Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Wrong on one count, partly wrong on the other. > >Carl Zeiss is a lensworks whose main plants are located in Oberkochen and >Jena. It is owned by the Zeiss Foundation, an educational trust located at >Heidenheim and Jena. The Foundation formerly owned Zeiss Ikon, a camera >company with plants at Dresden, Stuttgart, and Berlin. The Foundation also >owns Hensoldt in Wetzlar, Albert Gauthier in Munich, Leitz Woodworking Tools >(no kin to Leica, by the way) and formerly owned the F&W Deckel concern, now >bankrupt. > > >As to Leitz, by the early 1960's -- the period under discussion -- I doubt >if microscope and binocular sales made up 15% of their output. So >successful was the Leica, that the company completely changed course. You >may want to consult the US Strategic Bombing Survey report on Leitz, which >indicates the percentages as of 1945, when camera output exceeded 90% of >their product line. > >Marc > This exchange has shown that we are both familiar with Zeiss and Leitz. Let's return to my original question. Would you please compare the features and design philosophies of Contax and Retina rangefinder cameras with those of Leica cameras? To get this discussion rolling, Contax cameras have a vertical running focal plane shutter and Retina's a leaf shutter. What were the reasons for these design choices when horizontal focal plane shutters were fairly standard during that time? The leaf shutter greatly limited Kodak in its offering of interchangeable lenses, which could have been very profitable accessories. A more versatile camera could have increased their film sales. Glen Robinson Glen Robinson