The hype about "name" lenses

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news8h071ps0h631mgrr6usa6rrtgql6mk69k@4ax.com...
> This is off topic, because it deals with
> non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses
> for non-big name cameras is annoying.
> Carl Zeiss, Leitz, etc. So what? They don't
> make the lenses for these cheap cameras unless
> Carl Zeiss has a factory in China now.
> They probably design them, but that only means
> they got Zeiss to work on a lens that had
> certain "cost controls" they had to abide by.
> When these things actually HAVE lenses like
> a Summicron (for e.g.) it will BE impressive.
> Here's the latest fiasco, er, camera to boast
> this;
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/ [...] ia_n90.asp

My take on it is this:

1) It cheapens the name for the pro user - Much like Canon cheapens the
L-series line when saying their high-end P&S models have an L-series lens
2) Most informed users and professionals dont care too much about 1) above -
since they _know_ what is good.
3) Because of 2) is not killing their high-end sales, lens companies can
whore their high-end brands to sell to the masses. This happened in the car
industry. There used to be a time when "GT" meant something, now you have
Ford Escort GT, Mustang GT and Ford GT - all GT grade cars apparently.

Branding is the key here. Many corporations have moved away from actually
making things, but rather making money on branding. For example the
"Kenmore" washing machines @ Sears are just brands. Carl Zeiss is just a
brand. Dont get me started about designer clothing.

Musty.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:


>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/ [...] ia_n90.asp

That's sad. A "Carl zeiss" cellphone camera lens..

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> This is off topic, because it deals with
> non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses
> for non-big name cameras is annoying.

So, do you ever take pictures and stuff, or just complain about everything?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 27 Apr 2005 22:27:24 -0700, "Chrlz" <chrlz@go.com> wrote:

>>the use of big names for lenses for non-big name cameras
>>is annoying.
>Why would it annoy you?

Because it seems any company will "sell out" to make an extra $2.00.
There are a few companies that resist it. Here is one, waiting list
for their products is five years or so and it grows longer all the
time, thanks to an impeccable reputation.
http://www.astro-physics.com/

>
>>Carl Zeiss, Leitz, etc. So what? They don't make the lenses
>>for these cheap cameras unless Carl Zeiss has a factory
>>in China now.
>How do you know that?

Do you think cell phone camera lenses are made in West Germany?

>>They probably design them, but that only means they got
>>Zeiss to work on a lens that had certain "cost controls"
>> they had to abide by.
>99.9% of all lenses ever made have limits placed upon them.

Sure, but lets not pretend a lens for a Leica SLR has the
same quality standard as a $300 Sony digicam. How much money
do you think they have available for the lens on a camera that
retails for $300-$400??

>>When these things actually HAVE lenses like a Summicron
>> (for e.g.) it will BE impressive.
>Some of them do.
>
>>Here's the latest fiasco, er, camera to boast....
>Where's the bit about it being a fiasco? I was expecting to read a
>review showing how the lens did not live up to its name, but all I see
>is you making an assumption. Which lenses are you *specifically*
>referring to, or is this just a rant/troll?

All lenses with German company names that grace Japense cameras made
in Japan or China.

>If a lens is made to a set of high specifications why does it matter
>where it is made? If Messrs Zeiss or Leitz, or whoever are willing to
>put their name on a lens, then so be it - if they are bad lenses, they
>will lose their reputation. I suspect those spec's will generally be
>high, and I also suspect that they will demand to test at least samples
>of the resulting lenses. I suspect they also read reviews and learn
>from mistakes as they try to keep their reputations intact.

The mistake was selling their names.

>So which particular lenses are you saying are bad, and which reviews
>show this? Can you point to some supporting links or evidence that
>show how these companies are losing their kudos because of poorly
>manufactured lenses?

All of them.
>
>And yes, it is the wrong group anyway.

