Will the M9 encourage or discourage Zeiss to make a Digital Ikon?

[Paul T.]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

'Zeiss' can't think anything. Only individuals within Zess can. And from some acquaintance with some of the individuals in question, I can't easily believe that they'd take a punt on this tiny a market, on speculation.

Cheers,

R.

The Zeiss Ikon seems to have been a flagship, or labour of love project - for which, given the huge s/h user base, there would, arguably, be less of a demand than for a digital rangefinder.

So is your impression that:

1: there is less 'love' for the concept of a digtal ZI than for a film one within the company
2: the ZI was less successful/ lost more than was anticipated?
or
3: the economic downturn means they're less likely to take such a punt in future?

[Ted2001]

I think if Zeiss enters the market it will be either a new proprietary lens mount or a digital G2. The G2 lenses are superb, very well regarded, already designed, small and not too expensive. As the sensors become larger and cheaper and electronics become smaller and cheaper, a digital G2 becomes increasing possible both technically and economically. If I could get D700 image quality with my G2 lenses in a compact rangerfinder (no evil), I would be very willing to pay 1.5x to 2.0x the D700 price. That might not attract a camera manufacturer now, but in 18 months that could be profitable.

[Roger Hicks]

Zeiss didn't make the G2: it was Kyoto Ceramics. Also, of course, it wasn't a rangefinder. I'd also dispute the virtues of the G2 -- it had poor autofocus that tended to 'hunt' when you least expected it, and a deep-set eyepiece that steamed up in hot weather/hot clubs. Finally, it's a tiny market. I had a G2 outfit on loan for a year -- I even took it to photokina in place of my Leica outfit -- so I'm fully aware of the lens quality, but that's all it had in its favour in my book.

IF someone wants (a) to build a digital RF and (b) to license the Zeiss name and (c) can get past Kyoto Ceramics' Contax licence and Cosina's Zeiss Ikon licence and (c) sincerely believes there's money in that niche market, we'll see a Zeiss DRF. Not before.

My own bet is on micro 4/3 or APS-C with a new AF lens line, or maybe AF and scale focus -- but given how small that market is, I'm still not holding my breath. I just reckon it's 10x more likely than an FF ZI RF.

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Paul T.

The Zeiss Ikon seems to have been a flagship, or labour of love project - for which, given the huge s/h user base, there would, arguably, be less of a demand than for a digital rangefinder.

So is your impression that:

1: there is less 'love' for the concept of a digtal ZI than for a film one within the company
2: the ZI was less successful/ lost more than was anticipated?
or
3: the economic downturn means they're less likely to take such a punt in future?

All of the above, plus the fact that it's not a Zeiss-built Zeiss camera, any more than the G2 was a Zeiss camera. It was a labour of love on the part of Hirofumi Kobayashi, who is a film addict anyway. I don't know anyone inside Zeiss who desperately wants a DRF. That's not to say there is no-one who wants one: just that if there is, I've never met them.

Cheers,

R.

[Ted2001]

I thought having lens quality in your favor was the primary issue. I used the G2 extensively and never found focus issues, nor humidity issues. I used the G2 at Ankor Wat, 95 degrees, 95% humidity and had no problems. I bought the G2 system because I wanted a rangefinder with superior lenses and Leica lenses were not price competitive. I don't care where a digital G2 is made. The film G2 was beautifully made as are the better Nikon DSLRs.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Ted2001

I thought having lens quality in your favor was the primary issue. I used the G2 extensively and never found focus issues, nor humidity issues. I used the G2 at Ankor Wat, 95 degrees, 95% humidity and had no problems. I bought the G2 system because I wanted a rangefinder with superior lenses and Leica lenses were not price competitive. I don't care where a digital G2 is made. The film G2 was beautifully made as are the better Nikon DSLRs.

Dear Ted,

You're missing the point. I don't care where it is made, either. My point was simply that the so-called 'Zeiss' Contax and 'Zeiss Ikon' are not Zeiss cameras, because Zeiss doesn't make consumer cameras any more. Another manufacturer must license the name and build the camera (and by extension, do all the R&D).

