Dralowid
Michael
Thanks, you are right, I used the wrong words!
One of the best
- Thread starter Gben
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 86
- Views 9K
Thanks, you are right, I used the wrong words!
David Hughes
David Hughes
I would say that the Summitar of 1939 was as good as if not better than the Sonnar.
And didn't Barnack in 1912-ish use lenses from 1910 that Leitz made for their microscopes in the prototypes. They even used the name, or part of it meaning the "Mikro-Summar" and then developed that...
As for the Tessar and Elmar/Elmaz/Anasticmat; page 15 - especially the footnote - of Puts "Leica Lens Compendium" explains things. As I understand it the Elmar was a simplified Elmax with one objective less at the back. Meaning two bits of glued glass in place of three glued together.
Regards, David
PS (Edit) If I had the time and money and spoke German fluently I would love to go and see the original patents but, alas...
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 was not a bad lens. This is with an uncoated example. Optically Zeiss was Leica light years ahead.
gelatine silver print (sonnar 50mm f1.5 nickel/black uncoated) nikon s2
Erik.
gelatine silver print (sonnar 50mm f1.5 nickel/black uncoated) nikon s2
Erik.
David Hughes
David Hughes
It's difficult to believe that Leitz would launch a new, innovative and almost completely redesigned camera without wanting to protect themselves but patenting every thing they could. And my oldest Leica (1926) has DRP marked on it that I thought mean a German patent or two.
OTOH, if they didn't patent the things then no one could possibly object to the Japanese and so on making copies of them. Although I recall a lot of rude comments about USSR made ones but not all/any of the other countries copies. See a well-known book with "300 Copies" in the title for details.
Regards, David
Bill Jones
Contax Lens User
David,
I think the confusion on the patents comes from imaging them to be too sweeping in scope.
Mostly they would be in details. One example would be the focal plane shutter, which was invented by Ottoman Anschutz and made by CP Goertz who merged into Zeiss Ikon. Other Zeiss Ikon component companies made focal plane shutters including Contessa-Nettel and Ernaman and had numerous patents on them including metal curtains prior to Leica entering the market. These did not block Leitz since the basic design dated from the early 1880's. In the same way Leiitz putting an FP shutter in their camera would not block the Contax. What is patented is the unique details of how the shutters worked.
The same applies to the other features, rangefinders, film transport etc.
The idea of sweeping patents for the Leica probably stems from salesmen who didn't know what was patented and writers like the early Focal Press Guide on the Contax who spread the
rumors.
Bill
I think the confusion on the patents comes from imaging them to be too sweeping in scope.
Mostly they would be in details. One example would be the focal plane shutter, which was invented by Ottoman Anschutz and made by CP Goertz who merged into Zeiss Ikon. Other Zeiss Ikon component companies made focal plane shutters including Contessa-Nettel and Ernaman and had numerous patents on them including metal curtains prior to Leica entering the market. These did not block Leitz since the basic design dated from the early 1880's. In the same way Leiitz putting an FP shutter in their camera would not block the Contax. What is patented is the unique details of how the shutters worked.
The same applies to the other features, rangefinders, film transport etc.
The idea of sweeping patents for the Leica probably stems from salesmen who didn't know what was patented and writers like the early Focal Press Guide on the Contax who spread the
rumors.
Bill
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
Yes, that is more or less what I thought/suspected but my days of going and checking as far back as possible are over; too expensive and time consuming. And as for the red tape...
Regards, David
PS Just remembered it's not red tape in Germany but the department's white horse or something as silly. (Edit from here.) That's probably a version of German spoken in the 1930's as my ladies who spoke German left with their English husbands in 1939, one or two with a day to go before war was declared. Consequently I know a lot about Germany in the 1920's and 30's especially about pastry, coffee and sweet shops... When they retired and were replaced by young au pairs it was rather embarrassing. You can tell I am bored out of my tiny mind by the lockdown etc.
Regards, David
PS Just remembered it's not red tape in Germany but the department's white horse or something as silly. (Edit from here.) That's probably a version of German spoken in the 1930's as my ladies who spoke German left with their English husbands in 1939, one or two with a day to go before war was declared. Consequently I know a lot about Germany in the 1920's and 30's especially about pastry, coffee and sweet shops... When they retired and were replaced by young au pairs it was rather embarrassing. You can tell I am bored out of my tiny mind by the lockdown etc.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Leica IIIa and Summitar:-
It's a 1921 Scott "Squirrel" btw with a water cooled two-stroke engine.
Regards, David
It's a 1921 Scott "Squirrel" btw with a water cooled two-stroke engine.
Regards, David
Bill Jones
Contax Lens User
David,
Nice looking sidecar motorcycle. Yours? Like you I sometimes use the 50mm Summitar. Mine is on a Leica IIIc form 1950. I got it in 1967 as the second owner and had it re-built by Leitz USA in 1969. It still works perfectly but I've always preferred my Contaxes.
Bill
Nice looking sidecar motorcycle. Yours? Like you I sometimes use the 50mm Summitar. Mine is on a Leica IIIc form 1950. I got it in 1967 as the second owner and had it re-built by Leitz USA in 1969. It still works perfectly but I've always preferred my Contaxes.
