Leica

[Dali]

Mate you're mistaken: that's the Leica glow!

So if I get the Leica glow but my lens is not a Leitz, can I assume it is a Leitz anyway? :crazy:

 

[cuthbert]

So if I get the Leica glow but my lens is not a Leitz, can I assume it is a Leitz anyway? :crazy:

Of course.

See the glow!

More glow!

 

[Dali]

The Contax 139 came out in I believe 1978. It was the worlds first Quartz timed camera. I owned one. It had TTL flash and an electronic cable release which I don't remember any other camera having in 1978.

Contax had I believe the first SLRs that had integrated auto wind which proved to be problem free unlike added autowinders and motor drives.

Contax cameras were some of the first SLR's to be electronic and battery dependent. Some might prefer mechanical cameras but electronics were the future. All your DSLRs today are electronic.

The original RTS was Porshe designed. Having another company's design house design your camera body was pretty innovative.

Professional photographers are conservative and not that attracted by novelty. Rolleiflex, Leica M, Hasselblad and Nikon F were their preferred tools for decades not because they were innovative but because they were reliable, because manufacturers did not come up with new models every other year, because they could be rented almost everywhere, because lenses and accessories could be used with old and recent bodies, because the brands meant something and not a a vague reminiscence of the past like Contax.

 

[flavio81]

Mate you're mistaken: that's the Leica glow!

We have the Zeiss "sparkle", the Leica "glow", the Nikon "snap"
and the Canon "automatic increase of picture saleability"

 

[Alan Gales]

Professional photographers are conservative and not that attracted by novelty. Rolleiflex, Leica M, Hasselblad and Nikon F were their preferred tools for decades not because they were innovative but because they were reliable, because manufacturers did not come up with new models every other year, because they could be rented almost everywhere, because lenses and accessories could be used with old and recent bodies, because the brands meant something and not a a vague reminiscence of the past like Contax.

I'm just saying that Contax did make professional cameras in the RTS line. They were advertised as pro cameras in the day just like the pro Nikons and Canons. Minolta made a professional camera too. Yes, most pros who shot professional 35mm cameras used Nikon or Canon and for the reasons which you state. Of course a lot of pro's couldn't afford the expensive stuff and shot amateur 35mm cameras. I've seen wedding photographers use a Bronica or similar for the main shots and an AE1 or similar for candids.

With the advent of digital capture all those film cameras are a vague reminiscence of the past now as far as professional photography goes. Of course you can mount a digital back onto a Contax 645. You can't do that with a Nikon or Canon film camera.

 

[flavio81]

I'm just saying that Contax did make professional cameras in the RTS line. They were advertised as pro cameras in the day just like the pro Nikons and Canons. Minolta made a professional camera too. Yes, most pros who shot professional 35mm cameras used Nikon or Canon and for the reasons which you state. Of course a lot of pro's couldn't afford the expensive stuff and shot amateur 35mm cameras. I've seen wedding photographers use a Bronica or similar for the main shots and an AE1 or similar for candids.

With the advent of digital capture all those film cameras are a vague reminiscence of the past now as far as professional photography goes. Of course you can mount a digital back onto a Contax 645. You can't do that with a Nikon or Canon film camera.

I think the history of Pro SLRs goes like this:

- First was the Exakta (first real system SLR), but in those times (late 40s-early 60s) most pros using 35mm were using rangefinders. Also, i'd dare to say that up to about 1974 (or the introduction of Kodachrome 25), 35mm wasn't really considered a real PROFESSIONAL format, pro engagements being shot with medium format and large format instead. I would say that before that, 35mm was a professional PHOTOJOURNALISM format.

- Then the Nikon F surely made an impression and "35mm pros" switched to that system. Also, it appeared on the dawn of the SLR era, rangefinders losing ground to SLR.

- In 1971, date in which Canon releases its first pro system (F-1), pros were already well established with Nikon. There was no strong reason to change, save, I guess, for pros who needed a fast shutter-priority system.

