Talk:Cosina Voigtländer

Camerapedia

Camerapedia material is licenced under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. [1] Rama 11:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's right, it is. But if it's worth lifting from Camerapedia, isn't it worth lifting with care? (See this.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Voigtlander "Write-up" External Link

Hi there, I am requesting permission to add my recently created "Voigtlander Rangefinders" write-up to the external link section of the page. The URL of the page is [2]. Cheers, Matthew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotodudenz (talk • contribs) 09:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

By all means: Be bold ! Good continuation ! Rama 11:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What with "WP:OWN", I don't suppose the personal opinion of the main author of the article is of any particular significance. I'll be less "bold" than Rama, and will instead point you to Wikipedia:External links. First in the list of "Links normally to be avoided" is Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. I'm sorry to say that this would seem to cover your page, other perhaps than for the (very brief) comments that you make on the various equipment. (Camerapedia is more indulgent.) Incidentally, while of course you're free to skip the umlaut in your own site, do please use it here. (The name is not "Voigtlander" but "Voigtländer".) -- Hoary (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of 35mm Rangefinder (Bessa) section

I fixed the links to the various Bessa models so that they would work. I also added a "main article" link to the Bessa page. However, the layout seems inefficient: why are there links to every individual model when we can just link to the whole article? (The Bessa article is almost entirely descriptions of the various camera models.) Should the Bessa article be merged into this article? Should this article be merged into the Bessa article? It seems like most of the Cosigna Voigtlander stuff is primarly Bessa-related (eg, Bessa models and lenses that are compatible with those cameras). I had been looking at and editing the Bessa page (I added the section on the R4A/M), but I had no idea there was a separate page about the Cosigna Voigtlander brand (though it was linked). I think these two pages can work better together in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.110.21 (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like most of the [Cosina Voigtländer] stuff is primarly Bessa-related (eg, Bessa models and lenses that are compatible with those cameras). ¶ Perhaps the majority is, but a considerable amount isn't. As an illustration, consider the list of CV news, from the newest at the top to the oldest at the bottom. Of the top three stories (as it happens, all product releases), only one is of something (35/1.4) that will fit some models of Bessa; the others are for lenses (58/1.4, 40/2) for Nikon Ai-S and Pentax K mounts and that therefore won't fit on any Bessa that I have heard of.

why are there links to every individual model ¶ A good question, with a simple answer. This WP article was taken (by User:Rama) from a (poor) Camerapedia article. Here is the first version of this article (12 September 2007) and here is the Camerapedia article as it stood at that time. (Here is the latest version of the Camerapedia article as I write.) The Camerapedia article was and is released under the GFDL, so its rerelease as a Wikipedia article was entirely legitimate. Its rerelease as a Wikipedia article in this form also struck me at the time (and still strikes me) as dumb, lazy or arrogant, but it's clear that User:Rama and I disagree on this. -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In "Micro Four Third", according to the link for "normal lens" 25mm is not quite the 22mm of an MFT lens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preroll (talk • contribs) 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization

I noticed that a lot of the information on this article is outdated stuff from camerapedia. Notably, the article does not clearly distinguish between current and discontinued lenses.

Just so that other editors are aware, I am planning on reorganizing the Lenses portion of the article by using the latest information from the Voigtländer website. So far, I have painstakingly typed out the specifications of each lens in a tabular form. Progress can be seen at User:Dllu/sandbox/Cosina Voigtländer. I'll merge it into the main article after it's done.

By the way, @Hoary: Cosina most definitely manufactures the Cosina Voigtländer lenses. They also manufacture numerous Zeiss lenses including many ZM lenses and the Zeiss flagship Otus and Milvus series. dllu (t,c) 00:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the general objection and I applaud you, @Dllu:, on your proposed enterprise. I worked on the article in a desultory sort of way back when photographic hardware interested me a lot more than it does now; time/energy willing, I'll give you some help with this too. ¶ As for details, there were two problems. At one point, I think it was said that Voigtländer was (currently) manufacturing this and that. But as anything more than a brand name, Voigtländer hasn't existed for decades; there's no Voigtländer to manufacture anything. (Of course Cosina does manufacture lenses, and more.) Secondly, maybe I was oversensitive, but the wording suggested to me that Cosina (corrected from Voigtländer) was churning out lenses rather as the various Ford factories churn out Focuses (though of course in much smaller quantities). I have great trouble believing that this is true. More likely, it manufactures a given number of examples (I'd wildly guess between 500 and 5000) of a given lens design; and IFF the stock runs out quickly, considers bringing out a second batch. (This of course parallels the way that academic and specialist books are published.) That would explain why (even if we disregard what were marketed as special editions) the LTM lenses disappeared over a span of months or even years, rather than at more or less the same time. Yes of course if you have a recent, soundly made lens legitimately branded "Voigtländer" (which I've worded to exclude imitations, if any exist, and also RingPhoto stuff), it was made by Cosina; and the same is true of certain lines of "Zeiss"-branded equipment (though not of others). ¶ Hope I don't sound too pedantic/pernickety. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cosina Voigtländer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070913093257/http://www.voigtlaender.de:80/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_dtag6lulbz.html to http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_dtag6lulbz.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

void

Very irritating to see the image of a middle format camera as the only picture for the first half meter and all around it is only 35mm. There should be some text beneath the titles, so that they don't lie there in the void around a seemingly displaced picture. At least on the mobile app on a tablet, the words look lost. And maybe a 35mm camera at first. MenkinAlRire 18:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)