Contax is NOT Dead

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Walt Hanks, Mar 8, 2005.

  1. Walt Hanks

    Walt Hanks Guest

    Here is a statement I received today from Kyocera's PR office:.

    Dear Sir,

    No the info on the web is not correct. If you go to
    on the home page there is a press release dated February 20th describing
    what should have be stated on the web. The info quoted on the web is
    incorrect and we are working to have the correct info posted.

    Thank you,

    Nick Cheremsak

    The release announces the appointment of ToCad as the exclusive distributor
    of Contax and indicates that Kyocera is committed to focusing on Contax as
    their primary digital imaging line.

    Sometimes it pays to go to the horses mouth.

    Walt Hanks
    Walt Hanks, Mar 8, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Walt Hanks

    George Guest

    That is good news. I'd hate to see a quality brand go down the tubes...

    George, Mar 8, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Walt Hanks

    VirtualV Guest

    That is good news. I'd hate to see a quality brand go down the tubes...
    True, but they should do a lot of innovation in order to keep up with
    the competition (there are a lot of competitors...).

    VirtualV, Mar 8, 2005
  4. Walt Hanks

    Darrell Guest

    It's just a name, there hasn't been a Contax for years.
    Darrell, Mar 8, 2005
  5. Walt Hanks

    RichA Guest

    The originating website owner can be sued for this.
    RichA, Mar 9, 2005
  6. Walt Hanks

    C J Campbell Guest

    You can sue anybody for anything, but to prevail Kyocera would have to show
    that the web site owner knew or should have known that his statements were
    false. Given that his information was received directly from sources at
    Kyocera that would be very hard to prove. I suspect that there is some
    confusion and speculation going on within the company and it is getting out
    to various people in garbled form. Kyocera would have no justification for
    suing people when they can't control what their own personnel are saying.

    Then, too, any target of a lawsuit would have to be worth going after. A web
    site owner does not necessarily have deep enough pockets to make a lawsuit

    Finally, few camera companies would like a reputation for suing reviewers.
    Reviews of their cameras would dry up very fast.
    C J Campbell, Mar 9, 2005
  7. Walt Hanks

    Jeremy Guest

    That is gratifying to hear, BUT . . .

    Doesn't it seem strange that they would shut down their production lines,
    rather than sell the entire operation and keep production running?

    I'm glad that they have a distributor, but who the hell is going to
    MANUFACTURE the stuff?

    Am I missing something?
    Jeremy, Mar 9, 2005
  8. Walt Hanks

    jfitz Guest

    If, in fact, they are. The dis-information may well be coming from the USA
    distributor, who very likely has a warehouse full of unsold product that
    they would like to sell at top dollar. Given the choice of believing the
    USA distributor's web or Phil's DPreview web, I find that the latter is the
    disinterested, and consequently, presumed honest source of accurate
    information. While I would certainly like to see Contax and Yashica
    continue, I fear that may not be the case.
    jfitz, Mar 9, 2005
  9. Walt Hanks

    Larry Guest

    I hate to agree with anything sounding like even a MINI conspiracy, but I
    have to agree with this post.

    Until and unless I see some indication that someone is actually making more
    Contax cameras, I will consider it a dead company.
    Larry, Mar 9, 2005
  10. Walt Hanks

    Mark² Guest

    I think it is highly possible that the message you received came from someone interested
    primarily in unloading store rooms full of Contax products...
    Mark², Mar 9, 2005
  11. Walt Hanks

    Walt Hanks Guest

    Think what you want. I never cease to be amazed at the ability of Usenet to
    create controversy where none exists and find conspiracy in every corner.
    Mr. Cheremsak is Kyocera's PR officer, not ToCad's.

    Try going to Kyocera's site and finding any announcement of the sort that
    was posted by dpreview. You won't find it. Doesn't THAT strike you as odd?

