New strategies

[kdemas]

All...

I found the PDF press release on the kyoceraimaging site quite interesting. They still actively talk about their commitment to the varied product segments and their Pro and advanced amateur communities.

Like all of you I have been very frustrated with Kyocera as I would love to stay in the system. Here is to hoping that good news is around the corner (again!!).

Below is the text from the release itself.

Kent

ps- I can't quite get the first page to copy... will keep try ing! Software glitch on my side

- 2 - “We are very excited about the new distribution partnership with Kyocera and the Contax product line and we are anxious to get started” said Richard Darrow, President of ToCAD America Inc. “The prestigious Contax camera line is the perfect match with our other outstanding product lines including Hakuba, Velbon, Sunpak, GE/Sanyo, and ZERO Halliburton. Also, we are very excited to have some of the key members of Kyocera Optics, Inc., who had responsibilities for the sales, marketing and service components of the Contax business, join the ToCAD America team as part of our new distribution agreement with Kyocera. This will greatly help to assure a smooth and seamless transition of the Contax business for our customers and dealers.” The Contax line, including the launch of the new Contax i4R digital camera model that features the revolutionary RTUNE imaging technology, will be showcased at ToCAD America’s PMA booth number 4462. Kyocera Optics, Inc., is the imaging arm of Kyocera Corporation serving North America that brings you the Kyocera Finecam, Contax, Carl Zeiss and Yashica brands of Digital Still Camera, Medium Format, Rangefinder, SLR, and 35mm P/S cameras, lenses, and accessories. Our product lines serve the consumer, prosumer, serious amateur and professional photographer customer segments and are sold via the photo specialty dealer and mass retail channels. (www.kyoceraimaging.com) Kyocera Corporation, parent and global headquarters of the Kyocera Group, was founded in 1959 as a producer of advanced ceramics. By combining these engineered materials with metals and plastics, and integrating them with other technologies, Kyocera has become a leading supplier of telecommunications equipment, cameras, laser printers, copiers, solar energy systems, semiconductor packages and electronic components. During the year ended March 31, 2004, the company’s net sales totaled $10.969 Billion with net income of $654.673 Million. Kyocera Corporation trades on the NYSE, Tokyo, and Osaka stock exchanges under the symbol “KYO”. ToCAD America Inc., a subsidiary of Japan’s ToCAD Energy Co. Ltd., markets its products nationwide through photo and video specialty dealers, catalogs and national chains. In addition to photographic products, ToCAD is a world-class leader in the manufacture of rechargeable NiCad, Nickel Metal Hydride and Lithium Ion batteries for camcorders, cellular telephones and private label applications. (www.tocad.com) ###

 

[old_admin_CI]

... this is the full pdf file...

<center><table border=1><tr><td>

tocad_press_release.pdf (282.3 k)</td></tr></table></center>

O.k., so we know now that there is a new distributor for the US. But we need a lot more before calling something a committment.

If the only thing they are showing at PMA is the U4R ... well ... mmmmhh.... ähhhmmm ...

... I actually do not want to think about the consequences ...

 

[fotografz]

Reality check!

Let's remember that it's Kyocera that's screwing this up for us, not Zeiss. Kyocera is a huge corporation interested in making money, not losing it for the sake of a relative handful of Contax 35mm enthusiasts.

If you step back and think about it, who would want to try out inventing and marketing Canon right now? Nikon, with it's huge user base, is struggling with that issue itself.

It's also easy to understand why Kyocera would abandon the manual system, and I'm shocked they didn't do it sooner. This is system with a long life span, and there are many used items to be had much less expensively ... which has to have cut into new sales like crazy. I'm sure this is the same issue Hasselblad has with retail V system lens sales. There are so many lenses out there used, why would you pay $3,200. for a lens you could buy mint for $1,800. or less?

Frankly, we have had some lucky breaks in the past few years. I think it was good fortune that Hasselblad didn't use Zeiss glass on the H1. If they had, what professional in his right mind would've purchased a new Contax 645? And where would the C645 be now if they had not made that blunder?