As for humidity, I simply found that sweat condensed on the outsde of the eyepiece (as it does on any camera) but was hard to wipe off because the eyepiece is so deep-set. I'm delighted you had no focus problems, but I did. Rarely, but (as I said) when I least expected it.

Cheers,

R.

[kzphoto]

I for one, would love to see a full-frame dRF that would take M-mount lenses that didn't cost $7,000. If I could buy one for $2,000, I'd be really really happy.

[climbing_vine]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

Zeiss currently defines anything with the Zeiss brand on it, as a Zeiss product, at least when it comes to lenses and branding.
http://www.zeiss.com/photo

Does this make my Apple Mini a Foxconn computer?
Mac Mini
Name: Mac mini
Model: Mxxxx Mac mini 1.25Ghz
Bus speed: 167MHz
Factory: YM (China (Hon Hai = Foxconn)
Production year: 2005
Production week: 12 (March)

The difference (to me) would be whether Cosina built it to spec for Zeiss, or designed it themselves and simply licensed the name.

I gather it was somewhere in between but I don't know that much about it.

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Ted,

You're missing the point. I don't care where it is made, either. My point was simply that the so-called 'Zeiss' Contax and 'Zeiss Ikon' are not Zeiss cameras, because Zeiss doesn't make consumer cameras any more. Another manufacturer must license the name and build the camera (and by extension, do all the R&D).

As for humidity, I simply found that sweat condensed on the outsde of the eyepiece (as it does on any camera) but was hard to wipe off because the eyepiece is so deep-set. I'm delighted you had no focus problems, but I did. Rarely, but (as I said) when I least expected it.

Cheers,

R.

Gee, Roger, you must know something that the rest of us don't know & that's not in the public domain.

The story as I know it is that the initiative came from Zeiss, that they designed the camera & subcontracted the manufacture to Cosina, & that modifications were made to the original design based on feedback they received from Cosina.

Zeiss provided the equipment to evaluate the lenses to insure that they were within specs & Zeiss retained the last word on quality control. Zeiss then marketed the camera as a Zeiss product & owns the product.

While clearly there has been much collaboration & Cosina was given the right to market the camera in Japan, AFAIK this is a Zeiss designed & Zeiss owned product. Here in the USA, I contact Richard Schleuning of Zeiss for any issues with my camera or lenses.

This seems to me to be very different from the Zeiss role in Kyocera with contax.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Huck Finn

Gee, Roger, you must know something that the rest of us don't know & that's not in the public domain.

The story as I know it is that the initiative came from Zeiss, that they designed the camera & subcontracted the manufacture to Cosina, & that modifications were made to the original design based on feedback they received from Cosina.

Zeiss provided the equipment to evaluate the lenses to insure that they were within specs & Zeiss retained the last word on quality control. Zeiss then marketed the camera as a Zeiss product & owns the product.

While clearly there has been much collaboration & Cosina was given the right to market the camera in Japan, AFAIK this is a Zeiss designed & Zeiss owned product. Here in the USA, I contact Richard Schleuning of Zeiss for any issues with my camera or lenses.

This seems to me to be very different from the Zeiss role in Kyocera with contax.

Yours is not the story I heard at Oberkochen.

'All' the R&D (post 162) is admittedly an exaggeration. Zeiss did provide some input to the ZI, and they do indeed design lenses (and build some of them) but the quality control issue is simply that anything with the Zeiss name on it has to meet Zeiss standards: they won't license their name to just anyone, to put on just anything.

Cheers,

R.

[Dwig]

Personally, I don't think we'll see a truly new RF design again, from anyone. Any new models will be derivatives of existing or past models. Also, Zeiss is a lens company that could care less about cameras except that they are vehicles for lenses.

What I would think would be rather interesting would be the Konica Hexar resurrected in digital form, possibly badged as a Sony, with a line of Zeiss lenses.

