View Full Version : Is the Zeiss Ikon still coming?
Any new gossip on the specs, build quality? Is it being held up by Zeiss wanting improved quality for something thats going the bare their name?
Daniel.
I was at Yodobashi Camera's Tokyo main store around mid July. The guy there said "August" for first availability - and nodded very reassuringly. They had the 25, the 35 and the 50 on the shelf - I took a few shots with the 35 on my Bessa R2A. The lens felt fantastic in my hands. If the camera is of an equal quality grade, then it's going to be a no-brainer for me: I will fork out the money and get the camera and the 35.
At Yodobashi's book shelf, I found a publication entirely dedicated to the Zeiss Ikon and the new lenses. Great lens comparisons with whole raft of peers. Nice pictures of the Zeiss Ikon, with comparisons of details with Leica, Hexar and Bessa. I didn't buy the mag for it was all in Katakana, but if anyone is interested: Here's the hyperlink (http://opendoors.asahi.com/data/detail/6804.shtml)
BTW, you may want to check out Cosina's web home, where there is sort of an animated pic series of the Zeiss Ikon, but that may have been there for a while already. Hyperlink (http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/ikon/z-4.html).
So I guess the Zeiss Ikon is coming, and from all what I've seen so far, I believe it will be a significant upgrade to the Bessas. Proof of the pudding though ... will be the shooting, of course. Patience, grasshopper, patience !
Regards, Gerold
Gerold: Thanks for your input, and especially for the second link. I noted a small button on the back of the camera, below the hot shoe and just above the camera back. Do you or anyone know what that is?
Trius
yes, it's the AE lock. I'm just not sure how one is supposed to use it. With the nose perhaps ?
It is in the same place as the R2a and R3a. I found it to be relatively convenient to use with my thumb, though my nose would work too.
I took my M6 + lux back to the dealer today. The Leica wasnt "all that" and the meter was unreliable (my specific camera obviously had a fault), and the lens flared on occasion during the day. So Im wondering if I go back to Nikkor or have a go with Zeiss.
At least the lenses are affordable. A new ASPH 35mm summilux was going to cost me US$3650 here, plus anothrer US$3400 for a new MP to go with it.
I might still do this, but I've decided to cool off for a few months and think. That really is alot of money for a camera from a company whos bankrupt, with no idea whether
1) a digital solution will arrive.
2) it is feasible for it to be as high quality as other systems given the film plane/lens distance.
For the same money I could get a Zess Ikon, 35mm f/2, 15mm & 85mm lenses.
To be honest, the main difference I saw with having the Leica over my Nikons was the 35mm f/1.4 as opposed to a 50mm f/1.4. The success rate was actually a bit worse than my cheapo F65 nikon film camera, and the M6 is bigger too!
Daniel.
Nikon Bob
07-26-2005, 09:38
Well, now you know the truth about the difference in systems. If you have had better luck with your Nikons, why not use them and they are alot cheaper in the bargin. Right now Zeiss Ikon is vaporware so you may or may not see it but there is no harm in waiting to see as you still have your Nikons to use in the meantime.
Bob
Huck Finn
07-26-2005, 09:40
The Leica wasnt "all that" and the meter was unreliable (my specific camera obviously had a fault), and the lens flared on occasion during the day. So Im wondering if I go back to Nikkor or have a go with Zeiss.
Daniel.
Although Zeiss has come in for some criticism for the price of their lens shades, I read a post the other day by someone who owns a couple of the new Zeiss lenses who stated that they just don't flare - even when he tried to get them to. This is certainly consistent with my experience with the Rollei/Zeiss 40 Sonnar. So I wonder if these shades are even necessary. Perhaps Zeiss priced them as they did because they see them as a specialty item, not needed for general photography. Their T* coatings certainly seem to be the best in the business.
Sorry to hear about your problems with the Leica, Daniel.
Huck
Huck Finn
07-26-2005, 09:44
Any new gossip on the specs, build quality? Is it being held up by Zeiss wanting improved quality for something thats going the bare their name?
Daniel.
"Improved quality" is exactly what Zeiss seems to be indicating on their website. We'll see. Check the "News" section at www.zeissikon.com.
Huck
Huck Finn
07-26-2005, 10:07
I At Yodobashi's book shelf, I found a publication entirely dedicated to the Zeiss Ikon and the new lenses. Great lens comparisons with whole raft of peers. Nice pictures of the Zeiss Ikon, with comparisons of details with Leica, Hexar and Bessa. I didn't buy the mag for it was all in Katakana, but if anyone is interested: Here's the hyperlink (http://opendoors.asahi.com/data/detail/6804.shtml)
Regards, Gerold
Thanks for the links, Gerold.
If anyone is interested, you can get a translation of this page in Gerold's link by googling: asahi "zeiss ikon". Look down the list generated by this search fo the entry that says "open doors." Hit the "translate" button. Unfortunately, you only get access to the main page & not to the article itself. It would be nice to find out if there is some way to access the article because the lens comparisons seem to be extensive as Gerold says - including comparisons with Zeiss Contax G lenses as well as with Leica, CV, & others.
Huck
Hang tight on the Ikon. I have a feeling we will see something from Hasselblad soon. From what I have read, the optics are equal to the comparable Leica's.
i just made an egroup on yahoo for the zeiss ikon, aptly titled 'zeiss ikon'.
Hang tight on the Ikon. I have a feeling we will see something from Hasselblad soon. From what I have read, the optics are equal to the comparable Leica's.
Arrrrrrrgh..
I don't need to lust after anything else!!
All this camera lust is taking away from my standard "Hello Lady!!!" lust :D
Cheers
Dave
That really is alot of money for a camera from a company whos bankrupt, [...]
Leica is not bankrupt.
Right now Zeiss Ikon is vaporware [...]
The Zeiss Ikon is a real product that will be in the shops shortly. And an extremely good one, too. I was fortunate enough to lay eyes and hands on one last week and I would say it's second only to Leica if you're looking for a new film RF right now.
So far from vaporware.
Nikon Bob
07-26-2005, 16:26
iDude
Nice to hear that the bodies are finally going to materialize but until they actually do..... well you know they do not exist. Believe me I would love to see them appear on retail shelves.
Bob
iDude
Nice to hear that the bodies are finally going to materialize but until they actually do..... well you know they do not exist. Believe me I would love to see them appear on retail shelves.
Bob
Same here...
I didn't even know it was in the works until I happened upon RFF.
