Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Contax shutter complexity versus Leica
From: "Doug Richardson" <doug@meditor.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 14:08:28 -0000

Eric Welch wrote:
>Now maybe what happened is that the complex shutter mechanism...

and Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> replied:

>This is one of the mythic "urban legends" of photography but, if the
truth
be told, the Contax' shutter is not that much more complex than the
LTM
camera's, and is certainly a lot more rugged.

I'm sure Marc is right when he says that the limited life of the tapes
used in the Contax shutter have helped tarnished that camera's
reputation. However, I suspect that opinions of the Contax have also
been influenced by the 1955 book "Miniature and Precision Cameras" by
J Lipinski, a volume which discusses at some depth the theory and
practical construction of the 35mm and 6x6cm camera, and in its day
was highly regarded as authoritative.

Lipinski talks about "the enormous mechanical complexity of the
Contax" and describes the Contax shutter blinds as a being "a
masterpiece of misplaced ingenuity".

Winding the film and shutter involved a train of no less than 24
gears. "Because the winding of the roller is transmitted through five
gears, the wind of a Contax seems very harsh in comparison with that
of a Leica."

He warns that "In the event of a fault, only a first-class firm should
be allowed to execute the repairs. Whereas an ordinary highly-skilled
mechanic may understand the Leica mechanism and attempt a repair with
some success, it takes a really professional camera specialist to
understand and repair a Contax."

Lipinski is right about the harshness of the Contax wind - curiously
enough, the wind of a Kiev 4 (Contax copy) I purchased recently is
smoother than that of my Contax, though to be fair the German camera
has had some 40 years more 'wear and tear' than its Russian
counterpart.

Regards,

Doug Richardson