Re: [Leica] Zeiss Ikon and Leica

[tedgrant@islandnet.com (Ted Grant)]

Hi Marc,

Erwin's posting followed by yours has to be recognized by LUG members as
why many of us nearly went into cardiac arrest when Erwin decided he was
going to "close shop!"

Erwin and Marc:

Gentlemen I can only say one thing for myself and I'm sure many others on
the LUG feel exactly the same way............PLEASE DON'T EVER LEAVE
US!!!!!!!!!!!!

Both of you add so much interesting information to this group that it would
be a travesty if either of you should leave. You both play off each other
with the most amazing information that many of us really enjoy.

You put it in "simple language" and easy to read, thank goodness! As you
know I'm not a rocket scientist and it is essential I read slowly and  move
my lips!:)

Thank you both very much. You keep adding bits and pieces to my personal
library as I print them out & filing them in the Leica cabinet.

ted




>Thanks, Erwin, for a most thought-provoking analysis of Leica R and
>Contarex/Contax.  However, I am not certain it is quite fair to directly
>compare and contrast the 1998 Leica R8 and its current lens line with the
>Zeiss Ikon line as it existed in 1960, almost four decades back.
>
>The Contax is remarkably easy to use;  while many commentators, especially
>Jason Schneider, dislike the focusing wheel, the design is otherwise a bit
>simpler in use than is a contemporary Leica -- for instance, all
>full-speed-range Leica cameras to the M3 had separate fast and slow speed
>dials, while the Contax adopted a single speed dial some two decades
>earlier.  The combined RF/VF on the Contax is much easier in use than is
>the Leica TM camera's separate optical windows, while the Contax long-base
>rangefinder is inherently more accurate in use.  While the Leica Mirror
>Reflex Housing was equally clumsy with the Flektoskop/Flektometer, though
>the Leica long lenses were certainly no matcher for the longer Zeiss lenses
>until the 2.5/12.5cm Hektor and 4/200 Telyt were introduced in the 1950's.
>(The Viso II is, of course, light-years ahead of the Flektometer, but it
>wasn't introduced until 1959, long after the Flektometer had left production.)
>
>Some of these criticisms would be radically different had each company been
>able to pursue design cameras which never reached production.  The "Leica
>IV" was an honest answer to the Contax II and III, but was delayed for
>fifteen years by the Second World War, and, by the time it eventually
>reached production as the M3, the SLR was making its appearance.
>Similarly, the "Contax IV" of 1955 would have brought the Contax to a
>parity with the M3/M2 designs, but it was condemned to never see a
>production line both due to the lack of money at Zeiss Ikon and to Zeiss
>Ikon's decision to concentrate on SLR designs (the modern SLR, after all,
>IS a Zeiss Ikon development!)
>
>I believe Zeiss Ikon's decision to "terminate with extreme prejudice" the
>Contax RF design predated Nikon's similar decision by 18 months or so, and
>both preceded Canon's decision by several years.  Leitz, of course, did not
>even begin the design of an SLR until the Contarex and Nikon F were both in
>the market.  Even KMZ reacted more quickly, with that noteworth example of
>Proletarian craftsmanship, the Zenit.
>
>As to the Contarex/Leicaflex comparison, I do not see the Contarex as
>having view-camera or medium-format features.  The original Contarex
>certainly was not the simplest SLR ever made, but, then, neither was the
>original Nikon F or Canon R series, or, for that matter, the somewhat later
>original Leicaflex.  A more honest comparison might be made between the
>Contarex Super of 1966 and the Leicaflex SL of 1968 -- they are of similar
>weight, similar accuracy, similar construction, similar ease of use, and
>even similar cost, the bare Leicaflex SL costing $465 against the bare
>Super's $445.
>
>Yes, modern Leica lenses are certainly better performers than even the best
>Zeiss lenses of 1960 (well, "on par or better", might be a bit of a fairer
>assessment!), but, then, Erwin, you are the one who has forced me to
>completely re-assess my earlier view that older lenses are better than
>newer designs.  Thus, we would expect modern Leica lenses -- designed to
>the highest standards, constructed with meticulous care -- to perform on
>the level traditionally reserved for Zeiss optics.
>
>I like the Contarex, but don't use any of mine on a regular basis, while an
>M6 is my standard miniature-format camera.  I concede that the Contarex had
>drawbacks but its principal shortcoming was its cost:  to market it at the
>same price-point as the Nikon F, Zeiss Ikon was forced to sell it on too
>narrow a profit-margin, and this, ultimately, forced the company out of the
>camera business.  A like fate almost struck Leitz due to the same factor
>affecting the sale of the Leicaflex, SL, and SL2, though, unlike Zeiss
>Ikon, Leitz had no other major product area to which they could retreat,
>and so they soldiered on and survive.  (Leica recently, and quite
>ironically, purchased the final shred of Zeiss Ikon when they bought the
>Zett slide-projector line.)
>
>I am a bit abashed to admit that I rattled off all of the Leica dates and
>details from memory, but had to look up some of the Zeiss Ikon bits in that
>most worthy of references,  Barringer and <ah-HEM> Small, THE ZEISS
>COMPENDIUM -- please buy yours today, as it is close to being out-of-print,
>and a second edition can't be produced until the first is history!
>
>Thanks again, Erwin, for your forcing me to think these things through,
>and, as always, for the thorough and comprehensive analyses which cast hard
>fact onto the table for our delectation!
>
>Marc
>
>msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!