Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yep, this might be it - reasonably objective narrative of how it went. And Leica was not held in such a high esteem in the thirties and forties. For example the Finnish armed forces used Contax equipment during the WWII because of better quality. > Apparently, you have failed to follow the primary thrust, though, of my > argument: > > a) Nikon and Canon stole Zeiss designs and built Zeiss-pattern lenses (and > Canon at least one Leitz design) > > b) These were passed on to Duncan and his ilk as inexpensive alternatives > to their irreplaceable German lenses. (Nikon had developed a fine camera > and produced perfectly fine copies of Zeiss designs; that photographers > going into danger chose these over the German products is a simple factor > of economics and availability, and perfectly comprehensible. But this > doesn't make the Japanese products "better".) > > c) To satisfy their American editors, Duncan, et al., claimed these lenses > were "better" than their Zeiss fore-runners, a patently false statement - -- > they might have been "as good", but they were certainly no better > > d) The myth of Japanese optical superiority dates from this claim, as the > American photographic press, especially Pop, jumped in and trumpeted the > claim in a public forum and to a degree which, I suspect, was never > intended by Duncan and his fellows. > > e) Neither Nikon nor Canon ever paid a dime to Zeiss or Leitz for these > thefted properties.