Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/08/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have the impression that the metal "roller blind" shutter was the Achilles Heel of the Contax. Is that true? When I was a kid, I thought the Contax was better than the Leica for the reasons already cited. Herbert Kanner kanner at acm.org 650-326-8204 Question authority and the authorities will question you. On Aug 8, 2013, at 1:25 PM, lrzeitlin at aol.com wrote: > Sonny writes: > "Howard, I think the inference was that the M was a rangefinder camera > system. Before there were thread mounts which, while interchangeable are > not easily." > - - - - > Sonny, ask Jim Schulman about the provenance of bayonet mounts. I had a > 1932 Contax 1 35mm camera with a bayonet mount when I was in college. It > was made and widely distributed 22 years before the Leica M series > debuted. Basically the Leica M simply copied the best features of the 1936 > era Contax II including combined rangefinder/viewfinder, one dial shutter > speeds, and fast bayonet mounted lenses. Leica never got around to adding > an opening back on the M series film cameras. Prior to WW2 Contax was > regarded as the most advanced 35 mm camera and the Zeiss lenses were > considered sharper than the Leica lenses. Even Leica used some Zeiss lens > designs. That's not to say that the Contax was a better camera after WW2 > or even that it took better pictures. But I can tell you this, in the era > in which I worked on the old Boston Globe (1948 to 1952) staff > photographers far preferred Contaxes to Leicas. Of course we all used 4x5 > Speed Graphics for serious work. > Larry Z > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information