Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/11/30

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

Subject: [Leica] Contax
From: mak at teleport.com (Mark Kronquist)
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:38:55 -0800
References: <28884167474845ABA32C95319D0C4B07@jimnichols> <CCDF0B75.2708E%mark@rabinergroup.com> <20121201013431.6fb65ab3@linux-mh41.site>

Was flattened by allied bombs and in the Soviet zone. Leica was not and was 
not...had they been reversed...
On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Phil Forrest wrote:

> Check the sale prices of Contax v. Leica.
> Leica outlasted Contax because Contax was broken up after WWII, half of
> it being shipped east to the USSR, the rest remaining in Germany (ok,
> so not quite that simple but it was broken up.) Then it was mismanaged
> and sold a few times. All the while Leica survived, a lot of it due to
> the ubiquity of their 39mm mount and the availability of Nikon, Canon
> and a host of other countries to produce lower cost lenses which would
> fit the Leica.
> 
> The Contax was far more complicated to produce in both shutter and lens
> mount/helicoid. Everything about the Contax was more expensive except
> maybe the chrome.
> 
> Phil Forrest
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 01:18:45 -0500
> Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote:
> 
>> Pretty much the exact opposite was true.
>> Leica established the market Zeiss  saw there was money in cameras and
>> followed. Contax cameras were boxy looking with sharp edges Leica
>> cameras were smooth and rounded and much more friendly in the hand.
>> A Zeiss 50mm 1.5 that for instance HCB got made for a more affordable
>> package than with the Leica lens. The combination was more common in
>> the camera stores then.
>> The legacy of Leica 35mm rangefinder photography the work left behind
>> and the people who used them exceeds that of Contax by a hundred
>> times. Nowadays the person next to you on the bus has head of Leica
>> and has not heard of Contax. They think you're talking about Contacts
>> for your eyes.
>> 
>> Mark William Rabiner
>> Photography
>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Jim Nichols <jhnichols at lighttube.net>
>>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>>> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:48:56 -0600
>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Cameras Real Pros Use
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> No.  When the market was early, and Zeiss was all over cameras,
>>>> there was the Contax 1 and 2 and 3 and then there was the Leica
>>>> ( whatever ) model. Zeiss was king.  Leica the upstart.  As the
>>>> Good Book says, in the beginning, it was Contax and Leica.  Contax
>>>> was more elegant, more lenses, more you name it.  Leica was
>>>> cheaper by a lot.  People who could not afford
>>>> the Contax, bought Leicas.  So why did Leica become supreme over
>>>> the Contax?
>>>> 
>>>> Because the Contax shutters required constant tweaking, constant
>>>> replacement
>>>> of the shutter cords, and basically were not reliable.
>>>> 
>>>> Deja vue?
>>>> 
>>>> Frank Filippone
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://philipforrestphoto.wordpress.com/
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/philforrest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from jhnichols at lighttube.net (Jim Nichols) ([Leica] Cameras Real Pros Use)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Cameras Real Pros Use)
Message from photo.forrest at earthlink.net (Phil Forrest) ([Leica] Cameras Real Pros Use)