- In 1973, when Minolta releases the pro XK SLR, old pros were already with Nikon, and new pros could choose between two established systems: Nikon or Canon.

- In 1980, when Pentax releases the LX, same story.

Same story for the Contax RTS and for the Rollei whatever-its-name 35mm futuristic cubic-form-factor pro camera (impressive!).

All those systems (Minolta XK, Contax, Rollei, Pentax LX) are great systems!

It was only in 1985 with the AF era that pros switched to Minolta (if they needed an AF system, because it was the fastest and most complete AF system), and then in the late 80s with the release of the Canon EOS-1, to Canon. In both cases, because of a perceived need for very fast AF.

 

[flavio81]

Try to find something like that with a Contax!

Your LX looks fantastic, a real "rough" look.

I made a quick and dirty shot of my pro 35mm SLRs:



(click to enlarge)

Left to right, back:

Original ("old") Canon F-1 with the cult lens FL 35/2.5: Smooth, refined, really well made.
Battered Canon F-1N with the versatile FD 28/2.0: My daily user camera. Advanced, versatile, refined.
Canon F-1N 1984 edition with the humble 50/1.8: Collectible.

Front:

Nikon F, black, with the smooth, rare Nikkor-S 58/1.4: Dignified, humble, solid yet smooth. Pure.
Nikon F2AS, black, with the nice PC-nikkor 35/2.8: Proud, snob lineage holder.
Missing is the Nikon F3, since sold. I did not like it so much.

 

[Alan Gales]

I think the history of Pro SLRs goes like this:

- First was the Exakta (first real system SLR), but in those times (late 40s-early 60s) most pros using 35mm were using rangefinders. Also, i'd dare to say that up to about 1974 (or the introduction of Kodachrome 25), 35mm wasn't really considered a real PROFESSIONAL format, pro engagements being shot with medium format and large format instead. I would say that before that, 35mm was a professional PHOTOJOURNALISM format.

- Then the Nikon F surely made an impression and "35mm pros" switched to that system. Also, it appeared on the dawn of the SLR era, rangefinders losing ground to SLR.

- In 1971, date in which Canon releases its first pro system (F-1), pros were already well established with Nikon. There was no strong reason to change, save, I guess, for pros who needed a fast shutter-priority system.

- In 1973, when Minolta releases the pro XK SLR, old pros were already with Nikon, and new pros could choose between two established systems: Nikon or Canon.

- In 1980, when Pentax releases the LX, same story.

Same story for the Contax RTS and for the Rollei whatever-its-name 35mm futuristic cubic-form-factor pro camera (impressive!).

All those systems (Minolta XK, Contax, Rollei, Pentax LX) are great systems!

It was only in 1985 with the AF era that pros switched to Minolta (if they needed an AF system, because it was the fastest and most complete AF system), and then in the late 80s with the release of the Canon EOS-1, to Canon. In both cases, because of a perceived need for very fast AF.

I worked in the camera and sporting goods department of a Venture store. Venture was similar to Target today. We were a little upscale of Target then. Anyway, I sold to the masses. Everyone wanted the AE-1 Program that is until the Maxxum came out. I don't remember hearing any pros selling their Nikon or Canon kit to buy a Maxxum. The autofocus was pretty slow. I knew the sales people at several camera stores back then. None of us thought much of the Maxxum except that we knew autofocus would be the future eventually. I also read all the magazines back then too, Modern Photography, Popular Photography, Peterson Photographic. Books and records were part of my department too so I could read all the articles that interested me for free while working. I'd just take a little break back in the stockroom when things were slow.

 

[ColColt]

I made a quick and dirty shot of my pro 35mm SLRs:

the Nikon on the far right...an F2AS?

I didn't read far enough, Yes it is.

 

[flavio81]

the Nikon on the far right...an F2AS?