I also think it was good fortune that we got a ND at all. At least there is something digital that accepts that wonderful N Zeiss glass and 645 lenses via an adapter. Because it was based on the N1, this was never intended to be a professional camera. So, in reality it is more than enough for the individual looking for nice 11X14s or smaller digital prints. We have to remember that a 6 meg. full frame CCD is actually still a good sensor and is equal to or better than a current Canon 8 meg 1.3X CMOS. up to ISO 320. ... if you are decent at PS processing ... which was another stroke of good luck that Adobe included ND support in their RAW developer.

Wish list:

4000 MaH batteries for the ND ... or some engineer out there makes a real battery for it by adapting the ND battery carriage. And some computer geek figures out how to alter the firmware of the ND along with upgrading the buffer, then launches a website with real tech support to accomplish the task. Remember, Nikon did that to preserve the 1Dx as a viable camera and lengthen it's lifespan thus buying Nikon time to work on the next generation of D cameras.

A Contax 645II body with better AF and power use. This is imperative for moving into the future with film and digital capture for those with sizable investments in C645 lenses. The MF digital back makers are fighting back against the likes of the Canon 1DsMKII. For ex&le, we are just a few months away from a full frame 645, 22 meg digital back from Leaf that is totally self contained and portable, has a touch screen 6X7 high resolution LCD, and uses CF cards as well as bluetooth storage to a 20 gig drive ... with a specific application for a Contax 645. Not cheap to start off, but that'll change. Heck you can get a 16 meg Kodak ProBack for $5,500 to $6,000. that combined with Contax 645 glass, will out image a Canon 1DsMKII that cost $8,000. right now.

I wish Zeiss would issue "special edition" Canon mount wide angles even if it were just the 21mm and one wide angle zoom. But that'll never happen because it would be really smart to do so, and few of these companies seem to have any brains except maybe Canon ; -)

Sorry for rambling on, I've not had my full ration of coffee yet.

 

[dirk]

I totally agree Marc ...

lets hope that they will come up with some real interesting FFL for the N-System i.e. 21/2.8, 25/2.8, 35/1.4 and maybe something interesting in the short tele area (between 100-135mm) with 2.0 or 2.8 to make it more affordable.

Because of the fullsise capability, the wideangles are the best way to attract new users to the N-System i.e. from Canon and Nikon. If they experienced already now with the adapters the superiority of the MM21/2.8, it will be an easier task to turn them into Contaxians

In the tele-lens area this will be a lot more difficult. The zoom area is already well represented and I doubt that there will be many users willing to pay the price for a 2.8 aperture zoom at the moment - maybe later on, if sales increased significantly and people really believe that Kyocera is committed for a Contax future.

And of course a ND2 is necessary. I do not think that it has to have more then 10MP. What is your opinion about this? Leica's digital back "only" goes for 10MP. I even think a very price aggressive 6 or 8MP model would be at the moment better, if the image quality is very good. More poeple can afford it and the fullsize capability with the Zeiss lenses together would make the sales call easy.

Only the old problems you mentioned also in the past of the ND should be fixed 100% for this new model: battery, software, good high ISO quality etc.

And if they would show prototypes of that at PMA lets say 1500-2000 Euro for the body, and reasonable prices for the new and old Zeiss N-lenses, this would bring Kyocera back into the game.

.... assuming they would also market it correctly. It does not help to have a system and you are not telling anybody about it

 

[mohican]

Reality check II

Zeiss owns the Contax trademark. Zeiss designed all the lenses in every Contax product line. Cameras are mostly done by Kyocera. This is a partnership. If the manual focus C/Y-mount line is financially no longer viable for this partnership - I would have certainly preferred to hear it from both partners OPENLY. Not the way Kyocera did it. I, as a customer, am not happy when company takes my money and then quietly pulls all products off their assembly line and basically tells me "tough luck".

Personally I would have preferred to see new manual focus SLR Contax body from Zeiss+whichever partner, rather than Cosina-made Zeiss Ikon rangefinder. I'm quite certain that the C/Y mount lenses I own now will serve me for quite a while, but I'm also certain that they will need some service in the future. If there would be no way to get them properly serviced that would be a major problem. So, although I do hope that 5 years from now Zeiss will be able to perform that service, I'm not so certain about 10 years from now. Even more problematic is the issue of SLR body itself. If Kyocera is indeed going to axe the whole line - there would be no way to fix that shutter in your camera even 3 years from now!

