[rollei_list] Re: "different types of black boxes" (was: OT / prove it !)
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 21:21:01 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Shea" <dshea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 7:42 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: "different types of black boxes"
(was: OT / prove it !)
> I am not so sure about the engineering and lenses. I've
> worked on older Leica's. They are very well thought out
> and
> are relatively easy to work on and support. The Contax has
> an extremely complex shutter which I would not attempt to
> work on. While the Leica rangefinder has a shorter base it
> also has a built in telescope so its _effective_ baseline
> is
> equal to the Contax. Contax had to use the wider basline
> without a telescope because the rangefinder image is
> combined with the finder image.
> Lenses are hard to tell about. The famous f/1.5 Sonnar is
> a good lens but the type has some problems. The Sonnar
> type
> has fallen out of use because lens coating eliminates its
> main virtue: low flare due to minimum number of glass air
> surfaces. Modern designers use forms of the double Gauss
> (Biotar) for lenses of f/2 or faster. This is not to say
> that the specific lenses made by Zeiss for the Contax may
> have had better prformance than equivalent Leitz lenses
> for
> the Leica. Remember that both companies made very advanced
> optics for microscopes and other optical instruments.
> Andreas Feninger wrote in one of his books that he
> couldn't use a Leica because it impressed him as being too
> delicate, so he used a Contax. Knowing what is in the two
> cameras I suspect the Leica is the more rugged of the two.
> Actually, old screw mount Leica's seem to be very rugged
> cameras.
>
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I feel quite secure in both the engineering and the lenses
> of the Contax
> system. Because the Contax is complex does not make it a
> poor design; it
> just requires a skilled technician to properly repair,
> lubricate, and adjust
> the camera. One person that completely understands the
> complexities of the
> Contax design is Henry Scherer, and every camera that I
> have sent to Henry
> for refurbishment performs flawlessly, and has so for
> years. My criteria for
> judging the quality of a camera design does not include
> whether or not I can
> do the repairs myself. With that thought in mind I would
> not hesitate to
> rebuild or repair a Flathead Ford engine, but wouldn't
> even consider tearing
> into a Cosworth Ford F1 motor -- does that make the
> Flathead a better motor
> than the Cosworth? In addition to all of the various
> Contaxes from "I"
> through "IIa" that Henry has refurbished for me I am also
> using an early "I"
> that by all appearances has never been repaired or opened
> up, and it is
> working flawlessly at all shutter speeds to this day --
> the serial number
> dates this camera back to 1934. Seventy years of continued
> reliable
> operation is not too shabby a track record. Criticism of
> the
> rangefinder/viewfinder system have to be considered in
> their historical
> context; the early Contaxes also had separate rangefinder
> and viewfinder
> windows and still had a longer baseline than Leica
> (103mm). Combining the
> rangefinder window with the viewfinder was considered an
> advancement in its
> day which Zeiss pioneered and was first to bring to
> market; later Leica
> followed suit.
>
> Richard, I would sooner tear into that Cosworth motor than
> to argue lens
> design with you -- I hold your knowledge on this subject
> in the highest
> regard. However, once again it is important to consider
> what Zeiss patented
> and brought to market in its proper historical context. It
> is unfair to dis
> the 1.5 Sonnar now because modern lenses and coatings are
> available -- what
> was the lens' status when it was brought to market? It was
> the best of the
> best and still holds its own against modern lenses. How
> about the 21/4.5
> Biogon, the Tessars, and the 85/2 Sonnar? The 50/3.5 rigid
> barrel Tessar is
> still an incredible lense.
>
> I believe that too many Contaxes have either been the
> victims of botched
> home repair jobs, or repaired by unqualified technicians
> with the same end
> result: they judge the camera to be no good when in fact
> they do not
> understand its design. Send a Ducati to a lawn mower
> repair shop for a
> tune-up and you can hardly blame Ducati if the motor
> doesn't run. A Contax
> properly refurbished by Henry Scherer is a beautiful and
> reliable machine,
> with a much more durable and precise shutter than the
> Leica.
>
> Doug
>
>
>
I did not mean to suggest that the Contax was inferior
because it is more complex. That does make it more
supportable. There is something attractive about design
which is simple but effective and the Leica fits that
description. The Contax is also an elegant camera. The
shutter evidently stems from a design used by ICA in earlier
cameras, for instance, the Mirroflex. It works on a
different principle than the Leica shutter.
I agree that the Zeiss lenses for this camera were
excellent and some were innovative designs. Bertelle, who
designed the Sonnar worked with variations of the Cooke
Triplet. The f/1/4 Sonnar has seven elements but only six
glass air surfaces. The Zeiss Biotar/TT&H Opic, both based
on the Zeiss Planar of Rudolph, has some fundamental
avantages over the Sonnar for fast lenses, however, at its
simplest it has eight glass air surfaces and much more flare
than the Sonnar. Because lenses of the time were uncoated,
the Sonnar was the superior design. BTW, they must have been
hell to build with many cemented surfaces and steeply curved
surfaces.
One feature of both the Leica and Contax cameras was
their accurate rangefinders. Fast lenses are of little use
if they can't be accurately focused.
A last word on the shutter. If one can achieve the same
end with two mechanisms, one relatively simple, the other
complex, the simpler one is usually considered to be the
superior solution. That, and not build quality, life, or
performance, was the basis for my remarks. The Contax was an
outstanding and astounding piece of machinery. I wonder how
many thousands of dollars it would cost to duplicate one
now.
I am aware of Henry Scherer. His website has some
interesting things to say about the Contax. I gather than he
thinks many of them were never really tuned up to peak at
the factory. He obviously loves these cameras.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
