freaklikeme Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I think their primary problem in the stills market is all the co/rebranding efforts led to a diluted brand. Sony's quality control issues on the last of their cobrands and then switching over to their own premium label with modern designs that handily outperform the ZAs certainly hurt Zeiss in the marketplace. Tamron's Batis line has mostly strong performers, and they have a deserved fandom, but the premium price and relatively modest specs keep that fandom niche these days. The same thing happened with the Fuji-produced Touits and, to a lesser degree, the Loxias (as they were always going to be a niche sell). There are some strong, fine lenses in those various designs, but a lack of consistency in overall design goals (both physical and optical) probably leaves a lot of consumers who don't frequent gear boards wondering what the hell a Zeiss lens is.
Second, no one cared about the Milvus releases. There was the bad timing with an already depressed market making a quick transition to mirrorless, compounded by their choice to push down big cine lens designs into bloated housings where even models not getting fresh designs gained significant bulk and weight. It all felt like a huge and potentially costly misread of the market. If I'm right about that, then they may have lost their appetite to continue catering to DSLR mounts.
Third, I don't think either Zeiss or Cosina expected the ZM line to last this long beyond production of the Ikon. They're designed for film with the exception of one lens, and that one lens people seem to fall out of love with as quickly as they fall in. I don't think that's inspired either company to push forward with more digital-era designs. The lenses still in production obviously sell well enough to remain so. I think, for both companies, the line is a cow unexpectedly still producing milk past its prime. As long as it's productive and doesn't require special attention, it lives.
Fourth, the real money's in cine lenses, and that has their focus.
|