Roger Hicks
Veteran
I fully take your points, and I thank you for the extensive and detailed answer, but reading it with my LL.B. hat on, I see 'spin' rather than flat claims. At every turn, 'we' and 'our' can be read either way. This is good marketing. After all, which would you rather buy: a Zeiss Ikon or a Cosina Super?
Note such phrases as 'we had the unprecedented opportunity of influencing a camera for our lenses' (not 'designing a camera').
Overall, I don't think there is as much distance between the story as I understood it, and the story as you understood it. Zeiss would not design and subcontract a camera of their own, but if someone else gave them the chance for input, they would seize it gleefully.
Without the Zeiss Ikon name ('Contax' was already sewn up, and besides, might imply another mount), I don't think Cosina has much of a property, unless perhaps they sold it as a 'Prominent'. In that sense, yes, it's 'Zeiss' (and Zeiss lenses and quality control and input); but I'd still say that my understanding was closer to the mark, and that while 'spin' has been applied (enthusastically), no lies have been told.
Cheers,
R.
Note such phrases as 'we had the unprecedented opportunity of influencing a camera for our lenses' (not 'designing a camera').
Overall, I don't think there is as much distance between the story as I understood it, and the story as you understood it. Zeiss would not design and subcontract a camera of their own, but if someone else gave them the chance for input, they would seize it gleefully.
Without the Zeiss Ikon name ('Contax' was already sewn up, and besides, might imply another mount), I don't think Cosina has much of a property, unless perhaps they sold it as a 'Prominent'. In that sense, yes, it's 'Zeiss' (and Zeiss lenses and quality control and input); but I'd still say that my understanding was closer to the mark, and that while 'spin' has been applied (enthusastically), no lies have been told.
Cheers,
R.
Huck Finn
Well-known
Roger,
This is your original statement.
Have we not established that according to Zeiss's own statements, Cosina did not do all the R&D?
Even if we re-interpret the "we" as joint, it means that Zeiss & Cosina collaborated on the development, beginning with designs submitted under contract by Henssler & Schultheiss as well as some also from Porsche? That's R&D from several sources, not simply a Cosina design.
Doesn't it mean that Zeiss also had input into the specs & requirements, that Zeiss was involved in lab testing the prototypes, in evaluating field testing of the early versions, & in deciding on revisions to those early versions before the final version was set? After all, they do call their involvement in this process "unprecedented" - which would imply something different from the cooaboration between Zeiss & Yashica that resulted in Contax.
The website calls special attention to the lens in the viewfinder. Clearly Zeiss had input into this element of the camera. Since they are a lens designer, I assume that their input was very important although nothing is explicitly stated either way.
And if Cosina simply licensed the Zeiss name, why is Zeiss warrantying a Cosina product? Is Carl Zeiss AG in the habit of warrantying products from other manufacturers? Why are they marketing & servicing the product? This is not simply a 2nd act by Cosina of appropriating the Voigtlander name & badging one of their cameras with it. In this case, Zeiss actually had something to do with the development of the camera.
I realize that Zeiss does not manufacture any of the parts, but then Cosina doesn't manufacture all of them either. My understanding is that the camera uses a modified Copal shutter.
I realize that Zeiss doesn't assemble the camera. But is assembly the key to saying who a camera or any other product belongs to? Engineers don't assemble prducts - automobiles, airplane engines, or cameras. But they are normally given credit for the final product.
As I re-read the Zeiss website, I certainly can see a lot of spin with the benefit of hindsight. But I'm left with the impression of a joint project, a collaboration, a partnership.
Although the camera is "made" in a Cosina factory, it appears to me that Zeiss was involved in the development, the design, the testing, the specifications, setting the standards, & the making decisions on materials, budget, & resulting compromises.. That seems to me to be the most important part of producing the product, of making it what it is. The physical assembly seems to me to be much less important in our modern world of robotics - unless something is handmade.
Finally, Zeiss has put their name on it, stamping it as their own, and stands behind it with their warranty. They then put the weight of their corporate presence behind it in marketing & servicing. Although I have no knowledge of the legalities of it, I have every impression that Zeiss owns the rights to the camera. It sure would be interesting to know to whom they actually belong.
