Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/03/21

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

Subject: Re: Leica Alternatives
From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 12:57:32 -0500

At 11:47 AM 3/21/97 +0000, Peter Jon White rather defensively wrote:

>The Russian Contax cameras were or are, (frankly I couldn't care less 
>which), made with tooling stolen from it's rightful owners and are 
>therefore stolen goods themselves. As a matter of general principle I 
>would never knowingly traffic in or own stolen goods. Nor will I 
>enter into a discussion of their usability or servicability. :<(
>
>> I also don't understand why you think Contax lenses would be more prone 
>> to fungus than old Leica lenses.
>
>I don't understand why you think I think that. I never said that.


First, the Soviets no more used 'stolen' equipment than did we.  The gear
was war booty awarded to the Soviet Union as reparations pursuant to the
Inter-Allied Optical Reparations Committee of the Control Commission.
Nothing dicey here.  In fact, when the Postwar dust settled, the ONLY
'thefts' found to have occurred were those of intellectual property by the
US Government, for which Zeiss was later awarded some $3 million by the US
courts.  

Second, you DID say the following:

>I think we're going off the deep end here. I don't know when the 
>Nikon or Contax was discontinued. I believe the Canon was gone by 
>1970 or so. But whenever it was discontinued, by then the other two 
>were long gone. Many of the lenses available have fungus growing on 
>them and still command ridiculous prices by collectors.

Again, and as others have said, I am not aware that Zeiss glass has any
greater propensity for fungus than does Leitz glass -- and I have a slew of
both!

Marc



msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!