I didn't read far enough, Yes it is.

Yep. It is a nice, smooth machine, but somehow I feel more affection for the Nikon F.

 

[ColColt]

Understood. I feel the same about my F2A.



an old standby since 1977...

 

[rthollenbeck]

It's difficult if not impossible to unseat the incumbent: Nikon and Canon had market share and strong distribution as well. New pro-s wanted what the old pros had. Nikon and Canon had reward programs for sales men and higher profit margins for retailer.
Leica and HP marketing(Contax) were quirkish almost German nepotism run organization that had different rules and loyalties. That and higher overall prices presented some problems getting there products to market even to customers that wanted them. There just never were as many Contax lenses on the shelf as the regular Japan brands.
The RTS II & III, didn't have to step aside for Nikon or Canon at all. I think they were probably at Least a generation ahead of the others until autofocus came along.

 

[ColColt]

Not so many years back I hated to see the demise of Kodak, film and manual cameras. Like most, I have a couple of digital cameras and finally had to bite the bullet. My heart is still with K64, Tri-X and my older Nikon cameras, however.

I think any product that says "Made in Germany" has always been expensive and is so till this day. I like good cook ware and my sister turned me onto a brand called Berndes. You guessed it, from Germany. A 2 quart pot cost me $75 but it's lasted for years and will outlast me. We use to laugh at anybody that bought anything from Japan as you knew it was going to be junk. That all changed a long time ago but German engineering is a tough act to follow.

 

[flavio81]

We use to laugh at anybody that bought anything from Japan as you knew it was going to be junk. That all changed a long time ago but German engineering is a tough act to follow.

But in consumer electronics i sense a change from about the late 60s onwards. For some reasons, which I guess Germans know perfectly, something happened on German companies that forced them to bring down the price/quality of their products to be able to compete with Japan.

I can see this for example in turntables -- i'm a turntable technician. For example the Thorens TD 124 (1957 turntable) was a wonderful machine, with really high build quality, you can call it a Rolleiflex of turntables. But the next model that replaced it, the TD 125 (1968) was a definite step lower in external and internal build quality, produced in a more economic way, technically simplified. And we're talking about top-of-the-line, expensive turntables.

A comparable japanese product, the Sony PS-2251 turntable (1970), was more refined inside and outside. Better built and with higher tech. Note that I have taken a deep look at the insides of the turntables mentioned.

I think the same pattern can be seen in cameras. For example one can compare the Zeiss Contaflex (late 50s) with the Zeiss Ikon SL706 (1971). Exactly the same comparison -- the former was a really high quality, advanced machine, the latter is a cost-cut, simplified product.

So from the early 70s i would say, safely, that Japanese technology, and in particular build quality, was taking over the German counterpart.

Another comparison? The original Leicaflex (1964) with the Leica R3 (1976). The original one is a superb, technically refined, perfectly built GERMAN product. The R3 is in essence a japanese camera!! Leica themselves had to ally with Minolta to be able to market a state-of-the-art SLR.

 

[chip j]

Hey Flavio! What do you think about B & O turntables?? (I have a 1982 RX that's still going after having been rebuilt)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hey Flavio! What do you think about B & O turntables?? (I have a 1982 RX that's still going after having been rebuilt)

The B&O turntables were sold of with the round houses when CSX took over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_and_Ohio_Railroad Why are you asking about railroad equipment on APUG?

 

[cuthbert]

But in consumer electronics i sense a change from about the late 60s onwards. For some reasons, which I guess Germans know perfectly, something happened on German companies that forced them to bring down the price/quality of their products to be able to compete with Japan.

I can see this for example in turntables -- i'm a turntable technician. For example the Thorens TD 124 (1957 turntable) was a wonderful machine, with really high build quality, you can call it a Rolleiflex of turntables. But the next model that replaced it, the TD 125 (1968) was a definite step lower in external and internal build quality, produced in a more economic way, technically simplified. And we're talking about top-of-the-line, expensive turntables.

