LBJ2 wrote: AcuteShadows wroteDavidBM wroteAcuteShadows wroteDavidBM wroteAcuteShadows wroteI'm not even sure whether their lens business depends primarily on their own finished products. The Zeiss CEO said that slow business in lenses was caused by lagging demand "from our customers Canon and Nikon". https://www.swp.de/suedwesten/staedte/heidenheim/zeiss-oberkochen-gute-bilanz-das-zehnte-rekordjahr-in-folge-41480123.htmlMy interpretation of the phrase "Unsere Kunden Canon und Nikon" is not that Canon and Nikon are themselves customers, rather it is referring to their Canon and Nikon customers, ie people who buy Zeiss SLR lenses. I just checked with a native German speaking camera geek friend, and he thinks this is probably right (although the way it's written does leave the other interpretation open)I'm a German native speaker, and I would find "unsere Kunden Canon und Nikon" an odd way to refer to customers of Zeiss that use Canon and Nikon products. "haben Rückgänge" would translate to "experience lack [of demand]", and that expression would also rather refer to companies than to customers. They way I read it, I think the CEO refers to the companies, but I would concede that there is some room for alternative interpretations.Thanks. Yes my friend (and my own limited understanding) agrees it's the most natural way of reading it, but combined with the fact that their Canon Mount and Nikon Mount sales are known to have plummeted, and that if they do have non-trivial direct sales to Canon or Nikon we don't know about, this would be an odd way to announce it, makes the alternative less natural interpretation more attractive.Re-reading the whole paragraph, I'm more and more convinced that the Zeiss CEO may actually have said something different than what we see here in the direct quote.Thanks for posting. Always interesting when we get to read official sales data from Zeiss.
My understanding of the same: Among all the very positive sales news among their main product divisions, Zeiss is reporting less positive news for overall consumer lens sales, with a double digital decline of Canon/Nikon [DSLR mount] consumer lens sales. Seems Zeiss reports these consumer lens sales losses can be partially offset by the sales of high-end videography lenses.
No surprise IMO that ZEISS DSLR lens sales are dropping as Canon, Nikon begin their own transitions into mirrorless with closed mount. However, also seems all consumer Zeiss [camera] lens sales are down just not as much as C/N DSLR lens sales including mirrorless lines too. Again no surprise given the overall market decline and consumer spending reaction to the pandemic.
Even more interesting combined with the above, is that Zeiss may have decided to move forward with the ZX1, IF the USA B&H preorder listing is an accurate indicator. ...Show more →
I broadly agree with this. Zeiss has doubled revenues over the last 10 years. They can afford to do something risky and see how things develop, especially if it's a small item like a camera. Also, if they are restructuring their photography division, they may have unterutilized resources there anyway. Zeiss will probably decide how to proceed based on their outlook for the next 15-20 years. https://www.zeiss.com/corporate/annual-report/financial-highlights.html
If Cosina ends fiscal 2020-2021 with two more APO-Lanthars (and who knows what else) at judiciously chosen focal lengths, could Zeiss do any 'better' with a Milvus-standard mirrorless range in the criteria of greatest importance to users' purchasing decisions: price, performance, weight, size, ergonomics, resale. They had the MF game to themselves for years on C/N. Very few comebacks succeed.
The ZX-1 looks like an off to one side 'special projects' exercise, much like the RX1 was. Except Sony delivered that one with little fanfare and then followed up with an even tastier high resolution version. 'Just give us another year or two', said no Sony spox ever.
philip_pj wrote:
If Cosina ends fiscal 2020-2021 with two more APO-Lanthars (and who knows what else) at judiciously chosen focal lengths, could Zeiss do any 'better' with a Milvus-standard mirrorless range in the criteria of greatest importance to users' purchasing decisions: price, performance, weight, size, ergonomics, resale. They had the MF game to themselves for years on C/N. Very few comebacks succeed.