[wgerrard]

Originally Posted by Dwig

Personally, I don't think we'll see a truly new RF design again, from anyone.

With the exception of the Contax G1/G2, I wonder if we've seen an actual RF redesign since the M3. SLR design has also remained stable for decades.

[Paul T.]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Yours is not the story I heard at Oberkochen.

'All' the R&D (post 162) is admittedly an exaggeration. Zeiss did provide some input to the ZI, and they do indeed design lenses (and build some of them) but the quality control issue is simply that anything with the Zeiss name on it has to meet Zeiss standards: they won't license their name to just anyone, to put on just anything.

Cheers,

R.

I'm sure the thrust of your argument is correct - that there is no 'champion' for the idea of a Digital ZI and that the prospects of one arriving are therefore distant.

But I do recall that Zeiss commissioned the design themselves, from a German company, Henssler & Schultheiss. This is different from the process of the G2, which I believe was pitched to Kyocera by a Japanese design company. For a start, this means that Zeiss will own the Intellectual Rights to the design for the ZI, which is not the case with the Kyocera products - hence they would arguably be free to license a third party to make a digital version.

(there you go - more licence for wishful thinking)

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Yours is not the story I heard at Oberkochen.

'All' the R&D (post 162) is admittedly an exaggeration. Zeiss did provide some input to the ZI, and they do indeed design lenses (and build some of them) but the quality control issue is simply that anything with the Zeiss name on it has to meet Zeiss standards: they won't license their name to just anyone, to put on just anything.

Cheers,

R.

Thanks for the post, Roger. I guess you do have the inside word. If that's what you were told in Oberkochen, I'll accept that.

I'm disappointed to hear them backing off public statements that they've made & that still exist on their websites. If you're saying that the caera was not developed at their initiative, that they didn't contract independently for the R&D, that they don't own teh product, & that they don't take responsibility for the QC, then I wouldn't call that an "exaggeration", I'd call it a lie & a complete misrepresentation of their public position.

Very disappointing.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Huck Finn

Thanks for the post, Roger. I guess you do have the inside word. If that's what you were told in Oberkochen, I'll accept that.

I'm disappointed to hear them backing off public statements that they've made & that still exist on their websites. If you're saying that the caera was not developed at their initiative, that they didn't contract independently for the R&D, that they don't own teh product, & that they don't take responsibility for the QC, then I wouldn't call that an "exaggeration", I'd call it a lie & a complete misrepresentation of their public position.

Very disappointing.

No, the exaggeration was mine in saying that it was 'all' Cosina.

There's also the point that Carl Zeiss is not a monolith. There were (and are) indeed people inside Zeiss who are delighted that the ZI came into being, and no doubt contributed a great deal to prototype ideas.

But the people I spoke to told me pretty clearly that they are not in the consumer camera business, and have no plans to be so.

Are you sure you are reading their sites correctly? Because I certainly didn't say that they have no responsibility for QC, whereas you appear to think I did. That is the most important thing about anything with Zeiss written on it: ultimately, Zeiss responsibility for QC. Could you possibly point me in the direction of the sites where they claim to have contracted independently for the R&D, or to own the product? Because again, they own the Zeiss Ikon name, which could be misread as owning the product.

Cheers,

R.

[Paul T.]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

No, the exaggeration was mine in saying that it was 'all' Cosina.
...Could you possibly point me in the direction of the sites where they claim to have contracted independently for the R&D, or to own the product?

There was much information in the website launched with the ZI, some of which has disappeared, I think. But here's a partial relic of what they stated:

http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9...257229004d24da

[dfoo]

What matters is that the Ikon is a class A camera. I really love mine!

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Paul,

Thanks very much. I read it with interest, from the viewpoint that 'we' could include 'Cosina'. At that point I was not surprised that a German design company was called in: if you were Kobayashi-san, wouldn't you do the same?

