 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2005Contax is NOT Dead
Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:. ******************* Dear Sir, No the info on the web is not correct. If you go to www.kyoceraimaging.com on the home page there is a press release dated February 20th describing what should have be stated on the web. The info quoted on the web is incorrect and we are working to have the correct info posted. Thank you, Nick Cheremsak ******************* The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive distributor of Contax and indicates that Kyocera is committed to focusing on Contax as their primary digital imaging line. Sometimes it pays to go to the horses mouth. Walt Hanks > Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Walt Hanks That is good news. I'd hate to see a quality brand go down the tubes... George > That is good news. I'd hate to see a quality brand go down the tubes... > > George True, but they should do a lot of innovation in order to keep up with the competition (there are a lot of competitors...). VirtualV > > The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive > distributor [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > George It's just a name, there hasn't been a Contax for years. > > > The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive > > distributor [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > It's just a name, there hasn't been a Contax for years. I'd say Kyocero has kept up the brand name quite well. The lens line hasn't suffered and they have addressed film flatness better than any other manufacturer. I'm not lamenting that 1940s German rangefinders named "Contax" aren't being made...I just want to see as many quality minded companies hang around as it is good whether you own that particular brand or not. >> Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >George The originating website owner can be sued for this. -Rich > The originating website owner can be sued for this. > -Rich You can sue anybody for anything, but to prevail Kyocera would have to show that the web site owner knew or should have known that his statements were false. Given that his information was received directly from sources at Kyocera that would be very hard to prove. I suspect that there is some confusion and speculation going on within the company and it is getting out to various people in garbled form. Kyocera would have no justification for suing people when they can't control what their own personnel are saying. Then, too, any target of a lawsuit would have to be worth going after. A web site owner does not necessarily have deep enough pockets to make a lawsuit worthwhile. Finally, few camera companies would like a reputation for suing reviewers. Reviews of their cameras would dry up very fast. > "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message >> The originating website owner can be sued for this. > You can sue anybody for anything, but to prevail Kyocera would have to > show > that the web site owner knew or should have known that his statements were > false. If, in fact, they are. The dis-information may well be coming from the USA distributor, who very likely has a warehouse full of unsold product that they would like to sell at top dollar. Given the choice of believing the USA distributor's web or Phil's DPreview web, I find that the latter is the disinterested, and consequently, presumed honest source of accurate information. While I would certainly like to see Contax and Yashica continue, I fear that may not be the case. > > "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message > >> The originating website owner can be sued for this. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > continue, I fear that may not be the case. > I hate to agree with anything sounding like even a MINI conspiracy, but I have to agree with this post. Until and unless I see some indication that someone is actually making more Contax cameras, I will consider it a dead company.  SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. > Then, too, any target of a lawsuit would have to be worth going after. A web > site owner does not necessarily have deep enough pockets to make a lawsuit > worthwhile. It may seem odd to some but I'm aware of one person that sometimes couldn't care less about any monetary award provided by a favourable court ruling. Sometimes he sues simply because someone else desperately deserved to be buried in paperwork for the next ten years - eating beans six nights out of seven because the attorney fees won't afford better. If one can't afford to be sued, maybe one should learn to keep their hands to themself. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' In rec.photo.equipment.35mm C J Campbell <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > The originating website owner can be sued for this. > > -Rich [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > false. Given that his information was received directly from sources at > Kyocera that would be very hard to prove. I suspect that there is some Thats what he claims anyways. > confusion and speculation going on within the company and it is getting out > to various people in garbled form. Kyocera would have no justification for > suing people when they can't control what their own personnel are saying. Wrong. If you distribute information you receive from non-oficial channels within the company the comapny can perfectly well sue you and win. The sole exception is if they ordered the information to be distributed themselves. > Then, too, any target of a lawsuit would have to be worth going after. A web > site owner does not necessarily have deep enough pockets to make a lawsuit > worthwhile. He might still have house and car and hamster and ... > Finally, few camera companies would like a reputation for suing reviewers. > Reviews of their cameras would dry up very fast. Reviewers that do significant PR damage are probably not worth having. