[Cuthbert]

Zeiss optics are just Cosina products dressed up in drag.

To be fair Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina under Zeiss specs, including glass.

The optical formula of the Planar is different from the Nokton.

[Digitalis]

The optical formula of the Planar is different from the Nokton.

Thank god for that, the last thing we need is another boring 50mm lens.

[Cuthbert]

Thank god for that, the last thing we need is another boring 50mm lens.

As you can see the formula is the same but the elements are different. The Nokton is not even a 50mm, but a 58mm.

In the RF area the Nokton 1.5 is even more far away from the Sonnar, having a aspherical element:




Having said that I know Cosina is a small company and I doubt they are making their own glass inside, but this doesn't mean they are not lens manufacturers IMO.

[Digitalis]

Cosina is a small company and I doubt they are making their own glass inside, but this doesn't mean they are not lens manufacturers

Now you're talking semantics. Are the people who shape and mold molten glass the real lens makers? or are are the people who design and put the lenses together for the express purpose of imaging the real lens makers?

[Cuthbert]

Now you're talking semantics. Are the people who shape and mold molten glass the real lens makers? or are are the people who design and put the lenses together the real lens makers?

It's not a matter of semantic it's a matter of realism: no company can make everything in house, the only ones who got close were the old Soviet factories that made in house even the bolts, with the results that when people were servicing tractors and cars had serious issues because bolts made by other factories might not have fit.

IMO those who make the final assembly and the engineering are the makers, so people like Canon, Nikon and Leitz are 100% makers, while the current Zeiss lenses are 50% Cosina 50% Zeiss, but it's my opinion.

[victormeldrew]

I guess it all depends what the facebook guy means by 'glass'. Is he using photographer speak, meaning 'camera lenses'...or is he using human speak, meaning 'silicon-based transparent material'.

Either way he is wrong...but to very different extents.

[p38arover]

the old Soviet factories that made in house even the bolts, with the results that when people were servicing tractors and cars had serious issues because bolts made by other factories might not have fit.

On a similar vein, that is why Joseph Whitworth designed his thread system - to create a standard for British industry.

[pacerr]

Are the people who shape and mold molten glass the real lens makers? or are are the people who design and put the lenses together for the express purpose of imaging the real lens makers?

Does Ferrari process rubber for tires or mix paint?

I suspect Heie's point was simply to expose another example of 'snake-oil' salesmanship in the camera market.

[Digitalis]

Does Ferrari process rubber for tires or mix paint?

I recall hearing from a colleague that Ferrari does mix their own paint - on earlier models they used fewer layers and thinner paint on their cars in order to keep the weight down and the performance profile up, the only drawback to this approach is that the finish was easily damaged.

Ferrari also had corporate partnerships going with tyre makers who they get to make tyres to their rather exacting specifications.

[jpzk]

I assume that for these people not even Leica makes its own glass.

They are Canonikonians, their event horizon is limited.

And they are very close to the Black Hole !

[monochrome]

Does Ferrari process rubber for tires . . . .

The better analogy might be, "Does Ferrarri forge its own special alloy for its pistons?" If not, is Ferrarri really a car-maker, or merely a lowly assembler?

[RGlasel]

Ferrari also had corporate partnerships going with tyre makers who they get to make tyres to their rather exacting specifications.

Finally something I can speak to with a bit of knowledge. While car manufacturers like to claim expertise in all fields relating to the components used in their vehicles (Ford offered to license its insights into rubber chemistry to tire manufacturers, for instance), they are more likely to establish "partnerships" with tire manufacturers to add a degree of exclusivity to their vehicles than to push the tire manufacturers to improve their craft. More than one tire manufacturer is capable of making tires to Ferrari's spec's (or Porsche's for that matter.) In particular, Michelin and Goodyear have a history of having to convince auto manufacturers to take advantage of new tire technology, instead of the auto manufacturers providing impetus for the tire manufacturers to improve their products.

The point of this is that industrial specialization has produced real benefits and there is no intrinsic benefit to having a camera manufacturer (or kitchen appliance manufacturer, either) produce all of its own components. In fact, the opposite is true.

[Digitalis]

is Ferrarri really a car-maker, or merely a lowly assembler?

On automotive forums you would fall victim to all kinds of rage for that statement. But on the upside at least Lamborghini and Maserati would have your back.

---------- Post added 2016-06-02 at 01:06 PM ----------

not even Leica makes its own glass.

Leica doesn't manufacture their own glass*, the cost of setting up a fabrication unit would require heavy capital expenditure that Leica would probably never be able to recoup on considering how much of a niche market they are presently working. However they do shape their lenses with utmost precision. last time I visited the Solms site before it closed down (Leica is back in wetzlar now) I got to see the impressive machinery they use to shape their lenses, and the technician I spoke to who oversees the processes mentioned they outsource all of their glass - nearly all of it they get in the form of glass blanks directly from Schott.

*however in 1925 it is evident that Leitz did have glass production facilities, though around 1933 to after WWII, there is no mention of these facilities. Which I suspect were either bombed during the war, or changed hands at some point before 1932 or during WWII.

[clackers]

The point of this is that industrial specialization has produced real benefits and there is no intrinsic benefit to having a camera manufacturer (or kitchen appliance manufacturer, either) produce all of its own components. In fact, the opposite is true.

Sure ... there are only two shutter manufacturers, right?

All the carbon fibre used in bicycle components and frames the world over comes out of five factories.

It's a two-horse race in hard drives.

A company like Canon sticks its neck out by making its own sensors.

[Digitalis]

It's a two-horse race in hard drives.

With SSDs I'd have to say it is less clear cut than that, it used to be Seagate and Western digital*. With SSDs it is Kingston,Corsair and Intel that are leading the race. Western digital really hasn't gotten fully on to the SSD bandwagon.

*I have always been a fan of Western digital drives, they are the only ones I will work with for mass storage when building a PC. Though having said that my current OS drive is a Corsair XT Neutron 480Gb SSD.