[Leica] Leica NY Times article

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

The Contax are certainly enviable beautifully made precision machines I just
wish they were made beautifully. They seem to be designed by just by
engineers who said "who needs those soft curves we'll just go with straight
lines and hard edges".  It's as if no designer were allowed in the room.
Later with the Contarex Bullseye  SLR cameras think they softened that
stance and it looks like they got a designer kinda person involved with the
project. But before than I'd have to say they made dog ugly cameras.
Put a Contax next to a Leica and its rather black and white. Ugly next to
gorgeous. But the pictures come out looking very gorgeous  as if by a
miracle.
My opinion my vary.

On 8/9/13 6:47 AM, "Jim Shulman" <jshulman at judgecrater.com> wrote:

> Since I've been using a postwar Contax extensively for the past several
> months, and since I've used a lot of Leica equipment as well (still have
> my M3 and iiib), here's my assessment:
> 
> 1. Love the metal shutter, since there's no chance of roasting the
> curtains if the camera winds up in direct sunlight for extended periods.
> Once had that happen with an M2.
> 2. Bayonet mount is a PIA.  Leica really got it right with the M3--for the
> Contax, it's just as fiddly as an LTM lens.  The internal mount (50mm)
> lenses are somewhat easier to mount than all the others with their
> external mount (where you must get both the mount and the lens set to
> infinity before you can line up the red dots--and even then it takes a
> little finesse to get everything to click. I've found this to be
> especially true on lenses longer the 50mm.
> 3. Shutter makes a nice snap, but it is louder than the "snnnnk" of an
> LTM.
> 4. Shutter speeds do not rotate, so there's no chance of catching a finder
> on the rotating shutter speed dial.  However, I've never had that problem
> with an LTM Leica.
> 5. Knob wind is about the same.
> 6. Combined RF/VF window was way ahead of its time (even for the Contax
> IIa/IIIa cameras, which made their debut before the 1954 M3).
> 7. Loading an LTM is kind of a pain, between film trimming, aligning the
> film perfectly, and checking to see that it's loading properly.  Kind of a
> draw here, because the Contax's fully opening back which slides off the
> camera (and unsecured takeup spool, which invariably winds up on the
> floor) means that you have to get everything just right (tight enough
> start on the spool, no film slack across the rear of the shutter) before
> reattaching the back.  Since I have figured out how to tear leader for a
> LTM Leica, the Leica's actually a little faster to load.
> 8. Infinity locks on both cause some less than pretty language.
> 
> Comes down to this: Contax feels more like beautifully made lab equipment;
> Leica feels more lithe and elegant.  I find that, comparing optics of the
> same era to their counterparts, Contax glass is a good bit more contrasty
> and "snappy".
> 
> That said, I could pick up my iiib tomorrow and be just as
> happy--especially since my Contax to LTM Amadeo adaptor lets me use my
> favorite Contax glass!
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+jshulman=judgecrater.com at leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+jshulman=judgecrater.com at leica-users.org] On Behalf 
> Of
> Herbert Kanner
> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 1:42 AM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica NY Times article
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information




-- 
Mark William Rabiner
Photographer
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/