scc Posted January 13, 2010 Share #1 Posted January 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I mean, if grooves are being put in, why don't they just put a code on too, or is that a patent infringement?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 Hi scc, Take a look here Is there a reason why Zeiss and Voigtlander don't 6-bit code their lenses?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Ario Arioldi Posted January 13, 2010 Share #2 Posted January 13, 2010 Patent infringment, I suppose. Cheers, Ario Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verners Posted January 13, 2010 Share #3 Posted January 13, 2010 Well, there are no 6-bit codes for zeiss and voigtlander lenses... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scc Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share #4 Posted January 13, 2010 Well, there are no 6-bit codes for zeiss and voigtlander lenses... No but there are codes that people with these lenses use.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted January 13, 2010 Share #5 Posted January 13, 2010 It is a bit different if Zeiss suddenly code a lens as Leica 24 as opposed to users doing it to their own lenses. I think Leica did patent this system which is at the heart of the corrections needed to make the M8/M9 work. There would be an almighty row between Leica and Zeiss if this happened. CV have gone as far as they can by providing a groove. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scc Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share #6 Posted January 13, 2010 Yes but it is a reality of the lens industry isn't it, third party lenses.. eg Tamron, Sigma etc all use the proprietary means of AF etc for communicating with Canons and Nikons. I don't really think Voigtlander and Zeiss sales steal too much market from Leica anyway - those who want the Leica glass will pay, regardless of whether the Zeiss counterpart is 'as good'. It would be great if they could at least provide a code which is similar to the Leica equivalent. After all, I still have to put a code in when I mount my Nokton.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 13, 2010 Share #7 Posted January 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) You are not getting this. What part of "patent infringement" do you not understand? Sigma, Tamron, etc, will pay fees for technology in patent to enable their lenses to mount and work with Nikon, Canon, etc. Nikon and Canon in turn will work to introduce new technologies to keep ahead of the game and give their lenses a "home advantage" - a bit like the 6-bit code... The M-mount is no longer protected. That is why VC and Zeiss can make M-mount lenses. The 6-bit code is and attempts to duplicate it would be unlawful without Leica's express permission. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted January 13, 2010 Share #8 Posted January 13, 2010 Besides the overiding issue of the patent, how would Zeiss decide what code to put on their lenses. Would they do a lot of tests comparing their lenses to similar Leica ones? Or would they just hope to get it right? There is no way they, as a company with a wonderful reputation in optics, would get involved in this. It is a completely ridiculous suggestion. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scsambrook Posted January 13, 2010 Share #9 Posted January 13, 2010 Besides the overiding issue of the patent, how would Zeiss decide what code to put on their lenses. Would they do a lot of tests comparing their lenses to similar Leica ones? Or would they just hope to get it right? There is no way they, as a company with a wonderful reputation in optics, would get involved in this. It is a completely ridiculous suggestion. Jeff I'm not sure it IS a ridiculous suggestion ... and certainly not from the M8 or M9 user's viewpoint. I bet that if the Zeiss marketing department convinced themselves there was a commercial advantage in coding their lenses, then they would WANT to do so. And I'm sure that they have the technical expertise to work out the most appropriate code without getting lost in the process. But perhaps more to the point is whether Leica Camera would be willing to grant an "offical licence" to any third-party - even 'a company with a wonderful reputation in optics' such as Zeiss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 13, 2010 Share #10 Posted January 13, 2010 From a business point of view Leica and Zeiss are not exactly friends.... Although their employees may sit in the same Kneipe and buy one another drinks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scc Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share #11 Posted January 13, 2010 You are not getting this. What part of "patent infringement" do you not understand? Sigma, Tamron, etc, will pay fees for technology in patent to enable their lenses to mount and work with Nikon, Canon, etc. Nikon and Canon in turn will work to introduce new technologies to keep ahead of the game and give their lenses a "home advantage" - a bit like the 6-bit code... The M-mount is no longer protected. That is why VC and Zeiss can make M-mount lenses. The 6-bit code is and attempts to duplicate it would be unlawful without Leica's express permission. Regards, Bill I understand patent infringement entirely, and if you read my first post again, you will see that is what I suspected might be the reason why it hasn't been taken up by other manufacturers. The fact is until