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ > > ******************* > > The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive > distributor > > of Contax and indicates that Kyocera is committed to focusing on Contax as > > their primary digital imaging line. That is gratifying to hear, BUT . . . Doesn't it seem strange that they would shut down their production lines, rather than sell the entire operation and keep production running? I'm glad that they have a distributor, but who the hell is going to MANUFACTURE the stuff? Am I missing something? In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Jeremy <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote: > > > ******************* > > > The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Doesn't it seem strange that they would shut down their production lines, > rather than sell the entire operation and keep production running? Are you sure they really did? > I'm glad that they have a distributor, but who the hell is going to > MANUFACTURE the stuff? > > Am I missing something? That there is a lot of confusion and lack of clear, reliable information? SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ > That is good news. I'd hate to see a quality brand go down the tubes... Whats in a brand name? I mean - a company does not make better cameras by using an old brand name they have bought. /Roland > Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Walt Hanks I think it is highly possible that the message you received came from someone interested primarily in unloading store rooms full of Contax products... >> Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:. >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > someone interested primarily in unloading store rooms full of Contax > products... Think what you want. I never cease to be amazed at the ability of Usenet to create controversy where none exists and find conspiracy in every corner. Mr. Cheremsak is Kyocera's PR officer, not ToCad's. Try going to Kyocera's site and finding any announcement of the sort that was posted by dpreview. You won't find it. Doesn't THAT strike you as odd? Walt >>> Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:. >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > controversy where none exists and find conspiracy in every corner. Mr. Cheremsak is > Kyocera's PR officer, not ToCad's. What "conspiracy"?? I'm no consiracy theorist. I'm just aware that one e-mail...from one guy...tht contradicts a number of articles from legitimate sources is often shown to be just that--just one e-mail from one guy who is full of crap. I don't know that this is the case in this instance, but it's certainly a possiblity. > Try going to Kyocera's site and finding any announcement of the sort that was posted by > dpreview. You won't find it. Doesn't THAT strike you as odd? Leaks happen all the time. Why does that strike YOU as odd? Again... I don't know which is correct, but both are quite possible. > Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Sometimes it pays to go to the horses mouth. Or it could simply be that they want to keep the matter quiet until the existing stock of Contax cameras is sold, since they realize that few people are interested in buying into soon-to-be discontinued products at premium prices. It's not paranoia, either: If someone told me that a particular GM car sucked, the last thing I'd think of doing is calling up GM and asking if the rumor was true. Sometimes it's not the horse's *mouth* you end up talking to. > they want to keep the matter quiet until the > existing stock of Contax cameras is sold, How do you think this can be accomplished today? In the USA they have changed distributors. The new distributor, Tocad, had a table full of new product PR at the PMA Sneak Peak last month and a booth full of product and a new sales force. That means they plan on selling something. The old distributor no longer has a photo sales force or sales management for photo. What can they sell? If a product is introduced anywhere in the world today it is on the internet before it is even introduced to the company's local sales force. It is almost impossible to keep new product quiet once it has been introduced anywhere. And no company wants to sit with no sales waiting for old product to disappear. They can always make loads of merchandise move by just offering it on QVC or HSC. SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. > > they want to keep the matter quiet until the > > existing stock of Contax cameras is sold, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > waiting for old product to disappear. They can always make loads of > merchandise move by just offering it on QVC or HSC. Next time read the entire thread. 1) No one was talking about the introduction of *new* product. 2) The company whose word was in question was not Tocad, but rather Kyocera 3) You missed my point entirely, which was that no one should automatically trust the word of a company which has a vested interest in some product in question. My post OBVIOUSLY had nothing to do with whether the Kyocera rumor of severing ties with Contax was true or not. 4) If you go to http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7859674 , you will see in a story dated 3/10/05 that Kyocera is indeed ceasing production of digital cameras, Contax-, Kyocera-branded, or otherwise. 