Again I'm left with the final impression that this was a joint project through a partnership between 2 major manufacturers.
Isn't that the way many products are produced these days? My smart car is owned by the Mercedes division of Daimler, uses a Mitsubishi engine, and is built in a smart plant separate from any of those three. So, whose car is it? And who should get credit since the original design came from Swatch?
Maybe it would be fairer to call the Zeiss Ikon a Zeiss/Cosina product, but to say that it can't be Zeiss because they don't make consumer cameras any more doesn't seem to be right. They seem to have had a big hand in making this one. . .
. . . unless of course they've just been exaggerating about their involvement all along & only agreed to license their name to an idea presented to them by Cosina & taken from design through production by Cosina. Since Zeiss has gone out of their way with extensive documentation & active involvement to create exactly the opposite impression, I would say in that case that they have crossed the line from spin and exaggeration to outright lying. A good lawyer might be able to win their case in court - but not in the course of public opinion.
I would like to keep faith with Zeiss, so I choose to believe that their involvement from the very beginning was extensive enough that they can legitimately call this camera their own . . . theirs & their partner's.
Finally, I must ask if we are to consider the lenses Cosina lenses by the same logic than you have dubbed this a Cosina camera?
Last edited:
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Within this thread, some are adamant that Zeiss is not interested in niche-market products...hence no ZMd.
They also argued that a ZMd is difficult or impossible...forgetting Epson/Cosina and Leica had already done it, via different routes.
It would seem now a new argument is being contrived that the ZM is not really a Zeiss product...hence no digital encore or evolution.
The most convincing evidence that Zeiss means business is the whole new line of M-mounted lenses...and not just re-badged CV glass.
This thread is about whether Zeiss would be encouraged or discouraged to build a digital Ikon, not about preaching dogma stifling hope.
As far as I am concerned, Zeiss has never been too stymied by optical challenges; nor ever lending their good name to products they don't believe in; nor cavalier in engaging unworthy sub-contractors.
Zeiss might take extra time to do things right, but seldom give up before trying.
They also argued that a ZMd is difficult or impossible...forgetting Epson/Cosina and Leica had already done it, via different routes.
It would seem now a new argument is being contrived that the ZM is not really a Zeiss product...hence no digital encore or evolution.
The most convincing evidence that Zeiss means business is the whole new line of M-mounted lenses...and not just re-badged CV glass.
This thread is about whether Zeiss would be encouraged or discouraged to build a digital Ikon, not about preaching dogma stifling hope.
As far as I am concerned, Zeiss has never been too stymied by optical challenges; nor ever lending their good name to products they don't believe in; nor cavalier in engaging unworthy sub-contractors.
Zeiss might take extra time to do things right, but seldom give up before trying.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, as I said in a later post, 'all' in the original post was an exaggeration on my part. I would still maintain that Zeiss was not using Cosina as a subcontractor, which I take (perhaps mistakenly) to be your reading.
"Input" (= contribution to another's design) and "design" (origination) are separate concepts. I think we have gone as far as is useful with this difference of opinion and reading. Without further information from the principals (Zeiss and Cosina), neither of us can say more. As it is, we have two excellent cameras, made by Cosina, badged Zeiss, just as we have a series of excellent cameras made by Cosina, badged Voigtländer. Let us be glad of this.
The lenses? Not sure. Some of them certainly do not qualify as the designs with which they are labeled: the 85/4 Tele-Tessar, for example, is neither tele nor Tessar. Again, Zeiss certainly had input, and in many (perhaps all) cases, they are actually Zeiss designs.
Cheers,
R.
Huck Finn
Well-known
Roger,
Thanks for reading & for listening. I appreciate your time & your thoughts.
I actually do think of this differently now after listening to you. I'm not at your point but am closer to it than I was before.
All the best,
Bill
Huck Finn
Well-known
After reflecting on my conversation with Roger over the weekend, it occurs to me that the history of the Zeiss collaboration with camera makers may offer some hope to those who would like to see a digital ZI. Aside from providing lenses for the Sony's & Panasonics of the world, Zeiss has had a serious cooboration with 5 camera makers over the past century in the 35 mm format:
Zeiss Ikon
Rollei
Yashica
Kyocera
Cosina
In every case, the result was some of the most innovative 35 mm cameras of the past century or at a minimum, significant improvements over what was available in the current market place.