I agree that the text gives the impression that the ZI was a Zeiss idea, but if you look carefully, it is only an impression. Certainly, there is no flat statement that it was Zeiss's idea, and indeed, it seems significant that Dr. Scherle was invited to Japan.

Yes, Dr. Scherle & Dr. Nasse (to name but two inside Zeiss) are keen photographers and were delighted to see the ZI -- but the text also makes it fairly clear that Zeiss are not manufacturers of consumer cameras, nor have any intention of returning to that market.

Cheers,

Roger

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

No, the exaggeration was mine in saying that it was 'all' Cosina.

There's also the point that Carl Zeiss is not a monolith. There were (and are) indeed people inside Zeiss who are delighted that the ZI came into being, and no doubt contributed a great deal to prototype ideas.

But the people I spoke to told me pretty clearly that they are not in the consumer camera business, and have no plans to be so.

Are you sure you are reading their sites correctly? Because I certainly didn't say that they have no responsibility for QC, whereas you appear to think I did. That is the most important thing about anything with Zeiss written on it: ultimately, Zeiss responsibility for QC. Could you possibly point me in the direction of the sites where they claim to have contracted independently for the R&D, or to own the product? Because again, they own the Zeiss Ikon name, which could be misread as owning the product.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, thanks for listening to me blow off steam. You're quite a good listener. I appreciate that about you.

Zeiss is quite actively involved with the whole ZI project. I was at the first photo show in NY the year the camera was launched. I had a substantial discussion with Kornelius Mueller about it. When Zeiss sens a VP to another continent to help launch & market a product, I'm left with the impression that they do that because it's their product. Nothing that Herr Mueller said to me contradicted that impression. Nor did anything that the sales rep from Hasselblad, who was handling the marketing at that point, said contradict that either. There was no one from Cosina at the photo show to help launch the product.

I have corresponded extensively in the past with Dr. Nasse about this camera. I always had the impression that it was their camera.

The camera & lenses all have the Zeiss name on them - not Cosina. The warranty is with Zeiss. My understanding is that the marketing rights throughout the world belong to Zeiss except in Japan. I don't remember how I got that impression because it's been a few years, but it was from one of my many conversations with Zeiss & Hasselblad people.

Information about the camera & lens line is all over the Zeiss website. I can send my camera to Germany for adjustments. I deal with Zeiss management here in the New York area about any issues with the camera.

From the Zeiss websites FAQ:

Q: Who developed the camera?

A:Carl Zeiss in collaboration with the design bureau Henssler & Schultheiss and the camera maker Cosina.

Q: Who makes the ZI camera?

A: The evaluation of prototypes and qualification of the camera is performed by Carl Zeiss in Oberkochen, serial production is performed by Cosina in Japan.

Q: Who manufactures the Carl Zeiss T* ZM-mount lenses?

A: Some types are manufactured by Carl Zeiss in Oberkochen, some types are manufactured by Cosina in Japan. The production is split-up to make the Carl Zeiss T* ZM-mount lenses affordable in price & thereofre open to an expanded public. (Emphasis added by me.)

From the zeiss website's history of the camera:

We decided to design our own camera body because other bodies simply cannot match the peformance standards of our lenses. (Emphasis added by me.)

And again:

Due to economic reasons, the Zeiss Ikon AG had to close their doors in the early 1970s. Today Zeiss Ikon is back with passion!

And more:

What is behind the new Zeiss Ikon system? Do you wonder why Carl Zeiss has started up in the camera business and launches a rangefinder camera? How did the camera develop and what had our Zeiss engineers in mind regarding the technical specification of the Zeiss Ikon camera and the ZM-mount lenses? (Emphasis added by me.)

This is followed by several pages answering these questions & is followed by a lenghty narrative about how the early idea developed from conversations between Winfred Scherle of Zeiss & Hirofumi Kobayashi of Cosina. Then this:

Mr. Kobayashi appeared to be the ideal partner to manufacture a rangefinder camera for our newly developed high-performance lenses. . .