The ZX-1 looks like an off to one side 'special projects' exercise, much like the RX1 was. Except Sony delivered that one with little fanfare and then followed up with an even tastier high resolution version. 'Just give us another year or two', said no Sony spox ever. ...Show more →
The Milvus line is a set of lenses with the same characteristics across all focal lengths. It's something of a set of cinima lenses without the special cinema gimmicks. Voigtländer lenses, which I like a lot, have always had their own character. That may change, but it would be a change in paradigm for Voigtländer lens development.
That's currently the biggest IMO (only?) Zeiss differentiator: every lens line is sold as "a set."
But is that enough for them to justify redoing the Loxia 35/50, or extending the range to 15/18/28/135 (esp. given the diameter constraints, and competition from the Voigtländer APOs)?
What's missing from Batis? A proper macro? Wasn't the 40CF made to preempt a 35, a 50, and a macro?
I wonder if the reason they haven't released any new lenses is because they consider those lines closed.
They probably had high hopes for the later fast Milvuses but the 'set concept' doesn't gel with these being combined with the much older ZEF lens in new housings and even more weight. It may have been PR-driven, because it sounds like a good thing and they do this with the cine lenses and Otus too.
Just by focal length, lenses all have different character, no true Distagon will resemble a longer Sonnar. The Loxia range was assembled rather than conceived, hence the middle FLs (35/50) are ex-ZM lens designs, and ironically they are the only f2 Loxia lenses. Back then, Zeiss said they were 'helping out' Sony at the dawn of the E mount in full frame, and they never made a big deal about producing a comprehensive range in E. The Batises are the least Zeiss-like lenses imaginable. Zeiss have done 10 Zeiss brand Loxias/Batises in seven years. But MF users may not want the Batises and vice versa.
I'd be interested to hear what they can offer in mirrorless by way of 'high end', in a fast-changing world with even Sigma putting new lenses on a diet. It would be wise to proceed cautiously and try to ensure multiple mount capabilities. Unfortunately and I must speak freely here, their recent record over 15 years is one of haphazard lens range development, incomplete and very patchy - not just for Sony but ZM too, where they don't even offer an 85mm portrait lens. With 1-2 exceptions they have been allergic to wide aperture lenses across the small end (that is, mirrorless/RF) 'lenscape'.
It leaves the strong design emphasis exclusively on Milvus and Otus. They were very late with the 25/85 Batises, if you recall. The demand overwhelmed their supply line for many months, not quite ZX1 extent, but still. Look at the investment and development time put into these DSLR lenses, they are on a different scale entirely. It tells you where their heart is. Sony has been very strong for, let's say, five years now. But no, an extra Otus (now four) and all these Milvuses from 15mm to 135mm - eleven in total. Making 15 for DSLR, with sales in steep decline - quel surprise. They won't be easy to use on adapters, even on Canon's larger R cameras. None of them will be repurposed as drone optics either, probably would not get airborne. I wish them well, we all do. Just facing facts, however unpleasant.
philip_pj wrote:
They probably had high hopes for the later fast Milvuses but the 'set concept' doesn't gel with these being combined with the much older ZEF lens in new housings and even more weight. It may have been PR-driven, because it sounds like a good thing and they do this with the cine lenses and Otus too.
Just by focal length, lenses all have different character, no true Distagon will resemble a longer Sonnar. The Loxia range was assembled rather than conceived, hence the middle FLs (35/50) are ex-ZM lens designs, and ironically they are the only f2 Loxia lenses. Back then, Zeiss said they were 'helping out' Sony at the dawn of the E mount in full frame, and they never made a big deal about producing a comprehensive range in E. The Batises are the least Zeiss-like lenses imaginable. Zeiss have done 10 Zeiss brand Loxias/Batises in seven years. But MF users may not want the Batises and vice versa.