A comparable japanese product, the Sony PS-2251 turntable (1970), was more refined inside and outside. Better built and with higher tech. Note that I have taken a deep look at the insides of the turntables mentioned.

I think the same pattern can be seen in cameras. For example one can compare the Zeiss Contaflex (late 50s) with the Zeiss Ikon SL706 (1971). Exactly the same comparison -- the former was a really high quality, advanced machine, the latter is a cost-cut, simplified product.

So from the early 70s i would say, safely, that Japanese technology, and in particular build quality, was taking over the German counterpart.

Another comparison? The original Leicaflex (1964) with the Leica R3 (1976). The original one is a superb, technically refined, perfectly built GERMAN product. The R3 is in essence a japanese camera!! Leica themselves had to ally with Minolta to be able to market a state-of-the-art SLR.

I'm a mechanical engineer and in automotive I never noticed that kind of letdown, my understanding is that Zeiss committed suicide by offering four of five different systems at the same time. I also understand that the last cameras produced in the Far East like the Rollei 35 were pretty bad quality wise.

My opinion is that the Germans in the 70s dropped the ball in front of the Japanese aggressivity: all the development of the modern SLR was led by Asahi, Nikon and later Canon, thinking about the instantaneous mirror, automatic diaphragm, TTL metering, later Open TTL metering, all things that made the SLR as easy to be used as a rangefinder, that's the reason why they got all the market: in the early 70s they invented something that might be called "the universal japanese SLR" as there was the "universal japanese motorbike".

Leitz was a sad case because they always snobbed the SLR and when decided to make one they created a dinosaur, so in the end they had to lower their pride and go to a minor japanese firm (Minolta, not Pentax, Nikon or Canon) to get their cameras made as they weren't able to produce them.

The saddest thing is that they kept the thing secret for decades and they always promoted the R as a German product made in Portugal.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

side question: Did anyone ever switch between Leica and Nikon and noticed a significant quality difference?

 

[flavio81]

Hey Flavio! What do you think about B & O turntables?? (I have a 1982 RX that's still going after having been rebuilt)

They use the propietary B&O cartridge mount, which limits cartridge choice: B&O cartridges are scarce and very expensive. The turntables themselves are pretty good, but for example some like the Beogram 4000 are very complex to service.

 

[ColColt]

I recall back in the late 70's and early 80's I coveted a Nakamichi Dragon cassette deck. However, I had cars in the past that didn't cost much more and had to fore go the Dragon. Carver and Denon were other names that meant quality back then. Today, the Dragon still brings a premium price and has held it's value. Country of manufacturer? Japan of course as most electronics were. Now, you pay a premium for anything made in Japan over China or Taiwan.

Recently I looked at a Leicaflex SL2 but started asking myself who would work on it if need be? I don't know. Probably all the rubber and seals need replacing and a host of other things so, I talked myself out of it. Nothing is made today like it once was-everything's disposable.

Innovation is good as is technology and I give a big thumbs up on what's been accomplished over the decades. I learned to drive on my Dad's '49 Studebaker Champion with three speed on the column. It had vacuum wipers and the starter button was under the clutch pedal and the valves were in the block. I wasn't sorry they came up with electrical wipers and put the ignition switches on the steering column. I am sorry that I can no longer work on my own car. I have a Toyota Corolla S and don't even know where the spark plugs are. I could work on my old Barracuda 340 and getting to the plugs were simple. Moreover, you could actually open the hood and see them. Better yet, nothing was computer controlled.

There seems to be a point when enough is enough. Turntables? I still like my Technics SL1700 and Denon cartridge and Marantz 2265 receiver-nothing like it today.

 

[flavio81]

I'm a mechanical engineer and in automotive I never noticed that kind of letdown

German cars are another thing altogether!! I'm a *big* Mercedes-Benz fan and my 1982 500SEC is one of the best cars i've ever seen or driven. I'd say that even up to this day, German car engineering is still second to none.