Back in germany Dr. Scherle discussed this new opportunity with our head of development, Christian Bannert, and our marketing manager, Kornelius Mueller. All three agreed that the special qualities emerging from the combination of a newly developed rangefinder camera and our latest lenses with M-mount had to be clearly underscored. and so the idea was born to call the new camera Zeiss Ikon . . . (Emphasis added by me.)

Carl Zeiss would like to make the Zeiss Ikon camera . . . accessible to as many camera lovers as possible. . .

. . . we decided to hand over this challenging task of bringing the new Zeiss Ikon camera in good shape to a proven industrial designer.

. . . why not contact Porsche Design and examine some of their recent work? This is exactly what we did. . . We had very interesting conversations with Porsche's design experts and already outlined basics for a collaboration.

In parallel we also contacted Henssler & Schultheiss, a design bureau which several Carl Zeiss divisions had worked with very successfully in recent years.

The website goes on to describe the details of design proposals which weere field tested with focus groups. Then for the first time since describing the Scherle-Kobayashi meetings in Japan, Cosina is brought back into the narrative - unless "we" had been referring to Zeiss & Cosina all along rather than "we" at Zeiss, a connection which is never clearly made. Here it si:

Finally the engineers of Zeiss and Cosina, in numerous meetings, modified several details in order to make the camera and lenses produceable within the perimeters of Cosina, Carl Zeiss, and within price targets.

With the new Zeiss Ikon we at Carl Zeiss wanted to create a high quality camera system leaving nothing to the imagination. We set very high standards along the way. Our product developers, engineers, physicists, and technicians are all passionate camera enthusiasts. With the Zeiss Ikon camera we had the unprecedented opportunity of influencing a camera for our lenses. We did not let this chance slip away: we incorporated our decades of experience and develped a camera system that meets our standards . . .

Roger you were right about the QC. This is handled by Cosina for equip[ment that is manufactured in Japan, not by Zeiss. The Zeiss input is the manufacture of the equipment used to test the lenses to assure that they meet Zeiss quality standards. So the standards & testing equipment come from Zeiss but the actual QC is done by Cosina.

Some more:

We wanted to create a particularly bright viewfinder on the Zeiss Ikon camera. This necessitated developing a complex, new optical design. . .

During the testing phase the Zeiss Ikon camera had to endure the most rigorous environmental conditions. After all, Carl Zeiss own the most comprehensive environmental simulation lab in the entire optical industry. Remember that we produce camera and cine lenses . . .

What we can guarantee is that improvements discovered during the development and testing phases will be included in volume production. . .

Zeiss Ikon has been legendary through most of the history of photography. Our goal in the 21st century is to create once again a reference for film-based 35 mm camera systems.

If this product line does not belong to Zeiss, someone is pulling the wool over our eyes.

I would add that this project was never launched as: "Carl Zeiss AG and Cosina are proud to announce their joint effort . . ." The prototype first shown at Photokina was presented by Zeiss alone as a new Zeiss product. Cosina was very much the silent partner. The information that we now access on the website was released in monthly installments.

It was not until almost 6 months after Photokina as I recall that the Cosina involvement was even officially acknowledged in the sections from which I excerpted here. Cosina was kept very much in the background. Every impression was given that it was a Zeiss project which was subcontracted to Cosina to save on production costs & to therefore make it more affordable but that otherwise it belonged to Zeiss.

Sorry to be so long winded, but you did ask to be shown where on the website . . .

[Roger Hicks]

I fully take your points, and I thank you for the extensive and detailed answer, but reading it with my LL.B. hat on, I see 'spin' rather than flat claims. At every turn, 'we' and 'our' can be read either way. This is good marketing. After all, which would you rather buy: a Zeiss Ikon or a Cosina Super?

Note such phrases as 'we had the unprecedented opportunity of influencing a camera for our lenses' (not 'designing a camera').

Overall, I don't think there is as much distance between the story as I understood it, and the story as you understood it. Zeiss would not design and subcontract a camera of their own, but if someone else gave them the chance for input, they would seize it gleefully.

