[rollei_list] Re: "different types of black boxes"
- From: David Seifert <dseifert@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 07:59:27 -0700
From all I have heard and read the post war Contax IIa and IIIa bodies
are probably the most finely assembled cameras ever built up to that
date. Fit and finish are absolutely first class. The only criticism I
have ever heard is that the chrome plating is "soft". Absolutely every
detail is exquisite, down to the knurling on the film advance and rewind
knobs. Things of great beauty!
David
Allen Zak wrote:
>In c. 1954 I attended a slide illustrated lecture by Walter Benser, of
>Leica fame, who was then hawking Contax. He made a convincing case for
>the IIA/IIIA system, but on further investigation I found a widespread
>opinion that the camera was not as well made as pre-war versions. It
>was enough to turn me away from the marque, and just as well as things
>worked out. But I always wondered if there were substance to the
>notion. Does anyone know the truth of the matter?
>
>Allen Zak
>
>On Apr 4, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Bob Shell wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Monday, April 4, 2005, at 08:58 AM, Nick Roberts wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I understand because of the reformulated (aluminium
>>>instead of brass) shutter, that is thicker, and fouls
>>>the rear element (or rather vice-versa).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Correct. The shutter on the postwar Contax cameras is quite different
>>from the prewar ones. It uses aluminum instead of brass, and cords
>>instead of the silk tapes. There are differences in the gearing as
>>well.
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>
>>
Other related posts:
