New Monorail, a Toho rip-off ?

[Dave Moeller]

Thanks very much for the information Don. I'll be sure to post if I hear anything from the company as well.

[paul owen]

FINALLY some news!

Firstly, many apologies to Dean for doubting Shen Hao - they are NOT the manufacturer of this camera. The camera is actually manufactured by the other well known Chinese company - SEAGULL. Apparently there was some confusion when the camera details were uploaded to Robert White's web site, these have now been ammended. On his large format section the camera appears under the Shen Hao/Seagull header (Robert White also stocks the Seagull TLR).

I hope this clears the debate up? I appreciate that Kerry and others will still be fuming over the "cloning" issue but Robert is happy that there are enough "subtle" differences between the Toho and the SEAGULL that one is not a clone of the other - although he describes them as visually VERY similar the Toho is of a far better build quality.

[Dean Tomasula]

Thanks Paul for the info and the detective work. Maybe now we can finally put the controversy to rest.

I can appreciate everyone's feelings on this issue (yes, even Don's) and I still agree with Kerry and others that unlicensed cloning is unethical and should be denounced and not supported.

There's obviously a relationship between Shen-Hao and Seagull. Aside from them both being Chinese companies, Shen-Hao sells Seagull lenses with their cameras. Hopefully if Shen-Hao actually starts selling this camera we'll all remember your post and not have to go through this again.

Maybe now we can move on?

[paul owen]

I'm certainly NOT wanting to prolong this thread BUT, curiosity got he better of me and I had a search for the Seagull Cameras web site. Guess what cameras Seagull list on their website? SHEN HAO!!!!!!! Well I think they're Shen Hao - they have the same names (HZX etc) and look the same (to my untrained eye). Now I'm really confused! Who actually makes Shen Hao cameras? Shen Hao or Seagull, or are they one-in-the-same, or have Seagull cloned the Shen Hao cameras? Wish I'd never looked now

[Dean Tomasula]

Paul, you should know better!

But seriously, Shen-Hao and Seagull have some sort of reciprical agreement. Seagull sells Shen-Hao products (cameras) and Shen-Hao sells Seagul products (lenses). They are separate companies and as far as I know maintain separate manufacturing facilities. It is possible that there is some corporate connection, but I don't know for sure.

[tim atherton]

in doing research on some lenses it's interesting to see how some US companies, such as Gundlach (of Turner Reich fame etc) were quite happy to rip off Zeiss and other lens designs and alter them just enough to avoid patent infringement, while still pirating the main elements of design... Ernst Gundlach in Rochester was, apparently, an expert at this

[richard pang]

Seagull is a state-owned corporation. Big and a lot of money to flow around. QC is something to be desired. Shenhao is a private entity. I read a story about Shenhao that started with a veteran LF technician from Seagull (making LF too) and the current owner who had a lot of money at that time. The co-oporation did not last long. The technician started his own company that made LF too. His LF camera starts to gain some popularity in China. By that time, Shenhao gained enough to stand alone.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Dean wrote: Shen-Hao and Seagull have some sort of reciprical agreement. Seagull sells Shen-Hao products (cameras) and Shen-Hao sells Seagul products (lenses). They are separate companies and as far as I know maintain separate manufacturing facilities.

This brings us back to our three basic issues:

1) Is the SR45-II shown on Robert White's web site a Shen Hao product (to me that means is Shen Hao involved in any way in the manufacture, sales or distribution of this product) ?

Shen Hao does not manufacture this camera, but they do appear to be involved in sales and distribution. Actually, when I made my previous posts I was suspicious about Shen Hao actually making the camera themselves. All their other cameras are more traditional wooden bodied cameras. The SR45-II is an all-metal camera that requires a different skills and tools (CNC milling machines) to manufacture. I have never been to the Shen Hao factory, but I would not be suprised to learn they farm out the fabrication of many of their metal parts to another shop. Heck, Keith Canham does the same thing here in the US. When I bought my 6x12 roll fim back a couple years ago, it was sold to me as a Shen Hao product and was listed on their web site, but the plaque on the camera said "DAYI", not Shen Hao. I noticed the newer ones are labeled "Shen Hao". I suspect, but do not know for sure, that these roll film back are produced for Shen Hao, to their specifications, by another company. No big deal. It's a common business practice. Unless you produce in sufficient volume to keep those CNC machines running 24/7, it make more sense to farm out the fabrication to a machine shop that does.

2) Is the SR45-II an authorized copy of the Toho FC-45X?

I have not received a response from Toho. If I do, I will post the answer. I suspect it is a language poroblem (I don't even pretend to speak Japanese). Perhaps someone who speaks Japanese could try to give them a call or send them an email.

Nick wrote: You're willing to accept Robert White is breaking UK law but that not that they would lie.

First, as I stated above, no one here has any proof that Robert White is breaking any law, and I'm certainly not "willing to accept Robert White is breaking UK law". I have no idea if Toho even applied for UK patents on their design, or if any such patents were granted. So, while I may be disappointed that a company like Robert White would sell a (potentially) unlicensed copy of another companies product, that doesn't necessarily make it illegal.

Obviously, based on the response Don received to his query about buying ten cameras, Shen Hao is selling these cameras. Perphaps that explains the confusion on the Robert White web site, and the seemingly contradictory answers above about whether or not this camera is a Shen Hao product. If Robert White is getting this camera directly from Shen Hao, or the same supplier as his Shen Hao cameras, that would explain why he would think it is a Shen Hao product. I don't think anyone was lying or deliberately misleading anyone.

Still, I remain disappopinted in Robert White's decision to sell this camera. Even if it is technically legal to do so, I find it unsavory and a violation of the spririt of itellectual property rights. Based on my past experiences with Robert White, I expect better from them. Given that there is only about a $200 difference in their selling price and Badger's price on the REAL Toho FC-45X, I'd rather just see Robert White go back to selling the Toho. Since Robert White admits the SR45II is both a copy and of inferior quality, why not just sell the real thing? It would be better for them (in terms of their reputation), better for their customers (they'd get a better product) , better for Toho (they would be rewarded for their innovative design), and potentially better for the LF community (encourage manufactures to innovate, not just copy others).

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

in doing research on some lenses it's interesting to see how some US companies, such as Gundlach (of Turner Reich fame etc) were quite happy to rip off Zeiss and other lens designs and alter them just enough to avoid patent infringement, while still pirating the main elements of design... Ernst Gundlach in Rochester was, apparently, an expert at this

Tim,

But notice, they did go to the trouble to CHANGE the design. In the case of the Turner Reich triple convertibles, they added a fifth element to each half of the lens (makes you wonder how much the licensing fees would have been to make it cheaper to have 25% more elements than pay the fee). It may have been a cheap way around the patents, but it took more effort than simply copying (cloning) someone else's design.

Also, keep in mind many companies (US, European - yes, even other German companies - and Japanese) simply waited for the patents to expire and then immediately began offering their own version of the famous Zeiss lenses (most notably the Tessar). Back then, most design patents had a life of 17 - 2o years. Most of the Zeiss anastigmats (Protars) were patented in the early 1890s. So, the patents would have expired around the 1910 - 1913 time frame. The Tessar was patented in 1902 (f6.3) and 1904 (f4.5). So, those patents would have normally expired in the early 1920s. However, I believe the US government voided patent protection for many German companies as a result of WWI (not sure how this effected the Zeiss Tessar patents). It is interesting that Bausch & Lomb continued, for many years, to engrave the Zeiss name on many of their lenses long after the patent protections expired. Perhaps they felt it gave their lenses more prestige.

Kerry

[Nick_3536]

If you ask Shen Hao about a Apo-Sironar-N they'll give you a price. They even sell made in germany tripods. Anybody that has had any email with the factory knows English isn't thier first language. I doubt it's thier third language. If you ask them about a product the question better be simple and straight forward with no implied hidden meanings. OTOH I expect Robert White to understand English.