Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mr Zeitlin Thanks for a most interesting post. However, your comments completely fail to respond, even tangentially, to any of my earlier comments. Here's why: a) The time frame in question is 1947 to 1950, NOT 1952. It was a completely, radically, totally different ball-game by then. The Japanese economy in 1949 was far more fragile than it was after two years of intensive American infusion when Japan became the staging area for our Korean involvement. And the Japanese camera industry was an accomplished fact by 1952; it was not such in 1950. b) No one, least of all I, has ever questioned that the Japanese lenses in question would outperform Leitz lenses of the era -- the Japanese lenses were thefts of Zeiss designs, and it is almost universally conceded that the Zeiss lenses would outperform Leitz lenses by a considerable margin on almost any optical parameter. What I protest is the theft of the designs for these Zeiss lenses without compensation. c) Nor has anyone questioned the genius of Nikon in melding the finest elements of the Leica and Contax RF designs. Your point IS well taken but, again, it responds to a point I certainly never made. What I DO protest, again, is the theft of both Leitz and Zeiss Ikon patents without compensation. d) The $10 price for a Nikon lens is for 1950, not 1952. My source is Duncan. His coverage of these "marvelous" lenses cites the figure. e) The cost issue IS a factor, as it was the free-lancers who touted the superb quality of the Japanese lenses. And it was the cost factor which caused them to use these lenses. It certainly made good sense for them to do so. What is annoying is that they then made excessive claims for the quality of the lenses -- "Japanese lenses outperform German lenses" -- which simply was neither true nor capable of being true, as a copy cannot be "better" than an original. It can be identical, yes, but not superior. And, also, of course, it is annoying that they were praising stolen intellectual properties, and glorifying theft in so doing. f) The reason for suggesting you visit the Archives is to suggest that you realize that this issue has been pounded to death on the LUG. Stephen Gandy and I went back and forth, with citations, some years back, and you would probably benefit from reviewing our exchanges, as we explored this in more detail than has been done in the current thread. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!