5) The information you provided may be gospel or it may be utter drivel and no one has any way of knowing which. > > > they want to keep the matter quiet until the > > > existing stock of Contax cameras is sold, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > 5) The information you provided may be gospel or it may be utter drivel and > no one has any way of knowing which. "no one should automatically trust the word of a company which has a vested interest in some product in question." Then who should one take the word of? You quote an article quoting the company that has a vested interest. If you want the correct answer to something it is frequently better not to get it from a major source of rumors like the internet. And it is very unlikely that a manufacturer is going to inform someone on the internet about their future before they tell their distributors. Contax isn't a company as you infer "Kyocera rumor of severing ties with Contax". Contax is a brand name developed by Zeiss Ikon and used for their top of the line rangefinder cameras until Zeiss Ikon Voigtlander went out of the camera business in the 70's (our company was formed out of the US division of Zeiss Ikon Voigtlander USA at that time). Contax was also used as a brand name by the East German manufacturer in the old East German Dresden factory for an early SLR. Carl Zeiss, the lens manufacturing division of the Zeiss group, licensed the Contax name to Yashica who then was acquired by Kyocera. So Contax is a brand not a company. SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. "Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote > > So Contax is a brand not a company. But the question is simply this: If Kyocera has, in fact, shut down production lines, is this the end of the Contax cameras we are currently familiar with? Is the new distributor just going to liquidate the existing stock? If production lines are not running, are we facing the end of the line for Contax-branded products? > "Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote > > > So Contax is a brand not a company. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If production lines are not running, are we facing the end of the line for > Contax-branded products? Or maybe we'll just see Contax braded Sanyo or Samsung product? > Or maybe we'll just see Contax braded Sanyo or Samsung product? Of course not. Cosina will start production soon, but to save costs, they will outsource the menial work to arsenal. -- Lassi <snip> > "no one should automatically trust the word of a company which has a > vested interest in some product in question." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > very unlikely that a manufacturer is going to inform someone on the > internet about their future before they tell their distributors. <snip> Looks like DPreview had better information than the US distributors (ToCad): http://global.kyocera.com/news/2005/0402.html Ben Kyocera has offically announced that the brank "Contrax" will be discontinued yesterday. Except Contax 645 all other Contax camera bodies and lens will be discontinued in May 05 and 645 will be in December 05. "Ben Micklem" <ben.micklem@pharm.ox.ac.uk> :BE817633.5039%ben.micklem@pharm.ox.ac.uk... > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ben > Kyocera has offically announced that the brank "Contrax" will be > discontinued yesterday. All they are discontinuing is their production of it. They don't own the brand Contax, Zeiss owns that. Alex > Kyocera has offically announced that the brank "Contrax" will be > discontinued yesterday. All they are discontinuing is their production of it. They don't own the brand Contax, Zeiss owns that. Alex > > Kyocera has offically announced that the brank "Contrax" will be > > discontinued yesterday. > > All they are discontinuing is their production of it. They don't own the > brand Contax, Zeiss owns that. Zeiss sold the brand name to Yashica over 20 years ago, AFAIK > Zeiss sold the brand name to Yashica over 20 years ago, AFAIK They only entered into a partnership to produce Contax branded cameras under licence, after previous overtures with Pentax came to nothing. Zeiss still own the Contax and Ikon brands. Alex > They only entered into a partnership to produce Contax branded cameras under > licence, after previous overtures with Pentax came to nothing. Zeiss still > own the Contax and Ikon brands. Since Zeiss does not produce cameras, is not likely to begin doing so, the point who owns the Contax brand is moot. With Kyocera out of it, the current Contax camera line is dead. Then there's another issue, more important than who owns the Contax name: who owns the technology in the Contax cameras? If (which is highly probable) it is Kyocera, there is no chance of anyone else continuing the production. So the current Contax camera line is dead, never to return again. Then, even if someone is willing to pick up where Kyocera left off, they will inherit Kyocer'as problems too: there is almost no market for the Contax cameras. So even then the current line will remain dead. Expect to see digital thingies of different size. > Since Zeiss does not produce cameras, is not likely to begin doing so, the > point who owns the Contax brand is moot. Here's an official statement from Zeiss on this topic: "Unter der Marke CONTAX hat Kyocera jahrelang hervorragende Kameras mit Carl Zeiss Objektiven auf den Markt gebracht. Wir bedauern, daß Kyocera, gemäß Verlautbarung vom 12. April 2005, diese Aktivitäten nicht fortsetzen wird. Nach wie vor besteht zwischen Carl Zeiss und Kyocera ein Vertrag über die exklusive Nutzung der Marke CONTAX durch Kyocera. Dieser Vertrag hat noch eine Laufzeit von mehreren Jahren. Wir können deshalb derzeit noch keine konkreten Aussagen über die künftige Entwicklung machen." In a nutshell: We regret Kyocera's decision. There is and remains a contract between Carl Zeiss and Kyocera about the exclusive use of the Contax brand by Kyocera. Expiry of this contract still is a few years away. We can't make any definite statements on what the future may bring. Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > In a nutshell: We regret Kyocera's decision. There is and remains a > contract between Carl Zeiss and Kyocera about the exclusive use of the > Contax brand by Kyocera. Expiry of this contract still is a few years > away. We can't make any definite statements on what the future may > bring. Thanks for the quote. Even if Zeiss works out a deal to buy off Kyocera's rights to use the brand, what are they going to put it on? They took possession of the "Ikon" brand again (which must have cost the a pretty penny) and put it on a Cosina camera. Hands up and be counted: how many have bought the new Zeiss-Ikon? And now spend cash to regain control of another brand again? But if... I think it would be a save bet that, should we see new "Contax" cameras soon, they would be called "Zeiss-Ikon". >>In a nutshell: We regret Kyocera's decision. There is and remains a >>contract between Carl Zeiss and Kyocera about the exclusive use of the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I think it would be a save bet that, should we see new "Contax" cameras > soon, they would be called "Zeiss-Ikon". One possible partner comes to mind: Sony. Unfortunately, they have no experience in the SLR market and might not be willing to enter it. Also, any new medium format cameras produced directly by Zeiss might put them at odds with Hasselblad. SignatureJ www.urbanvoyeur.com > They took possession of the "Ikon" brand again (which must have cost the a > pretty penny) and put it on a Cosina camera. What cost? The Zeiss-Ikon brand had not been used by anybody for any photo-related product since the closure of the Stuttgart factory in the late 70's. Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses Frankly speaking I don't care whether Contax will continue or not. I just love their lens. If a DSLR can use all the old lens just like Contax AX. It will be perfect. "Ralf R. Radermacher" <fotoralf@gmx.de> :1guzca2.9db5qk1soxiz0N%fotoralf@gmx.de... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ralf > What cost? The Zeiss-Ikon brand had not been used by anybody for any > photo-related product since the closure of the Stuttgart factory in the > late 70's. Trademark issues, perhaps. It gets complicated in Germany. Rights might apply across German trademarks, the International registry, European community, all that. > What cost? The Zeiss-Ikon brand had not been used by anybody for any > photo-related product since the closure of the Stuttgart factory in the > late 70's. That't true. But the IKON brand was sold (with logo, without Zeiss name) to that Scandinavian lock and key making firm. Together with the factory (which already made locks and keys) and all. It hadn't been owned by Zeiss anymore for many years. > But the IKON brand was sold (with logo, without Zeiss name) to that > Scandinavian lock and key making firm. Together with the factory (which > already made locks and keys) and all. > It hadn't been owned by Zeiss anymore for many years. Who says they've sold the use of the brand for photographic products? Why do I get the feeling you're trying to construct a case when all logic suggests there is none? Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > Who says they've sold the use of the brand for photographic products? Noone. They sold Ziess-Ikon, lock stock and barrell, bar teh "Zeiss" bit in the name. Who says they retained the right to use the name on photographic products? > Why do I get the feeling you're trying to construct a case when all > logic suggests there is none? That, i leave to you. What logic suggests what exactly? > Noone. They sold Ziess-Ikon, lock stock and barrell, bar teh "Zeiss" bit in > the name. > Who says they retained the right to use the name on photographic products? Noone. Then again, noone with the notable exception of yourself is suggesting they didn't. Besides, they had quite a selection of great names to chose from: Ikonta, Ikarex and so on and on. Why on earth should they have chosen a name they'd have to pay for? Just doesn't make sense. Well, judging from the time and energy you're putting into a totally moot argument, you must be pretty bored again. I'm not, so I rest my case. Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > > Who says they retained the right to use the name on photographic products? > > Noone. You suggested Zeiss could re-use the Ikon name without cost. Right? Why? > Then again, noone with the notable exception of yourself is > suggesting they didn't. Well, they sold the entire Zeiss-Ikon thing years ago, including (well established) the IKON name. Now you are suggesting they did retain the right to use that name. Hmm... > Besides, they had quite a selection of great names to chose from: > Ikonta, Ikarex and so on and on. Why on earth should they have chosen a > name they'd have to pay for? > > Just doesn't make sense. Ikonta, Ikarex, and so on and on all names belonging to Zeiss-Ikon that once was... Yes, just like Contax. ;-) The names you mention are names of specific products or product ranges. The Zeiss-Ikon name is the name of the fabeled producer of those goodies. Makes perfect sense to me. > Well, judging from the time and energy you're putting into a totally > moot argument, you must be pretty bored again. I'm not, so I rest my > case. :-) > Since Zeiss does not produce cameras, is not likely to begin doing so That Zeiss does not manufacture cameras is not relevant to the ownership of the brand. This has not, after all, impeded Zeiss from reviving the Zeiss Ikon marque, in partnership with Cosina. The brand still exists, and can be manufactured. This, therefore, > With Kyocera out of it, the current Contax camera line is dead. is a non sequitur. The Contax line manufactured by Kyocera is dead, that's all. > who owns the technology in the Contax cameras? I'm pretty sure that Kyocera will have patents in the