I'd be interested to hear what they can offer in mirrorless by way of 'high end', in a fast-changing world with even Sigma putting new lenses on a diet. It would be wise to proceed cautiously and try to ensure multiple mount capabilities. Unfortunately and I must speak freely here, their recent record over 15 years is one of haphazard lens range development, incomplete and very patchy - not just for Sony but ZM too, where they don't even offer an 85mm portrait lens. With 1-2 exceptions they have been allergic to wide aperture lenses across the small end (that is, mirrorless/RF) 'lenscape'.
It leaves the strong design emphasis exclusively on Milvus and Otus. They were very late with the 25/85 Batises, if you recall. The demand overwhelmed their supply line for many months, not quite ZX1 extent, but still. Look at the investment and development time put into these DSLR lenses, they are on a different scale entirely. It tells you where their heart is. Sony has been very strong for, let's say, five years now. But no, an extra Otus (now four) and all these Milvuses from 15mm to 135mm - eleven in total. Making 15 for DSLR, with sales in steep decline - quel surprise. They won't be easy to use on adapters, even on Canon's larger R cameras. None of them will be repurposed as drone optics either, probably would not get airborne. I wish them well, we all do. Just facing facts, however unpleasant....Show more →
Fortunately, Zeiss has dedicated drone lenses, so nobody will be crushed by a malfunctioning drone carrying a Milvus payload.
The camera industry is at yet another crossroads and so is the Zeiss consumer lens product line along with all the other camera and lens companies and manufacturers. Zeiss has seen a few crossroads in its 125+ year history.
Maybe the only differences this time around are:
-Traditional photography market swelled to unheard of levels and is now in some sort of free fall correction
-P&S has given way to widely popular mobile phone photography/videography
-DSLR to mirrorless
-Camera sensor is now just as much a consideration as the lens
-Videography has become very popular across multiple applications
-Drone photography is very popular too
-Rangefinder is still alive and well
-The Internet! https://blog.microfocus.com/how-much-data-is-created-on-the-internet-each-day/
If we look at the Zeiss catalog of current consumer photographic and videography products, Zeiss pretty much aligns where the market is today both in product offerings, sales results and even the size of their consumer optics ( both large and small):
ZEISS Lenses for Mirrorless System Cameras
ZEISS Lenses for SLR Cameras
ZEISS Lenses for Rangefinder Cameras
ZEISS Lenses for Videography
ZEISS ZX1 ( Zeiss photography and the internet ?)
* Sony Xperia mobile w/ Zeiss Optics (TBD)
* ExoLens with optics by ZEISS (Lenses for mobile phone photography)
* ZEISS Ventum 2.8/21 (Lightweight industrial lens with E-mount for use with drones.)
** Big question: How will Zeiss react or not to the new Canon, Nikon mirrorless mounts?
AcuteShadows wrote:
The Milvus line is a set of lenses with the same characteristics across all focal lengths. It's something of a set of cinima lenses without the special cinema gimmicks.
I think the same can be said of Otus; in fact according to the cinematographer John Brawley the Otus line is very similar optically to Zeiss's Supreme cinema lenses that go for $20,000 and more apiece. A full set of Supremes will set you back $170,000. They are scrumptious lenses, but the look (though not the ergonomics) can be largely duplicated by the comparatively cheap Otus line.
Moving back to what matters on a Sony forum: Zeiss made the big decision five years ago and threw their lot in with the old makers of DSLRs - both they and C/N would hang on as long as possible. Now it's time to pay the price of being so wrong about mirrorless. And not moving with reasonable speed to correct the anomaly.
Just reflecting on the Milvus/Otus extravaganza, you can see the great job they did of it. Together, these monster lenses cover: 15-18-21-25-28-35-35-50-50-55-85-85-100-100-135.