    Walt Hanks, Mar 9, 2005
  12. Walt Hanks

    Mark² Guest

    What "conspiracy"??
    I'm no consiracy theorist. I'm just aware that one e-mail...from one guy...tht
    contradicts a number of articles from legitimate sources is often shown to be just
    that--just one e-mail from one guy who is full of crap.

    I don't know that this is the case in this instance, but it's certainly a possiblity.
    Leaks happen all the time.
    Why does that strike YOU as odd?
    Again... I don't know which is correct, but both are quite possible.
    Mark², Mar 9, 2005
  13. Walt Hanks

    Jer Guest

    C J Campbell wrote:

    It may seem odd to some but I'm aware of one person that sometimes
    couldn't care less about any monetary award provided by a favourable
    court ruling. Sometimes he sues simply because someone else desperately
    deserved to be buried in paperwork for the next ten years - eating beans
    six nights out of seven because the attorney fees won't afford better.
    If one can't afford to be sued, maybe one should learn to keep their
    hands to themself.
    Jer, Mar 9, 2005
  14. Walt Hanks

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Thats what he claims anyways.
    Wrong. If you distribute information you receive from non-oficial channels
    within the company the comapny can perfectly well sue you and win. The sole
    exception is if they ordered the information to be distributed themselves.
    He might still have house and car and hamster and ...
    Reviewers that do significant PR damage are probably not worth having.
    Sander Vesik, Mar 9, 2005
  15. Walt Hanks

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Are you sure they really did?
    That there is a lot of confusion and lack of clear, reliable
    Sander Vesik, Mar 9, 2005
  16. Whats in a brand name?

    I mean - a company does not make better cameras by using an old
    brand name they have bought.

    Roland Karlsson, Mar 9, 2005
  17. Walt Hanks

    Paul H. Guest

    Or it could simply be that they want to keep the matter quiet until the
    existing stock of Contax cameras is sold, since they realize that few people
    are interested in buying into soon-to-be discontinued products at premium
    prices. It's not paranoia, either: If someone told me that a particular GM
    car sucked, the last thing I'd think of doing is calling up GM and asking if
    the rumor was true.

    Sometimes it's not the horse's *mouth* you end up talking to.
    Paul H., Mar 9, 2005
  18. Walt Hanks

    Bob Salomon Guest

    How do you think this can be accomplished today?

    In the USA they have changed distributors. The new distributor, Tocad,
    had a table full of new product PR at the PMA Sneak Peak last month and
    a booth full of product and a new sales force. That means they plan on
    selling something.

    The old distributor no longer has a photo sales force or sales
    management for photo. What can they sell?

    If a product is introduced anywhere in the world today it is on the
    internet before it is even introduced to the company's local sales
    force. It is almost impossible to keep new product quiet once it has
    been introduced anywhere. And no company wants to sit with no sales
    waiting for old product to disappear. They can always make loads of
    merchandise move by just offering it on QVC or HSC.
    Bob Salomon, Mar 9, 2005
  19. Walt Hanks

    George Guest

    I'd say Kyocero has kept up the brand name quite well. The lens line hasn't
    suffered and they
    have addressed film flatness better than any other manufacturer. I'm not
    lamenting that 1940s
    German rangefinders named "Contax" aren't being made...I just want to see as
    many quality
    minded companies hang around as it is good whether you own that particular
    brand or not.
    George, Mar 9, 2005
  20. Walt Hanks

    Paul H. Guest

    Next time read the entire thread.

    1) No one was talking about the introduction of *new* product.

    2) The company whose word was in question was not Tocad, but rather Kyocera

    3) You missed my point entirely, which was that no one should automatically
    trust the word of a company which has a vested interest in some product in
    question. My post OBVIOUSLY had nothing to do with whether the Kyocera
    rumor of severing ties with Contax was true or not.

    4) If you go to , you
    will see in a story dated 3/10/05 that Kyocera is indeed ceasing production
    of digital cameras, Contax-, Kyocera-branded, or otherwise.

    5) The information you provided may be gospel or it may be utter drivel and
    no one has any way of knowing which.
    Paul H., Mar 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.