camera designs, but that is not the issue here. Zeiss may enter partnership with another manufacturer > Then, even if someone is willing to pick up where Kyocera left off, they > will inherit Kyocer'as problems too: there is almost no market for the > Contax cameras. Kyocera were not what one would call red hot in marketing, but the Contax line has always been a niche line, not a mass market line, and those who bought into Contax generally did so because they were also buying into Zeiss glass. Whoever is able to pick up the brand is not obliged to pick up Kyocera's less than able marketing problems. Alex > That Zeiss does not manufacture cameras is not relevant to the ownership of > the brand. That (in reverse) is what i said. > This has not, after all, impeded Zeiss from reviving the Zeiss > Ikon marque, in partnership with Cosina. The brand still exists, and can be > manufactured. Remain the questions i raised about who on earth will be manufacturing these products. Regardless of what brand they would wish to put on them. > > With Kyocera out of it, the current Contax camera line is dead. > > is a non sequitur. The Contax line manufactured by Kyocera is dead, that's > all. Please read before trying to show you know a bit of Latin. ;-) See, the already discontinued Contax lines are dead already, the current line has now expired too. All matters of fact. Where do you see a conclusion drawn? > > who owns the technology in the Contax cameras? > > I'm pretty sure that Kyocera will have patents in the camera designs, but > that is not the issue here. Zeiss may enter partnership with another > manufacturer Not an isue? As long as Kyocera is not willing to give up ownership of the technology, Zeiss can have noone build these things again. > > Then, even if someone is willing to pick up where Kyocera left off, they > > will inherit Kyocer'as problems too: there is almost no market for the > > Contax cameras. > > Kyocera were not what one would call red hot in marketing, We're they not? > but the Contax > line has always been a niche line, not a mass market line, and those who > bought into Contax generally did so because they were also buying into Zeiss > glass. Correct. And that niche market is vanishing very fast. Has disappeared almost completely now. > Whoever is able to pick up the brand is not obliged to pick up > Kyocera's less than able marketing problems. Pardon? They would be operating in the same market, the one here on Earth, would they not? You seem to think that the slump in MF photography is due to poor marketing. It isn't. Think lighting, and think oil lamps. Than try to figure out if they too disappeared due to poor marketing. > Remain the questions i raised about who on earth will be manufacturing > these > products. Regardless of what brand they would wish to put on them. I would certainly be interested in seeing what names might be in the frame. > Please read before trying to show you know a bit of Latin. ;-) I need try to show nothing - although I might occasionally be heard to regret that Classics have now almost entirely vanished from mainstream education; but that's another subject, eh? > As long as Kyocera is not willing to give up ownership of the technology, > Zeiss can have noone build these things again. One would have to wonder what rationale Kyocera could have given its re-orientation right out of the market. >> Kyocera were not what one would call red hot in marketing, > > We're they not? Oh, let's rifle through a few of the better photo comics of the last decade or so and see what the balance in marketing is between Nikon, Canon and ....... Contax. What's your money on? > They would be operating in the same market, the one here on Earth, would > they not? But they are not obliged to do things the Kyocera way. > You seem to think that the slump in MF photography is due to poor > marketing. Luke 4:23, eh? I said nothing about the slump in MF photography. I was referring to Kyocera's performance. > Think lighting, and think oil lamps. Than try to figure out if they too > disappeared due to poor marketing. Canon users are queuing up to buy adapters to put Contax/Zeiss lenses on EOS bodies. Who's queueing up to put wicks in spotlights? Alex > I need try to show nothing - although I might occasionally be heard to > regret that Classics have now almost entirely vanished from mainstream > education; but that's another subject, eh? It is. And logic too is rarely taught. ;-). > One would have to wonder what rationale Kyocera could have given its > re-orientation right out of the market. Not making money. Basic marketing. > Oh, let's rifle through a few of the better photo comics of the last decade > or so and see what the balance in marketing is between Nikon, Canon and > ....... Contax. What's your money on? Pentax? Minolta? Olympus? Leica even? All extremely bad at marketing? > But they are not obliged to do things the Kyocera way. So what will they do? Try to get legislature passed that compells every houshold to have at least one film eating MF camera? Where's Bronica? When have you last heard of Rollei? Mamiya announced a digital MF thing, but where is it? Hasselblad is doing poorly too. Pentax i almost forgot, because it already is almost forgotten. But if only Contax hadn't been a Kyocera brand it would have sold like oil in the USA... Right? > > You seem to think that the slump in MF photography is due to poor > > marketing. > > Luke 4:23, eh? You'll have to spell it out, i'm afraid. > I said nothing about the slump in MF photography. I was referring to > Kyocera's performance. That's the point, yes. You apparently think that Contax's demise has nothing to do with the market, everything to do with Kyocera. But given the state of the market, there will be noone at all foolish enough to take over the Contax line. Not even Kyocera. And that, believe it or not, is not Kyocera's fault. > > Think lighting, and think oil lamps. Than try to figure out if they too > > disappeared due to poor marketing. > > Canon users are queuing up to buy adapters to put Contax/Zeiss lenses on EOS > bodies. Are they? Why would anybody? > Who's queueing up to put wicks in spotlights? The same crowd that is queueing to buy Contax cameras, or any other film eating MF camera. I don't know a single Canon user that is interested in Contax lenses. Rather than "queing up" we are, in fact, yawning at the idea. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > Remain the questions i raised about who on earth will be manufacturing > > these [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Alex >I don't know a single Canon user that is interested in Contax lenses. >Rather > than "queing up" we are, in fact, yawning at the idea. I know many who are. It's not unrelated to the rate at which Zeiss Distagon 21mm lenses are being snapped up by.... Canon users. Maybe you yawn with your eyes wide shut. Alex > I know many who are. It's not unrelated to the rate at which Zeiss Distagon > 21mm lenses are being snapped up by.... Canon users. ..and paying an astonishing amount of money for them, like $4500 on ebay. -- hans In 36 years of photography I've never met an actual photographer - as opposed to a camera collector - who has had much any feeling for Zeiss lenses as being anything to seek out or pay a premium to own. They are much like Vincent Black Shadows and other status symbols - for show. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > >I don't know a single Canon user that is interested in Contax lenses. > >Rather [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Alex > In 36 years of photography I've never met an actual photographer - as > opposed to a camera collector - who has had much any feeling for Zeiss > lenses as being anything to seek out or pay a premium to own. People who share your perceptions are "photographers", people who don't are "camera collectors". Hmm. I see. Alex Uh huh! You know, Zeiss glass has always been known for how bad it sucked<g>. That's why the 40mm Distagon for Hasselblad is such a terrible lens! Add as much sarcasm to my post as you want; it won't be enough! D. >> In 36 years of photography I've never met an actual photographer - as >> opposed to a camera collector - who has had much any feeling for Zeiss [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Alex > Uh huh! You know, Zeiss glass has always been known for how bad it > sucked<g>. That's why the 40mm Distagon for Hasselblad is such a terrible > lens! > > Add as much sarcasm to my post as you want; it won't be enough! Indeed, and that 38mm Biogon! Ech! Everyone who has a SW should dump them ASAP. I'll pay scrapmetal prices for them. Send 'em here! <include sarcasm until buffer overflow> > the 40mm Distagon for Hasselblad is such a terrible > lens! Which 40mm Distagon and why not the other two 40mm Distagons for Rollei? SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. Oh, those are terrible as well! D. >> the 40mm Distagon for Hasselblad is such a terrible >> lens! > > Which 40mm Distagon and why not the other two 40mm Distagons for Rollei? > terrible Exactly how? Compared to what? And is this your personal experience with both the old and new designs or 3rd party noise? SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. >> terrible > > Exactly how? Compared to what? And is this your personal experience with > both the old and new designs or 3rd party noise? Confirmed: Bob Salomon has no sense of humor. > > terrible > > Exactly how? Compared to what? And is this your personal experience with > both the old and new designs or 3rd party noise? Oh dear... Bob on a marketing offensive again... > > > terrible > > > > Exactly how? Compared to what? And is this your personal experience with > > both the old and new designs or 3rd party noise? > > Oh dear... Bob on a marketing offensive again... How am I on a "marketing offensive" I have nothing to do with Hasselblad, Rollei or Carl Zeiss. We sell Linhof and Wista and Rodenstock. I suggest you read the thread and digest it before add immature and meaningless comments. And yes I did sell Rollei in the 70s and from 1986 to 1998. And yes I sold Bronica in the 70's and Mamiya in the 70s. So I have experience with them all. SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. > And yes I did sell Rollei in the 70s and from 1986 to 1998. And your loyalty is admirable. > > And yes I did sell Rollei in the 70s and from 1986 to 1998. > > And your loyalty is admirable. Nothing to do with loyalty. It was an answer to someone's totally irresponsible answer to a question. Which that person still has not answered. if he has detrimental comments about the lenses he still has not explained what was the cause of those comments or which 40mm he was talking about. Perhaps you can answer for him? SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. >>>And yes I did sell Rollei in the 70s and from 1986 to 1998. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Perhaps you can answer for him? I think he was making a joke. SignatureJ www.urbanvoyeur.com > Nothing to do with loyalty. It was an answer to someone's totally > irresponsible answer to a question. Now we're getting somewhere. You didn't answer, just asked questions. Right? And you obviously are a very literal man, with no sense for humour, irony, sarcasm, or whatever you might call it. > Nothing to do with loyalty. It was an answer to someone's totally > irresponsible answer to a question. > > Which that person still has not answered. if he has detrimental comments > about the lenses he still has not explained what was the cause of those > comments or which 40mm he was talking about. You were not following the thread! He was being facetious (or sarcastic) and said so. Humor, Bob. Humor! > In 36 years of photography I've never met an actual photographer - as > opposed to a camera collector - who has had much any feeling for Zeiss > lenses as being anything to seek out or pay a premium to own. What kind of actual photographers were these? School portraitists using long rolls? I know and have known news shooters, hobbiests, wedding shooters, documentarists, fashion and advertising shooters (one of my students from a decade ago is currently shooting ads in NYC) as well as specialists like an pilot/infrared shooter, a funeral shooter and a film stills man, along with some of this and a little of that, including at least one long roll school shooter. None used Zeiss lenses -- even the fashion shooters I've known have gone for Japanese cameras over the far too expensive Hassy route. Zeiss has been living on reputation for at least 40 years. Eventually it catches up. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > In 36 years of photography I've never met an actual photographer - as > > opposed to a camera collector - who has had much any feeling for Zeiss > > lenses as being anything to seek out or pay a premium to own. > > What kind of actual photographers were these? School portraitists using long > rolls? The Zeiss and Leica owners I've met have, to a man, been much more interested in the equipment hanging around their necks than pictures. I have on many occasions asked to see the "great pictures" their superbe equipment made, those masterpieces of clarity and resolution, my cheap "Jap-Junk" couldn't equal. None of them ever came up with anything to show. They just like to have expensive jewelry. I'm sure there are a few actual users of Zeiss equipment, (I would assume there were some in Europe) but in 37 or more years of living and shooting in major US metropollitan areas - I've never met a single one, and only know of one serious Contax shooter through the internet. That one man is Lewis Lang. I also tend to read the photography magazines and own a rather huge collection of photography books. Zeiss and Leica almost never show up in picture credits of shots from the 60s to the present, and only show up in books by people like HC-B who were shooting when there were no Japanese cameas in the west. I didn't say Everyone who owns Zeiss is a camera collector - I simply said that everyone I've met with Zeiss equipment is Not Interested in Pictures, merely in collecting. Don't twist what I say - it makes you look like a complete jerk. -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > In 36 years of photography I've never met an actual photographer - as > > opposed to a camera collector - who has had much any feeling for Zeiss [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Alex > The Zeiss and Leica owners I've met have, to a man, been much more > interested in the equipment hanging around their necks than pictures. I have [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Pictures, merely in collecting. Don't twist what I say - it makes you look > like a complete jerk. You know that your posts also appear in the MF group? I bet many people there will think that what you are saying makes you look like a complete... ;-) > The Zeiss and Leica owners I've met have, to a man, been much more > interested in the equipment hanging around their necks than pictures. That's the Bell Curve reality. It doesn't matter what your experience has been because it's typical. We are more interested in outstanding photographers who do make a difference. Very few of whom have been using Zeiss equipment in the past 40 years - which is one of the reasons Contax has shut down. Lack of customers is frequently the reason why companies go out of business. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > The Zeiss and Leica owners I've met have, to a man, been much more > > interested in the equipment hanging around their necks than pictures. > > That's the Bell Curve reality. It doesn't matter what your experience has > been because it's typical. We are more interested in outstanding > photographers who do make a difference. > Very few of whom have been using Zeiss equipment in the past 40 years - > which is one of the reasons Contax has shut down. Lack of customers is > frequently the reason why companies go out of business. Well, I do know a number of very good pro's who use Hasselblad. They shoot fashion, editorial, advertising and album covers. I also know a couple that shoot Rollei. None of them makes a fetish of the Zeiss glass, but they do give it its due. Collector worship aside, Zeiss knows how to make outstanding optics, and it does make a difference - you can see it in the results when they shoot 35mm side by side with MF. Zeiss also did great work with the Yashica point & shoots, and now with the Sony digital cameras - proving that they can make great optics for any price point. I think we'll see Zeiss in the photomarket place for a long time to come. SignatureJ www.urbanvoyeur.com > Very few of whom have been using Zeiss equipment in the past 40 years - > which is one of the reasons Contax has shut down. Lack of customers is > frequently the reason why companies go out of business. Well, I do know a number of very good pro's who use Hasselblad. They shoot fashion, editorial, advertising and album covers. I also know a couple that shoot Rollei. None of them makes a fetish of the Zeiss glass, but they do give it its due. Collector worship aside, Zeiss knows how to make outstanding optics, and it does make a difference - you can see it in the results when they shoot 35mm side by side with MF. Zeiss also did great work with the Yashica point & shoots, and now with the Sony digital cameras - proving that they can make great optics for any price point. I think we'll see Zeiss in the photomarket place for a long time