gdanmitchell wrote:
And... a bun h of "OEM" lenses are not actually manufactured by the company whose name is on the lens. :-)
So what? That is literally what I just said that you are quoting me on- That is extremely common and again its still an OEM lens built to the spec of whatever the purchaser wants it to be-
Leica, Nikon, Zeiss, Canon, Fuji etc etc etc etc etc etc etc Have all done this and will continue-
RoamingScott wrote:
Tamron has made...what...2 to 3 "unique" or industry-leading optics per generation?
Their bread and butter are lenses that are cheap and fine for most basic use cases. Where I'm going with this is, I'm not sure where this slots into Sony's lineup if they were to keep them exclusive, because that's exactly what G lenses are...cheap and...fine.
Who's to say Tamron isn't making Sony's G lenses now? Almost half of their production are for "branded" lenses. None of us have any idea what they do and don't make. By bringing them in-house it cuts a ton of cost while adding a large amount of production capacity. Sony is the clear No. 1 in the market. This makes a ton of sense in a number of ways.
jwolfe wrote:
Who's to say Tamron isn't making Sony's G lenses now? Almost half of their production are for "branded" lenses. None of us have any idea what they do and don't make. By bringing them in-house it cuts a ton of cost while adding a large amount of production capacity. Sony is the clear No. 1 in the market. This makes a ton of sense in a number of ways.
They might be, they might not be, but speculating as if they are doesn't make any sense.
RoamingScott wrote:
They might be, they might not be, but speculating as if they are doesn't make any sense.
Market consolidation is going to continue until there are two large camera companies. That's about all the market can support given it's current size. A guy can't make a living selling less than a million cameras per year. I think 4-5 years from now it will be Sony and Canon. I just don't see any room for anyone else.
Tamron does a ton of contract manufacturing. Only 59% of their production is Tamron branded. So they are selling to more than Nikon.
A quick AI search on what exactly is in the design brief give by the 'brand' company to the producer gave this:
'When a company like Zeiss sets parameters for manufacturing or collaborative development with an OEM partner like Tamron, the design brief typically centers on exact optical performance targets, strict mechanical tolerances, and specific brand rendering signatures.'
I used Zeiss because it is well-known that the Batis series are in fact Tamron lenses, right down to the patents, and as for others here, it raises many questions for me. How does that work? Who originated the designs, the patent holder or the commissioners?
Who did what? Batis lenses look much more Japanese that German, more 'generic'. CY lenses look to have had much more Zeiss involvement with Kyocera than for the Cosina-made ZF-Milvus-Otus-Otus ML lenses, which is why they were the inspiration for the contemporaneous cine Super Speeds.
How detailed is the brief - is it an outline, is it very close to what Zeiss would have done with the same brief themselves? Wouldn't it be better to use joint branding for this very Japanese practice? Like Sony-Tamron, or Nikon-Tamron? And now you know why people prefer Made in Germany lenses. And soon enough, Made in China lenses:
'Distinct Chinese lens manufacturers (such as Viltrox, TTArtisan, 7Artisans, and Laowa) operate entirely independently and compete directly with companies like Tamron.'
philip_pj wrote:
A quick AI search on what exactly is in the design brief give by the 'brand' company to the producer gave this:
'When a company like Zeiss sets parameters for manufacturing or collaborative development with an OEM partner like Tamron, the design brief typically centers on exact optical performance targets, strict mechanical tolerances, and specific brand rendering signatures.'
I used Zeiss because it is well-known that the Batis series are in fact Tamron lenses, right down to the patents, and as for others here, it raises many questions for me. How does that work? Who originated the designs, the patent holder or the commissioners?
Who did what? Batis lenses look much more Japanese that German, more 'generic'. CY lenses look to have had much more Zeiss involvement with Kyocera than for the Cosina-made ZF-Milvus-Otus-Otus ML lenses, which is why they were the inspiration for the contemporaneous cine Super Speeds.
How detailed is the brief - is it an outline, is it very close to what Zeiss would have done with the same brief themselves? Wouldn't it be better to use joint branding for this very Japanese practice? Like Sony-Tamron, or Nikon-Tamron? And now you know why people prefer Made in Germany lenses. And soon enough, Made in China lenses:
'Distinct Chinese lens manufacturers (such as Viltrox, TTArtisan, 7Artisans, and Laowa) operate entirely independently and compete directly with companies like Tamron.'...Show more →
We can all do a quick AI search- no need to post AI drivel on here
philip_pj wrote:
A quick AI search on what exactly is in the design brief give by the 'brand' company to the producer gave this:
'When a company like Zeiss sets parameters for manufacturing or collaborative development with an OEM partner like Tamron, the design brief typically centers on exact optical performance targets, strict mechanical tolerances, and specific brand rendering signatures.'
I used Zeiss because it is well-known that the Batis series are in fact Tamron lenses, right down to the patents, and as for others here, it raises many questions for me. How does that work? Who originated the designs, the patent holder or the commissioners?