And speaking of used vs. new market. Canon keeps churning out new lenses almost every year. And almost every year it's the same story - better this and better that. Zeiss could have done the same thing. Had their R&D released at least two new lenses in C/Y mount every year - many people would buy new lens and sell their old one. As good as every MM lens is, a lot of time have passed since they were designed for the first time. And Zeiss surely could incorporate a lot of know-how and new technology to produce new lenses. They did just that for N-mount lenses, so they surely could have done it for C/Y mount as well.
And by the way, Leica does it also - check B&H site and search for 50mm Summilux. There are THREE versions in M-mount, including one that has aspherical element, floating element and glass with anomalous partial dispersion. Basically every new thing incorporated in the lens.

As far as Zeiss glass in Canon mount goes - very unlikely. I imagine that all these manufacturers have clever licensing/patenting schemes where making lenses for another mount requires lens maker to get a permission/license from system manufacturer and pay royalties. So, Zeiss would have to get permission from Canon to do that. What are the chances of Canon saying "yeah, sure guys, go right ahead, make lenses for our cameras and eat into our profits" ?

Otherwise I would imagine everyone would compete at each other's turf - Nikon would be making lenses for Canon, Canon making lenses for Nikon and Pentax making lenses for every brand. The idea is actually great from customer's perspective, that's why Four Thirds system makes quite a lot of sense for consumer. But Sony is not part of it and that probably means - don't expect Zeiss lenses in this system. However, Panasonic is in. And that may mean - Leica lenses for the system. But that's a topic for another discussion.

 

[dirk]

"...that's why Four Thirds system makes quite a lot of sense for consumer...."

I agree. But Olympus made the mistake, that they asked for a too high fee for all interested parties to join this 4/3 system. I do not know, whether they came down with the price recently, but the more expensive it will be for a producer to join this system with "co-products", the less likely they will join.

IMO Zeiss would be definitely interested in joining this circle. But I doubt that this is in the interest of Olympus. Zeiss' reputation with lenses is too good and this could cannibalize the Zuiko lenses of the 4/3 System too much.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[mohican]

Dirk,

I didn't actually know that Olympus was asking for a high joining fee, but I would think it would be lower by now. In any case, I thought that since 4/3rds is an open standard, one would expect that manufacturers with less money will still be able to produce lenses and accessories for 4/3rds system, they simply won't be able to participate in group discussions and stuff like this. That's my understanding at least.

As far as Zeiss vs. Olympus competition - I think it's a win-win situation for both. Zeiss doesn't make digital cameras - Olympus does. Zeiss doesn't have a know-how to make fast zoom lens (I don't mean optically, I mean autofocus-fast) - Olympus does. And Olympus was also making pretty good lenses when OM-1 was around. They also have quite a lot of experience in making point-and-shoot cameras that actually deliver very good results (think of Olympus mju (Stylus in States)).

I also think that any Zeiss lens would be probably much better optically than Zuiko lenses, but it would also be probably slower to focus and much more expensive. Also, Zeiss lenses would not necessarily deliver better performance when mated with every camera.

So, in that sense Olympus may produce several different cameras targeted at different markets - from amateur to advanced amateur to professional. In lowest end of the market very few people would be interested in Zeiss lenses. More higher-end cameras will have more lenses to choose from at different quality levels and budgets.

Also, don't forget that Olympus isn't the only one. Kodak, Fuji, Panasonic, Sanyo and Sigma are also participating. Out of all these, only Sigma has significant business in lens manufacturing. Kodak uses Schneider-Kreuznach lenses, Fuji makes lenses only for their own cameras, Panasonic works with Leica, Sanyo usually makes their own lenses for their own cameras.

Think of it this way. We already have four major film manufacturers - Kodak, Fuji, AGFA and Ilford. They compete with each other, but they're also very much "compatible" with each other - you can develop Kodak T-Max in AGFA Rodinal for instance. And in many cases, people experiment with each and choose the one they like. Or in some cases - use films made by all four, simply in different conditions.

