Contax is NOT Dead

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

 > Who says they've sold the use of the brand for photographic products?

Noone. They sold Ziess-Ikon, lock stock and barrell, bar teh "Zeiss" bit in
the name.
Who says they retained the right to use the name on photographic products?

 > Why do I get the feeling you're trying to construct a case when all
 > logic suggests there is none?

That, i leave to you.
What logic suggests what exactly?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead 

Q.G. de Bakker <qnu.DeleteThis@tiscali.nl> wrote:

 > Noone. They sold Ziess-Ikon, lock stock and barrell, bar teh "Zeiss" bit in
 > the name.
 > Who says they retained the right to use the name on photographic products?

Noone. Then again, noone with the notable exception of yourself is
suggesting they didn't.

Besides, they had quite a selection of great names to chose from:
Ikonta, Ikarex and so on and on. Why on earth should they have chosen a
name they'd have to pay for?

Just doesn't make sense.

Well, judging from the time and energy you're putting into a totally
moot argument, you must be pretty bored again. I'm not, so I rest my
case.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fotoralf.de" target="_blank">http://www.fotoralf.de</a>
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead 

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

  > > Who says they retained the right to use the name on photographic
products?
 >
 > Noone.

You suggested Zeiss could re-use the Ikon name without cost. Right?
Why?

 > Then again, noone with the notable exception of yourself is
 > suggesting they didn't.

Well, they sold the entire Zeiss-Ikon thing years ago, including (well
established) the IKON name.
Now you are suggesting they did retain the right to use that name.
Hmm...

 > Besides, they had quite a selection of great names to chose from:
 > Ikonta, Ikarex and so on and on. Why on earth should they have chosen a
 > name they'd have to pay for?
 >
 > Just doesn't make sense.

Ikonta, Ikarex, and so on and on all names belonging to Zeiss-Ikon that once
was...
Yes, just like Contax.

The names you mention are names of specific products or product ranges.
The Zeiss-Ikon name is the name of the fabeled producer of those goodies.
Makes perfect sense to me.

 > Well, judging from the time and energy you're putting into a totally
 > moot argument, you must be pretty bored again. I'm not, so I rest my
 > case.

<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead 

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

 > Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
 >
  > > In a nutshell: We regret Kyocera's decision. There is and remains a
  > > contract between Carl Zeiss and Kyocera about the exclusive use of the
  > > Contax brand by Kyocera. Expiry of this contract still is a few years
  > > away. We can't make any definite statements on what the future may
  > > bring.
 >
 > Thanks for the quote.
 >
 > Even if Zeiss works out a deal to buy off Kyocera's rights to use the brand,
 > what are they going to put it on?

Contax 645 . . . maybe. Good digital back support for these currently.

 >
 >
 > They took possession of the "Ikon" brand again (which must have cost the a
 > pretty penny) and put it on a Cosina camera.
 > Hands up and be counted: how many have bought the new Zeiss-Ikon?

<Hand Up>
I put my name on the notification listing to view this camera. I will not pass
judgement on it until I actually have one in my hands. The specifications look
promising for a rangefinder, though there is still an issue of price to
quality. I don't doubt the lens quality (much), though it would be nice to have
a body that goes with those, otherwise a slightly used Leica is still a
consideration.

 >
 >
 > And now spend cash to regain control of another brand again?
 >
 > But if...
 > I think it would be a save bet that, should we see new "Contax" cameras
 > soon, they would be called "Zeiss-Ikon".

I think Zeiss are being cautious with the Zeiss Ikon line. If sales go well,
they are poised to do more, though with the acknowledgement that the entire
line is a niche, enthusiast item.

The Contax 645 officially dies in December 2005. Kyocera are obliged to supply
ten years of spares (2015) in the United States, ensuring that new purchases
this year remain serviceable.

I have rented Contax 645 gear in the past, and given a good used pricing would
consider purchasing. My profit margins are better on used purchases, in case
anyone wondered about me wanting to buy used gear. Anyway, the Contax 645 is
still a nice camera, very ergonomic, and some nice lens choices (just my
opinion).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead 

About the Zeiss RF. Doubted if it makes business sense to reinvent a
new mount and new system just for films.

The right move would be a platform for both films and digital. Kyocera
tried, and failed. I think both Kyocera and Zeiss, (and Leica too),
don't have the edge in electronic competition. I imagined put myself in
Kyocera or Zeiss's shoes.

A wishful thinking is to licence or work with Kodak or Sony for a
Zeiss-mount DCS, full-size and/or 1.5x scale down. First to keep the
Zeiss lens line alive then to boost up the volumn.
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead 

einst_stein RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
 > About the Zeiss RF. Doubted if it makes business sense to reinvent a
 > new mount and new system just for films.
 >
 > The right move would be a platform for both films and digital. Kyocera
 > tried, and failed. I think both Kyocera and Zeiss, (and Leica too),
 > don't have the edge in electronic competition. I imagined put myself in
 > Kyocera or Zeiss's shoes.
 >
 > A wishful thinking is to licence or work with Kodak or Sony for a
 > Zeiss-mount DCS, full-size and/or 1.5x scale down. First to keep the
 > Zeiss lens line alive then to boost up the volumn.
 >

Ziess could join the 4/3 consortium, perhaps with Sony as a body
partner. If they made a mounting system that could be interchanged or at
least available to all the other 4/3 bodies, they would have a winner.

