Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Contax is NOT Dead

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 6:05:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:.

*******************
Dear Sir,

No the info on the web is not correct. If you go to www.kyoceraimaging.com
on the home page there is a press release dated February 20th describing
what should have be stated on the web. The info quoted on the web is
incorrect and we are working to have the correct info posted.

Thank you,

Nick Cheremsak

*******************
The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive distributor
of Contax and indicates that Kyocera is committed to focusing on Contax as
their primary digital imaging line.

Sometimes it pays to go to the horses mouth.

Walt Hanks

More about : contax dead

March 8, 2005 6:31:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_c6dnfYxU9DgmLPfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
> Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:.
>
> *******************
> Dear Sir,
>
> No the info on the web is not correct. If you go to
www.kyoceraimaging.com
> on the home page there is a press release dated February 20th describing
> what should have be stated on the web. The info quoted on the web is
> incorrect and we are working to have the correct info posted.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Nick Cheremsak
>
> *******************
> The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive
distributor
> of Contax and indicates that Kyocera is committed to focusing on Contax as
> their primary digital imaging line.
>
> Sometimes it pays to go to the horses mouth.
>
> Walt Hanks
>
>

That is good news. I'd hate to see a quality brand go down the tubes...

George
March 8, 2005 7:16:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
news:Y4oXd.4072$2d4.351@fe03.lga...

> > The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive
> distributor
> >
> > of Contax and indicates that Kyocera is committed to focusing on Contax
as
> > their primary digital imaging line.
> >
> > Sometimes it pays to go to the horses mouth.
> >
> > Walt Hanks
> >
> >
>
> That is good news. I'd hate to see a quality brand go down the tubes...
>
> George
>
It's just a name, there hasn't been a Contax for years.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 9:51:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_c6dnfYxU9DgmLPfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
> Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:.
>
> *******************
> Dear Sir,
>
> No the info on the web is not correct. If you go to www.kyoceraimaging.com on the home
> page there is a press release dated February 20th describing what should have be stated
> on the web. The info quoted on the web is incorrect and we are working to have the
> correct info posted.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Nick Cheremsak
>
> *******************
> The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive distributor of Contax
> and indicates that Kyocera is committed to focusing on Contax as their primary digital
> imaging line.
>
> Sometimes it pays to go to the horses mouth.
>
> Walt Hanks

I think it is highly possible that the message you received came from someone interested
primarily in unloading store rooms full of Contax products...
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 10:52:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 15:31:21 -0500, "George" <nowhere@newsonly.com>
wrote:

>
>"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:_c6dnfYxU9DgmLPfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
>> Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:.
>>
>> *******************
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>> No the info on the web is not correct. If you go to
>www.kyoceraimaging.com
>> on the home page there is a press release dated February 20th describing
>> what should have be stated on the web. The info quoted on the web is
>> incorrect and we are working to have the correct info posted.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Nick Cheremsak
>>
>> *******************
>> The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive
>distributor
>> of Contax and indicates that Kyocera is committed to focusing on Contax as
>> their primary digital imaging line.
>>
>> Sometimes it pays to go to the horses mouth.
>>
>> Walt Hanks
>>
>>
>
>That is good news. I'd hate to see a quality brand go down the tubes...
>
>George
>

The originating website owner can be sued for this.
-Rich
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 10:52:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:n4is2110ae1a6i6v91oqcipciu8b58vo7f@4ax.com...
>
> The originating website owner can be sued for this.
> -Rich

You can sue anybody for anything, but to prevail Kyocera would have to show
that the web site owner knew or should have known that his statements were
false. Given that his information was received directly from sources at
Kyocera that would be very hard to prove. I suspect that there is some
confusion and speculation going on within the company and it is getting out
to various people in garbled form. Kyocera would have no justification for
suing people when they can't control what their own personnel are saying.

Then, too, any target of a lawsuit would have to be worth going after. A web
site owner does not necessarily have deep enough pockets to make a lawsuit
worthwhile.

Finally, few camera companies would like a reputation for suing reviewers.
Reviews of their cameras would dry up very fast.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 12:19:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>> The originating website owner can be sued for this.

> You can sue anybody for anything, but to prevail Kyocera would have to
> show
> that the web site owner knew or should have known that his statements were
> false.

