Is there a reason why Zeiss and Voigtlander don't 6-bit code their lenses?

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Going back to the original post, if Zeiss or CV did reach an agreement with Leica to sell coded lenses what impact do you think it would have on the price of such lenses? I can see Leica demanding a royalty fee of at least 500 Euros on each lens made.

 

Jeff

[scc]

I can see Leica demanding a royalty fee of at least 500 Euros on each lens made.

 

Jeff

 

To quote your earlier post, what a "completely ridiculous suggestion".

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[luigi bertolotti]

To quote your earlier post, what a "completely ridiculous suggestion".

 

Agree... imagine what will happen... CV ought do declare, say, that their 35 1,2 is coded for instance "like the Summilux 35 asph..." so quoting a Leica lens in their specs (already a bit ridicolus), then happens that Leica makes a new 35 1,4.. another code... or someone could argue that coding the 35 1,2 as a non asph Summilux "is better"... discussions... as has been written above, the only serious way should be that Leica directly implements the corrections for 3rd parties lenses in its firmware, lists them in its docs... a terrible job and risk to override the 64 lenses limit... ... no way: things must stay as they are now, period: CV and Zeiss lenses at good prices, DIY coding that can be accepted by individuals without vendors' involvement.

Edited January 14, 2010 by luigi bertolotti

[DFV]

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.

 

True, but when I hear these statements from "competitors" they have a way of saying; "... for now" without really saying it.

[delander †]

To quote your earlier post, what a "completely ridiculous suggestion".

 

Not at all ridiculous. In fact for the wide angle lenses I would expect an even greater royalty fee per lens, to put the price of a Zeiss lens on a par with a similar Leica lens. This would give prospective buyers the opportunity to choose their lenses on optical quality and not just price.

 

The coding system and in camera corrections are at the heart of Leica's Digi-M technology. It is even more important for the M9 than it was for the M8. We have already seen the increased difficulty of using the CV 12 and 15 on the M9 - which works perfectly with Leica WATE.

 

Jeff

[scott kirkpatrick]

Go here: US Patent Full-Text Database Number Search and search patent No. 7,625,144

 

Andy, thanks for the link and the patent number. It is an interesting read. Patented in Germany Jan 2006, covered in the US Jan 2007, with a reference to the German patent to establish priority. The claims all mention using some means to make the marks light absorbing or light reflecting, so I can see why Cosina might feel safe carving a groove from 110 to 150 degrees away from the mount rotation stop but not painting in the marks.

 

As for patents on a microlens array keeping others from competing with Kodak, I am skeptical. That is a technology which I believe I have seen widely discussed over a period of time, including algorithms for optimally offsetting them from RCA labs, I think. So I would expect that patents covering this feature of the Kodak chips would be pretty narrow. A more important factor is that modern lens designs are pretty telecentric, adding extra elements to permit a higher degree of corrections, so the need for microlenses is a very special case.

 

scott

[Mauribix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

Love it!

 

"Fatta la legge, trovato l'inganno" as we say in Italy... I'm proud of that!

Ciao Luigi!!

[frank_dernie]

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.

 

The thing is the code brings up a very specific correction for each Leica lens based on its characteristics. Zeiss and Cosina would have to decide which correction most closely suited the actual lens in question. If, say, the 35mm lens best matched the Leica 28mm lens exit pupil position and vignetting level then this would perhaps give the best correction but leave the wrong lens description in the EXIF data.

 

I think they should supply free Lightroom plugins for their lenses so the correction can be done precisely retrospectively in the computer, not a semi bodge of the nearest similar-ish Leica equivalent.

[mhoersch]

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).

 

Exactly, just what I've been thinking all along: no one can compete with Leica's ridiculously low prices!

[swamiji]

Exactly, just what I've been thinking all along: no one can compete with Leica's ridiculously low prices!

 

Or perhaps they don't have any deep pockets for R&D.

[adan]

Let me ask a question: Why are people complaining or commenting about what Zeiss and Cosina don't code, or don't build - on a Leica forum?

 

Not that I mind - but if you really want to persuade Zeiss or Cosina to add coding, or software corrections, or a digital body of their own, shouldn't you be talking to them directly?

 

Walking into a Ford dealership to complain about Chevrolet's product line just seems like a waste of breath and time.

[jaapv]

What I'm missing is Frank asking why Cosina doesn't build a Visoflex.....

[stunsworth]

Andy, I suppose the basic difference is that the Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses are made to be used on Leica bodies - yes I know that Voigtlander and Zeiss make cameras, but personally I've only ever seen one "Leica" Voigtlander camera out "in the wild", and I've never seen a Zeiss one. However I agree that complaining that Leica don't support another manufacturer's lenses is bit silly,

[stunsworth]

What I'm missing is Frank asking why Cosina doesn't build a Visoflex.....

 

They're not stupid? To be honest, if they thought they could make money out of making one they would. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes about the market for such a device.

[andybarton]

Not at all ridiculous. In fact for the wide angle lenses I would expect an even greater royalty fee per lens, to put the price of a Zeiss lens on a par with a similar Leica lens.

 

Or... people buy a non-coded version and code it themselves, and save the €500+

 

Third parties will never code their lenses for just this reason. There is no need for them to do so.

[andybarton]

What I'm missing is Frank asking why Cosina doesn't build a Visoflex.....

 

Frank is on the phone to a CEO in Tokyo, even as we type...

[adan]

Hi, Steve - I think you misread me slightly.

 

My question was about why people are commenting on ZEISS and COSINA not supporting ZEISS and COSINA lenses, with regards to coding or making a digital body to go behind them - on this forum.

 

Leica didn't even enter into the equation. The original thread title is the perfect example: If you want to know why Zeiss or Voigtlander don't do something - ask Zeiss and Voigtlander. They are really the only ones who can answer.

[andybarton]

But, the only reason why Zeiss and Voigtlander would code their lenses is to make them compatible with digital Leicas.

 

Sorry - I don't get your point.