I would love to take a gander at one in my hands but at the same time.. I don't want to have anyone "rush" to produce that camera only to have it end up being a white elephant.
I just remember how Contax rushed to produce their DSLR.. and that fell flat on its face :(
Dave
Nice to hear that the bodies are finally going to materialize but until they actually do..... well you know they do not exist
Isn' it so very odd that the publishing arm of Asahi Shimbun has dedicated an entire mook (magazine-book) to this vaporware system?
http://opendoors.asahi.com/data/detail/6804.shtml
chuckle ... very odd indeed Mazurka! And not just Asahi Shimbun, there's presumably also a significant amount of Zeiss input going into glossy print like this, and probably also more of Zeiss' marketing input going into other channels... for nothing but ... vapour ware :rolleyes: Mhh??? The Zeiss Ikon will sell well, in solid form, not in vapour form, I'm pretty sure.
Nikon Bob
07-28-2005, 05:23
chuckle ... very odd indeed Mazurka! And not just Asahi Shimbun, there's presumably also a significant amount of Zeiss input going into glossy print like this, and probably also more of Zeiss' marketing input going into other channels... for nothing but ... vapour ware :rolleyes: Mhh??? The Zeiss Ikon will sell well, in solid form, not in vapour form, I'm pretty sure.
I just find it really odd that all this is going on and the body is not yet in the hands of the consumer but the lenses are. Unless they are commercially available in solid form nothing else matters.
Bob
Huck Finn
07-28-2005, 05:28
Well, the lenses aren't vaporware . . . Been around for 6 months. They're the important part of the system & the article spends most of its time on them. It's nice to have the choice available.
c'mon guys let's all wash down a chill pill - it's just a camera after all ! :p
Nikon Bob
07-28-2005, 06:28
c'mon guys let's all wash down a chill pill - it's just a camera after all ! :p
You are right about the chill part. It is too bad that the camera has been hyped for so long now that people feel the need to be defensive of it. Again , I would like to see it in solid form because having more choices is always good. If it turns out anywhere near as good as their M mount lenses then we will have a winner body to match.
Bob
Should be hitting the streets this month (August), correct?
Roger Hicks
08-02-2005, 13:21
Well, I heard from Zeiss today about getting a review camera, plus the new German built lenses -- but I still don't know exactly when...
Cheers,
Roger
It's August, the month the ZI is supposed to be on the shelves. Any updates if is this month or has the release date been put back?
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 08:16
Latest Zeiss offer: review equipment in October, with shipping starting in (the preceding) September.
Cheers,
Roger
From the ZI site:
"However the Zeiss Ikon camera body, originally planned for shipments from late May 2005, is now scheduled for serial deliveries to start in August 2005. Additional time has been allocated to further improve the camera in order to meet highest possible customer expectations. The total time for the deliveries of the Limited Edition starting in August is expected to be four months."
So I expect that anyone here who has the luck of being one of the 1200 souls to get the first run may have to wait up to November and the rest of us sods probably won't see anything until after the first of the year. My guess anyway...
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 10:11
Dear Popeye,
The dates given above are based on e-mail correspondence with the Zeiss department responsible for loaner kit, which I have been promised.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger, will you be allowed to write about the loaner equipment right away once you get it?
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 11:34
Ummmm....
Sort of. But I'll have to reserve a formal test for Shutterbug and in any case I'd be a fool not to because I get paid there and not here...
Cheers,
Roger
Aren’t Ziess relying on Kyocera to make the camera if so given their problems does anybody think we may see the camera at all?
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 11:52
No, not Kyoto Ceramics: Cosina, who are in no trouble at all.
Cheers,
Roger
Off topic but I have been reading your articles in AP I love your stories in rural France I am visiting a friend who lives in Angouleme in October I hope to find the France you describe.
I will be filling my Landrover with as much French goodies as I can fit in it.
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 12:51
Dear Peter,
You can get a staggering quantity of goodies into a LR. LWB or SWB? Check Lidl for VERY drinkable cheap wines. Our standard summer pink (VdP de l'Aude) is 1.39 a litre -- call it a quid -- and good fizz is under 4 euros.
Also consider a whole air-dried ham; canned foie gras (Lidl again); confit de canard...
Eggy foie gras:
Light the oven. Put in it a shallow tray with about 3/4 inch/4cm of water in it (a roasting pan is ideal). This is your bain-marie.
Take a small ramekin, similar in diameter to the foie gras. Butter it. Put half a coffee-spoon to one coffee-spoon of lumpfish caviare in the bottom. Break an egg on top. Top with a slice of foie gras 1/4 to 1/3 inch (6-8mm) thick.
Bake in the ban-marie. This will take 10 to 15 minutes and differs for EVERY oven: we used 12 in Kent, 15 here. You'll need to practice (real hardshio -- Sunday brunch, anyone?) to find the time that suits you best.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger
Mine is a SWB. With only me in it so massive amounts of room for the personal imports.As for LIDL there is a store not eight miles from me and being a Yorkshire Lad I know bargain when I see one I will be there first thing in the morning!
They also do a very good Wheat beer at a reasonable price.I will try the Ham and Foie Gras pretty soon.Thanks for the reciepe.
So back to the Ziess thing.
Bon Soir
Peter
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 13:38
Dear Peter,
No -- Lidl IN FRANCE. They're a German company with branches in many other countries.
What year is the LR?
Cheers,
Roger
Roger,
So the roll is pushed up then I take it, and I guess any of us dopes out here in the wild west will certainly have to wait for '06 I suppose...
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 13:51
Dear Popeye,
Could be. Soon as I know anything, I'll say.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger
Thanks for the info saved me a trip in the morning.My Landrover started life in 86 as a Hardtop I bought it six months ago from a local dealer who restored it to full Defender spec
2.5 tdi, windows ,seats, galvanized steel chasis, new paint job its my pride and joy I am looking forward to my French adventure in it.
Peter, Kyocera made the recent "Contax"-branded cameras, and these cameras' Carl Zeiss lenses were made in a plant they owned. I rather hope that they'll release their arranged use of the Contax name so that it can appropriately appear on the new Zeiss Ikon RF cam produced by Cosina.
It would be a shame to see the Contax name dissapear but in the UK the trade press is full of doom and gloom regarding the future of the Contax name
In what way, Peter? Certainly "doom and gloom" applies to Kyocera's photo products business under any name, including Yashica...
Doug: I mentioned putting the Contax badge on the new ZI, but someone reminded me that the Contax name on an RF would imply the old Contax mount. I agree, and think it should stay at Zeiss-Ikon.