If, in fact, they are. The dis-information may well be coming from the USA
distributor, who very likely has a warehouse full of unsold product that
they would like to sell at top dollar. Given the choice of believing the
USA distributor's web or Phil's DPreview web, I find that the latter is the
disinterested, and consequently, presumed honest source of accurate
information. While I would certainly like to see Contax and Yashica
continue, I fear that may not be the case.
March 9, 2005 12:38:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <AZWdnZbxDdS7wLPfRVn-rg@comcast.com>, jfitz@bigfoot.com says...
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> >> The originating website owner can be sued for this.
>
> > You can sue anybody for anything, but to prevail Kyocera would have to
> > show
> > that the web site owner knew or should have known that his statements were
> > false.
>
> If, in fact, they are. The dis-information may well be coming from the USA
> distributor, who very likely has a warehouse full of unsold product that
> they would like to sell at top dollar. Given the choice of believing the
> USA distributor's web or Phil's DPreview web, I find that the latter is the
> disinterested, and consequently, presumed honest source of accurate
> information. While I would certainly like to see Contax and Yashica
> continue, I fear that may not be the case.
>
>
>
>

I hate to agree with anything sounding like even a MINI conspiracy, but I
have to agree with this post.

Until and unless I see some indication that someone is actually making more
Contax cameras, I will consider it a dead company.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 12:57:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:VwtXd.21737$FM3.1680@fed1read02...
>
> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_c6dnfYxU9DgmLPfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
>> Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:.
>>
>> *******************
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>> No the info on the web is not correct. If you go to
>> www.kyoceraimaging.com on the home page there is a press release dated
>> February 20th describing what should have be stated on the web. The info
>> quoted on the web is incorrect and we are working to have the correct
>> info posted.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Nick Cheremsak
>>
>> *******************
>> The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive
>> distributor of Contax and indicates that Kyocera is committed to focusing
>> on Contax as their primary digital imaging line.
>>
>> Sometimes it pays to go to the horses mouth.
>>
>> Walt Hanks
>
> I think it is highly possible that the message you received came from
> someone interested primarily in unloading store rooms full of Contax
> products...
>

Think what you want. I never cease to be amazed at the ability of Usenet to
create controversy where none exists and find conspiracy in every corner.
Mr. Cheremsak is Kyocera's PR officer, not ToCad's.

Try going to Kyocera's site and finding any announcement of the sort that
was posted by dpreview. You won't find it. Doesn't THAT strike you as odd?

Walt
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:10:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> That is good news. I'd hate to see a quality brand go down the tubes...
>
> George
>
>

True, but they should do a lot of innovation in order to keep up with
the competition (there are a lot of competitors...).

VirtualV
March 9, 2005 3:26:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:


> Then, too, any target of a lawsuit would have to be worth going after. A web
> site owner does not necessarily have deep enough pockets to make a lawsuit
> worthwhile.

It may seem odd to some but I'm aware of one person that sometimes
couldn't care less about any monetary award provided by a favourable
court ruling. Sometimes he sues simply because someone else desperately
deserved to be buried in paperwork for the next ten years - eating beans
six nights out of seven because the attorney fees won't afford better.
If one can't afford to be sued, maybe one should learn to keep their
hands to themself.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:15:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm C J Campbell <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:n4is2110ae1a6i6v91oqcipciu8b58vo7f@4ax.com...
> >
> > The originating website owner can be sued for this.
> > -Rich
>
> You can sue anybody for anything, but to prevail Kyocera would have to show
> that the web site owner knew or should have known that his statements were
> false. Given that his information was received directly from sources at
> Kyocera that would be very hard to prove. I suspect that there is some

Thats what he claims anyways.

> confusion and speculation going on within the company and it is getting out
> to various people in garbled form. Kyocera would have no justification for
> suing people when they can't control what their own personnel are saying.

Wrong. If you distribute information you receive from non-oficial channels
within the company the comapny can perfectly well sue you and win. The sole
exception is if they ordered the information to be distributed themselves.

>
> Then, too, any target of a lawsuit would have to be worth going after. A web
> site owner does not necessarily have deep enough pockets to make a lawsuit
> worthwhile.

He might still have house and car and hamster and ...