Without the Zeiss Ikon name ('Contax' was already sewn up, and besides, might imply another mount), I don't think Cosina has much of a property, unless perhaps they sold it as a 'Prominent'. In that sense, yes, it's 'Zeiss' (and Zeiss lenses and quality control and input); but I'd still say that my understanding was closer to the mark, and that while 'spin' has been applied (enthusastically), no lies have been told.

Cheers,

R.

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Ted,

You're missing the point. I don't care where it is made, either. My point was simply that the so-called 'Zeiss' Contax and 'Zeiss Ikon' are not Zeiss cameras, because Zeiss doesn't make consumer cameras any more. Another manufacturer must license the name and build the camera (and by extension, do all the R&D).

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

This is your original statement.

Have we not established that according to Zeiss's own statements, Cosina did not do all the R&D?

Even if we re-interpret the "we" as joint, it means that Zeiss & Cosina collaborated on the development, beginning with designs submitted under contract by Henssler & Schultheiss as well as some also from Porsche? That's R&D from several sources, not simply a Cosina design.

Doesn't it mean that Zeiss also had input into the specs & requirements, that Zeiss was involved in lab testing the prototypes, in evaluating field testing of the early versions, & in deciding on revisions to those early versions before the final version was set? After all, they do call their involvement in this process "unprecedented" - which would imply something different from the cooaboration between Zeiss & Yashica that resulted in Contax.

The website calls special attention to the lens in the viewfinder. Clearly Zeiss had input into this element of the camera. Since they are a lens designer, I assume that their input was very important although nothing is explicitly stated either way.

And if Cosina simply licensed the Zeiss name, why is Zeiss warrantying a Cosina product? Is Carl Zeiss AG in the habit of warrantying products from other manufacturers? Why are they marketing & servicing the product? This is not simply a 2nd act by Cosina of appropriating the Voigtlander name & badging one of their cameras with it. In this case, Zeiss actually had something to do with the development of the camera.

I realize that Zeiss does not manufacture any of the parts, but then Cosina doesn't manufacture all of them either. My understanding is that the camera uses a modified Copal shutter.

I realize that Zeiss doesn't assemble the camera. But is assembly the key to saying who a camera or any other product belongs to? Engineers don't assemble prducts - automobiles, airplane engines, or cameras. But they are normally given credit for the final product.

As I re-read the Zeiss website, I certainly can see a lot of spin with the benefit of hindsight. But I'm left with the impression of a joint project, a collaboration, a partnership.

Although the camera is "made" in a Cosina factory, it appears to me that Zeiss was involved in the development, the design, the testing, the specifications, setting the standards, & the making decisions on materials, budget, & resulting compromises.. That seems to me to be the most important part of producing the product, of making it what it is. The physical assembly seems to me to be much less important in our modern world of robotics - unless something is handmade.

Finally, Zeiss has put their name on it, stamping it as their own, and stands behind it with their warranty. They then put the weight of their corporate presence behind it in marketing & servicing. Although I have no knowledge of the legalities of it, I have every impression that Zeiss owns the rights to the camera. It sure would be interesting to know to whom they actually belong.

Again I'm left with the final impression that this was a joint project through a partnership between 2 major manufacturers.

Isn't that the way many products are produced these days? My smart car is owned by the Mercedes division of Daimler, uses a Mitsubishi engine, and is built in a smart plant separate from any of those three. So, whose car is it? And who should get credit since the original design came from Swatch?

Maybe it would be fairer to call the Zeiss Ikon a Zeiss/Cosina product, but to say that it can't be Zeiss because they don't make consumer cameras any more doesn't seem to be right. They seem to have had a big hand in making this one. . .

. . . unless of course they've just been exaggerating about their involvement all along & only agreed to license their name to an idea presented to them by Cosina & taken from design through production by Cosina. Since Zeiss has gone out of their way with extensive documentation & active involvement to create exactly the opposite impression, I would say in that case that they have crossed the line from spin and exaggeration to outright lying. A good lawyer might be able to win their case in court - but not in the course of public opinion.