And below are the f1.4 options at the focal lengths used by Zeiss in these elite ranges:
25-28-35-50-55-85-85-100 (eight in all, four from each of Otus and Milvus)
Below is the very short list below showing the f1.4 lenses they have made for Sony E mount (plus the other new MILC mounts):
--- ---
Every picture tells us a story they say, but numbers are not bad either. If you ignore a market segment for a few years, people get the feeling you are not interested in what they are using, and what they need. I'm sure they are happy with this state of affairs - after all, each day is a new opportunity to change course. Zeiss has been working from the top down and this is the result.
bjhurley wrote: AcuteShadows wroteThe Milvus line is a set of lenses with the same characteristics across all focal lengths. It's something of a set of cinima lenses without the special cinema gimmicks.I think the same can be said of Otus; in fact according to the cinematographer John Brawley the Otus line is very similar optically to Zeiss's Supreme cinema lenses that go for $20,000 and more apiece. A full set of Supremes will set you back $170,000. They are scrumptious lenses, but the look (though not the ergonomics) can be largely duplicated by the comparatively cheap Otus line.
But you can connect Supreme Primes by serial port, giving you real time information on aperture, distance, vignette, distortion and some other data.
philip_pj wrote:
Moving back to what matters on a Sony forum: Zeiss made the big decision five years ago and threw their lot in with the old makers of DSLRs - both they and C/N would hang on as long as possible. Now it's time to pay the price of being so wrong about mirrorless. And not moving with reasonable speed to correct the anomaly.
Just reflecting on the Milvus/Otus extravaganza, you can see the great job they did of it. Together, these monster lenses cover: 15-18-21-25-28-35-35-50-50-55-85-85-100-100-135.
And below are the f1.4 options at the focal lengths used by Zeiss in these elite ranges:
25-28-35-50-55-85-85-100 (eight in all, four from each of Otus and Milvus)
Below is the very short list below showing the f1.4 lenses they have made for Sony E mount (plus the other new MILC mounts):
--- ---
Every picture tells us a story they say, but numbers are not bad either. If you ignore a market segment for a few years, people get the feeling you are not interested in what they are using, and what they need. I'm sure they are happy with this state of affairs - after all, each day is a new opportunity to change course. Zeiss has been working from the top down and this is the result. ...Show more →
Given that Zeiss and Sony have a cooperation agreement, Zeiss may not be at liberty to sell E mount lenses beyond those agreed upon with Sony - at least without putting at risk the sales channel they have due to that agreement.
LBJ2 wrote:
The camera industry is at yet another crossroads and so is the Zeiss consumer lens product line along with all the other camera and lens companies and manufacturers. Zeiss has seen a few crossroads in its 125+ year history.
Maybe the only differences this time around are:
-Traditional photography market swelled to unheard of levels and is now in some sort of free fall correction
This is a total fallacy, that somehow we are returning to the pre-digital explosion level of camera sales.
Today, in 2020, there are almost 3 BILLION more people on the planet than in 1990, when the film era was really strong. 3 billion more customers. Traditional camera sales are in total free fall, and have been for many years with no end in sight. 3 billion more customers, not counting that massive rise of the middle class in places like China, East Asia, and even India. Billions more people and few if any want traditional cameras.
Traditional camera sales plunge even as population growth goes up. Very very few people want non cell phone cameras. The compact P & S camera, that used to sell in the tens of millions, kept the camera makers alive with enormous revenue. That's all gone.
The writing is on the wall, just like it was on Kodak's wall years before they expired. Nobody wants to read it though.
rattymouse wrote:
Today, in 2020, there are almost 3 BILLION more people on the planet than in 1990, when the film era was really strong.
Completely irrelevant, since:
1. The vast majority of the population growth happends in developing countries, in which people are happy if they can feed themselves properly, and are happily ignoring the riddiculous notion they could afford something as outrageously expensive as a digital camera.
2. While the number of people in developed countries is usually actually SHRINKING.
3. The core issue why the market is collapsing is simply that people dont have money. Even in developed countries, people are often happy if they can even keep their income at the same level, nevermind actually raising it. This is especially true for the more powerful economies, like the USA or Germany. In both the USA and Germany, only the upper 10% of workers participate in the growth of their income at the level of the growth of the economy, with the top 1% and even worse of course 0.1% and 0.01% etc are benefiting disproportionally.