>
> Finally, few camera companies would like a reputation for suing reviewers.
> Reviews of their cameras would dry up very fast.
>

Reviewers that do significant PR damage are probably not worth having.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 7:23:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <GeCdnS2MK9ubz7LfRVn-jA@comcast.com>,
"Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:

> they want to keep the matter quiet until the
> existing stock of Contax cameras is sold,

How do you think this can be accomplished today?

In the USA they have changed distributors. The new distributor, Tocad,
had a table full of new product PR at the PMA Sneak Peak last month and
a booth full of product and a new sales force. That means they plan on
selling something.

The old distributor no longer has a photo sales force or sales
management for photo. What can they sell?

If a product is introduced anywhere in the world today it is on the
internet before it is even introduced to the company's local sales
force. It is almost impossible to keep new product quiet once it has
been introduced anywhere. And no company wants to sit with no sales
waiting for old product to disappear. They can always make loads of
merchandise move by just offering it on QVC or HSC.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
March 9, 2005 9:06:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Darrell" <dev/null> wrote in message
news:6NSdnU55Guezi7PfRVn-ig@rogers.com...
>
> "George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
> news:Y4oXd.4072$2d4.351@fe03.lga...
>
> > > The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive
> > distributor
> > >
> > > of Contax and indicates that Kyocera is committed to focusing on
Contax
> as
> > > their primary digital imaging line.
> > >
> > > Sometimes it pays to go to the horses mouth.
> > >
> > > Walt Hanks
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That is good news. I'd hate to see a quality brand go down the tubes...
> >
> > George
> >
> It's just a name, there hasn't been a Contax for years.
>
>
>

I'd say Kyocero has kept up the brand name quite well. The lens line hasn't
suffered and they
have addressed film flatness better than any other manufacturer. I'm not
lamenting that 1940s
German rangefinders named "Contax" aren't being made...I just want to see as
many quality
minded companies hang around as it is good whether you own that particular
brand or not.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:05:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in news:Y4oXd.4072$2d4.351@fe03.lga:

> That is good news. I'd hate to see a quality brand go down the tubes...

Whats in a brand name?

I mean - a company does not make better cameras by using an old
brand name they have bought.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 4:25:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bob_salomon-BD0064.16233009032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <GeCdnS2MK9ubz7LfRVn-jA@comcast.com>,
> "Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:
>
> > they want to keep the matter quiet until the
> > existing stock of Contax cameras is sold,
>
> How do you think this can be accomplished today?
>
> In the USA they have changed distributors. The new distributor, Tocad,
> had a table full of new product PR at the PMA Sneak Peak last month and
> a booth full of product and a new sales force. That means they plan on
> selling something.
>
> The old distributor no longer has a photo sales force or sales
> management for photo. What can they sell?
>
> If a product is introduced anywhere in the world today it is on the
> internet before it is even introduced to the company's local sales
> force. It is almost impossible to keep new product quiet once it has
> been introduced anywhere. And no company wants to sit with no sales
> waiting for old product to disappear. They can always make loads of
> merchandise move by just offering it on QVC or HSC.
>

Next time read the entire thread.

1) No one was talking about the introduction of *new* product.

2) The company whose word was in question was not Tocad, but rather Kyocera

3) You missed my point entirely, which was that no one should automatically
trust the word of a company which has a vested interest in some product in
question. My post OBVIOUSLY had nothing to do with whether the Kyocera
rumor of severing ties with Contax was true or not.

4) If you go to
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&s... , you
will see in a story dated 3/10/05 that Kyocera is indeed ceasing production
of digital cameras, Contax-, Kyocera-branded, or otherwise.

5) The information you provided may be gospel or it may be utter drivel and
no one has any way of knowing which.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 7:40:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <2oOdnZjtcZMlka_fRVn-oQ@comcast.com>,
"Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:

