Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I appreciate Mr Zeitlin's having mentioned the Petzval Portrait Lens design, as, of course, the success of the Voigtlander concern was based on an outright and blatant theft, one contenanced and encouraged by the Habsburgs, for that matter, of this design from the unfortunate Professor. The theft resulted in three things -- Voigtlander moved from Vienna to Braunschweig to escape the process of law, the head of the Voigtlander family was ennobled, and the success of the company was assured. So, no, Nikon and Canon are not the only moral lepers amidst the optical industries of the world! Apparently, you have failed to follow the primary thrust, though, of my argument: a) Nikon and Canon stole Zeiss designs and built Zeiss-pattern lenses (and Canon at least one Leitz design) b) These were passed on to Duncan and his ilk as inexpensive alternatives to their irreplaceable German lenses. (Nikon had developed a fine camera and produced perfectly fine copies of Zeiss designs; that photographers going into danger chose these over the German products is a simple factor of economics and availability, and perfectly comprehensible. But this doesn't make the Japanese products "better".) c) To satisfy their American editors, Duncan, et al., claimed these lenses were "better" than their Zeiss fore-runners, a patently false statement -- they might have been "as good", but they were certainly no better d) The myth of Japanese optical superiority dates from this claim, as the American photographic press, especially Pop, jumped in and trumpeted the claim in a public forum and to a degree which, I suspect, was never intended by Duncan and his fellows. e) Neither Nikon nor Canon ever paid a dime to Zeiss or Leitz for these thefted properties. As to American participation in the theft, well, several points should be borne in mind. First, after the fiasco of American seizures of intellectual properties in the First War, neither Zeiss nor Leitz granted world rights to their American branches: ELNY and CZUSA owned the American rights only, and this is what the US seized on 11 DEC 41. These rights carried no privileges extending half a world away to the Orient. Second, the culprit here is not General MacArthur, who probably knew nothing about this, but the Allied Control Commission. Third, if I help you to rob a bank, and we are captured, my participation doesn't spare you a lengthy prison sentence, nor moral responsibility for your misdeeds. And I guess that is what really gripes my goat, is that Nikon and Canon founded themselves on stolen properties and have never admitted such nor assumed responsibility for their actions. (And, yes, I DO own a slew of Canon gear and previously had some Nikon gear, incidentally the most trouble-prone, awful, ineffective, unreliable piece of mechanical junk I have ever had in my possession, this including a slew of Soviet cameras and a Renault, for the automotively minded among our number.) Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!