Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/12/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:41 AM 12/20/05 -0800, Adam Bridge wrote: >I'm comparing the number of Nikon and Canon cameras out there compared to >the number of, say, R8 and R9's. Hardly a small niche especially if they >allow exposure information to be passed along to the camera. I don't need >autofocus but I'd like auto diaphram control and exposure information to be >passed along. Some folks have already figured out how to do this so the >smart fellas in Solms shouldn't have that much trouble. =================== Adam I realize that the volume of Canon and Nikon sales is impressive but it is not really impressive enough to do more than whet Zeiss' interest tangentially. Zeiss makes HUGE profits off of the production of medical, industrial, scientific, and military optics, and photography has been a minor side-show to them from 1930 to the present. Zeiss, for instance, makes five times the profit off the produciton of a single medical lab microscope as it does on a Hasselblad or Rollei MF lens, and it cannot meet demand on the medical stuff. So, in the view of the Gnomes of Heidenheim, photo stuff is so much glory and not much more. The Zeiss Foundation carried Zeiss Ikon for most of its existence as a publicity loss-leader, and no more than that. The Zeiss lens works was most anxious to divest itself entirely of camera lens production from 1965 onwards. Zeiss and Canon make less than 5% of their profit from camera lens sales. Nikon makes almost all of its profit from this. Thus, Canon and Zeiss could simply walk away and could probably improve their corporate P&L Statement. Nikon cannot do so: they are involved in a complex dance with a tar baby. It is important to understand that Zeiss has a lot of other fish to fry than camera lenses, and profitable fish at that. Marc msmall@aya.yale.edu Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir! NEW FAX NUMBER: +540-343-8505