> "Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:bob_salomon-BD0064.16233009032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > In article <GeCdnS2MK9ubz7LfRVn-jA@comcast.com>,
> > "Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:
> >
> > > they want to keep the matter quiet until the
> > > existing stock of Contax cameras is sold,
> >
> > How do you think this can be accomplished today?
> >
> > In the USA they have changed distributors. The new distributor, Tocad,
> > had a table full of new product PR at the PMA Sneak Peak last month and
> > a booth full of product and a new sales force. That means they plan on
> > selling something.
> >
> > The old distributor no longer has a photo sales force or sales
> > management for photo. What can they sell?
> >
> > If a product is introduced anywhere in the world today it is on the
> > internet before it is even introduced to the company's local sales
> > force. It is almost impossible to keep new product quiet once it has
> > been introduced anywhere. And no company wants to sit with no sales
> > waiting for old product to disappear. They can always make loads of
> > merchandise move by just offering it on QVC or HSC.
> >
>
> Next time read the entire thread.
>
> 1) No one was talking about the introduction of *new* product.
>
> 2) The company whose word was in question was not Tocad, but rather Kyocera
>
> 3) You missed my point entirely, which was that no one should automatically
> trust the word of a company which has a vested interest in some product in
> question. My post OBVIOUSLY had nothing to do with whether the Kyocera
> rumor of severing ties with Contax was true or not.
>
> 4) If you go to
> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&s... , you
> will see in a story dated 3/10/05 that Kyocera is indeed ceasing production
> of digital cameras, Contax-, Kyocera-branded, or otherwise.
>
> 5) The information you provided may be gospel or it may be utter drivel and
> no one has any way of knowing which.

"no one should automatically trust the word of a company which has a
vested interest in some product in question."

Then who should one take the word of? You quote an article quoting the
company that has a vested interest.

If you want the correct answer to something it is frequently better not
to get it from a major source of rumors like the internet. And it is
very unlikely that a manufacturer is going to inform someone on the
internet about their future before they tell their distributors.

Contax isn't a company as you infer
"Kyocera rumor of severing ties with Contax".

Contax is a brand name developed by Zeiss Ikon and used for their top of
the line rangefinder cameras until Zeiss Ikon Voigtlander went out of
the camera business in the 70's (our company was formed out of the US
division of Zeiss Ikon Voigtlander USA at that time). Contax was also
used as a brand name by the East German manufacturer in the old East
German Dresden factory for an early SLR.

Carl Zeiss, the lens manufacturing division of the Zeiss group, licensed
the Contax name to Yashica who then was acquired by Kyocera.

So Contax is a brand not a company.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 4:13:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Darrell" <dev/null> wrote:

> Or maybe we'll just see Contax braded Sanyo or Samsung product?

Of course not. Cosina will start production soon, but to save costs, they
will outsource the menial work to arsenal.

-- Lassi
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:57:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

in article bob_salomon-E8A551.16400111032005@news.isp.giganews.com, Bob
Salomon at bob_salomon@mindspring.com wrote on 11/3/05 10:40 pm:
<snip>
> "no one should automatically trust the word of a company which has a
> vested interest in some product in question."
>
> Then who should one take the word of? You quote an article quoting the
> company that has a vested interest.
>
> If you want the correct answer to something it is frequently better not
> to get it from a major source of rumors like the internet. And it is
> very unlikely that a manufacturer is going to inform someone on the
> internet about their future before they tell their distributors.
<snip>

Looks like DPreview had better information than the US distributors (ToCad):
http://global.kyocera.com/news/2005/0402.html

Ben
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 4:40:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kyocera has offically announced that the brank "Contrax" will be
discontinued yesterday. Except Contax 645 all other Contax camera bodies
and lens will be discontinued in May 05 and 645 will be in December 05.

"Ben Micklem" <ben.micklem@pharm.ox.ac.uk>
:BE817633.5039%ben.micklem@pharm.ox.ac.uk...
> in article bob_salomon-E8A551.16400111032005@news.isp.giganews.com, Bob
> Salomon at bob_salomon@mindspring.com wrote on 11/3/05 10:40 pm:
> <snip>
>> "no one should automatically trust the word of a company which has a
>> vested interest in some product in question."
>>
>> Then who should one take the word of? You quote an article quoting the
>> company that has a vested interest.
>>
>> If you want the correct answer to something it is frequently better not
>> to get it from a major source of rumors like the internet. And it is
>> very unlikely that a manufacturer is going to inform someone on the
>> internet about their future before they tell their distributors.
> <snip>
>
> Looks like DPreview had better information than the US distributors
> (ToCad):
> http://global.kyocera.com/news/2005/0402.html
>
> Ben
>
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 5:12:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Cameras" <camera@ourbrisbane.com.au> wrote in message
news:425c86aa$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Kyocera has offically announced that the brank "Contrax" will be
> discontinued yesterday.

