Amund said:
The pinholecameras in question doesn`t look or operate as the Zero Image cameras as far as I can see, so how could there be copyright infringement here? Your post is pure BS, IMO...
r assessment.
As an owner of both a Zero Image 2000 and Zero Image 4X5, I would agree with your assessment.
The technology, as applied to photography, spans three centuries, so I would assume the concept of pinhole cameras is pretty safe from patent and copyright infringement. Camera are but boxes with sensitized material on one side and a means for light to enter on the other. They all work that way. Here again, seems pretty safe from both copyright and patent problems.
I look forward to getting my 8 Banners "Dragon" with its 6 X 18 format, spirit level, optical viewfinder and curved film plane, features which are missing from Zero Images line up of cameras. When I look at their 4 X 5 offerings, as well as their others, each seems to be pretty different from the Zero Image line up. Notice, please, that I said different rather than better. I love my Zero Image cameras and look forward to adding the 8Banners 618 to my stable of tools.
It would appear that where Zero Image had a reasonable claim was with their exposure calculator on the back of the 2000. The one originally used with the 8Banners looked almost exactly like (read that as copied from) the Zero Image camera. 8Banners has now changed that and substituted an etched scale, which may or may not be as efficient as the Zero calculator. I might add that my experience with the Zero calculator on the 2000 is that it is hard to read. I've just purchased a Black Ct exposure guide and hope it will be a little easier on my eyes.
Lets let the manufacturers fight this one out, while we use their tools to create our images. Bill Barber