Now, what if you could use Zeiss C/Y mount lenses on Leica R9 or Leica R-lenses on your Contax? You would obviously have even more flexibility.

That's essentially what 4/3rds is all about - mix and match to get what you want.

 

[fotografz]

"As far as Zeiss glass in Canon mount goes - very unlikely. I imagine that all these manufacturers have clever licensing/patenting schemes where making lenses for another mount requires lens maker to get a permission/license from system manufacturer and pay royalties. So, Zeiss would have to get permission from Canon to do that. What are the chances of Canon saying "yeah, sure guys, go right ahead, make lenses for our cameras and eat into our profits" ?"

I wonder how the 3rd party lenses makers do it? There are all kinds of non Canon lenses in Canon EOS mounts. Or how do the the various adapter makers do it? Same with Nikon.

 

[mohican]

"I wonder how the 3rd party lenses makers do it? There are all kinds of non Canon lenses in Canon EOS mounts. Or how do the the various adapter makers do it? Same with Nikon."

I think that 3rd party lens makers pay license fees and maybe some royalties. Sigma, Tokina, etc. very rarely can produce lenses that are superior to Canon/Nikon without getting into very expensive manufacturing. So, Canon, Nikon and others don't feel any threat from 3rd party lens manufacturers. For them it's a good opportunity to get some revenue without spending any money - they license specifications (mechanical and electric) and let the money flow in.

With adapters it's tricky. I suspect that since practically any adapter out there doesn't offer "full" compatibility and is usually purely mechanical (doesn't transfer any data between the lens and the camera and doesn't control aperture) - there is no reason why would adapter makers need any special permissions from camera makers.

These are just thoughts though, I don't know for sure.

 

[fotografz]

Well Mike, I'm not sure either. I don't know if a lens mount can be a protected property, and if so, how long.

Leica M mounts seem fair game to anyone these days, and I doubt they surrendered rights to Zeiss for some relatively tiny royalty, while allowing them to produce directly competitive optics for half the price. Same for V/C. who I know for a fact has cut deeply into Leica M lens sales with some of their offerings in M mount rangefinder lenses. Not to mention being trumped by by letting Epson produce the first ever digital rangefinder ... using a M mount.

As to Sigma etc. They sell a boatload of lenses in Canon mounts, and while they can't, as you say, produce lenses superior to Canon, I think that applies to only the relative handful of L lenses ( Canon is a mass manufacturer that makes quite a few less than stellar lenses ). At that level of mass buying, Sigma etc. cuts deep into Canon's secondary lens sales with more inventive offerings that many feel are actually superior optically. I even know many wedding pros that use 3rd party lenses, including my shooting partner who is a Canon L freak, but has a Sigma zoom that he thinks is just as good or better optically and is most certainly smaller than the Canon Counterpart.

I doubt the miniscule amount of Contax freaks like us would pose a "threat" to the lens sales of Canon L glass either. Few regular Canon shooters would sacrifice Canon's lightening fast USM auto focus and IS technology for the esoteric qualities we see in Contax glass ... that can only be had in manual focus form. For Zeiss to produce AF lenses would require a partnership with some other lens maker with the technology in place that Zeiss doesn't have.

I also seriously doubt that if Zeiss had to pay a "royalty" to Canon it would be anywhere near what they give up to Contax in terms of profit potential.

What I do think stops Zeiss is the small sales potential for such expensive lenses, and lack of an established stand alone manufacturing and distribution system that would maintain Zeiss' level of relentless quality standards. Many of the first N lenses were late being introduced because Zeiss stopped them from going to market. I understand the same is being said for the Zeiss Ikon glass recently.

What I dream of is the N line optics expanded to include a 21/2.8, 24/2.8, and 35/1.4, 100/2 ... co-opted by a lens maker with the technology to back engineer compatibility with Canon's electronic mount. If one of the 3rd party makers wanted to enhance their reputation, what better way than by offering a premium line with the Zeiss st& of approval? But it will just remain a dream, because reality gets in the way every time : -)