Then why did you reply?
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:

> RichA wrote:
>> This is off topic, because it deals with
>> non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses
>> for non-big name cameras is annoying.
>> Carl Zeiss, Leitz, etc. So what? They don't
>> make the lenses for these cheap cameras unless
>> Carl Zeiss has a factory in China now.
>> They probably design them, but that only means
>> they got Zeiss to work on a lens that had
>> certain "cost controls" they had to abide by.
>> When these things actually HAVE lenses like
>> a Summicron (for e.g.) it will BE impressive.
>
> Why shouldn't a firm produce a design which is more cost-sensitive than
> for a pure Leica-brand camera? The end result is certainly most
> impressive in the Leica lenses on the Panasonic FZ5 and FZ20.
>
> Is there any deception intended or implied - do they say "lenses
> made in Germany" or anything like that? Is the reputation of the
> name because of the fundamental design skills or because of
> manufacturing quality? Perhaps there is a little of the latter, in
> which case could Leica withdraw the name if quality wasn't
> maintained?

I think the reputation of the name is due to design skills,
manufacturing quality, *and relative lack of limits* -- the designers
were allowed to go pretty far out after quality. Putting the brand
name on lesser lenses cheapens it. If the lenses aren't lesser, then
Leica (for example) should be showing higher profits on their own lens
lines :-).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:12:40 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>> This is off topic, because it deals with
>> non-DSLRs, but the use of big names for lenses
>> for non-big name cameras is annoying.
>> Carl Zeiss, Leitz, etc. So what? They don't
>> make the lenses for these cheap cameras unless
>> Carl Zeiss has a factory in China now.
>> They probably design them, but that only means
>> they got Zeiss to work on a lens that had
>> certain "cost controls" they had to abide by.
>> When these things actually HAVE lenses like
>> a Summicron (for e.g.) it will BE impressive.
>
>Why shouldn't a firm produce a design which is more cost-sensitive than
>for a pure Leica-brand camera? The end result is certainly most
>impressive in the Leica lenses on the Panasonic FZ5 and FZ20.

It is?

>Is there any deception intended or implied - do they say "lenses made in
>Germany" or anything like that? Is the reputation of the name because of
>the fundamental design skills or because of manufacturing quality?
>Perhaps there is a little of the latter, in which case could Leica
>withdraw the name if quality wasn't maintained?
>
>David
>

Remember the Mercedes E190?
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi to all,

There are a number of reasons for high end lens design firms to end up on
low end projects.

1. Patents. The good design firms regularly go through patent reviews on
their designs. In the low end zoom market there are considerable portfolios
of patents that need to be checked before a design can be released. Lens
design is a fairly small world and it is very competitive. The "name"
companies have large portfolios and great design history. This is also true
for view finder design.

2. The lens design for modern point and shoot cameras is very challenging.
Good, cheap lenses are not easy to design. The better firms have the
proprietary tolerance software to estimate real manufacturing costs and
trade offs.

3. Expanding markets. The design of lenses in massive volumes requires
modern thinking. The cell phone technology and service in the US is third
rate so it is hard to imagine a reason for a quality lens on a cell phone.
Both Europe and Japan have more sophisticated digital systems. Cell phones
are moving upward in the imaging market with near term resolutions of 3 to 5
mega pixels. Better phone designs also have built in flash. These are not
trivial designs. At GretagMacbeth, we have a group working on color
correction for cell phone images.

4. Expanded manufacturing. A company like Zeiss makes many OEM components
for other companies. It's part of their business model. This is why they
will survive and many other "names" won't.

--
Tom Lianza
Director of Display and Capture Technologies
GretagMacbeth LLC
3 Industrial Drive
Unit 7&8
Windham, NH 03087
603.681.0315 x232 Tel
603.681.0316 Fax

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1114688625.eae12c3d75565b29b0db5ed7afa356df@teranews>,
tlianza@comcast.net says...
> 1. Patents. The good design firms regularly go through patent reviews on
> their designs. In the low end zoom market there are considerable portfolios
> of patents that need to be checked before a design can be released. Lens
> design is a fairly small world and it is very competitive. The "name"
> companies have large portfolios and great design history. This is also true
> for view finder design.
>
> 2. The lens design for modern point and shoot cameras is very challenging.
> Good, cheap lenses are not easy to design. The better firms have the
> proprietary tolerance software to estimate real manufacturing costs and
> trade offs.
>
> 3. Expanding markets. The design of lenses in massive volumes requires
> modern thinking. The cell phone technology and service in the US is third
> rate so it is hard to imagine a reason for a quality lens on a cell phone.
> Both Europe and Japan have more sophisticated digital systems. Cell phones
> are moving upward in the imaging market with near term resolutions of 3 to 5
> mega pixels. Better phone designs also have built in flash. These are not
> trivial designs. At GretagMacbeth, we have a group working on color
> correction for cell phone images.
>
> 4. Expanded manufacturing. A company like Zeiss makes many OEM components
> for other companies. It's part of their business model. This is why they
> will survive and many other "names" won't.
>
> --
> Tom Lianza
> Director of Display and Capture Technologies
> GretagMacbeth LLC
> 3 Industrial Drive
> Unit 7&8
> Windham, NH 03087
> 603.681.0315 x232 Tel
> 603.681.0316 Fax
>
>