Regardless of how much input Zeiss had into the camera itself, something seemed to happen in the collaboration that resulted in a camera body that the camera manufacturer had never otherwise developed. Certainly Yashica never produced anything comparable to the Contax RTS under its own brand. I'm not sure who did the R&D for the Contax G, but whether it was Yashica or Kyocera, nothing similar had been seen from either of them.
Whatever the dynamic in these partnerships is that stimulated these developments, it suggests that it leads to something happening that wouldn't have happened otherwise. With digital clearly being the foreseeable future of photography & with all companies always changing with the influx of ideas from new & younger management, I think that there is indeed hope that the Zeiss Ikon could lead to something otherwise unexpected in the digital realm - be it from Cosina or some other manufacturer.
Just my 2 cents to keep hope alive.
Zeiss Ikon
Rollei
Yashica
Kyocera
Cosina
In every case, the result was some of the most innovative 35 mm cameras of the past century or at a minimum, significant improvements over what was available in the current market place.
Regardless of how much input Zeiss had into the camera itself, something seemed to happen in the collaboration that resulted in a camera body that the camera manufacturer had never otherwise developed. Certainly Yashica never produced anything comparable to the Contax RTS under its own brand. I'm not sure who did the R&D for the Contax G, but whether it was Yashica or Kyocera, nothing similar had been seen from either of them.
Whatever the dynamic in these partnerships is that stimulated these developments, it suggests that it leads to something happening that wouldn't have happened otherwise. With digital clearly being the foreseeable future of photography & with all companies always changing with the influx of ideas from new & younger management, I think that there is indeed hope that the Zeiss Ikon could lead to something otherwise unexpected in the digital realm - be it from Cosina or some other manufacturer.
Just my 2 cents to keep hope alive.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Zeiss also has a long history of building professional cameras that RFF members would never have imagined. For example:
The RMK series of 9"x9" format aerial film cameras that even have Forward Motion Compensation (FMC); with 305, 152, 88.5mm lenses that are calibrated to and has barrel/pin-cushion distortions measurable only in microns. Such cameras were last produced ca. 2003 and cost $500K
The Z(I DMC 8,000 x 14,000 (yes...112 Mpixel) Digital Mapping Camera (DMC) that starts at $1.5 million. [Uses four 12-micron Dalsa chip in a composite.]
The RMD small format digital camera that was introduced in 2008...
That is why I have such high confidence that Zeiss can solve any problems given reasonable time. I believe the Leica micro lens approach is but an example of nano-engineering that Zeiss makes equipment for. Redistributing single element lenses cannot be such a big deal.
I also believe a better solution might well be the Sony full frame Super HAD CCD-II http://www.zeissrumors.com/2009_09_01_archive.html; and from Zeiss's own long term partner Sony no less. [This HAD CCD-II has a much shallower "well" and should help solve the oblique incident angle problem to a great extent.]
Sony did not make that chip for the hell of it. Some application related announcement might soon come about...Photokina 2010 anyone?
Attachments
Last edited:
Huck Finn
Well-known
I believe that in addition to making lenses for cinematography, they make cameras for the film industry as well.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Oh yes indeed. For example, Zeiss made a special f0.7 [?] lens for Stanley Kubrick's candle-lit cinematography master piece "Barry Lyndon"...
Long ago in '82 or there abouts, a Zeiss representative gave me a 2" thick binder of all lens Zeiss made for the Hasselblad and other
systems...MTF curves and all...well before there was Internet. What was more interesting was a "Request for Quotation" form at the back of the binder where one could specify a lens.
Imagine my joke: "what about a 24~105mm f1.4 IF zoom in F-mount that weights no more than..."; my fantasy lens then. The Zeiss representative simply smiled and said: "the quote might take some time and might cost a few million dollars..."
Zeiss is optics...for more than 165 years; and associated with it things that mount Zeiss lenses...from cameras, to microscopes, to artillery range finder, to sniper scopes, to planetariums... That is why I posted that "Zeiss has never been too stymied by optical challenges."
