 |
 | 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 / April 2005The hype about "name" lenses
This is off topic, because it deals with non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses for non-big name cameras is annoying. Carl Zeiss, Leitz, etc. So what? They don't make the lenses for these cheap cameras unless Carl Zeiss has a factory in China now. They probably design them, but that only means they got Zeiss to work on a lens that had certain "cost controls" they had to abide by. When these things actually HAVE lenses like a Summicron (for e.g.) it will BE impressive. Here's the latest fiasco, er, camera to boast this; http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042702nokia_n90.asp > This is off topic, because it deals with > non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042702nokia_n90.asp My take on it is this: 1) It cheapens the name for the pro user - Much like Canon cheapens the L-series line when saying their high-end P&S models have an L-series lens 2) Most informed users and professionals dont care too much about 1) above - since they _know_ what is good. 3) Because of 2) is not killing their high-end sales, lens companies can whore their high-end brands to sell to the masses. This happened in the car industry. There used to be a time when "GT" meant something, now you have Ford Escort GT, Mustang GT and Ford GT - all GT grade cars apparently. Branding is the key here. Many corporations have moved away from actually making things, but rather making money on branding. For example the "Kenmore" washing machines @ Sears are just brands. Carl Zeiss is just a brand. Dont get me started about designer clothing. Musty. >> This is off topic, because it deals with >> non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Musty. Here's the latest one; Schneider on a Samsung. http://dc2.donga.com/zero/zboard.php?id=userinfo&page=1&sn1=&divpage=1&banner=&s n=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=17281 > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042702nokia_n90.asp That's sad. A "Carl zeiss" cellphone camera lens..  SignatureStacey >the use of big names for lenses for non-big name cameras >is annoying. Why would it annoy you? >Carl Zeiss, Leitz, etc. So what? They don't make the lenses >for these cheap cameras unless Carl Zeiss has a factory >in China now. How do you know that? >They probably design them, but that only means they got >Zeiss to work on a lens that had certain "cost controls" > they had to abide by. 99.9% of all lenses ever made have limits placed upon them. >When these things actually HAVE lenses like a Summicron > (for e.g.) it will BE impressive. Some of them do. >Here's the latest fiasco, er, camera to boast.... Where's the bit about it being a fiasco? I was expecting to read a review showing how the lens did not live up to its name, but all I see is you making an assumption. Which lenses are you *specifically* referring to, or is this just a rant/troll? If a lens is made to a set of high specifications why does it matter where it is made? If Messrs Zeiss or Leitz, or whoever are willing to put their name on a lens, then so be it - if they are bad lenses, they will lose their reputation. I suspect those spec's will generally be high, and I also suspect that they will demand to test at least samples of the resulting lenses. I suspect they also read reviews and learn from mistakes as they try to keep their reputations intact. So which particular lenses are you saying are bad, and which reviews show this? Can you point to some supporting links or evidence that show how these companies are losing their kudos because of poorly manufactured lenses? And yes, it is the wrong group anyway. >>the use of big names for lenses for non-big name cameras >>is annoying. >Why would it annoy you? Because it seems any company will "sell out" to make an extra $2.00. There are a few companies that resist it. Here is one, waiting list for their products is five years or so and it grows longer all the time, thanks to an impeccable reputation. http://www.astro-physics.com/ >>Carl Zeiss, Leitz, etc. So what? They don't make the lenses >>for these cheap cameras unless Carl Zeiss has a factory >>in China now. >How do you know that? Do you think cell phone camera lenses are made in West Germany? >>They probably design them, but that only means they got >>Zeiss to work on a lens that had certain "cost controls" >> they had to abide by. >99.9% of all lenses ever made have limits placed upon them. Sure, but lets not pretend a lens for a Leica SLR has the same quality standard as a $300 Sony digicam. How much money do you think they have available for the lens on a camera that retails for $300-$400?? >>When these things actually HAVE lenses like a Summicron >> (for e.g.) it will BE impressive. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >is you making an assumption. Which lenses are you *specifically* >referring to, or is this just a rant/troll? All lenses with German company names that grace Japense cameras made in Japan or China. >If a lens is made to a set of high specifications why does it matter >where it is made? If Messrs Zeiss or Leitz, or whoever are willing to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of the resulting lenses. I suspect they also read reviews and learn >from mistakes as they try to keep their reputations intact. The mistake was selling their names. >So which particular lenses are you saying are bad, and which reviews >show this? Can you point to some supporting links or evidence that >show how these companies are losing their kudos because of poorly >manufactured lenses? All of them. >And yes, it is the wrong group anyway. Then why did you reply? -Rich >>>the use of big names for lenses for non-big name cameras >>>is annoying. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Do you think cell phone camera lenses are made in West Germany? _West_ Germany? Well, never mind... I'm not all that sceptical. The prestige company in question wouldn't put its name on an ostensibly inferor product, and probably not on a blatantly average one either. So it would be indicative of quality - at least in a comparative perspective. I mean, take the "Leica" lens on Panasonic PZ20. It may not be a "genuine" Leica lens, but from what I can gather, it is still the lens with the highest consumer satisfaction rate on a point & shoot. Tells you at least something. Jan Böhme Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik. Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur. > This is off topic, because it deals with > non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses > for non-big name cameras is annoying. So, do you ever take pictures and stuff, or just complain about everything? >> This is off topic, because it deals with >> non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses >> for non-big name cameras is annoying. > >So, do you ever take pictures and stuff, or just complain about everything? Both; http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/initial_images > This is off topic, because it deals with > non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > When these things actually HAVE lenses like > a Summicron (for e.g.) it will BE impressive. Why shouldn't a firm produce a design which is more cost-sensitive than for a pure Leica-brand camera? The end result is certainly most impressive in the Leica lenses on the Panasonic FZ5 and FZ20. Is there any deception intended or implied - do they say "lenses made in Germany" or anything like that? Is the reputation of the name because of the fundamental design skills or because of manufacturing quality? Perhaps there is a little of the latter, in which case could Leica withdraw the name if quality wasn't maintained? David >> This is off topic, because it deals with >> non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > which case could Leica withdraw the name if quality wasn't > maintained? I think the reputation of the name is due to design skills, manufacturing quality, *and relative lack of limits* -- the designers were allowed to go pretty far out after quality. Putting the brand name on lesser lenses cheapens it. If the lenses aren't lesser, then Leica (for example) should be showing higher profits on their own lens lines :-). SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> [] > I think the reputation of the name is due to design skills, > manufacturing quality, *and relative lack of limits* -- the designers > were allowed to go pretty far out after quality. I'd broadly accept that. > Putting the brand > name on lesser lenses cheapens it. If the lenses aren't lesser, then > Leica (for example) should be showing higher profits on their own lens > lines :-). I'm not privy to Leica (for example) profit figures, but I would certainly say their lenses (as used on some point+shoot cameras) are amongst the best available, if not /the/ best in class. Whether the same could be said about a brand name gracing a lens on a mobile phone camera, I somehow doubt. Cheers, David > I'm not privy to Leica (for example) profit figures, but I would certainly > say their lenses (as used on some point+shoot cameras) are amongst the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cheers, > David Sometimes it doesn't take much for me to lose respect for a "Brand" name. Ziess is a good example. Once they put thier name on a cell phone lens, they fell from the top of my list, right into the crapper. The same thing will happen to whatever company becomes the first to make a DSLR with a "movie mode". Persuing this kind of crapolla robs the budget from the R&D departments working on meaningfull improvements. Somewhere in the engineering/development stage someone needs to have the courage to say "yes, we CAN do it, but SHOULD we?". Doing things just because you can, isnt the way to engender respect, and it can make you end up looking like a fool. If a lens designer/builder is so strapped for cash they need to take on bullshit projects like "cell phone lenses", I really dont think they are being managed properly, and they probably are shooting themselves in the foot by letting the world know they did it. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. >> I'm not privy to Leica (for example) profit figures, but I would certainly >> say their lenses (as used on some point+shoot cameras) are amongst the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >being managed properly, and they probably are shooting themselves in the foot >by letting the world know they did it. The person who invented "digital zooming" will have to devote the rest of their lives to charity work in order to stay out of Hell. -Rich > The person who invented "digital zooming" will have to devote the rest > of their lives to charity work in order to stay out of Hell. > -Rich Now there is a concept I could live with!!! Stupid Digital zoom just cost me a sale on Ebay... I listed a camera with 5x OPTICAL zoom for a fair price, and someone else listed the same camera as being 10x (the digital zoom) but they listed it as being optical Zoom! (same make/model/vintage) It never even dawned on me to mention the digital zoom on the camera, as for all intents and purposes it is an absolutely useless feature. Mine didnt sell with a bunch of extras @ 400... The other sold (camera only) for 450... Just confirms what I always thought about E-Bay..People LOVE to get screwed. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. >> The person who invented "digital zooming" will have to devote the rest >> of their lives to charity work in order to stay out of Hell. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Just confirms what I always thought about E-Bay..People LOVE to get screwed. I especially like watching someone bid higher than retail for a "hardly used" item. Sheep. -Rich > >Just confirms what I always thought about E-Bay..People LOVE to get screwed. > > I especially like watching someone bid higher than retail for a > "hardly used" item. Sheep. How about craigslist, where you'll often see listings for used lenses that are higher than what you can buy them for new. These listings often carry a warning about not offering a lower price, or include the word "firm." My favorite on eBay was someone who listed a Sigma SD10 three times, with a reserve that was way too high. He turned down $1000 for the system, a system that B&H may have given him $600 for to resell in their used department, if they would take it at all. Hi to all, There are a number of reasons for high end lens design firms to end up on low end projects. 