to come. SignatureJ www.urbanvoyeur.com > Very few of whom have been using Zeiss equipment in the past 40 years - > which is one of the reasons Contax has shut down. Lack of customers is > frequently the reason why companies go out of business. Well, I do know a number of very good pro's who use Hasselblad. They shoot fashion, editorial, advertising and album covers. I also know a couple that shoot Rollei. None of them makes a fetish of the Zeiss glass, but they do give it its due. Collector worship aside, Zeiss knows how to make outstanding optics, and it does make a difference - you can see it in the results when they shoot 35mm side by side with MF. Zeiss also did great work with the Yashica point & shoots, and now with the Sony digital cameras - proving that they can make great optics for any price point. I think we'll see Zeiss in the photomarket place for a long time to come. SignatureJ www.urbanvoyeur.com > I'm sure there are a few actual users of Zeiss equipment, (I would assume >there were some in Europe) but in 37 or more years of living and shooting in >major US metropollitan areas - I've never met a single one, You've really never met anyone who uses a 3.5/2.8 Planar 'flex? I use mine a fair bit, although it has to be said that there doesn't seem to be any reason to prefer the optics to those on the 3.5E Xenotar I also own - they're both superb cameras which produce great results. > The Zeiss and Leica owners I've met have, to a man, been much more > interested in the equipment hanging around their necks than pictures. My experience has been quite the opposite. > I didn't say Everyone who owns Zeiss is a camera collector I didn't say you did. > Don't twist what I say - it makes you look > like a complete jerk. Luke 6:42. Alex As I thought - a complete jerk. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > The Zeiss and Leica owners I've met have, to a man, been much more > > interested in the equipment hanging around their necks than pictures. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Alex > As I thought - a complete jerk. You appear to be confused. Did you misread the contents of your own posts too? Alex I don't care that much for names of equipment. What I do care about is quality.....accuracy of the image and longevity of the equipment itself. I have used both Leica and Zeiss and Canon and Nikon optics and, so far, the Zeiss systems seem to represent the best quality per dollar. Case in point, I bought a Contax G2 several years ago. The 45mm lens cost me $200. This is the best lens that I've ever owned. Yeah, I know, some will say that the G2 is just a high end point and shoot...to those I say BOSH! The accuracy of this lens is truely remarkable on the G2 (I only wish there was a digital camera that could mate with these lenses) and is equivalent to my Leica gear and the best Nikon and Canon gear that I have used. I went wild about a year ago and bought the 28mm G lens on eBay for $180 and yet another outstanding lens. I'm sad to see Contax go. keoj No confusion Alex - you are a jerk. Fact. Now go back to playing with your toys and leave photography to those who an do their own thinking.. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > As I thought - a complete jerk. > > You appear to be confused. Did you misread the contents of your own posts > too? > > Alex > No confusion Alex - you are a jerk. It took you a mere three messages, in a straightforward discussion on photography issues, to start responding with name-calling and personal insults. For someone who claims to have been involved in photography for almost four decades, and might therefore be in his forties at least, the persona you project online is rather more that of an early teen with an ineffective grip on his own composure. You shot your bolt earlier than might be expected. Perhaps it's force of habit. It may seem incomprehensible to you that your personal experience in photography is not the touchstone for everyone else's experience. Life may be easier and less stressful in the longer term if you can learn to accept that. Alex > No confusion Alex - you are a jerk. Fact. Now go back to playing with your > toys and leave photography to those who an do their own thinking.. And what will you be doing then? ;-) Taking pictures, and my own thinking, rather than bitching and moaning about the death of a product that has been dead for several years. And if you want to pull that old "Real photographers use Hassy", horseshite, I think the "Collect all the new fruit flavour Blads" marketing indicates that the company has attmitted they are in the same boat as Leica. Serious photographers are not interested in the things or their whoop-di-do Zeiss lenses. Better equipment is available for a fraction of the price from Japan. In the camera market - Zeiss is a corpse. Cover it over before it stinks, boys. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > No confusion Alex - you are a jerk. Fact. Now go back to playing with your > > toys and leave photography to those who an do their own thinking.. > > And what will you be doing then? > ;-) > Taking pictures, and my own thinking, rather than bitching and moaning > about the death of a product that has been dead for several years. > And if you want to pull that old "Real photographers use Hassy", Tony, you are having serious issues with things that are all of your own making. What happened to you? There are indeed many serious photographers who don't give a damn about what brand lens they use. Many of them happen to have Zeiss lenses on their cameras. So what? If they don't care, why do you? Why does that turn you into a first rate cretin? It's clearly time you stopped pretending you are "taking pictures", and start doing some serious thinking about what you are all about. Good luck. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.