All they are discontinuing is their production of it. They don't own the
brand Contax, Zeiss owns that.


Alex
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 5:19:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Cameras" <camera@ourbrisbane.com.au> wrote in message
news:425c86aa$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Kyocera has offically announced that the brank "Contrax" will be
> discontinued yesterday.

All they are discontinuing is their production of it. They don't own the
brand Contax, Zeiss owns that.


Alex
April 13, 2005 5:19:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alex MacPhee" <alex_macpheeSNIPTHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p rednSdukt6ok8DfRVnyrQ@pipex.net...
>
> "Cameras" <camera@ourbrisbane.com.au> wrote in message
> news:425c86aa$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > Kyocera has offically announced that the brank "Contrax" will be
> > discontinued yesterday.
>
> All they are discontinuing is their production of it. They don't own the
> brand Contax, Zeiss owns that.
>
Zeiss sold the brand name to Yashica over 20 years ago, AFAIK
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 6:02:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

" Darrell" <dev/null> wrote in message
news:Rc6dncLPeaQtiMDfRVn-vA@rogers.com...

> Zeiss sold the brand name to Yashica over 20 years ago, AFAIK

They only entered into a partnership to produce Contax branded cameras under
licence, after previous overtures with Pentax came to nothing. Zeiss still
own the Contax and Ikon brands.

Alex
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alex MacPhee wrote:

> They only entered into a partnership to produce Contax branded cameras
under
> licence, after previous overtures with Pentax came to nothing. Zeiss still
> own the Contax and Ikon brands.

Since Zeiss does not produce cameras, is not likely to begin doing so, the
point who owns the Contax brand is moot.
With Kyocera out of it, the current Contax camera line is dead.

Then there's another issue, more important than who owns the Contax name:
who owns the technology in the Contax cameras?
If (which is highly probable) it is Kyocera, there is no chance of anyone
else continuing the production.
So the current Contax camera line is dead, never to return again.

Then, even if someone is willing to pick up where Kyocera left off, they
will inherit Kyocer'as problems too: there is almost no market for the
Contax cameras.
So even then the current line will remain dead. Expect to see digital
thingies of different size.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:52:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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

> Since Zeiss does not produce cameras, is not likely to begin doing so, the
> point who owns the Contax brand is moot.

Here's an official statement from Zeiss on this topic:

"Unter der Marke CONTAX hat Kyocera jahrelang hervorragende Kameras mit
Carl Zeiss Objektiven auf den Markt gebracht. Wir bedauern, daß Kyocera,
gemäß Verlautbarung vom 12. April 2005, diese Aktivitäten nicht
fortsetzen wird. Nach wie vor besteht zwischen Carl Zeiss und Kyocera
ein Vertrag über die exklusive Nutzung der Marke CONTAX durch Kyocera.
Dieser Vertrag hat noch eine Laufzeit von mehreren Jahren. Wir können
deshalb derzeit noch keine konkreten Aussagen über die künftige
Entwicklung machen."

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.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:46:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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?

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?

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".
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:46:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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".
>
>

One possible partner comes to mind: Sony.

Unfortunately, they have no experience in the SLR market and might not
be willing to enter it. Also, any new medium format cameras produced
directly by Zeiss might put them at odds with Hasselblad.

--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:13:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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

> They took possession of the "Ikon" brand again (which must have cost the a
> pretty penny) and put it on a Cosina camera.

What cost? The Zeiss-Ikon brand had not been used by anybody for any
photo-related product since the closure of the Stuttgart factory in the
late 70's.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:13:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ralf R. Radermacher" <fotoralf@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1guzca2.9db5qk1soxiz0N%fotoralf@gmx.de...

> What cost? The Zeiss-Ikon brand had not been used by anybody for any
> photo-related product since the closure of the Stuttgart factory in the
> late 70's.

Trademark issues, perhaps. It gets complicated in Germany. Rights might
apply across German trademarks, the International registry, European
community, all that.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:46:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:425d6314$0$22728$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl...

