[rollei_list] Re: "different types of black boxes" (was: OT / prove it !)
- From: Nick Roberts <nickbroberts@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 09:34:29 +0100 (BST)
--- Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
But the Contax and Leica shutters did NOT have equal
performance. The Contax shutter was capable of 1/1250
- the first FP Leica shutter managed 1/500, I think.
It is generally accepted that Leica lenses were
inferior to Zeiss until the mid-50s introduction of
rare earth glasses. In my personal experience, the
Jupiter 12 Biogon copy is every bit as good - and
faster - than my 35mm f3.5 Summaron - and that's a
pre-war design, manufactured under lower QC
conditions, against a 50's design. Mind you, the
Summaron is beautifully compact, and the Jupiter
doesn't fit on the Contax IIIa.
Nick
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