Who did what? Batis lenses look much more Japanese that German, more 'generic'. CY lenses look to have had much more Zeiss involvement with Kyocera than for the Cosina-made ZF-Milvus-Otus-Otus ML lenses, which is why they were the inspiration for the contemporaneous cine Super Speeds.
How detailed is the brief - is it an outline, is it very close to what Zeiss would have done with the same brief themselves? Wouldn't it be better to use joint branding for this very Japanese practice? Like Sony-Tamron, or Nikon-Tamron? And now you know why people prefer Made in Germany lenses. And soon enough, Made in China lenses:
'Distinct Chinese lens manufacturers (such as Viltrox, TTArtisan, 7Artisans, and Laowa) operate entirely independently and compete directly with companies like Tamron.'...Show more →
Maybe Zeiss did not want to get into the autofocus world so they spec’s what they wanted and let Tamron at it.
philip_pj wrote:
A quick AI search on what exactly is in the design brief give by the 'brand' company to the producer gave this:
'When a company like Zeiss sets parameters for manufacturing or collaborative development with an OEM partner like Tamron, the design brief typically centers on exact optical performance targets, strict mechanical tolerances, and specific brand rendering signatures.'
I used Zeiss because it is well-known that the Batis series are in fact Tamron lenses, right down to the patents, and as for others here, it raises many questions for me. How does that work? Who originated the designs, the patent holder or the commissioners?
Who did what? Batis lenses look much more Japanese that German, more 'generic'. CY lenses look to have had much more Zeiss involvement with Kyocera than for the Cosina-made ZF-Milvus-Otus-Otus ML lenses, which is why they were the inspiration for the contemporaneous cine Super Speeds.
How detailed is the brief - is it an outline, is it very close to what Zeiss would have done with the same brief themselves? Wouldn't it be better to use joint branding for this very Japanese practice? Like Sony-Tamron, or Nikon-Tamron? And now you know why people prefer Made in Germany lenses. And soon enough, Made in China lenses:
'Distinct Chinese lens manufacturers (such as Viltrox, TTArtisan, 7Artisans, and Laowa) operate entirely independently and compete directly with companies like Tamron.'...Show more →
Generic means 'general, unbranded, or applying to a whole group'. The Batises are so generalized they do not bear the maker's name; they are off-branded and therefore equivalent to being unbranded; and there are five in the group.
It's akin to marrying a woman who had changed her name to conceal her identity and her past, and her heritage. Not ideal in my eyes.
But props for the rousing exhortations in the defensive statements issued above! Passion is always good. Tamron make very good lenses, whatever name goes on them. Zeiss agree with that, as well. Zeiss might have even made the box, for all we know. cheers.
jwolfe wrote:
Market consolidation is going to continue until there are two large camera companies. That's about all the market can support given it's current size. A guy can't make a living selling less than a million cameras per year. I think 4-5 years from now it will be Sony and Canon. I just don't see any room for anyone else.
Tamron does a ton of contract manufacturing. Only 59% of their production is Tamron branded. So they are selling to more than Nikon.
I seriously doubt that we will be down to two companies. Olympus / OM system is still alive. There seems to be a market for a few "larger than full frame" camera systems. As long as companies can charge premium prices, which enables healthy margins and don't get to mixed up in private equity debt loading (totally orthogonal to their actual businesses, unfortunately) I could see the landscape looking the same as it does now in a few years. With the exception of Chinese companies getting bigger. Nikon's smartest move was acquiring Red. That should keep them from getting killed off.
To be more specific, do we really see Fuji, Leica AND Nikon disappearing in 4-5 years? I don't.
Newenglandrocks wrote:
I seriously doubt that we will be down to two companies. Olympus / OM system is still alive. There seems to be a market for a few "larger than full frame" camera systems. As long as companies can charge premium prices, which enables healthy margins and don't get to mixed up in private equity debt loading (totally orthogonal to their actual businesses, unfortunately) I could see the landscape looking the same as it does now in a few years. With the exception of Chinese companies getting bigger. Nikon's smartest move was acquiring Red. That should keep them from getting killed off.
To be more specific, do we really see Fuji, Leica AND Nikon disappearing in 4-5 years? I don't. ...Show more →
What?
Olympus sold out of the camera business years ago...to a liquidator that is throwing out what was left in the pipeline. So, no, Olympus is not still alive.
Olympus sold out of the camera business years ago...to a liquidator that is throwing out what was left in the pipeline. So, no, Olympus is not still alive.
It's both extremely likely that a company like Fuji will get gobbled up by venture capital, just as Olympus and Hasselblad did and Leica is about to do. It's also extremely likely that all of those brands will continue to put out new cameras, and very likely that the demands of the new investors will require listening to their customers more than their old owners did.
OM is a bit of a unique case because their user base is insanely niche and dying by the day, especially as full frame and APS-C prices drop compared.