Trius
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 14:47
Dear Peter,
Very nice too! Of course, the only proper LRs are Series, and mine is a 72 SIII which doesn't really count...
Needs a new chassis, too.
Cheers,
Roger
Trius, the old Contax RF has been out of production since before many of us were born, and the name has been recently "obscured" by its application to SLR cameras both 35mm and 645 format, and of course the "semi-RF" Contax G series, which uses an optically triangulated AF system that may technically qualify. Returning the Contax name to a manual (mostly) rangefinder camera again would seem to celebrate the heritage and a nice "retro" move.
And for what it's worth, Zeiss-Ikon produced an early 35mm SLR bearing the Contax name, inventing the popular M42 screw mount at the same time! So which IS the "Contax mount"? :)
RJBender
08-06-2005, 23:29
Trius, the old Contax RF has been out of production since before many of us were born, and the name has been recently "obscured" by its application to SLR cameras both 35mm and 645 format, and of course the "semi-RF" Contax G series, which uses an optically triangulated AF system that may technically qualify. Returning the Contax name to a manual (mostly) rangefinder camera again would seem to celebrate the heritage and a nice "retro" move.
And for what it's worth, Zeiss-Ikon produced an early 35mm SLR bearing the Contax name, inventing the popular M42 screw mount at the same time! So which IS the "Contax mount"? :)
I checked out the Zeiss Ikon website (http://www.zeissikon.com/making.htm). Are these people thinking out loud or trying to sell us a camera?
"Well – the new Zeiss Ikon camera should come with a body that, first of all, enables positive grip with European size male hands. This, to us, is a very important requirement, something which seems to be much less important to many makers of consumer digital cameras and cell phones. "
Question for Zeiss: Which camera should Asian men and European women purchase?
"And the new Zeiss Ikon also should, to a certain extent, resemble the cameras that made the name Zeiss Ikon famous over many decades in camera history."
Question for Zeiss: Which older model inspired the new model?
"It also should be easily differentiated from other current 35 mm rangefinder cameras, which might be placed next to the new Zeiss Ikon camera in a dealer’s shop window or on a catalogue or magazine page."
Question for Zeiss: If the other RF camera brands are also made by Cosina, is there really a big difference in quality?
"Looking at our collection of beautiful and ugly examples from 150 years of camera design history we decided to hand over this challenging task of bringing the new Zeiss Ikon camera in good shape to a proven industrial designer. "
Question for Zeiss: Which camera was the ugliest camera produced by Zeiss Ikon?
"We also considered various alternatives for the Carl Zeiss logo to be incorporated in the product. Although some of us voted for the original blue Carl Zeiss logo, the design professionals convinced us to go with a visually quieter version – silver. "
Question for Zeiss: Why not use the blue logo if name recognition is an important consideration?
"Toward that goal we conducted “focus groups” with photo amateurs as well as professionals. To our surprise, they clearly favored the one of our design alternatives which we considered the most conservative, the one with the least appeal. And then they decisively asked for an all black camera body in addition to the silver/black one!"
Question for Zeiss: Was your design team surprised by the focus groups' request for an all black body?
"Mr. Kobajashi and Dr. Scherle are both passionate photographers and connoisseurs of precision mechanics. True to his passion, Mr. Kobajashi also produces precision-engineered cameras for well-known brands such as Voigtländer."
Question: Doesn't Cosina license the Voigtländer name from Ringfoto?
"We at Carl Zeiss would like to make the Zeiss Ikon camera and the corresponding enthusiasm for photography accessible to as many camera lovers as possible. For this reason, we have to offer the camera and the lens at a reasonable price. This is only possible if we possess the courage to plan large quantities from the beginning, and have the financial resources available to realize such ambitious goals."
Question for Zeiss: How many will be produced?
"At Carl Zeiss there were so many ideas waiting for a chance to be realized, and now one of them is coming true. Find out more about it end of January 2005."
Question for Zeiss: It's August, where are chapters 4 and 5?
I thought KW's Praktica was the first M42 mount camera. Are you referring to the Pentacon Contax SLRs?
I thought KW's Praktica was the first M42 mount camera. Are you referring to the Pentacon Contax SLRs?Hi, RJ... I was thinking of the Contax S of 1948, predecessor of the Pentacon and Praktica, said to be the first 35 SLR with fixed pentaprism. Might be wrong, but I think it was also the originator of the M42 mount. Pentax adopted it about 9 years later and then almost immediately enhanced it for automatic diaphragm actuation.
I checked out the Zeiss Ikon website (http://www.zeissikon.com/making.htm). Are these people thinking out loud or trying to sell us a camera?
"Well – the new Zeiss Ikon camera should come with a body that, first of all, enables positive grip with European size male hands. This, to us, is a very important requirement, something which seems to be much less important to many makers of consumer digital cameras and cell phones. "
Question for Zeiss: Which camera should Asian men and European women purchase?
They're just saying that they think digicams and phonecams are too small.
"And the new Zeiss Ikon also should, to a certain extent, resemble the cameras that made the name Zeiss Ikon famous over many decades in camera history."
Question for Zeiss: Which older model inspired the new model?
Obviously, the Contax II and IIa.
"It also should be easily differentiated from other current 35 mm rangefinder cameras, which might be placed next to the new Zeiss Ikon camera in a dealer’s shop window or on a catalogue or magazine page."
Question for Zeiss: If the other RF camera brands are also made by Cosina, is there really a big difference in quality?
Didn't they say in one of these stories that the only part common to the Zeiss Ikon and Voigtlander cameras is the shutter? How big a difference in quality, that's up to Carl Zeiss.
"We also considered various alternatives for the Carl Zeiss logo to be incorporated in the product. Although some of us voted for the original blue Carl Zeiss logo, the design professionals convinced us to go with a visually quieter version – silver. "
Question for Zeiss: Why not use the blue logo if name recognition is an important consideration?
Because it's not as important as discreetness. Leicaphiles cover up the Red Dot.
"Toward that goal we conducted “focus groups” with photo amateurs as well as professionals. To our surprise, they clearly favored the one of our design alternatives which we considered the most conservative, the one with the least appeal. And then they decisively asked for an all black camera body in addition to the silver/black one!"
Question for Zeiss: Was your design team surprised by the focus groups' request for an all black body?
They don't say so, but I doubt it. The focus is supposed to be on responsiveness to our desires.