Bill
G
Guest
Guest
Some of you might like this, from a 1937 magazine:-
For prices in US dollars you need only multiply by 5...
About a year later the Contax I with the f/3.5 Tessar was being discounted at about UKP 23.
Regards, David
Wow those are serious camera prices in England back then, really serious prices. Back in 1976 you could get a Pentax and lens for about 90 British pounds an Olympus OM1 for just over 100 pounds. The country has always been overpriced and the people taxed to death but that pre-war price has shocked me.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I wish it (the Scott) was but alas...
It's one of my favourites mostly because my father used to rave about Scott and Brough Superiors. He worked for a well known racing team, so it couldn't be escaped. Also I live in a quiet part of the world and a lot of the narrow country lanes around here attract vintage bikes and their riders.
I've a Contax or two in the heap with Sonnars etc but have never been impressed with them compared to the Summitar but that's possibly because I got the Leitz one first. Also I think the Sonnar needs cleaning but it's only got a bit of dust i it.
Regards, David
Gben
Established
Brand and marketing and pride are strong incentives where human action are mixed with consumer goods. If patents did not prevent Zeiss from making a 35mm camera similar to Leica's, I could believe they would try to make it as different as possible for marketing purposes, to tell consumers they were buying something different and better and to be able to say "here is why".
As far as sharpness of old lenses go, a very well known camera repair technician said that the number-one factor in the sharpness of an old camera lens is simply how clean it's lens elements and surfaces are. At this point to one degree or another they all have oil-film on them along with dust, mold and fungus. And just as David Hughes commented about the reliability of shutter mechanisms, when it comes to lens performance he would certainly take his own advice and "be looking for a sample size of 200 or more before even considering such judgements."
As far as sharpness of old lenses go, a very well known camera repair technician said that the number-one factor in the sharpness of an old camera lens is simply how clean it's lens elements and surfaces are. At this point to one degree or another they all have oil-film on them along with dust, mold and fungus. And just as David Hughes commented about the reliability of shutter mechanisms, when it comes to lens performance he would certainly take his own advice and "be looking for a sample size of 200 or more before even considering such judgements."
David Hughes
David Hughes
True but if you can't beat 'em, join 'em...
But what did I say other that my opinion of my ones was etc, etc? Just a comment... Not telling people not to buy them because etc, etc...
Regards, David
But what did I say other that my opinion of my ones was etc, etc? Just a comment... Not telling people not to buy them because etc, etc...
Regards, David
paul in AZ
Member
To put some perspective on prices, it wasn't until 1938 that a minimum wage of 25 cents/hour was enacted in the US. Hourly worker's wages were commonly 30 to 50 cents/hour.
Contax' WERE expensive.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Minimum wage paid at a 1938 $.25/hr today would be fantastic for most workers.
Phil Forrest
paul in AZ
Member
US Bureau of Labor stats gives $0.25 in 1938 a current value of $4.81
Yes, my mother, with a fresh degree in library science from Columbia, worked at the General Motors library in NYC for $0.25/hr in 1938... Wasn't much! Didn't Henry Ford make waves paying his workers $5/hr?
paul in AZ
Member
Not quite.
It was somewhat earlier. It was in the day of the Model T.
At a time when the factory wage was $2.25/day for a 9 hour shift Ford did increase the wage to $5 but that was PER DAY and not per hour.
This was done not because of competition but to try to cut down on burnout and excessive worker turnover. He also thought that paying them more would enable them to buy a Ford car. It didn't.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...wages-its-not-what-you-think/?sh=516f6901766d
It was somewhat earlier. It was in the day of the Model T.
At a time when the factory wage was $2.25/day for a 9 hour shift Ford did increase the wage to $5 but that was PER DAY and not per hour.
This was done not because of competition but to try to cut down on burnout and excessive worker turnover. He also thought that paying them more would enable them to buy a Ford car. It didn't.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...wages-its-not-what-you-think/?sh=516f6901766d
David Hughes
David Hughes
The real problem with comparing prices is what yardstick to use. I wondered a long time ago what jobs were the same then (any old year in the past) and today. After a while I realised that only postmen* and the PBI were more or less the same over the years.
Averages don't work, inflation doesn't so what can you do?
Regards, David
* FWIW, postmen at the top of their scale in London in 1939 got £2-50 a week and a pension. At the time it was a job people chased after which distorts things a bit.
Averages don't work, inflation doesn't so what can you do?
Regards, David
* FWIW, postmen at the top of their scale in London in 1939 got £2-50 a week and a pension. At the time it was a job people chased after which distorts things a bit.
Gben
Established
Once in an attic in Detroit I found some old paychecks someone had got working at the Hudson motorcar plant in the late 1930's. This would have been a good job in the USA at the time, and they were making about thirty dollars each week give or take. So to buy a Contax camera would have taken a well-paid citizen of the USA then a long time to save for, and seeing how it was the tail-end of the depression it most likely hardly ever happened at all. I did know a guy who's father was into photography back then and who was a factory worker, a machinist and draftsman who bought a new Contax II in the late 30's, I have the camera.
