bjorke
Designated Driver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0teMtLT9XI -- it does mention that they were #1, and that they are the accidental parent of Kiev, but this is mostly about the history of the CZ Foundation and its global modern role in optical systems for manufacturing.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0teMtLT9XI -- it does mention that they were #1, and that they are the accidental parent of Kiev, but this is mostly about the history of the CZ Foundation and its global modern role in optical systems for manufacturing.
It seems they are a lens company.
bjorke
Designated Driver
...and yet at one time the number one camera company in the world.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
...and yet at one time the number one camera company in the world.
And likewise their successor, Leica.
Nitroplait
Well-known
I don't think Zeiss really made many memorable cameras. It is my impression that camera sales were mainly driven by their reputation in lens making.
If I should drop a pin on the timeline of camera history, the only place where there is a Zeiss camera I would rather own than any other on the market, is the Contax II of the late 30's, but that is only by the tiniest margin over a Leica IIIC or Rolleiflex.
If you ask me today, I'd probably take the IIIC - it has aged better.
If I should drop a pin on the timeline of camera history, the only place where there is a Zeiss camera I would rather own than any other on the market, is the Contax II of the late 30's, but that is only by the tiniest margin over a Leica IIIC or Rolleiflex.
If you ask me today, I'd probably take the IIIC - it has aged better.
steveyork
Well-known
Carl Zeiss was the lens making division of the Zeiss Ikon conglomerate. So technically, they didn't make cameras. Fascinating how Zeiss Ikon came be -- bunch of companies came together to survive the depression of the 20's in Germany and Carl Zeiss was only one of those companies. So big they had a hand in almost everything.
I've shot a lot of their pre-war MF and rangefinders and I think they're amazing. Such Art Deco stuff too. The contax II/III and Zeiss Sonnar was so much better then the competition (of course, in my opinion), and the Ikoflex/Super Ikontas were equal to anything out there. It's equally fascinating to learn why they didn't survive the post-war period. Kind of a sad story regarding the destruction caused by the war, politics, mismanagement.
I've shot a lot of their pre-war MF and rangefinders and I think they're amazing. Such Art Deco stuff too. The contax II/III and Zeiss Sonnar was so much better then the competition (of course, in my opinion), and the Ikoflex/Super Ikontas were equal to anything out there. It's equally fascinating to learn why they didn't survive the post-war period. Kind of a sad story regarding the destruction caused by the war, politics, mismanagement.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I think Zeiss Ikon (not Carl Zeiss) was a victim of trying to be all things to all people -- too many camera models. And I think the cameras were too complicated (and thus, expensive) to be competitive over the long haul. Over-engineered, in a word.
Eugen Mezei
Well-known
Zeiss Ikon is one thing, Carl Zeiss another.
Carl Zeiss made optics and microscopes. No cameras. It also owned Schott for his glass supply.
Carl Zeiss made optics and microscopes. No cameras. It also owned Schott for his glass supply.
Zuiko-logist
Well-known
-- it does mention that they were #1, and that they are the accidental parent of Kiev, but this is mostly about the history of the CZ Foundation and its global modern role in optical systems for manufacturing.
Thanks for sharing.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.