"We at Carl Zeiss would like to make the Zeiss Ikon camera and the corresponding enthusiasm for photography accessible to as many camera lovers as possible. For this reason, we have to offer the camera and the lens at a reasonable price. This is only possible if we possess the courage to plan large quantities from the beginning, and have the financial resources available to realize such ambitious goals."
Question for Zeiss: How many will be produced?
Limited edition chrome, 1200. Never said how many normal production black units.
edit: 2500.
Trius, the old Contax RF has been out of production since before many of us were born, and the name has been recently "obscured" by its application to SLR cameras both 35mm and 645 format, and of course the "semi-RF" Contax G series, which uses an optically triangulated AF system that may technically qualify. Returning the Contax name to a manual (mostly) rangefinder camera again would seem to celebrate the heritage and a nice "retro" move.
And for what it's worth, Zeiss-Ikon produced an early 35mm SLR bearing the Contax name, inventing the popular M42 screw mount at the same time! So which IS the "Contax mount"? :)
Doug: I'm well aware of that. The Contax RF was still in production when I was born, BTW. I was just stating a thought that others have stated as well. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter that much. As for the Contax SLR and M42 screw mount goes, well.... it was an SLR, it's a very good bet the mounts wouldn't be the same! But this is, after all, a new RF.
Whatever, I just hope it's succesful.
Trius
RJBender
08-07-2005, 08:39
Obviously, the Contax II and IIa.
Sorry, I don't see much of a resemblance to the Contax II and IIa except for the vertical lines on each side of the lens mount. The self timer lever is on the opposite side of the lens. The front surface is flat, lacking those cool beveled edges around the viewfinder glass. The controls at the top are recessed on the new model. Hey, where's the film rewind knob (http://www.zeissikon.com/images/result.jpg)? :eek:
If you're looking for a retro that resembles a Contax II, you need to look at the Nikon S3 2000 (http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/filmcamera/rangefinder/s3_2000/index.htm). :bang:
Are these new UltraPrime™ lenses going to be produced with a Leica compatible M mount? If so, do you think Leica users are going to buy the Zeiss lenses?
RJBender
08-07-2005, 09:23
Cosina has more information on their website (http://www.cosina.co.jp/z.html). The 15mm Distagon and 85mm Sonnar are made in Germany. The 21, 25, 28, 35 and 50mm lenses are made in Japan.
They are Leica M mount lenses. There are some interesting posts on the Leica forum. (http://www.leica-camera.com/cgi-bin/discus_e/discus.pl?pg=prev&topic=2&page=96524)
aside from the lens mount plate, there are the two bumps on the bottom for rewind and tripod socket. that's enough to resemble the old contaxes. and the nikon s3 2000 wasn't really a retro camera because it isn't a contemporary design. it was designed circa 1958.
the ultraprimes are for movie cameras, so they won't be made in m-mount.
Huck Finn
08-07-2005, 23:47
The self timer lever is on the opposite side of the lens.
Are these new UltraPrime™ lenses going to be produced with a Leica compatible M mount? If so, do you think Leica users are going to buy the Zeiss lenses?
It's not a self-timer lever. It is a frame selection lever. There is no self-timer on this camera.
The lenses are produced only in M-mount. Some Leica users will buy the lenses, some won't, & some already have.
Huck
Is the initial batch of 1200 or so sold out?
Yes, on the web site you can read "The first Limited Series cameras are already fully reserved. Customer demand has greatly exceeded the limited supply. But a Limited Series has, of course, to be – limited."
/Håkan
RJBender
08-08-2005, 11:19
aside from the lens mount plate, there are the two bumps on the bottom for rewind and tripod socket. that's enough to resemble the old contaxes. and the nikon s3 2000 wasn't really a retro camera because it isn't a contemporary design. it was designed circa 1958.
The Nikon S3 2000 was manufactured in 2000 to resemble the original S3. Cameraquest calls it a "classic retro style rangefinder " HERE (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Eg4AkrmCmz4J:www.cameraquest.com/NRFS3%25202000.htm+%22nikon+s3+2000%22+retro&hl=en) on their website.
(RETRO (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=retro): “A fashion, decor, design, or style reminiscent of things past".)
The nIKON S was a clone of the Contax rangefinder camera. There is an interesting article HERE (http://www.dragonsgate.net/mbell/leica/thievery.htm) by the author of the Zeiss Ikon Compendium.
save for a few details, it's a replica, which is quite a bit more than a mere resemblance or reminiscence. it's a thing of the past made today! very classy move on nikon's part.
RJBender
08-08-2005, 11:36
the ultraprimes are for movie cameras, so they won't be made in m-mount.
I read the hype on the website again:
"Chapter II: The Partner for our Ideal Camera
We at Zeiss are enthusiastic photographers. Demanding optics for photogrammetric, cine lenses for movie production, lenses for exploring the universe, optical measurement equipment, etc. – in all our daily technical developments and advances, we are always thinking of ways to make the technical highlights of these systems useful for photography.
Primarily, we wanted to provide photographers with the strengths of our UltraPrime™ for ARRI. The extremely high image definition enables pictures so crisp they can be displayed at the size of a movie screen without a loss of detail. Thanks to the long-lasting design, they can be used forever and anywhere – in the burning heat as well as the icy cold; in humid rain forests and in the desert – they will be with you for decades. The UltraPrime™ lenses enable intense, pure colors in the picture without annoying reflections and without fog. However, none of our camera manufacturers had a suitable camera in their product lines. And we alone would not have been able to develop and produce such a camera within such a short time. A solution to this dilemma presented itself at photokina 2002."
Zeiss Ikon wants to give us the STRENGTHS of their UltraPrime™lenses, not the actual UltraPrime™ lenses themselves. That's very clever!
<<The nIKON S was a clone of the Contax rangefinder camera. There is an interesting article HERE by the author of the Zeiss Ikon Compendium.>>
The article in question has some serious inaccuracies. The earliest Nikon cameras were quite different from the Contax. They used a Leica-inspired shutter, but it was much louder and so wasn't a direct knock-off. Their viewfinders were different from both the Leica and Contax. Their internal workings were quite different -- I taken apart both Nikons and the Kiev rangefinder, which is made with Zeiss-Contax tooling. Canon copied the Leica mount (as did numerous other camera makers) while Nikon copied the Contax mount. The article suggests that photojournalists covering the Korean war were entranced by $10 lenses and so convinced their editors that these were better than German originals selling for hundreds of dollars. A few problems here: 1) These correspondents had mainly covered World War II five years earlier using exclusively German lenses -- they knew their equipment; they already owned the German lenses and were trading them for the NIkkors; 2) Most people getting paid for cutting-edge imaging use the best possible equipment they can find, not only is money not an issue, but typically a professional photographer isn't even paying for his or her equipment; 3) The German lensesm both prewar and postwar were also readily available at very usable prices due to the simultaneous occupation of Germany -- the United States was awash with German cameras.