Last edited:
darinb
Newbie
Just because I worship Kubrick...
The lens was made for NASA that Kubrick obtained and modified for use on his movie camera...
Here it is: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2887551617_69d16bbb14.jpg
--Darin
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
And for moving pictures.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Just because I worship Kubrick...
The lens was made for NASA that Kubrick obtained and modified for use on his movie camera...
Here it is: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2887551617_69d16bbb14.jpg
--Darin
I don't know much about the NASA origin, but the movie credit actually named Carl Zeiss.
In any case, my side-bar was not about Kubrick, but rather trying to say the Zeiss I know did all sorts of unbelievable things...solving a dRF problem has to be ranked as minor, if they choose to do it.
Despite obvious worshiping of Leica by many, the M8/9 micro lens is not much more than redistributing single element "dew drops" and using camera firmware as instructed by the 6-bit lens coding to do the fine tuning...sort of a hybrid solution.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Technically, yes, except that they can't use the patented 6-bit coding: it would have to be entered manually. And by 'not much more' do you mean you could do it?
But are you willing to pay (let us say) $10,000,000 for a ZI digi RF?
'Cos I'm not...
Cheers,
R.
Quercus
Quercus
I think that the entire question of whether zeiss will produce a digital rf or not is a bit of a lost leader - maybe better to think terms of whether there is a market for a zeiss badged digi rf is more in line with reality. So quoting mythical price possibilities becomes just that.
I can't really remember reading who approached who about the ZM range, cosina or CZ, but it was a sensible move for each Cosina now have double penetration in the M market place - (and this is just a guess but I bet they are making more money from it than the red dot cartel ever did or does) CZ benefitted by keeping a foot in the photographic world after the loss of the contax brand (license is still held by yashica I believe) and access to an manufacturer / assembly plant already making licensed lenses for a range of manufacturers and mounts (again a guess but I bet more zeiss foto glass is being sold now than ever under the yashica deal)
Now will that translate to a zeiss badged drf maybe not - but cosina certainly know how to make a 4/3 lens mount - is the defacto M digital platform now 4/3???
Would zeiss glass at zeiss glass prices be an "real" marketable success - maybe not at present but if a more pro-like 4/3 olympus or pany body comes along and starts to attract parts of the canikony (canon, nikon sony portmanteau) higher end world then maybe
But hey its all just pie in the sky until it does happen
- Is the technology out there to allow a zeiss badged drf - yes.
- Does it have to be FF or even M bayonet to be successful - no.
- Would a zeiss competitor to the new "PEN" be sellable - probably
I can't really remember reading who approached who about the ZM range, cosina or CZ, but it was a sensible move for each Cosina now have double penetration in the M market place - (and this is just a guess but I bet they are making more money from it than the red dot cartel ever did or does) CZ benefitted by keeping a foot in the photographic world after the loss of the contax brand (license is still held by yashica I believe) and access to an manufacturer / assembly plant already making licensed lenses for a range of manufacturers and mounts (again a guess but I bet more zeiss foto glass is being sold now than ever under the yashica deal)
Now will that translate to a zeiss badged drf maybe not - but cosina certainly know how to make a 4/3 lens mount - is the defacto M digital platform now 4/3???
Would zeiss glass at zeiss glass prices be an "real" marketable success - maybe not at present but if a more pro-like 4/3 olympus or pany body comes along and starts to attract parts of the canikony (canon, nikon sony portmanteau) higher end world then maybe
But hey its all just pie in the sky until it does happen
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This is it, really. Sure, Zeiss could do it. For $10,000,000 they'd probably have the camera in your hands in time for Christmas. Could they do it for the $2,500 a unit that the fantasists want to believe in? Of course not. So, in the (in my view) unlikely event that they decided to do it, the price would be the determining factor; and as you say, until then, it's pie in the sky.
Cheers,
R.
Quercus
Quercus
But thats the whole point - CZ don't have a range of M lenses and an M body because they want to be the saviour of the rangefinder world. They have one because it makes (made at the time) a "sensible" economic option (and for CZ that does not have to include actually making money directly). A FF M9 competitor makes less sense since the advent of the EP-1. CZ lens development appears to be squarely aimed at the dSLR market not the M-Mount RF market - they have that pretty fairly squared with the current range of lenses that work perfectly well on the multitude of M-mounts now out there whether film or digital.