> Since Zeiss does not produce cameras, is not likely to begin doing so

That Zeiss does not manufacture cameras is not relevant to the ownership of
the brand. This has not, after all, impeded Zeiss from reviving the Zeiss
Ikon marque, in partnership with Cosina. The brand still exists, and can be
manufactured. This, therefore,

> With Kyocera out of it, the current Contax camera line is dead.

is a non sequitur. The Contax line manufactured by Kyocera is dead, that's
all.

> who owns the technology in the Contax cameras?

I'm pretty sure that Kyocera will have patents in the camera designs, but
that is not the issue here. Zeiss may enter partnership with another
manufacturer

> Then, even if someone is willing to pick up where Kyocera left off, they
> will inherit Kyocer'as problems too: there is almost no market for the
> Contax cameras.

Kyocera were not what one would call red hot in marketing, but the Contax
line has always been a niche line, not a mass market line, and those who
bought into Contax generally did so because they were also buying into Zeiss
glass. Whoever is able to pick up the brand is not obliged to pick up
Kyocera's less than able marketing problems.


Alex
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:39:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Frankly speaking I don't care whether Contax will continue or not. I just
love their lens. If a DSLR can use all the old lens just like Contax AX.
It will be perfect.

"Ralf R. Radermacher" <fotoralf@gmx.de>
:1guzca2.9db5qk1soxiz0N%fotoralf@gmx.de...
> Q.G. de Bakker <qnu@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>
>> They took possession of the "Ikon" brand again (which must have cost the
>> a
>> pretty penny) and put it on a Cosina camera.
>
> What cost? The Zeiss-Ikon brand had not been used by anybody for any
> photo-related product since the closure of the Stuttgart factory in the
> late 70's.
>
> Ralf
>
> --
> Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
> private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
> manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
> Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:59:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

> What cost? The Zeiss-Ikon brand had not been used by anybody for any
> photo-related product since the closure of the Stuttgart factory in the
> late 70's.

That't true.
But the IKON brand was sold (with logo, without Zeiss name) to that
Scandinavian lock and key making firm. Together with the factory (which
already made locks and keys) and all.
It hadn't been owned by Zeiss anymore for many years.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:01:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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

> But the IKON brand was sold (with logo, without Zeiss name) to that
> Scandinavian lock and key making firm. Together with the factory (which
> already made locks and keys) and all.
> It hadn't been owned by Zeiss anymore for many years.

Who says they've sold the use of the brand for photographic products?
Why do I get the feeling you're trying to construct a case when all
logic suggests there is none?

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:10:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alex MacPhee wrote:

> That Zeiss does not manufacture cameras is not relevant to the ownership
of
> the brand.

That (in reverse) is what i said.

> This has not, after all, impeded Zeiss from reviving the Zeiss
> Ikon marque, in partnership with Cosina. The brand still exists, and can
be
> manufactured.

Remain the questions i raised about who on earth will be manufacturing these
products. Regardless of what brand they would wish to put on them.

> > With Kyocera out of it, the current Contax camera line is dead.
>
> is a non sequitur. The Contax line manufactured by Kyocera is dead, that's
> all.

Please read before trying to show you know a bit of Latin. ;-)
See, the already discontinued Contax lines are dead already, the current
line has now expired too. All matters of fact.

Where do you see a conclusion drawn?

> > who owns the technology in the Contax cameras?
>
> I'm pretty sure that Kyocera will have patents in the camera designs, but
> that is not the issue here. Zeiss may enter partnership with another
> manufacturer

Not an isue?
As long as Kyocera is not willing to give up ownership of the technology,
Zeiss can have noone build these things again.

> > Then, even if someone is willing to pick up where Kyocera left off, they
> > will inherit Kyocer'as problems too: there is almost no market for the
> > Contax cameras.
>
> Kyocera were not what one would call red hot in marketing,

We're they not?

> but the Contax
> line has always been a niche line, not a mass market line, and those who
> bought into Contax generally did so because they were also buying into
Zeiss
> glass.

Correct.
And that niche market is vanishing very fast. Has disappeared almost
completely now.

> Whoever is able to pick up the brand is not obliged to pick up
> Kyocera's less than able marketing problems.

Pardon?
They would be operating in the same market, the one here on Earth, would
they not?

You seem to think that the slump in MF photography is due to poor marketing.
It isn't.
Think lighting, and think oil lamps. Than try to figure out if they too
disappeared due to poor marketing.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:50:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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?
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:56:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Q.G. de Bakker <qnu@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: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:12:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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.