I would like to keep faith with Zeiss, so I choose to believe that their involvement from the very beginning was extensive enough that they can legitimately call this camera their own . . . theirs & their partner's.

Finally, I must ask if we are to consider the lenses Cosina lenses by the same logic than you have dubbed this a Cosina camera?

[Frankie]

Within this thread, some are adamant that Zeiss is not interested in niche-market products...hence no ZMd.

They also argued that a ZMd is difficult or impossible...forgetting Epson/Cosina and Leica had already done it, via different routes.

It would seem now a new argument is being contrived that the ZM is not really a Zeiss product...hence no digital encore or evolution.

The most convincing evidence that Zeiss means business is the whole new line of M-mounted lenses...and not just re-badged CV glass.

This thread is about whether Zeiss would be encouraged or discouraged to build a digital Ikon, not about preaching dogma stifling hope.

As far as I am concerned, Zeiss has never been too stymied by optical challenges; nor ever lending their good name to products they don't believe in; nor cavalier in engaging unworthy sub-contractors.

Zeiss might take extra time to do things right, but seldom give up before trying.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Huck Finn

Roger,

This is your original statement.

Have we not established that according to Zeiss's own statements, Cosina did not do all the R&D?

Even if we re-interpret the "we" as joint, it means that Zeiss & Cosina collaborated on the development, beginning with designs submitted under contract by Henssler & Schultheiss as well as some also from Porsche? That's R&D from several sources, not simply a Cosina design.

Doesn't it mean that Zeiss also had input into the specs & requirements, that Zeiss was involved in lab testing the prototypes, in evaluating field testing of the early versions, & in deciding on revisions to those early versions before the final version was set? After all, they do call their involvement in this process "unprecedented" - which would imply something different from the cooaboration between Zeiss & Yashica that resulted in Contax.

The website calls special attention to the lens in the viewfinder. Clearly Zeiss had input into this element of the camera. Since they are a lens designer, I assume that their input was very important although nothing is explicitly stated either way.

And if Cosina simply licensed the Zeiss name, why is Zeiss warrantying a Cosina product? Is Carl Zeiss AG in the habit of warrantying products from other manufacturers? Why are they marketing & servicing the product?

I realize that Zeiss does not manufacture any of the parts, but then Cosina doesn't manufacture all of them either. My understanding is that the camera uses a modified Copal shutter.

I realize that Zeiss doesn't assemble the camera. But is assembly the key to saying who a camera or any other product belongs to? Engineers don't assemble prducts - automobiles, airplane engines, or cameras. But they are normally given credit for the final product.

As I re-read the Zeiss website, I certainly can see a lot of spin with the benefit of hindsight. But I'm left with the impression of a joint project, a collaboration, a partnership.

Although the camera is "made" in a Cosina factory, it appears to me that Zeiss was involved in the development, the design, the testing, the specifications, setting the standards, & the making decisions on materials, budget, & resulting compromises.. That seems to me to be the most important part of producing the product, of making it what it is. The physical assembly seems to me to be much less important in our modern world of robotics - unless something is handmade.

Finally, Zeiss has put their name on it, stamping it as their own, and stands behind it with their warranty. They then put the weight of their corporate presence behind it in marketing & servicing. Although I have no knowledge of the legalities of it, I have every impression that Zeiss owns the rights to the camera. It sure would be interesting to know to whom they actually belong.

Again I'm left with the final impression that this was a joint project through a partnership between 2 major manufacturers.

Isn't that the way many products are produced these days? My smart car is owned by the Mercedes division of Daimler, uses a Mitsubishi engine, and is built in a smart plant separate from any of those three. So, whose car is it? And who should get credit since the original design came from Swatch?

Maybe it would be fairer to call the Zeiss Ikon a Zeiss/Cosina product, but to say that it can't be Zeiss because they don't make consumer cameras any more doesn't seem to be right. They seem to have had a big hand in making this one. . .