The article also calls the lenses in question exact copies of German designs. That's simply not accurate. The Nikkor 5cm f/1.4, introduced in 1950, is based on a Zeiss 5cm f/1.5 but is faster and with an entirely different construction. I own and use both lenses and the Nikkor is simply faster and sharper. The Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5 has no German equivalent and is a totally different design from the Biogon. The Nikkor 8.5cm f/2 is perhaps most like the Zeiss equivalent, but then, this is the lens that first caught the eye of those American photojournalists. Within five years of introducing serious consumer and professional-level cameras, the Japanese companies were making a myriad of distinct designs with no German equivalents. The Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8; the 50mm f/1.1; the legendary 105mm f/2.5.
The truth is that Zeiss/Contax made a phenomal camera in the 1930s, had its staff and workshop gutted after World War II, rebounded nicely, but never really recovered from or matched the increased usability of the Leica M3, the Nikon S2 and later models as well as the later Canon L-series rangefindersm, which had a dizzying number of innovations and product models.
VinceC
RJBender
08-14-2005, 12:11
<<The nIKON S was a clone of the Contax rangefinder camera. There is an interesting article HERE by the author of the Zeiss Ikon Compendium.>>
The article in question has some serious inaccuracies. The earliest Nikon cameras were quite different from the Contax. They used a Leica-inspired shutter, but it was much louder and so wasn't a direct knock-off. Their viewfinders were different from both the Leica and Contax. Their internal workings were quite different -- I taken apart both Nikons and the Kiev rangefinder, which is made with Zeiss-Contax tooling. Canon copied the Leica mount (as did numerous other camera makers) while Nikon copied the Contax mount. The article suggests that photojournalists covering the Korean war were entranced by $10 lenses and so convinced their editors that these were better than German originals selling for hundreds of dollars. A few problems here: 1) These correspondents had mainly covered World War II five years earlier using exclusively German lenses -- they knew their equipment; they already owned the German lenses and were trading them for the NIkkors; 2) Most people getting paid for cutting-edge imaging use the best possible equipment they can find, not only is money not an issue, but typically a professional photographer isn't even paying for his or her equipment; 3) The German lensesm both prewar and postwar were also readily available at very usable prices due to the simultaneous occupation of Germany -- the United States was awash with German cameras.
The article also calls the lenses in question exact copies of German designs. That's simply not accurate. The Nikkor 5cm f/1.4, introduced in 1950, is based on a Zeiss 5cm f/1.5 but is faster and with an entirely different construction. I own and use both lenses and the Nikkor is simply faster and sharper. The Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5 has no German equivalent and is a totally different design from the Biogon. The Nikkor 8.5cm f/2 is perhaps most like the Zeiss equivalent, but then, this is the lens that first caught the eye of those American photojournalists. Within five years of introducing serious consumer and professional-level cameras, the Japanese companies were making a myriad of distinct designs with no German equivalents. The Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8; the 50mm f/1.1; the legendary 105mm f/2.5.
The truth is that Zeiss/Contax made a phenomal camera in the 1930s, had its staff and workshop gutted after World War II, rebounded nicely, but never really recovered from or matched the increased usability of the Leica M3, the Nikon S2 and later models as well as the later Canon L-series rangefindersm, which had a dizzying number of innovations and product models.
VinceC
Marc James Small is a Virginia attorney and the author of the Zeiss Ikon Compendium. You could be 100% correct. :confused:
1) The Contax and Nikon bayonet mounts are almost identical. Some Contax lenses fit on the Nikon S and some don't.
2) The nIKON name: "In fact, the name 'Nikon' was once a legal claim from Zeiss Ikon that it is not supposed to be used on camera bodies, so the name 'Nikkor' was used instead for some of the Nikon's products in some countries in Europe during those early years." SOURCE (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikkormat/)
3) The overall appearance of the bodies are very similar.
4) Similar backs with double locks.
5) Similar focusing wheels.
6) Similar rangefinder designs.
>>1) The Contax and Nikon bayonet mounts are almost identical. Some Contax lenses fit on the Nikon S and some don't.
2) The nIKON name: "In fact, the name 'Nikon' was once a legal claim from Zeiss Ikon that it is not supposed to be used on camera bodies, so the name 'Nikkor' was used instead for some of the Nikon's products in some countries in Europe during those early years." SOURCE
3) The overall appearance of the bodies are very similar.
4) Similar backs with double locks.
5) Similar focusing wheels.
6) Similar rangefinder designs.<<
I think the operative words here are "similar" -- the Nikon I very simply isn't a copy of the Contax, though it clearly is inspired by the Contax and sought to emulate its "look" just as, say, today's CV Bessas try to emulate a certain Leica "look" that is associated with quality. In fact, the Nikon I had some real ideosyncracies like a "better idea" for the shape of the negative that was eventually rejected by U.S. import authorities because it wasn't campatible with Kodacromes. In the copying of the lens mount, don't forget that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There are differences of opinion on whether Nippon Kogaku (NiKon) botched their copy of the Contax mount or did it on purpose so that only their own longer lenses would fit on their cameras.
I wasn't around during the Zeiss-Nikon wars of the early '50s, but it's a battle that has long since been decided by the marketplace. Apparently, Zeiss contended that their 20-year-old camera and 5cm lens had been copied and cried foul. Within months, Nikon so advanced and improved the design that there was nothing to dispute. Nikon and Kwanon/Canon then began producing a wide array of new lens products and bodies (Canon has a dizzying number of cameras that start as copies of screwmount Leicas and continuously improve the design). By the end of the 1950s, Nikon put a mirror box and new lens mount on their latest SP rangefinder to create the Nikon F and unintentionally created the SLR revolution (not the first SLR, but the first really useable one that remained in shooter's kit bags for decades). Leica's screwmount cameras and lenses were very, very widely copied. Leica's response was to create the M-series, a design so usable it would dominate rangefinder cameras for half a century. Zeiss kept making a refined 1930s camera while Nippon Kogaku and Kwanon/Canon kept up a fairly relentless campaign of product improvement known as Kaizan -- the philosophy of constant refinement of the product and process. A nearly identical war took place between Detroit and Tokyo in the 1970s and '80s, with comparable cries of 'foul' and a similar outcome in the automobile marketplace. I, like a whole lot of other people, used to drive a Chevy and now drive a Toyota, not because it's a good copy of the Chevy but because it's a vast improvement.