1. Patents. The good design firms regularly go through patent reviews on their designs. In the low end zoom market there are considerable portfolios of patents that need to be checked before a design can be released. Lens design is a fairly small world and it is very competitive. The "name" companies have large portfolios and great design history. This is also true for view finder design. 2. The lens design for modern point and shoot cameras is very challenging. Good, cheap lenses are not easy to design. The better firms have the proprietary tolerance software to estimate real manufacturing costs and trade offs. 3. Expanding markets. The design of lenses in massive volumes requires modern thinking. The cell phone technology and service in the US is third rate so it is hard to imagine a reason for a quality lens on a cell phone. Both Europe and Japan have more sophisticated digital systems. Cell phones are moving upward in the imaging market with near term resolutions of 3 to 5 mega pixels. Better phone designs also have built in flash. These are not trivial designs. At GretagMacbeth, we have a group working on color correction for cell phone images. 4. Expanded manufacturing. A company like Zeiss makes many OEM components for other companies. It's part of their business model. This is why they will survive and many other "names" won't. SignatureTom Lianza Director of Display and Capture Technologies GretagMacbeth LLC 3 Industrial Drive Unit 7&8 Windham, NH 03087 603.681.0315 x232 Tel 603.681.0316 Fax > 1. Patents. The good design firms regularly go through patent reviews on > their designs. In the low end zoom market there are considerable portfolios [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > for other companies. It's part of their business model. This is why they > will survive and many other "names" won't. I understand WHY they might do the phone lens, I just dont understand why they would let their NAME be used to market it. (its good for the phone maker, but it cheapens the Ziess image) Its kind of like Rolls Royce putting their name on a set of cheap shitty seat covers to be sold at Wal-Mart. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. >> 1. Patents. The good design firms regularly go through patent reviews on >> their designs. In the low end zoom market there are considerable portfolios [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Its kind of like Rolls Royce putting their name on a set of cheap shitty seat >covers to be sold at Wal-Mart. I was in a Toronto camera store today. They had a huge Sony display. Each little silver point and shoot had the Zeiss name on it's lens. The only ones that didn't were the add-on lenses, which are no doubt made by Sony's video lens division. -Rich >Hi to all, > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >for other companies. It's part of their business model. This is why they >will survive and many other "names" won't. This reminds me of when THX was sold by George Lucas to that crappy computer company, I forget their name. But, once that was done, the THX standards split, so they could badge CRAP components with the THX logo under the spec "THX Select." My biggest gripe with Zeiss however was when the two Germanys reunited, Zeiss Jena (East) was making a lens called the APQ, regarded as the finest telescope lens ever made by some. Zeiss West Germany killed the program. -Rich >>> This is off topic, because it deals with >>> non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Leica (for example) should be showing higher profits on their own lens >lines :-). Don't they already charge 40% more for a rebranded Panasonic? -Rich >> This is off topic, because it deals with >> non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >for a pure Leica-brand camera? The end result is certainly most >impressive in the Leica lenses on the Panasonic FZ5 and FZ20. It is? >Is there any deception intended or implied - do they say "lenses made in >Germany" or anything like that? Is the reputation of the name because of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >David Remember the Mercedes E190? -Rich > This is off topic, because it deals with > non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042702nokia_n90.asp It's all marketing. When we see the name Zeiss on a lens we assume the camera will take better photos, but there's a lot more to taking a sharp image than just the lens. I honestly believe that companies like Zeiss have a reputation to uphold, and if one of their lenses or their name goes into a product it had better produce a decent image, even if it's just a cell phone. So, if a manufacturer want to surround a Zeiss lens with a crap camera I doubt they will have a contract with Zeiss very long. Think about this: "Well, I like the camera, but my cell phone had a Zeiss lens on it and it really took crummy photos. Can I see something else?" However, the reality is that most lenses are computer designed these days and should all take decent images. It starts to get into the actual construction of the lens itself, and that's where the only major difference shows up in high-end cameras and (D)SLR lenses. >> This is off topic, because it deals with >> non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >phone. So, if a manufacturer want to surround a Zeiss lens with a crap >camera I doubt they will have a contract with Zeiss very long. I'm wondering if the cell phones qualify now as "good" cameras? -Rich >>> This is off topic, because it deals with >>> non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I'm wondering if the cell phones qualify now as "good" cameras? > -Rich Must be if it has a Zeiss lens on it. <LOL> Seriously, think back to the first digital cameras, and look at the results you can get from some of the really small cameras they make today. Aside from DSLR's for pros, semipros, and wannabe pros, isn't the ideal gadget a PDA, cell phone, MP3 player and camera all rolled into one? > > I'm wondering if the cell phones qualify now as "good" cameras? As much as Smart Cars qualify as good cars. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
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
|
©2008 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.