:-)
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 10:25:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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

> Remain the questions i raised about who on earth will be manufacturing
> these
> products. Regardless of what brand they would wish to put on them.

I would certainly be interested in seeing what names might be in the frame.

> Please read before trying to show you know a bit of Latin. ;-)

I need try to show nothing - although I might occasionally be heard to
regret that Classics have now almost entirely vanished from mainstream
education; but that's another subject, eh?

> As long as Kyocera is not willing to give up ownership of the technology,
> Zeiss can have noone build these things again.

One would have to wonder what rationale Kyocera could have given its
re-orientation right out of the market.

>> Kyocera were not what one would call red hot in marketing,
>
> We're they not?

Oh, let's rifle through a few of the better photo comics of the last decade
or so and see what the balance in marketing is between Nikon, Canon and
........ Contax. What's your money on?

> They would be operating in the same market, the one here on Earth, would
> they not?

But they are not obliged to do things the Kyocera way.

> You seem to think that the slump in MF photography is due to poor
> marketing.

Luke 4:23, eh?

I said nothing about the slump in MF photography. I was referring to
Kyocera's performance.

> Think lighting, and think oil lamps. Than try to figure out if they too
> disappeared due to poor marketing.

Canon users are queuing up to buy adapters to put Contax/Zeiss lenses on EOS
bodies. Who's queueing up to put wicks in spotlights?


Alex
April 27, 2005 1:03:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I don't know a single Canon user that is interested in Contax lenses. Rather
than "queing up" we are, in fact, yawning at the idea.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Alex MacPhee" <alex_macpheeSNIPTHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VpWdnSwqxMY-5PPfRVnyig@pipex.net...
>
> "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> wrote
>
> > Remain the questions i raised about who on earth will be manufacturing
> > these
> > products. Regardless of what brand they would wish to put on them.
>
> I would certainly be interested in seeing what names might be in the
frame.
>
> > Please read before trying to show you know a bit of Latin. ;-)
>
> I need try to show nothing - although I might occasionally be heard to
> regret that Classics have now almost entirely vanished from mainstream
> education; but that's another subject, eh?
>
> > As long as Kyocera is not willing to give up ownership of the
technology,
> > Zeiss can have noone build these things again.
>
> One would have to wonder what rationale Kyocera could have given its
> re-orientation right out of the market.
>
> >> Kyocera were not what one would call red hot in marketing,
> >
> > We're they not?
>
> Oh, let's rifle through a few of the better photo comics of the last
decade
> or so and see what the balance in marketing is between Nikon, Canon and
> ....... Contax. What's your money on?
>
> > They would be operating in the same market, the one here on Earth, would
> > they not?
>
> But they are not obliged to do things the Kyocera way.
>
> > You seem to think that the slump in MF photography is due to poor
> > marketing.
>
> Luke 4:23, eh?
>
> I said nothing about the slump in MF photography. I was referring to
> Kyocera's performance.
>
> > Think lighting, and think oil lamps. Than try to figure out if they too
> > disappeared due to poor marketing.
>
> Canon users are queuing up to buy adapters to put Contax/Zeiss lenses on
EOS
> bodies. Who's queueing up to put wicks in spotlights?
>
>
> Alex
>
>
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:24:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alex MacPhee wrote:

> I need try to show nothing - although I might occasionally be heard to
> regret that Classics have now almost entirely vanished from mainstream
> education; but that's another subject, eh?

It is.
And logic too is rarely taught. ;-).

> One would have to wonder what rationale Kyocera could have given its
> re-orientation right out of the market.

Not making money.
Basic marketing.

> Oh, let's rifle through a few of the better photo comics of the last
decade
> or so and see what the balance in marketing is between Nikon, Canon and
> ....... Contax. What's your money on?

Pentax? Minolta? Olympus? Leica even?
All extremely bad at marketing?

> But they are not obliged to do things the Kyocera way.

So what will they do? Try to get legislature passed that compells every
houshold to have at least one film eating MF camera?
Where's Bronica? When have you last heard of Rollei? Mamiya announced a
digital MF thing, but where is it? Hasselblad is doing poorly too. Pentax i
almost forgot, because it already is almost forgotten.