Also, Stephen Gandy's site has a nice overview of the Nikon I.
http://www.cameraquest.com/NRFOne.htm
He describes it as a cross between a Contax II and a Leica III.
It's important to remember when looking back into history that decision-makers at the time had little idea what the future would hold. Nippon Kogaku made optics for an outlawed military industrial complex and was desperately searching for a way to stay in business and took a stab at consumer cameras because the only people in Japan with money at the time were American military personnel, and they all wanted to buy a camera. That's way so many old Nikons have an "EP" marking, designating them for sale in a military exchange.
I agree w/you that Small overstates his case in that article, but he has responded to some of your points in other fora, so for the record: 1) the problem wasn't that there weren't any German lenses available, just that in the early '50s there was still a shortage of the then-high tech *coated* German (particularly Zeiss) glass, which made them expensive; 2) unlike today, many photojournalists back then were expected to furnish their own equipment; 3) see #1. Again, I think he overstates it when he says the Japanese "stole" the German technology (& Small acknowledges that it was all w/the approval of the American Occupation authority, which wanted to speed the revival of Japanese industry), but there's no question that many, if not all, of the early post-WWII Japanese cameras & lenses were closely based on German technology. Nor does Small, or anyone else, dispute the fact that the Japanese rapidly improved their product to the point where they left the Germans, especially the lethargic & perfectionist Zeiss Ikon, in the dust. I say, if the Carl Zeiss Foundation doesn't have a problem having the new Zeiss Ikon camera & (most) lenses made in Japan, as they did w/the Kyocera Contax stuff, who am I to complain? ;-)
As to the 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S being faster & sharper than the post-WWII 50/1.5 Sonnar, that hasn't been my experience @ all. I've never taken the lenses apart, but the diagrams I've seen look pretty darn close. Faster? Probably, in a technical sense (how much of a difference is there between f/1.4 v. f/1.5?), but I can't see it in my slides & negs, even when scanned @ 4800 dpi or viewed through a grain focuser. Re: sharpness again I can't say I've seen any difference either; in my field use, they perform the same to the extent that they have identical boke & flare. Perhaps someone w/the abundance of free time & access to multiple lens samples & perfectly collimated bodies could do a lab test to answer things once & for all!
<<The nIKON S was a clone of the Contax rangefinder camera. There is an interesting article HERE by the author of the Zeiss Ikon Compendium.>>
The article in question has some serious inaccuracies. The earliest Nikon cameras were quite different from the Contax. They used a Leica-inspired shutter, but it was much louder and so wasn't a direct knock-off. Their viewfinders were different from both the Leica and Contax. Their internal workings were quite different -- I taken apart both Nikons and the Kiev rangefinder, which is made with Zeiss-Contax tooling. Canon copied the Leica mount (as did numerous other camera makers) while Nikon copied the Contax mount. The article suggests that photojournalists covering the Korean war were entranced by $10 lenses and so convinced their editors that these were better than German originals selling for hundreds of dollars. A few problems here: 1) These correspondents had mainly covered World War II five years earlier using exclusively German lenses -- they knew their equipment; they already owned the German lenses and were trading them for the NIkkors; 2) Most people getting paid for cutting-edge imaging use the best possible equipment they can find, not only is money not an issue, but typically a professional photographer isn't even paying for his or her equipment; 3) The German lensesm both prewar and postwar were also readily available at very usable prices due to the simultaneous occupation of Germany -- the United States was awash with German cameras.
The article also calls the lenses in question exact copies of German designs. That's simply not accurate. The Nikkor 5cm f/1.4, introduced in 1950, is based on a Zeiss 5cm f/1.5 but is faster and with an entirely different construction. I own and use both lenses and the Nikkor is simply faster and sharper. The Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5 has no German equivalent and is a totally different design from the Biogon. The Nikkor 8.5cm f/2 is perhaps most like the Zeiss equivalent, but then, this is the lens that first caught the eye of those American photojournalists. Within five years of introducing serious consumer and professional-level cameras, the Japanese companies were making a myriad of distinct designs with no German equivalents. The Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8; the 50mm f/1.1; the legendary 105mm f/2.5.
The truth is that Zeiss/Contax made a phenomal camera in the 1930s, had its staff and workshop gutted after World War II, rebounded nicely, but never really recovered from or matched the increased usability of the Leica M3, the Nikon S2 and later models as well as the later Canon L-series rangefindersm, which had a dizzying number of innovations and product models.
VinceC
Hey, considering what cine lenses cost (makes Leica stuff look dirt cheap), I'll be happy w/glass that has just some of the UltraPrime tech.
I read the hype on the website again:
"Chapter II: The Partner for our Ideal Camera
We at Zeiss are enthusiastic photographers. Demanding optics for photogrammetric, cine lenses for movie production, lenses for exploring the universe, optical measurement equipment, etc. – in all our daily technical developments and advances, we are always thinking of ways to make the technical highlights of these systems useful for photography.
Primarily, we wanted to provide photographers with the strengths of our UltraPrime™ for ARRI. The extremely high image definition enables pictures so crisp they can be displayed at the size of a movie screen without a loss of detail. Thanks to the long-lasting design, they can be used forever and anywhere – in the burning heat as well as the icy cold; in humid rain forests and in the desert – they will be with you for decades. The UltraPrime™ lenses enable intense, pure colors in the picture without annoying reflections and without fog. However, none of our camera manufacturers had a suitable camera in their product lines. And we alone would not have been able to develop and produce such a camera within such a short time. A solution to this dilemma presented itself at photokina 2002."
Zeiss Ikon wants to give us the STRENGTHS of their UltraPrime™lenses, not the actual UltraPrime™ lenses themselves. That's very clever!
Thanks for helping to clear some of that up. I've always suspected I have a less-than-perfect example of the 5cm Sonnar, because both of my 5cm 1.4 Nikkors are noticeably sharper at or near wide-open aperatures. I've always found the bokeh of the Sonnar to be gorgeous, stunning even, while the Nikkors have very unpleasant doubling of out-of-focus highlights and a very busy blur pattern, especially in the middle aperatures. For that reason, I much prefer the Sonnar for color-slide work, though I seldom do that any more. I perhaps over-reacted, but the article had some pretty strong statements about Nikons being exact copies of Zeiss, which was simply untrue.