, my understanding is that Zeiss committed suicide by offering four of five different systems at the same time. I also understand that the last cameras produced in the Far East like the Rollei 35 were pretty bad quality wise.

True. See this website, which has many pages devoted to this subject:
http://www.klassik-cameras.de/Voigtlaender-Niedergang.html

Leitz was a sad case because they always snobbed the SLR and when decided to make one they created a dinosaur, so in the end they had to lower their pride and go to a minor japanese firm (Minolta, not Pentax, Nikon or Canon) to get their cameras made as they weren't able to produce them.

The saddest thing is that they kept the thing secret for decades and they always promoted the R as a German product made in Portugal.

LOL!!

Honestly I still think they did the correct thing. And Minolta, back in the early 70s, was not a huge company but they were very advanced in camera making. Not so much as Canon (which were starting to reap the benefits from their electronics branch), but they were making really really good cameras in that era (for example the XK of 1973.)

The interesting thing is that about the same time (1973? 1975?) Zeiss knocked the door of Pentax (by then the biggest camera maker, i would guess) to collaborate together, but for some reason (?) they dropped the collaboration and then Zeiss went to Yashica. The result was the C/Y mount, RTS system, FR-1 Yashica, and ML lenses.

But i think both german manufacturers did the right thing. Look at Rollei in the same era {I consider Rollei the best german camera maker, by the way *} -- they stayed 100% German (with later Singapore subcontracting, though), and they went kaput.


* but I don't consider the Rollei 35 -even german- worthy of the "Rollei" name. Nor the horrific singapore-made SLR cameras.

 

[cuthbert]

side question: Did anyone ever switch between Leica and Nikon and noticed a significant quality difference?

The more appropriate question would be: has anybody switched from Leica to Minolta and noticed a significant quality difference?

http://leica.nemeng.com/013c.shtml

Thanks to an anonymous contributor!

LOL!!

Honestly I still think they did the correct thing. And Minolta, back in the early 70s, was not a huge company but they were very advanced in camera making. Not so much as Canon (which were starting to reap the benefits from their electronics branch), but they were making really really good cameras in that era (for example the XK of 1973.)

The interesting thing is that about the same time (1973? 1975?) Zeiss knocked the door of Pentax (by then the biggest camera maker, i would guess) to collaborate together, but for some reason (?) they dropped the collaboration and then Zeiss went to Yashica. The result was the C/Y mount, RTS system, FR-1 Yashica, and ML lenses.

But i think both german manufacturers did the right thing. Look at Rollei in the same era {I consider Rollei the best german camera maker, by the way *} -- they stayed 100% German (with later Singapore subcontracting, though), and they went kaput.


* but I don't consider the Rollei 35 -even german- worthy of the "Rollei" name. Nor the horrific singapore-made SLR cameras.

Mmm not really the Leicaflex just proved that Leitz didn't understand how to make a SLR, even the Soviets with the small Zenit 1, S and later the Kristal and 3M proved to understand that what was necessary was to take a good rangefinder like a Zorki 6, remove the RF and install a small pentaprism to get a small and nimble camera.

That was the reason Leitz needed Minolta, and it's kinda sad.

Different story for Zeiss: that was and is a colossus like Mercedes, Krupp and Siemens but it appears they didn't understand or didn't care about what the customers wanted (Nikon and later Canon on the other side were very keen in interviewing pro shooters to understand how to develop their systems) and IMO at management level they completely lacked a strategic direction, the aborted marriage with Pentax and later alliance with Yashica just prove this irresoluteness: the K mount was developed by both companies in order to replace the M42, Zeiss did some work and then they decided to withdraw from the project, but my understanding is that Pentax always hoped the Germans to change their mind and this also was another reason why they didn't patent the mount. Of course a marriage with Pentax would have been a 50/50 relationship, while Yashica wasn't in the same league as the big three.

