Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/11

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Zeiss Ikon and Leica
From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 11:21:43 -0400

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!