On the MF side, I would like to see them develop a back based 645 like
system that could shoot either a film or high pixel digital back. And an
adapter system that will allow the lens to fit on any 4/3 camera. (the
Contax 645 is essentially this system)

I think they could distinguish themselves in the market place with fast
(2.8 and faster) zooms and primes. For either system. That would make
their lenses a desirable upgrade to the OEM 4/3 and a fast medium format
alternative to Mamiya, Hass & Fuji.

I think starting a whole new body/mount line would be a failure - but
taping into existing 4/3 demand would give them growth for a good long
while.

--

J

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.urbanvoyeur.com" target="_blank">www.urbanvoyeur.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead 

In article <425FC305.2050609.TakeThisOut@nospam.net>,
UrbanVoyeur <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.net> wrote:
 >
 >Ziess could join the 4/3 consortium,

You misspelled "Olympus", HTH!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead 

Chris Brown wrote:
 > In article <425FC305.2050609 RemoveThis @nospam.net>,
 > UrbanVoyeur <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.net> wrote:
 >
  >>Ziess could join the 4/3 consortium,
 >
 >
 > You misspelled "Olympus", HTH!

I thought Pentax, Olympus and Minolta were all part of the 4/3 group?

--

J

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.urbanvoyeur.com" target="_blank">www.urbanvoyeur.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead 

In article <42600C7E.3080400 RemoveThis @nospam.net>,
UrbanVoyeur <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.net> wrote:
 >Chris Brown wrote:
  >> In article <425FC305.2050609 RemoveThis @nospam.net>,
  >> UrbanVoyeur <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.net> wrote:
  >>
   >>>Ziess could join the 4/3 consortium,
  >>
  >>
  >> You misspelled "Olympus", HTH!
 >
 >I thought Pentax, Olympus and Minolta were all part of the 4/3 group?

Don't believe the other two are. If so, they both seem to have ignored it
for their own DSLRs, which are using their 35mm lens mounts, like everyone
else. Only Olympus have any 4/3 bodies for sale, and the lens choice isn't
great.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead 

einst_stein RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:

 > About the Zeiss RF. Doubted if it makes business sense to reinvent a
 > new mount and new system just for films.

I think the profit is in the lenses. With that in mind, selling to an
existing user base of Leica M mount cameras, while undercutting Leica
prices, seems that it should work. Also, the prices will be higher than
Voigtländer branded lenses, so it seems Zeiss hope to land in the middle
of price to quality. They also claim the lens designs are digital ready,
and with at least the Distogon design, they reasoned that the choice of
Distogon over another formula was made with consideration of future
digital usage. Profits are mostly in lenses.

 >
 >
 > The right move would be a platform for both films and digital.

Zeiss announced that from the beginning. Just a guess, but it would seem
that Sony might be the chip supplier, though Zeiss are not under any
contractual obligation to use any one chip maker.

 > Kyocera
 > tried, and failed. I think both Kyocera and Zeiss, (and Leica too),
 > don't have the edge in electronic competition. I imagined put myself in
 > Kyocera or Zeiss's shoes.

Kyocera is poorly managed in general. Even their phone division is
hurting, at a time when near record mobile phone sales are happening. The
current situation likely has more to do with the financial health of
Kyocera overall, than anything with the camera business. The camera
business, via Contax, has been a very small division of Kyocera.

 >
 >
 > A wishful thinking is to licence or work with Kodak or Sony for a
 > Zeiss-mount DCS, full-size and/or 1.5x scale down. First to keep the
 > Zeiss lens line alive then to boost up the volumn.

Check out the information on <http://www.zeiss.de> and
<http://www.zeissikon.com>. You should be happy after doing a slight bit
of reading. Another new direction for Zeiss is digital ready lenses for
Sinar. A strange direction is their recent move into camera phone lenses,
which I would expect to see soon on Sony-Eriksson branded mobile phone
cameras. Anyway, lots of great reading information at the parent company
site.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead 

Gordon Moat wrote:

 >
 > I think the profit is in the lenses. With that in mind, selling to an
 > existing user base of Leica M mount cameras, while undercutting Leica
 > prices, seems that it should work. Also, the prices will be higher
than
 > Voigtländer branded lenses, so it seems Zeiss hope to land in the
middle
 > of price to quality. They also claim the lens designs are digital
ready,
 > and with at least the Distogon design, they reasoned that the choice
of
 > Distogon over another formula was made with consideration of future
 > digital usage. Profits are mostly in lenses.
 >

I doubt Zeiss can make the lens or body that is truely compatible with
Leica. Leica M's focusing is very weired. So far no one has ever
matched, except at the infinite.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead 

<einst_stein.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote:
 >
 > I think the profit is in the lenses. With that in mind, selling to an
 > existing user base of Leica M mount cameras, while undercutting Leica
 > prices, seems that it should work.

I doubt Zeiss can make the lens or body that is truely compatible with
Leica. Leica M's focusing is very weired. So far no one has ever
matched, except at the infinite.
<<<<<<<<<

As I mentioned before, the Japanese review I read of the Zeiss Ikon lenses
concluded that they were as good as or better than the equivalent Leitz
lenses, mostly better. And at half the price.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead 

einst_stein.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:

 >
 > I doubt Zeiss can make the lens or body that is truely compatible with
 > Leica. Leica M's focusing is very weired. So far no one has ever
 > matched, except at the infinite.
 >

They already have. Check the Zeiss website. There's no magic to it. It's
70 year old technology.

--

J

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.urbanvoyeur.com" target="_blank">www.urbanvoyeur.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Contax is NOT Dead