RJBender
08-15-2005, 17:38
Hey, considering what cine lenses cost (makes Leica stuff look dirt cheap), I'll be happy w/glass that has just some of the UltraPrime tech.
Ok, I can see the hype went straight to your head. :p
I PRAY that Roger Hicks asks ZI how much of their UltraPrime technology went into these lenses.
R.J.
Hey, for all I know, I could have some turkey Nikkors! As far as boke, I think a lot of variables go into that (e.g., type of background, distance from subject to background, etc.) so that it's hard to compare lenses without a direct 1-to-1 test (i.e., on the same body, under the same conditions, which I'll have to try to do some time). My only point is that I haven't seen enough difference between the Nikkor-S & the Sonnars that jump off a print or light-table or anything, but YMMV. I agree w/you that Nippon Kogaku didn't just make exact copies of the Zeiss designs. Why would they? After all, 1 of the advantages of being the latecomer is that you can break new ground & improve things.
Thanks for helping to clear some of that up. I've always suspected I have a less-than-perfect example of the 5cm Sonnar, because both of my 5cm 1.4 Nikkors are noticeably sharper at or near wide-open aperatures. I've always found the bokeh of the Sonnar to be gorgeous, stunning even, while the Nikkors have very unpleasant doubling of out-of-focus highlights and a very busy blur pattern, especially in the middle aperatures. For that reason, I much prefer the Sonnar for color-slide work, though I seldom do that any more. I perhaps over-reacted, but the article had some pretty strong statements about Nikons being exact copies of Zeiss, which was simply untrue.
How can I not buy into the hype? It's UltraPrime, damnit . . . not just prime, but Ultraprime!! :p
But seriously, my guess is that the only thing that they'll port over from the UltraPrime stuff is something relatively minor, like some new & improved coating materials.
Ok, I can see the hype went straight to your head. :p
I PRAY that Roger Hicks asks ZI how much of their UltraPrime technology went into these lenses.
R.J.
RJBender
08-15-2005, 18:16
>>1) The Contax and Nikon bayonet mounts are almost identical. Some Contax lenses fit on the Nikon S and some don't.
2) The nIKON name: "In fact, the name 'Nikon' was once a legal claim from Zeiss Ikon that it is not supposed to be used on camera bodies, so the name 'Nikkor' was used instead for some of the Nikon's products in some countries in Europe during those early years." SOURCE
3) The overall appearance of the bodies are very similar.
4) Similar backs with double locks.
5) Similar focusing wheels.
6) Similar rangefinder designs.<<
I think the operative words here are "similar" -- the Nikon I very simply isn't a copy of the Contax, though it clearly is inspired by the Contax and sought to emulate its "look" just as, say, today's CV Bessas try to emulate a certain Leica "look" that is associated with quality. In fact, the Nikon I had some real ideosyncracies like a "better idea" for the shape of the negative that was eventually rejected by U.S. import authorities because it wasn't campatible with Kodacromes. In the copying of the lens mount, don't forget that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There are differences of opinion on whether Nippon Kogaku (NiKon) botched their copy of the Contax mount or did it on purpose so that only their own longer lenses would fit on their cameras.
I wasn't around during the Zeiss-Nikon wars of the early '50s, but it's a battle that has long since been decided by the marketplace. Apparently, Zeiss contended that their 20-year-old camera and 5cm lens had been copied and cried foul. Within months, Nikon so advanced and improved the design that there was nothing to dispute. Nikon and Kwanon/Canon then began producing a wide array of new lens products and bodies (Canon has a dizzying number of cameras that start as copies of screwmount Leicas and continuously improve the design). By the end of the 1950s, Nikon put a mirror box and new lens mount on their latest SP rangefinder to create the Nikon F and unintentionally created the SLR revolution (not the first SLR, but the first really useable one that remained in shooter's kit bags for decades). Leica's screwmount cameras and lenses were very, very widely copied. Leica's response was to create the M-series, a design so usable it would dominate rangefinder cameras for half a century. Zeiss kept making a refined 1930s camera while Nippon Kogaku and Kwanon/Canon kept up a fairly relentless campaign of product improvement known as Kaizan -- the philosophy of constant refinement of the product and process. A nearly identical war took place between Detroit and Tokyo in the 1970s and '80s, with comparable cries of 'foul' and a similar outcome in the automobile marketplace. I, like a whole lot of other people, used to drive a Chevy and now drive a Toyota, not because it's a good copy of the Chevy but because it's a vast improvement.
Well Vince, was ZI flattered?
Some Chevy and Toyota models are made at the same plant in Freemont, CA.
Don't you agree that the Nikon S3 2000 resembles the Contax II more than the new model from ZI?
R.J.
>>Some Chevy and Toyota models are made at the same plant in Freemont, CA.
Don't you agree that the Nikon S3 2000 resembles the Contax II more than the new model from ZI?<<
It's interesting that Geo Prizms sell for less than the identical Corollas on the new and used market. Shows what's in a name.
The S3 2000 is an exact replica of the 1958 camera, so it would make sense for it to have the older look. The new Zeiss Ikon has the benefit of 50-odd years of camera development to borrow from. And as far as flattery, take a look at the new ZI's viewfinder. The first time I saw a picture of it, I immediately thought "that looks like a Nikon S3 finder!" Big, big, big for showing spacious views of the world.
Whatever happened half a century ago, it's been my experience that classic Contax users and Nikon RF users (and Kiev folks, too) have a lot of respect for each others' cameras. They're all in an slightly eccentric orbit that got eclipsed by the Leica M-mount world and the SLR juggernaut.
Gabriel M.A.
08-15-2005, 20:04
>> Is the Zeiss Ikon still coming? <<
I don't know, is it Tantric?
darkkavenger
08-16-2005, 12:59
Does anyone has a clue of what will be the price of the Zeiss Ikon with its 50mm lens ?
Thanks :D
max
Huck Finn
08-16-2005, 15:03
From standard retail outlets, the price is $2442 for body & 50/2 lens. Expect to pay less at grey market outlets like www.popflash.com & www.cameraquest.com. The 50/2 lens is selling for $600 at these outlets but the price of the body has not yet been announced. Expect the combination of the two to be less than $2000.
Huck
vincentbenoit
08-16-2005, 15:16
Does anyone has a clue of what will be the price of the Zeiss Ikon with its 50mm lens ?