4. The core motivation for the quick digital camera market was indeed technological advancement. But since about 10 years any improvement in that area has substantly slowed down. You still can, for example, make images with a Nikon D3 or Nikon D700 just fine, if you still have one in good condition. With 12 Megapixels it has plenty of resolution, the electronics are as reliable as electronics can be, and the output is still as great as it was at release.
Sauseschritt wrote: rattymouse wroteToday, in 2020, there are almost 3 BILLION more people on the planet than in 1990, when the film era was really strong.Completely irrelevant, since:
1. The vast majority of the population growth happends in developing countries, in which people are happy if they can feed themselves properly, and are happily ignoring the riddiculous notion they could afford something as outrageously expensive as a digital camera.
2. While the number of people in developed countries is usually actually SHRINKING.
3. The core issue why the market is collapsing is simply that people dont have money. Even in developed countries, people are often happy if they can even keep their income at the same level, nevermind actually raising it. This is especially true for the more powerful economies, like the USA or Germany. In both the USA and Germany, only the upper 10% of workers participate in the growth of their income at the level of the growth of the economy, with the top 1% and even worse of course 0.1% and 0.01% etc are benefiting disproportionally.
4. The core motivation for the quick digital camera market was indeed technological advancement. But since about 10 years any improvement in that area has substantly slowed down. You still can, for example, make images with a Nikon D3 or Nikon D700 just fine, if you still have one in good condition. With 12 Megapixels it has plenty of resolution, the electronics are as reliable as electronics can be, and the output is still as great as it was at release....Show more →
Plus, technological progress is taking place where the untrained eye doesn't see and the uninitiated mind doesn't understand it. (That doesn't mean people people would not be drawn towards better pictures, they just can't tell why.)
If the ZX1 is remotely connected to any entities like HuaWei or ZTE then they can kiss the prospect any sales good bye! May be this the reason why the camera never showed up!
Sauseschritt wrote: rattymouse wroteToday, in 2020, there are almost 3 BILLION more people on the planet than in 1990, when the film era was really strong.Completely irrelevant, since:
1. The vast majority of the population growth happends in developing countries, in which people are happy if they can feed themselves properly, and are happily ignoring the riddiculous notion they could afford something as outrageously expensive as a digital camera..
You dont travel much, do you. China added 200 million people to their middle class. 200 million people! All who have money, serious money. More are added every year. And they are NOT buying much traditional cameras. Even those less well off still have money to buy smart phones. Families all over the world want pictures of their kids.
2. While the number of people in developed countries is usually actually SHRINKING.
Sauseschritt wrote:
3. The core issue why the market is collapsing is simply that people dont have money. Even in developed countries, people are often happy if they can even keep their income at the same level, nevermind actually raising it. This is especially true for the more powerful economies, like the USA or Germany. In both the USA and Germany, only the upper 10% of workers participate in the growth of their income at the level of the growth of the economy, with the top 1% and even worse of course 0.1% and 0.01% etc are benefiting disproportionally.
Nonsense. The average car price in the USA now exceeds $35,000. That has grown massively in the past decade. There is plenty of money lying around for digital cameras. The problem is that no one wants one, aside from a few hobbyists. Apple sells 60+ million iPhones every 3 months. No money? Not even close.
RM, the figure is closer to 300 million. I recall mentioning to a humanities grad that there were more overweight/obese people in our world than undernourished people. As it flew in the face of his expensive indoctrination he bridled, so I sent him the data.
The average global lifespan in 1800 was 28 years of age, by 2000 it had risen to 66 years of age, it's now around 73 years of age. Why? Infant and child mortality plummeted, as an example in Europe from a Child (0-4) Death Rate of 40% in medieval times to just 1% today.
Five billion more humans walk the planet today than when many readers were born. The takeaway is you have to check all your assumptions because the world is in a permanent state of fast forward - and getting faster each and every day. It'll be quite a ride.
Other interesting fact: the proportion of US citizens that help passports in 1990 was 4.4% - one in 23 citizens. Much, much higher now.