on a range/viewfinder and somehow that makes it patentable to them is a travesty. Both from the patent office and from Leica for even doing it.
Anyway, regardless I still want to get one of these. Is anybody outside the USA and Germany willing to buy one or a few if others are interested and send them to us? We can work out the number and send the money to you. I would be happy to pay a small transaction fee for your trouble.
Anyway, regardless I still want to get one of these. Is anybody outside the USA and Germany willing to buy one or a few if others are interested and send them to us? We can work out the number and send the money to you. I would be happy to pay a small transaction fee for your trouble.
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
has anyone used this w/ the R2/3 yet? is the exposure meter information still visible at the bottom?
Chuck A
Chuck A
enochRoot said:
That is a good question. Where is the meter info on the R-D1? Is it in the same place as on the R2/3?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Okay, just for you guys, I again risked being busted for conspiracy to commit patent infringement by putting my Megaperls magnifier on my Bessa R3A. Normally I wear glasses to shoot, but since seeing some of the framelines with the R3A is difficult with glasses anyway, I used the magnifier's diopter-adjustment feature instead.
I found that when viewing through the magnifier without glasses:
-- The 50mm finder frame is visible: it's right about at the edge of the comfortable viewing area.
-- 75mm and 90mm framelines are no problem.
-- There's no way you're going to see the 40mm frame except by shifting your eye around to see the different corners; probably not very practical for actual shooting.
-- And what you've been waiting for: The exposure readouts ARE visible, although you have to make a definite downward glance or raise your eye slightly. Once you can see them, they're easy to read.
While wearing my glasses:
-- The corners of the 50mm finder frame aren't visible unless you move your eye around to scan them.
-- The 75mm frame can be seen without scanning; it roughly fills the comfortable viewing area.
-- The 90mm frame line is no problem.
-- The 40mm frame line requires such drastic scanning that I'd say it's of very little use.
-- The exposure readouts are visible, but require a definite raising of the eye and downward glance. Once you can see them, they're easy to read.
Remember that different glasses, frames, and viewing habits will yield different results, so this is only a guide.
I found that when viewing through the magnifier without glasses:
-- The 50mm finder frame is visible: it's right about at the edge of the comfortable viewing area.
-- 75mm and 90mm framelines are no problem.
-- There's no way you're going to see the 40mm frame except by shifting your eye around to see the different corners; probably not very practical for actual shooting.
-- And what you've been waiting for: The exposure readouts ARE visible, although you have to make a definite downward glance or raise your eye slightly. Once you can see them, they're easy to read.
While wearing my glasses:
-- The corners of the 50mm finder frame aren't visible unless you move your eye around to scan them.
-- The 75mm frame can be seen without scanning; it roughly fills the comfortable viewing area.
-- The 90mm frame line is no problem.
-- The 40mm frame line requires such drastic scanning that I'd say it's of very little use.
-- The exposure readouts are visible, but require a definite raising of the eye and downward glance. Once you can see them, they're easy to read.
Remember that different glasses, frames, and viewing habits will yield different results, so this is only a guide.
Last edited:
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
thanks for checking that out!!
DerrickC
Member
Using the 1.3x magnifer, can the 35mm framelines be seen on the RD1 if you are not wearing spectacles? Or does it totally disappear? Exposure readouts on the RD1 are visible with the magnifier right? Thanks!
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
An actual patent actually: http://static.flickr.com/96/216636901_844716fe43.jpg
furcafe
Veteran
IME, yes (though I always wear glasses, so that's moot for me), no, yes.
DerrickC said:
Bob Parsons
Established
DerrickC said:
It doesn't totally disappear, you can see the edges and corners if you move your eye up/down and left/right. With the eye central the frame lines are at the extreme edges of your peripheral vision and only partly visible, most uncomfortable to use - very fatiguing.
You also lose with the 35mm frame what is for me one of the big advantages of a direct vision finder the ability to see the frame in relation to it's surroundings.
The shutter speeds are visible, but you may have to move your eye to easily see the far left or right values.
Bob.
Bob Parsons
Established
Rich Silfver said:
You can patent many things - the real test is when it comes to a court case.
Very impractical design, most canines squat while performing, not enough room for the "apparatus"
It makes you wonder doesn't it?
Bob.
Last edited:
nemjo
Avatar Challenge
Hi,
I have a question to those who use this magnifier.
Is there any trick to screw it in or the R-D1s has a different eyepiece to the original?
I couldn't figure out how to attach it.
Thanks ,
nemjo
I have a question to those who use this magnifier.
Is there any trick to screw it in or the R-D1s has a different eyepiece to the original?
I couldn't figure out how to attach it.
Thanks ,
nemjo
Chris Lynch
Film Enough.
if it's anything like the bessa, you should unscrew the RD1's eyepiece, and replace it w/ the mag.
Bob Parsons
Established
You have to unscrew the plain glass eyepiece from the back of the camera and replace it by the magnifier
The only thing to be careful of is to screw the magnifier in sufficiently tight so that it doesn't unscrew when you adjust the diopter correction, but not so tight that you can't remove it. Take care to put the removed eyepiece somewhere safe. I've already lost mine As a replacement I think the Round Eyepiece for the Bessa R2a/R3a/ZM/ZM finder fits the camera as do the Bessa diopter correction lenses.
Bob.
The only thing to be careful of is to screw the magnifier in sufficiently tight so that it doesn't unscrew when you adjust the diopter correction, but not so tight that you can't remove it. Take care to put the removed eyepiece somewhere safe. I've already lost mine
As a replacement I think the Round Eyepiece for the Bessa R2a/R3a/ZM/ZM finder fits the camera as do the Bessa diopter correction lenses.Bob.
Last edited:
nemjo
Avatar Challenge
Thanks.R3Mchris said:
nemjo