Out to Lunch
Menteur
Me neither, since, either both, or one of the Japanese companies had offered him cash to shoot these cameras. All this said, if Capa had been asked to shoot yet another war today, he'd probably use a Canon, Nikon, Sony or Fuji camera. Cheers, OtL
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I wonder what brand of cigarettes Capa prefered ?
Out to Lunch
Menteur
An intriguing question. The purists would prefer Gitanes or Bastos but since he spent some time overseas he may have been led astray. A perfect opportunity for yet another thesis on the life and work of this great man. Bonne nuit.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I have IIIc purchased after complete service with new mirror and curtain.
For the price of YEE charging for M CLA.
It is ex Leica person in USA, LTM CLA is 95 USD. My coworker send him his LTM, new curtains and CLA well under 200 usd, including shipping.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
L'argent ... quelle nuisance
Youxin is more than that, but still quite reasonable for full CLA/curtains/beamsplitter.
Which is it?
Which is it?
Highway 61
Revisited
His family name is Maxence not "Mascence". As for his friendship with HCB : maybe, maybe not. Yves M. liked to enlight things a little bit.
The Contax I is a kind of a prototype marketed in a hurry. The Contax II is the real Contax. It is way more reliable than the Contax I, this is day and night between the two. And more reliable than the IIa, too. Probably the most ahead of its time rangefinder camera. We'll never know what would have happened if the Zeiss Ikon factory of Dresden hadn't been totally destroyed in 1945 under the English bombs. The IIa, as an evolution of the II, is plagued with many design flaws indeed. Remember, it has been designed during the war by an ingeneers team whose leaders flew to the USA when the war got over, and got marketed in 1950 only, with all its dumb and dumber mechanics still under the top cover.
Besides the unavoidable shutter ribbons replacement job which had to be performed from time to time on the Contax II, this camera was something exceptional indeed.
The most true thing to say is, that at the time of the Barnacks, the Zeiss lenses for the Contax were miles ahead of the Leitz lenses as for pure optical performances. Leitz had neither any good 5cm f/1.5 - or even f/2 - nor any sharp 35mm (and no 35mm faster than f/3.5). As for lenses, Leitz came on par with Zeiss in 1954 only. This is why many Barnacks users used to mount Sonnars and Biogons in LTM on their bodies, or even such lenses in their original Contax RF mount, using the Cooke & Perkins adapter (the ancestor of the Amedeo adapter).
The rest belongs to the universal history. Speaking of the camera bodies made by the two companies between 1932 and 1949, and debating on which was better than the other, is of very little interest if only any.
In the excellent and beautiful book "Kodachrome and how to use it" by Ivan Dmitri, published by Simon and Schuster in 1940, the two systems are presented. Reading how both those two German systems were described by people knowing that they were talking about at the time they were sold new, and before the USA got involved in the WWII, is more interesting, at the end of the day.
SimonPJ
Well-known
Out to Lunch
Menteur
Lets build a shrine.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
They were on very friendly terms. Merci d'avoir souligné que je n'ai pas épelé le nom correctement.
The 35mm f/3.5 was a decent lens; the Summar 50mm f/2 also (but the front lens was made from very soft glass).
Erik.
Ambro51
Collector/Photographer
I’m sure the Head Bartender is have fun reading all these “Ford/Chevy” posts
Out to Lunch
Menteur
Thanks for sharing this picture Erik -not sure why, but let's all be happy and build more shrines to the glorious past of ...well the past -with a lot of Leica cameras and lenses in it.
jszokoli
Well-known
I was interested in Contax III cameras and have purchased at least three, but not a single one is functional. I've purchased maybe twice the number of screw mount Leica's and they are all currently working, now some have needed work, CLA's. It's easy to find people who work on screw mount Leica's. For me finding people to service Contax cameras seems harder.
Joe
Joe
Dralowid
Michael
Never trust a man who says he likes both Triumph and Norton...
Highway 61
Revisited
They all were decent lenses for their time, but they can't stand up with modern lenses the same focal length and max. aperture nowadays, while the Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 and f/2 and the Biogon 35mm f/2.8 designed in 1936-1938 are still surprisingly very good today, even by modern center and corners sharpness standards, with an excellent resistance to flare. Those lenses were exceptional for their time (as well as the Sonnar 85mm f/2 and the Sonnar 135mm f/4, not speaking of the Tessar 50mm f/3.5 which Leitz copied to make their Elmar).
Leica came close to the Sonnar 50mm (called 5cm then) with the Summitar and hooked it up with the Summicron, but by no means can the Summar play in that league (and so cannot the Summarit).
But the Barnacks were undoubtfully more reliable, more compact and more cleverly built than those 1930-1950 Contax bodies.
HCB used a Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2.8 on his Barnacks and he also used some Canon (Beaumont Newhall photo of him) and Nikon (his own writings) lenses in LTM.
I have been in regular touch with Yves M. for a couple of years (after he resumed at Leica France he opened a deluxe camera gear shop in the city I was living in). A kind and friendly character indeed, always very proud of his relationship with famous people for sure.
@simonpj : the color photo of Robert Capa wearing an US Army helmet and shooting his Contax II comes from an Hollywood movie, it ain't any original material.
chipgreenberg
Well-known
Yes it's amazing these threads can pick up right where they've left off for a very long time.
I just shot my first roll through a recently serviced Contax lla. It was my Dad's and he opted for the lla when he went to make this decision way back when. Waiting to see results.
I just shot my first roll through a recently serviced Contax lla. It was my Dad's and he opted for the lla when he went to make this decision way back when. Waiting to see results.
hap
Well-known
They were on very friendly terms.
The 35mm f/3.5 was a decent lens; the Summar 50mm f/2 also (but the front lens was made from very soft glass).
Leica MP/Elmar 35mm f/3.5 nickel-uncoated @ f/3.5/400TMY-2/AdoxMCC110
Erik.
Erik
Always love your images. Just to clarify, you analog print and then scan those images for electronic display?
Erik van Straten
Mentor
I have a Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 nickel/uncoated (1628901) in a very good condition that blows away all my Sonnar type RF-Nikkors 50mm f/1.4.
Zeiss were great lens manufactures, Leitz were not. The Leitz lenses however were good enough.
I have an early Summilux 50mm f/1.4 (1703963) - that is most probably made by Taylor, Taylor and Hobson (in any case designed by them), but assembled by Leitz - that is a whole lot better than all my other Leica lenses.
Erik.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Thank you! Yes, exactly, scanning the negative is not very satisfying, because electronically it is not possible (for me) to make split grade images. On classic photographic paper with variable contrast that is quite easy. So I make split grade prints on gelatine-silver paper and then I scan them. My scanner is an Epson V600.
My favorite paper is Adox MCC 110, but Ilford MGFB is also good.
Erik.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
You must be referring to the time right before they all switched to Nikon SLRs.