jaapv Posted January 13, 2010 Share #21 Posted January 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Plenty of those around. And not just theoretically. In fact any competent fine-mechanic can do that. Or you yourself with a Dremel tool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 Hi jaapv, 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!
DFV Posted January 13, 2010 Share #22 Posted January 13, 2010 Surprised why nobody is asking the right question; When will Zeiss and Voightlaender make a digital body for their lenses? :D:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 13, 2010 Share #23 Posted January 13, 2010 Because that has been answered clearly by the parties concerned: Never..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted January 13, 2010 Share #24 Posted January 13, 2010 Surprised why nobody is asking the right question; When will Zeiss and Voightlaender make a digital body for their lenses? :D:D You mean something like the Epson R D1? Epson R-D1 Digital Rangefinder Camera: Digital Photography Review Note the relationship between Cosina and Epson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted January 13, 2010 Share #25 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. There are third parties who will make the six recessess. You put your own paint in these. Leica may not be able to do anything about this or have turned a blind eye to it. I still think that Leica has developed the system for their cameras and lenses, I really do hope that they do not assist in anyway competitive companies to get this technology for free. If they wish to license it that is a commercial decision. If Zeiss or CV were to code lenses without Leica's agreement I hope that Leica would sue the pants off them. I dont think that Canon helps third party lens makers at all, their technology is simply retro-engineered when it is no longer patent protected. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFV Posted January 13, 2010 Share #26 Posted January 13, 2010 You mean something like the Epson R D1? Epson R-D1 Digital Rangefinder Camera: Digital Photography Review Note the relationship between Cosina and Epson Well, the R-D1 was but a "mirage" (or as they admitted was simply to prove a point) due to its relative short production and low commercial support from Epson. I see it more like a rarity than a real threat to Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFV Posted January 13, 2010 Share #27 Posted January 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Because that has been answered clearly by the parties concerned: Never..... Hahaha... Do you mean never like; "When the pigs fly...!" Or do you mean never like; "A digital rangefinder camera is impossible to make..." never. If you honestly believe that, than I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell... you interested? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 13, 2010 Share #28 Posted January 13, 2010 No, I mean like " We looked into it and we couldn't build a FF DRF for a price that can compete with Leica" (paraphrased from an official Zeiss statement) Not a surprising thing either as the R&D costs to figure out something to bypass the Leica/Kodak patent on shifted microlenses technology would be horrendous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 13, 2010 Share #29 Posted January 13, 2010 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. There are people who will mill the pits in the lens mount - or provide a screw to M adaptor with the pits milled into it. However, these tend to be small players and I expect it's not worth Leica's while to go after them for patent infringement. A company like Zeiss would be another matter, and I expect nothing would please Leica more than to take them to court and win. I'm not aware of anyone actually provided a coded solution. In most cases the application of the code is down to the lens user. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 13, 2010 Share #30 Posted January 13, 2010 Surprised why nobody is asking the right question; When will Zeiss and Voightlaender make a digital body for their lenses? :D:D Every company who has introduced an M rival to Leica - Epson , Konica, Voigtlander and Zeiss - has failed to really crack the market. Most have withdrawn their camera quietly after their initial attempt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted January 13, 2010 Share #31 Posted January 13, 2010 Well, the R-D1 was but a "mirage" (or as they admitted was simply to prove a point) due to its relative short production and low commercial support from Epson. I see it more like a rarity than a real threat to Leica. It's still available today, albeit a Japan only product. I agree it's no threat to anybody, even Leica, but there are those on this forum that love there Mirage, and have taken some real photos with it. Next time I am passing through Singapore, or Japan... I may pick up one, just to check it out... Perhaps Jaap meant Never, as in Never-never-land? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 14, 2010 Share #32 Posted January 14, 2010 250swb - with M9s selling faster than Leica can make them, somehow I don't think lost sales (if any) due to not supporting 3rd-party lenses is a big concern to them. As Steve says, generally a really good way to get out of the camera business altogether is to go head-to-head with Leica in building a rangefinder. (Or, alternatively, going head-to-head with Leica in the RF market is a sign of desperation from a sinking company - in any case, roughly equivalent to putting a .357 to the corporate head and pulling the trigger) Konica - gone Kyocera/Contax - gone Epson - gone (from the camera business) Rollei (remember the Rollei 35 RF? Rollei USA Cameras Rolleiflex Rolleimetric Digital) - gone Yasuhara Yasuhara Hands On - gone It should be noted that right now, Cosina is really the only player. The "Zeiss-Ikon" bodies are built by - Cosina. 90% of the Zeiss "ZM" lenses are made by - Cosina. The "camera" part of the late RD-1 was made by - Cosina. They've cornered the market on "anything-but-Leica". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoody Posted January 14, 2010 Share #33 Posted January 14, 2010 You are not getting this. What part of "patent infringement" do you not understand? Bill Do you have a pointer to the patent to which you are referring? I'd love to take a look at it and I can't seem to find it on Google's patent search (which, admittedly is a USA-only patent search engine I believe). As I understand patents, it would be the process of reading the data from the lens markings that could be patentable, not the marking on lenses themselves. Leica could also patent the process it physically uses to make the marks on the lens, but unless I'm wrong (and I've been wrong before), the patent as you describe would be like a barcode reader patent covering the creation of barcodes. The process of using binary dots to store and retrieve information dates back to the ancient days of computer punch cards and paper tape storage devices. Granted, those inventions were not in the same context as what we're talking about, but that's really all it comes down to. As long as a company doesn't infringe any trademarks, I am not sure anyone could stop it from putting any markings on a lens that it desires. But I will admit that I am not an attorney and thus don't have in-depth knowledge of the patent system -- especially globally. I think the Canon and Nikon cases are different because there are electronics in both components. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 14, 2010 Share #34 Posted January 14, 2010 Do you have a pointer to the patent to which you are referring? I'd love to take a look at it and I can't seem to find it on Google's patent search (which, admittedly is a USA-only patent search engine I believe) Steve Gandy at Camerquest certainly thinks there's a patent aspect to the coding... Voigtlander 35/1.2 I'm off to bed, but I'll have a dig around in the morning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 14, 2010 Share #35 Posted January 14, 2010 Go here: US Patent Full-Text Database Number Search and search patent No. 7,625,144 Documentation for the US Patent claims priority based on European patent No. xyz, etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted January 14, 2010 Share #36 Posted January 14, 2010 You'd really need to ask Leica. So many times questions are asked on forums about why Leica does or does not do something. People get their jocks in knots with all sorts of theories, but the simple answer in this case must surely be; why should they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scc Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share #37 Posted January 14, 2010 Interesting tidbit from the patent full text .. "In existing lenses which already have a light and therefore light-reflective contact surface on the locking device, the light-absorbing surface areas can be produced just as easily by baking heating with laser engraving, by chemical etching or sand blasting. There is no need in this case to replace the locking device by a locking device having a coding. Existing lenses can be retrofitted particularly cost-effectively in this manner. " Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scc Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share #38 Posted January 14, 2010 the simple answer in this case must surely be; why should they? The answer to my question is a question? hehe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFV Posted January 14, 2010 Share #39 Posted January 14, 2010 250swb - with M9s selling faster than Leica can make them, somehow I don't think lost sales (if any) due to not supporting 3rd-party lenses is a big concern to them. As Steve says, generally a really good way to get out of the camera business altogether is to go head-to-head with Leica in building a rangefinder. (Or, alternatively, going head-to-head with Leica in the RF market is a sign of desperation from a sinking company - in any case, roughly equivalent to putting a .357 to the corporate head and pulling the trigger) Konica - gone Kyocera/Contax - gone Epson - gone (from the camera business) Rollei (remember the Rollei 35 RF? Rollei USA Cameras Rolleiflex Rolleimetric Digital) - gone Yasuhara Yasuhara Hands On - gone It should be noted that right now, Cosina is really the only player. The "Zeiss-Ikon" bodies are built by - Cosina. 90% of the Zeiss "ZM" lenses are made by - Cosina. The "camera" part of the late RD-1 was made by - Cosina. They've cornered the market on "anything-but-Leica". Completely agree with you assessment, yet, I see one flaw in your reasoning. In the case of Voigtlander or Zeiss they are already in the RF business with their analogue cameras. Zeiss has 2 models and Voigtlander has no less than 6 models. If these stop selling, despite becoming a "niche" market, they will be seriously looking into transiting to digital. Plus, do not forget the Panasonic GF. It is true that some companies tend, as you well say, commit suicide before admitting failure and pulling back. In the case of the RF segment I still think that digital sensors are not the obstacle but rather the size of the market is. With the success of the M9 I am certain that these two (at least) will be seriously considering the return to the drawing board. Since the less analogue cameras they make, the more they cost to make, the harder they become to sell, etc... Eventually they will either stop altogether or go digital. The question is; what will it be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 14, 2010 Share #40 Posted January 14, 2010 There are people who will mill the pits in the lens mount - or provide a screw to M adaptor with the pits milled into it. However, these tend to be small players and I expect it's not worth Leica's while to go after them for patent infringement. A company like Zeiss would be another matter, and I expect nothing would please Leica more than to take them to court and win. I'm not aware of anyone actually provided a coded solution. In most cases the application of the code is down to the lens user. There are some, indeed... (in Italy surely, in USA too, for what we have red in the forum) but fact is that they prefer, correctly, not to advertise their work... as in many issues about patents and so, there is an important difference between accepting to make a certain (paid) work for a private person (in this case, make 6 black and white dots on a certain device), and declaring publicly that my firm makes 6 bit coding of lenses/adapters to be used on Leica cameras : the first job cannot be persecuted, the second definitely yes. BTW, in legal terms, and reading the patent that was linked to, seems that it's the coding in itself (and the recognition system) that is patent-protected ... it could be funny to follow litigations in court regarding whether selling M adaptors with "blank" pits milled is a patent infringement or not... : personally, if I would decide to enter the business of M adapters, I would sell them with 8 pits milled, and 8 more at 180°, advertising it is a "superlight" adapter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.