But if only Contax hadn't been a Kyocera brand it would have sold like oil
in the USA... Right?

> > You seem to think that the slump in MF photography is due to poor
> > marketing.
>
> Luke 4:23, eh?

You'll have to spell it out, i'm afraid.

> I said nothing about the slump in MF photography. I was referring to
> Kyocera's performance.

That's the point, yes.
You apparently think that Contax's demise has nothing to do with the market,
everything to do with Kyocera.

But given the state of the market, there will be noone at all foolish enough
to take over the Contax line. Not even Kyocera.
And that, believe it or not, is not Kyocera's fault.

> > Think lighting, and think oil lamps. Than try to figure out if they too
> > disappeared due to poor marketing.
>
> Canon users are queuing up to buy adapters to put Contax/Zeiss lenses on
EOS
> bodies.

Are they?
Why would anybody?

> Who's queueing up to put wicks in spotlights?

The same crowd that is queueing to buy Contax cameras, or any other film
eating MF camera.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 10:01:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alex MacPhee wrote:
> "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote
>
>
>
> I know many who are. It's not unrelated to the rate at which Zeiss Distagon
> 21mm lenses are being snapped up by.... Canon users.
...and paying an astonishing amount of money for them, like $4500 on ebay.

-- hans
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 3:47:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KPwce.122307$9v2.3079947@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> In 36 years of photography I've never met an actual photographer - as
> opposed to a camera collector - who has had much any feeling for Zeiss
> lenses as being anything to seek out or pay a premium to own.

People who share your perceptions are "photographers", people who don't are
"camera collectors".

Hmm. I see.


Alex
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 1:32:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KPwce.122307$9v2.3079947@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> In 36 years of photography I've never met an actual photographer - as
> opposed to a camera collector - who has had much any feeling for Zeiss
> lenses as being anything to seek out or pay a premium to own.

What kind of actual photographers were these? School portraitists using long
rolls?
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 2:48:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <6vednfRyntfzVuXfRVn-3A@giganews.com>,
"Douglas Tourtelot" <tourtelot@nospanspeakeasy.net> wrote:

> the 40mm Distagon for Hasselblad is such a terrible
> lens!

Which 40mm Distagon and why not the other two 40mm Distagons for Rollei?

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 2:48:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Oh, those are terrible as well!

D.

"Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bob_salomon-485537.10482704052005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <6vednfRyntfzVuXfRVn-3A@giganews.com>,
> "Douglas Tourtelot" <tourtelot@nospanspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> the 40mm Distagon for Hasselblad is such a terrible
>> lens!
>
> Which 40mm Distagon and why not the other two 40mm Distagons for Rollei?
>
> --
> To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:52:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Eb6dnS0Pg9mWdOXfRVn-sw@giganews.com>,
"Douglas Tourtelot" <tourtelot@nospanspeakeasy.net> wrote:

> terrible

Exactly how? Compared to what? And is this your personal experience with
both the old and new designs or 3rd party noise?

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:52:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bob_salomon-FABED7.11520704052005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <Eb6dnS0Pg9mWdOXfRVn-sw@giganews.com>,
> "Douglas Tourtelot" <tourtelot@nospanspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> terrible
>
> Exactly how? Compared to what? And is this your personal experience with
> both the old and new designs or 3rd party noise?

Confirmed: Bob Salomon has no sense of humor.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 11:57:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Bob Salomon wrote:

> > terrible
>
> Exactly how? Compared to what? And is this your personal experience with
> both the old and new designs or 3rd party noise?

Oh dear... Bob on a marketing offensive again...
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 11:57:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <42790a11$0$98158$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> wrote:

> Bob Salomon wrote:
>
> > > terrible
> >
> > Exactly how? Compared to what? And is this your personal experience with
> > both the old and new designs or 3rd party noise?
>
> Oh dear... Bob on a marketing offensive again...

How am I on a "marketing offensive"

I have nothing to do with Hasselblad, Rollei or Carl Zeiss.

We sell Linhof and Wista and Rodenstock.

I suggest you read the thread and digest it before add immature and
meaningless comments.

And yes I did sell Rollei in the 70s and from 1986 to 1998. And yes I
sold Bronica in the 70's and Mamiya in the 70s. So I have experience
with them all.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
!