. . . unless of course they've just been exaggerating about their involvement all along & only agreed to license their name to an idea presented to them by Cosina & taken from design through production by Cosina. Since Zeiss has gone out of their way with extensive documentation & active involvement to create exactly the opposite impression, I would say in that case that they have crossed the line from spin and exaggeration to outright lying. A good lawyer might be able to win their case in court - but not in the course of public opinion.

I would like to keep faith with Zeiss, so I choose to believe that their involvement from the very beginning was extensive enough that they can legitimately call this camera their own . . . theirs & their partner's.

Finally, I must ask if we are to consider the lenses Cosina lenses by the same logic than you have dubbed this a Cosina camera?

Well, as I said in a later post, 'all' in the original post was an exaggeration on my part. I would still maintain that Zeiss was not using Cosina as a subcontractor, which I take (perhaps mistakenly) to be your reading.

"Input" (= contribution to another's design) and "design" (origination) are separate concepts. I think we have gone as far as is useful with this difference of opinion and reading. Without further information from the principals (Zeiss and Cosina), neither of us can say more. As it is, we have two excellent cameras, made by Cosina, badged Zeiss, just as we have a series of excellent cameras made by Cosina, badged Voigtländer. Let us be glad of this.

The lenses? Not sure. Some of them certainly do not qualify as the designs with which they are labeled: the 85/4 Tele-Tessar, for example, is neither tele nor Tessar. Again, Zeiss certainly had input, and in many (perhaps all) cases, they are actually Zeiss designs.

Cheers,

R.

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Well, as I said in a later post, 'all' in the original post was an exaggeration on my part. I would still maintain that Zeiss was not using Cosina as a subcontractor, which I take (perhaps mistakenly) to be your reading.

"Input" (= contribution to another's design) and "design" (origination) are separate concepts. I think we have gone as far as is useful with this difference of opinion and reading. Without further information from the principals (Zeiss and Cosina), neither of us can say more. As it is, we have two excellent cameras, made by Cosina, badged Zeiss, just as we have a series of excellent cameras made by Cosina, badged Voigtländer. Let us be glad of this.

The lenses? Not sure. Some of them certainly do not qualify as the designs with which they are labeled: the 85/4 Tele-Tessar, for example, is neither tele nor Tessar. Again, Zeiss certainly had input, and in many (perhaps all) cases, they are actually Zeiss designs.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

Thanks for reading & for listening. I appreciate your time & your thoughts.

I actually do think of this differently now after listening to you. I'm not at your point but am closer to it than I was before.

All the best,
Bill

[Huck Finn]

After reflecting on my conversation with Roger over the weekend, it occurs to me that the history of the Zeiss collaboration with camera makers may offer some hope to those who would like to see a digital ZI. Aside from providing lenses for the Sony's & Panasonics of the world, Zeiss has had a serious cooboration with 5 camera makers over the past century in the 35 mm format:

Zeiss Ikon
Rollei
Yashica
Kyocera
Cosina

In every case, the result was some of the most innovative 35 mm cameras of the past century or at a minimum, significant improvements over what was available in the current market place.

Regardless of how much input Zeiss had into the camera itself, something seemed to happen in the collaboration that resulted in a camera body that the camera manufacturer had never otherwise developed. Certainly Yashica never produced anything comparable to the Contax RTS under its own brand. I'm not sure who did the R&D for the Contax G, but whether it was Yashica or Kyocera, nothing similar had been seen from either of them.

Whatever the dynamic in these partnerships is that stimulated these developments, it suggests that it leads to something happening that wouldn't have happened otherwise. With digital clearly being the foreseeable future of photography & with all companies always changing with the influx of ideas from new & younger management, I think that there is indeed hope that the Zeiss Ikon could lead to something otherwise unexpected in the digital realm - be it from Cosina or some other manufacturer.

Just my 2 cents to keep hope alive.