Will they cosina eventually produce zeiss 4/3 lenses - maybe a lot wil depend on what the actually agreement with sony is for supply of what are realistically the lenses for the a850/900 (as a zeissaphile this appears a much better arrangement than the yashica one was - Sony even do the advertising for CZa lenses) -
This leaves CZ with a pro-quality chassis in dSLR- a range of mainly badged lenses that pick up custom in both the single mount RF world and the remainder of the dSLR world plus keeps the zeiss name alive on a body
Would sony move into the FF dRF world - unlikely the return would be too small. But could sony move into the RF like 4/3 platform - that is maybe more realistic compared to both nikon and canon sony have a gap for a high quality rf like compact within their current range - on the 4/3 platform with zeiss glass that could be a killer product
Will they cosina eventually produce zeiss 4/3 lenses - maybe a lot wil depend on what the actually agreement with sony is for supply of what are realistically the lenses for the a850/900 (as a zeissaphile this appears a much better arrangement than the yashica one was - Sony even do the advertising for CZa lenses) -
This leaves CZ with a pro-quality chassis in dSLR- a range of mainly badged lenses that pick up custom in both the single mount RF world and the remainder of the dSLR world plus keeps the zeiss name alive on a body
Would sony move into the FF dRF world - unlikely the return would be too small. But could sony move into the RF like 4/3 platform - that is maybe more realistic compared to both nikon and canon sony have a gap for a high quality rf like compact within their current range - on the 4/3 platform with zeiss glass that could be a killer product
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Who on earth want to use 6-bit coding except Leica? :bang: Any computer literate person would use 8-bit and leave a couple of bits blank.
The 3 solutions for the problematic M-mount legacy are:
- Use newer shallow-well CCD such as the Sony HAD CCD-II
- Get more bit-depth for a totally software solution
- Use a smaller sensor as did Epson/Cosina
No, I am no economist, and I don't know how Zeiss justifies costs, whether $6,500 or $10,000.
I have not met Herr Leitz, nor Kobayashi-San.
I had no direct access to Carl Zeiss's labour-of-love department.
I cannot build a camera nor nano-engineer micro lenses.
AND, I am not the moderator in these forums...nor are most of the RFF registered members.
However, I have "read this whole thread" and parallel ones and had contributed a few times, and had always arouse the very same naysayer's standard dogmatic response...as if I had attacked some unwritten Holy Writ.
And I thought these forums are open to all...
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Frankie,
They are. I can't quite see your problem. There's no Holy Writ. Just probabilities and finance versus fantasy. See also post 193.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Mega-economic realities are:
- Film is dead-ended by consumers...some one-hour photo retailers had even switched to all digital. The next big thing will not be another new film emulsion.
- Film camera development and manufacturing had officially or unofficially stopped...officially at Nikon F6, unofficially at Leica M8 [silly special commemorative versions don't really count]. Also permanently at Yashica, Minolta, Konica, Kyocera, even Pentax [some may rejoice that Kenko now offers a F-mount all mechanical SLR...wow].
- Lens-only is not really the way to go...remember Vivitar, Soligor and many others? [Always a bridesmaid, never a bride eventually hurts.]
- Leica sets a bench-mark price for a RF digital camera, as was the Nikon D3 for DSLR. Competitors need only to equal or better than that bench-mark, in price or technology...myths notwithstanding.
- The digital premium is justifiable in consumer's mind in that no recurring film/processing cost...so long as it is not silly. Everyone knows gas mileage is an important consideration when buying a car, but not when the car price is out of reach. Common sense really.
- All manufacturers [or a division] who had no convincing digital products withered, died or divested...just ask Minolta, Yashica/Kyocera, Konica...
Probabilities are:
Hardware solution or software solution.
Hardware looses every time because it is...hard, meaning not flexible [speaking from 35 years professional experience in digital photogrammetry].Reality is:
RFF members could only hope...no one ask us directly.
If no one speaks [stifled by dogma], or left to speak [long resigned], then no one will answer...even when asked.
Last edited: