Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/11/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Pretty much the exact opposite was true. Leica established the market Zeiss saw there was money in cameras and followed. Contax cameras were boxy looking with sharp edges Leica cameras were smooth and rounded and much more friendly in the hand. A Zeiss 50mm 1.5 that for instance HCB got made for a more affordable package than with the Leica lens. The combination was more common in the camera stores then. The legacy of Leica 35mm rangefinder photography the work left behind and the people who used them exceeds that of Contax by a hundred times. Nowadays the person next to you on the bus has head of Leica and has not heard of Contax. They think you're talking about Contacts for your eyes. Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > From: Jim Nichols <jhnichols at lighttube.net> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:48:56 -0600 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Cameras Real Pros Use > > >> No. When the market was early, and Zeiss was all over cameras, there was >> the Contax 1 and 2 and 3 and then there was the Leica ( whatever ) model. >> Zeiss was king. Leica the upstart. As the Good Book says, in the >> beginning, it was Contax and Leica. Contax was more elegant, more lenses, >> more you name it. Leica was cheaper by a lot. People who could not >> afford >> the Contax, bought Leicas. So why did Leica become supreme over the >> Contax? >> >> Because the Contax shutters required constant tweaking, constant >> replacement >> of the shutter cords, and basically were not reliable. >> >> Deja vue? >> >> Frank Filippone