Thanks :D
max
Check this out:
http://shphoto.de/cgi-bin/shphotou.pl?f=GRUPPE&start=1&dif=50&c=Zeiss-+Ikon+New+Rangefinder+System+with+Leica-M+mount&t=temgroup
darkkavenger
08-17-2005, 03:33
Thank you :D I can start discussing with my banker ;)
RJBender
01-17-2006, 19:15
>>1) The Contax and Nikon bayonet mounts are almost identical. Some Contax lenses fit on the Nikon S and some don't.
2) The nIKON name: "In fact, the name 'Nikon' was once a legal claim from Zeiss Ikon that it is not supposed to be used on camera bodies, so the name 'Nikkor' was used instead for some of the Nikon's products in some countries in Europe during those early years." SOURCE
3) The overall appearance of the bodies are very similar.
4) Similar backs with double locks.
5) Similar focusing wheels.
6) Similar rangefinder designs.<<
I think the operative words here are "similar" -- the Nikon I very simply isn't a copy of the Contax, though it clearly is inspired by the Contax and sought to emulate its "look" just as, say, today's CV Bessas try to emulate a certain Leica "look" that is associated with quality. In fact, the Nikon I had some real ideosyncracies like a "better idea" for the shape of the negative that was eventually rejected by U.S. import authorities because it wasn't campatible with Kodacromes. In the copying of the lens mount, don't forget that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There are differences of opinion on whether Nippon Kogaku (NiKon) botched their copy of the Contax mount or did it on purpose so that only their own longer lenses would fit on their cameras.
I wasn't around during the Zeiss-Nikon wars of the early '50s, but it's a battle that has long since been decided by the marketplace. Apparently, Zeiss contended that their 20-year-old camera and 5cm lens had been copied and cried foul. Within months, Nikon so advanced and improved the design that there was nothing to dispute. Nikon and Kwanon/Canon then began producing a wide array of new lens products and bodies (Canon has a dizzying number of cameras that start as copies of screwmount Leicas and continuously improve the design). By the end of the 1950s, Nikon put a mirror box and new lens mount on their latest SP rangefinder to create the Nikon F and unintentionally created the SLR revolution (not the first SLR, but the first really useable one that remained in shooter's kit bags for decades). Leica's screwmount cameras and lenses were very, very widely copied. Leica's response was to create the M-series, a design so usable it would dominate rangefinder cameras for half a century. Zeiss kept making a refined 1930s camera while Nippon Kogaku and Kwanon/Canon kept up a fairly relentless campaign of product improvement known as Kaizan -- the philosophy of constant refinement of the product and process. A nearly identical war took place between Detroit and Tokyo in the 1970s and '80s, with comparable cries of 'foul' and a similar outcome in the automobile marketplace. I, like a whole lot of other people, used to drive a Chevy and now drive a Toyota, not because it's a good copy of the Chevy but because it's a vast improvement.
Hey Vince,
Check this out:
CLN: And why did Zeiss decide on the Nikon F mount?
Dr. Scherle: We had three main reasons:
1) Nikon has, for half a century, earned a great reputation with professional photographers. They began with copies of Zeiss Ikon Contax rangefinder cameras right after the World War II. In the 1960's they introduced their famous Nikon F SLR and with this legendary camera and its successors Nikon established the standard for professional 35 mm SLR's worldwide.
source: http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/5abd5bc6297eb165c12570f900407e35
R.J.
yossarian
01-17-2006, 20:55
2007 will mark the 75th anniversary of the Contax name. It'll be a real shame if no camera bearing that marque is around for the commemoration.
BTW, as for Ultra Primes, the differences are not so much optical as mechanical. There is a more "linear" spacing of marked focusing distances so that some focus can be done by feel if need be and always result in the same degree of focus change, unlike our still lenses, which move 5mm between 10 meters and infinity and 5mm
between 1 meter and 1.5 meters (I hope I'm explaining this clearly).
RJBender
01-17-2006, 21:10
2007 will mark the 75th anniversary of the Contax name. It'll be a real shame if no camera bearing that marque is around for the commemoration.
BTW, as for Ultra Primes, the differences are not so much optical as mechanical. There is a more "linear" spacing of marked focusing distances so that some focus can be done by feel if need be and always result in the same degree of focus change, unlike our still lenses, which move 5mm between 10 meters and infinity and 5mm
between 1 meter and 1.5 meters (I hope I'm explaining this clearly).
From the same website:
They will recognize that ZF lenses come with much larger rotation angles for the focus rings, like the cinematography lenses we make for Hollywood. This means that focusing can be performed much more accurately than with designs optimized for photojournalistic work.
source: http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/5abd5bc6297eb165c12570f900407e35
R.J.
RJBender
01-18-2006, 03:31
2007 will mark the 75th anniversary of the Contax name. It'll be a real shame if no camera bearing that marque is around for the commemoration.
Wouldn't it be cool if Zeiss had the Ukranians produce a pre-war style Contax? :D Zeiss could have their QA people there to supervise the operation.
R.J.
2007 will mark the 75th anniversary of the Contax name. It'll be a real shame if no camera bearing that marque is around for the commemoration.
There were no Contax cameras on their 30th and 40th anniversary either.
Wouldn't it be cool if Zeiss had the Ukranians produce a pre-war style Contax? :D Zeiss could have their QA people there to supervise the operation.Ukranians making prewar Contaxes? Unthinkable!:D Actually, I bet they DID have the transplanted Zeiss QA people on hand, hopelessly overruled as the commissars set production quantity quotas without regard to quality...
Gabriel M.A.
01-18-2006, 20:19
2007 will mark the 75th anniversary of the Contax name. It'll be a real shame if no camera bearing that marque is around for the commemoration.
Are Contax cameras disappearing? Should I hide mine away? :eek:
Wouldn't it be cool if Zeiss had the Ukranians produce a pre-war style Contax? Zeiss could have their QA people there to supervise the operationThat would be a case-study of "water under the bridge". But hey, right now playing roulette at $30 each body is somewhat fun, dontchathink? Why change it?
RJBender
01-19-2006, 06:41
That would be a case-study of "water under the bridge". But hey, right now playing roulette at $30 each body is somewhat fun, dontchathink? Why change it?
Right, instead of buying one camera for $1500, you can buy 50 @ $30 and have fun finding out which ones work and fixing those that don't work so you can re-sell them at cost. http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif
R.J.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.