Copyright status of this article[edit source]
I added the Unsourced banner to this article because I have major doubts on its contents. I am near certain that the Zunow company was not acquired by Yashica, and I suspect that the text contains other major mistakes and rumours. --Rebollo fr 15:44, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Radical rework[edit source]
I radically reworked the early part of the company history, which was plagued with various mistakes, and was lacking any source. --Rebollo fr 18:36, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
Question: what of post Kyocera cameras?[edit source]
Where should the Yashica branded cameras made by Exemode post 2008 be discussed? Should we record them here and reflect a brand based groupiing, or on a seperate page for company based grouping? Given the Kyocera cameras are on a seperate page I suspect the later. 19:34, 19 January 2010 (EST)
- Good question! My personal feeling is that we should really merge the Kyocera page into this one (possibly renamed as "Yashica and Kyocera"), for the following reasons:
- Kyocera had no prior experience of cameras, and Kyocera's camera division was no more than Yashica by another name.
- Unlike Sony, Kyocera chose to keep the legacy brands (Yashica and Contax) almost until the end, except for a couple minor products.
- The current Kyocera page is unsatisfying: the history section is just a follow-up of this Yashica page, and the camera list does not even list the full product names or the Contax line.
- I wouldn't imagine moving the Bronica RF645 from the Bronica page to the Tamron page, though the situation is exactly similar to that of Yashica products made after the company was merged into Kyocera.
- As for Exemode cameras, I would put them in this page, under a separate section. I feel that this product line will not leave a huge footprint on camera history; similar cases of revived brands are usually treated on the brand's page in Camerapedia: see for example Miranda. If you think that Exemode should have its own page, you can list the cameras on the two places, there is no problem with that.
- --rebollo_fr 12:55, 20 January 2010 (EST)
On 09 November an IP appears to have totalled the page, doubling its length with odd HTML. And yet the smashing is so odd that I wonder if it's a browser incompatibility; is it supposed to be covered in <img data-rte-meta="%7B%22type%22%3A%22ext%22%2C... etc etc etc? 220.127.116.11 17:27, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks :) I fixed it. Süleyman Demir, Admin 08:40, December 24, 2011 (UTC)