 

[flavio81]

The more appropriate question would be: has anybody switched from Leica to Minolta and noticed a significant quality difference?

http://leica.nemeng.com/013c.shtml

Thanks to an anonymous contributor!

I don't know about Minolta, which in the 70s I would not put at the level of Canikontax regarding lens making, but back in the late 1950s apparently the quality of japanese lenses made by a certain manufacturer were as good or better than what Leitz Wetzlar was selling. And this according to a German page, written in Deutsch:

http://www.klassik-cameras.de/Canon_RF_2.html#CANON_RF_2-35mm

This page, which is very good by the way, praises a lot japanese lenses, some of them being directly favored over the equivalent German stuff of the era. Moreover, in one of the pages the author puts the case that Canon had the cleverness of patenting their (innovative) designs ALSO in Germany, which was source of a problem to German lens makers.

I also read on another page (german I think) an interview to the CEO of Voigtlander in the late 50s-early 60s. (Voigtlander, back then, was the only german manufacturer to own a computer, and thus their lens designs were the most advanced). He admitted that he tested the new Nikon rangefinder lenses and found them superior to what they were manufacturing, but they decided to put down the Nikon lenses on a Voigtlander-published magazine, adopting a condescending view of the Japanese lens industry.

Also in some pages by Leica specialist Erwin Puts some japanese lenses made by a certain manufacturer are also praised over the competing Leitz designs - mainly because of the japanese use of aspheric lenses, which Leitz wasn't capable to produce (unless polishing it 100% by hand.)

 

[flavio81]

Mmm not really the Leicaflex just proved that Leitz didn't understand how to make a SLR

It's not as if they did not have the possibility to understand it. What happened, I think, is that Leitz simply didn't have enough money to pay the man-hours needed for SLR R&D. Remember the Leicaflex was a 1964 product, back when Pentax was already selling their SLR like hotcakes ($$) and rangefinder sales were probably at an all-time low.

Different story for Zeiss: that was and is a colossus like Mercedes, Krupp and Siemens but it appears they didn't understand or didn't care about what the customers wanted

You mean Zeiss back in 1973-1975? I thought Zeiss was almost broke!!

Or in any case, like Leitz, Zeiss didn't have a budget for SLR R&D enough to take on and surpass Canon and Nikon by themselves alone. That's why they went with Pentax, i'd say. Pentax was by then the biggest camera manufacturer. And i'd guess both Canon and Nikon were not interested at all in a Zeiss alliance: Nikon was already #1 with the pros, and Canon -excuse me, but I can bet on this- in 1973-75 had NOTHING to gain from such a partnership, technology-wise. They already had mass-production of aspheric polished surfaces, artificially-grown fluorite glass, they had created the revolutionary, high-performance 2-group standard zooms, and the list goes on an on. I dare to say again, and i know i sound like a broken record, but in 1975 Canon was at the very very top of commercial lens making. Which has it's own constraints. One thing is to make a lens for the NASA, where cost is no object, where each lens is polished by hand, verified and tested in each step, etc; I'd say Zeiss was still the top in this kind of engagements (or maybe the best were USA companies like Perkin-Elmer or Kodak, or the british Taylor-Taylor-Hobson). If a SLR lens is going to be 100% hand-made and cost is no object, i would bet that many many optical companies can do an amazing product, look at the Kern Macro-Switar 50mm for the ALPA, for example.

But for production SLR lenses, where cost, production consistency, and manufacturing tolerances, need to be constrained (even for a top-of-the line SLR lens), it's a different game.

 

[ColColt]

The Leicaflex Sl/SL2 was brought up earlier. One problem with those as is my old FTN Photomic and Gossen Luna Pro, is they used the old 1.35v mercury batteries that are defunct today and have been for a number of years. I've read of the Wein air cells but they don't look very promising for the purpose intended over time.