I understand WHY they might do the phone lens, I just dont understand why
they would let their NAME be used to market it. (its good for the phone
maker, but it cheapens the Ziess image)

Its kind of like Rolls Royce putting their name on a set of cheap shitty seat
covers to be sold at Wal-Mart.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:02:40 -0400, Larry
<lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote:

>In article <1114688625.eae12c3d75565b29b0db5ed7afa356df@teranews>,
>tlianza@comcast.net says...
>> 1. Patents. The good design firms regularly go through patent reviews on
>> their designs. In the low end zoom market there are considerable portfolios
>> of patents that need to be checked before a design can be released. Lens
>> design is a fairly small world and it is very competitive. The "name"
>> companies have large portfolios and great design history. This is also true
>> for view finder design.
>>
>> 2. The lens design for modern point and shoot cameras is very challenging.
>> Good, cheap lenses are not easy to design. The better firms have the
>> proprietary tolerance software to estimate real manufacturing costs and
>> trade offs.
>>
>> 3. Expanding markets. The design of lenses in massive volumes requires
>> modern thinking. The cell phone technology and service in the US is third
>> rate so it is hard to imagine a reason for a quality lens on a cell phone.
>> Both Europe and Japan have more sophisticated digital systems. Cell phones
>> are moving upward in the imaging market with near term resolutions of 3 to 5
>> mega pixels. Better phone designs also have built in flash. These are not
>> trivial designs. At GretagMacbeth, we have a group working on color
>> correction for cell phone images.
>>
>> 4. Expanded manufacturing. A company like Zeiss makes many OEM components
>> for other companies. It's part of their business model. This is why they
>> will survive and many other "names" won't.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Lianza
>> Director of Display and Capture Technologies
>> GretagMacbeth LLC
>> 3 Industrial Drive
>> Unit 7&8
>> Windham, NH 03087
>> 603.681.0315 x232 Tel
>> 603.681.0316 Fax
>>
>>
>
>I understand WHY they might do the phone lens, I just dont understand why
>they would let their NAME be used to market it. (its good for the phone
>maker, but it cheapens the Ziess image)
>
>Its kind of like Rolls Royce putting their name on a set of cheap shitty seat
>covers to be sold at Wal-Mart.

I was in a Toronto camera store today. They had a huge Sony display.
Each little silver point and shoot had the Zeiss name on it's lens.
The only ones that didn't were the add-on lenses, which are no doubt
made by Sony's video lens division.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 03:46:56 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>On 27 Apr 2005 22:27:24 -0700, "Chrlz" <chrlz@go.com> wrote:
>
>>>the use of big names for lenses for non-big name cameras
>>>is annoying.
>>Why would it annoy you?
>
>Because it seems any company will "sell out" to make an extra $2.00.
>There are a few companies that resist it. Here is one, waiting list
>for their products is five years or so and it grows longer all the
>time, thanks to an impeccable reputation.
>http://www.astro-physics.com/
>
>>
>>>Carl Zeiss, Leitz, etc. So what? They don't make the lenses
>>>for these cheap cameras unless Carl Zeiss has a factory
>>>in China now.
>>How do you know that?
>
>Do you think cell phone camera lenses are made in West Germany?

_West_ Germany?

Well, never mind...

I'm not all that sceptical. The prestige company in question wouldn't
put its name on an ostensibly inferor product, and probably not on a
blatantly average one either. So it would be indicative of quality -
at least in a comparative perspective.

I mean, take the "Leica" lens on Panasonic PZ20. It may not be a
"genuine" Leica lens, but from what I can gather, it is still the lens
with the highest consumer satisfaction rate on a point & shoot.

Tells you at least something.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.