your post, no one had said the code was patented. Thanks, Stuart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted January 13, 2010 Share #12 Posted January 13, 2010 Notwithstanding the patent issue, any 6 BIT code added to a non-Leica lens has to be a Leica lens code. That is masquerade as a Leica lens. A third party can't invent their own codes (which would have to use up available combinations not yet utilised by Leica). Obviously the camera firmware would simply not recognise it. Will Zeiss or Cosina pay for the development of the required new firmware? How would it be distributed? Would Leica accept third party firmware that would require them to hand over their existing firmware developed at Leica expense to allow someone else to modify it (and encourage purchase of a non-Leica product)? Surely the existing situation is reasonable? People can purchase or use third party lenses (and some of them are excellent) and manually input them as any Leica lens that was available non-coded already. Alternatively you can use them with no customised firmware corrections as has always been the case. This missing coding is an issue for Zeiss or Cosina, not Leica. If they felt that it was a viable business proposition they can approach Leica with their chequebooks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scc Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share #13 Posted January 13, 2010 It is a completely ridiculous suggestion. Jeff I disagree. The point is, as it stands, you HAVE to choose a manual code for a 3rd party lens anyway. It would be a lot simpler if the lens chose that code for you, albeit a Leica code. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 13, 2010 Share #14 Posted January 13, 2010 Yackety yack, patent infringement this and patent infringement that. Have a close look at the massive sales benefits Panasonic and Olympus are reaping in embracing other manufacturers lenses (even though their own lenses are absolutely top notch in the first place). The m4/3 format has shown the way that sales can increase if you only give customers the choice to use lenses they already have, or may want to have and use on a new camera body. In the light of which ask yourself this, would Leica rather sell one body and no lenses to go with it, or no bodies and no lenses? Lets face it, if Leica felt like wielding a big stick they should have done it before now, because the moment has come and gone for absurd patent arguments, the world is now welcoming a series of 'adapters' for everything to do with technology, and not just lenses and 'six bit codes'. Everybody wins. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scc Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share #15 Posted January 13, 2010 Exactly. The m4/3 system is a great example. I don't believe for a second that opening the system up to other lenses has significantly detracted from dedicated m4/3 lens sales. Like I said, people who want Leica glass will buy Leica glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 13, 2010 Share #16 Posted January 13, 2010 Steve, I can see where you are going with this. Oly/Panasonic are not treading on anybody's toes providing adaptors for old lenses and mounts. It is a smart move for them to gain market share with those who already have an investment in said old lenses. They do not cannibalise their own sales because they simply do not couple, connect or handle as well. In the free-for-all you suggest, everybody loses. Copyrights and patents are there for a reason. They protect intellectual rights and enable an innovative company to get a return on their investment. You would deny Leica that?? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 13, 2010 Share #17 Posted January 13, 2010 I mean, if grooves are being put in, why don't they just put a code on too, or is that a patent infringement?? Well - putting a code on would probably be contentious . . . . but I would have thought that putting a clearly defined area where you could put your own code on would be something of a triumph, would probably not be too much trouble with copywrite, and would allow users to do a little experimentation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scc Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share #18 Posted January 13, 2010 OK let me ask this question then.. Are there any third parties who could theoretically code a Zeiss or Voigtlander lens (with a Leica code), similar to the service Leica offers for its non-coded lenses? Or is this a Leica only service. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted January 13, 2010 Share #19 Posted January 13, 2010 This is an old argument, same as why Apple Computers does not support clones. If Leica supported third party lenses, then ultimately they will be responsible for any corrections needed for these lenses in firmware. If Zeiss or Voightlander has variations of quality or specification, then Leica would have to know about it to make corrections. So, the question would be, Support third party, or produce a better product. I know Apples choice, and it appears to be Leica's as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoriapio Posted January 13, 2010 Share #20 Posted January 13, 2010 Zeiss and CV/Epson could alleviate the problem by introducing their own digital rangefinder that overcomes some of the Leica shortfalls, but, alas, that is a different thread Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.