Why inner and outer bayonet on Kiev/Contax?

[Eugen Mezei]

I very much like the focusing system of the Kiev for the standard lens. Focus and shoot. No regrabbing between focusing and pressing the shutter.

Why haven't Contax implemented this system for all the lenses?

 

[Doug]

It's a kluge. The built-in focusing helix is only applicable for the 50mm lens, which I guess they assumed most would stick to. Other focal lengths need their own helixes. Very early effort at bayonet lens mount, so give it credit for that, but it's way obsolete. IMHO. 🙂 Astounding that Nikon adopted it too... 🙄

 

[Coldkennels]

I personally favour the following explanation:

"Because Zeiss engineers were f*cking crazy."

Seriously, the whole camera is so goddamned convoluted it makes me wonder what on earth they were thinking. Comparing it to Leica's efforts at the time, the two are apples and oranges; Leica went for the "build it as simply as possible" approach, whereas Contax over-engineered everything. But I'd like to hear a much more technical explanation for the need for two separate bayonets - and, while we're at it, I'd like to know who decided to put that focusing wheel on the top deck anyway, and what their thought processes were. I'd imagine the original designer is probably long dead now though, right?

 

[uhoh7]

It is a wild system---so simple with the 50s. Amedeo adapter gives me fits to mount the externals--but works fine once they are on.

only thing i use that is as hard is canon FD.

here my old nikkor 10.5 in "C" mount:

 

[wolves3012]

I personally favour the following explanation:

"Because Zeiss engineers were f*cking crazy."

Seriously, the whole camera is so goddamned convoluted it makes me wonder what on earth they were thinking. Comparing it to Leica's efforts at the time, the two are apples and oranges; Leica went for the "build it as simply as possible" approach, whereas Contax over-engineered everything. But I'd like to hear a much more technical explanation for the need for two separate bayonets - and, while we're at it, I'd like to know who decided to put that focusing wheel on the top deck anyway, and what their thought processes were. I'd imagine the original designer is probably long dead now though, right?

I don't think there's anyone around to give a definitive answer, as you say. As Doug says, the focus system is a sort of fudge, because they had to provide for a separate helical for non-50mm lenses; the inner bayonet only focusses "standard" lenses.

As for the complexity of the other stuff, I beleive it was largely to circumvent Leica's patents and get in on the 35mm format action, which was quite new at the time. Although it's a complex design, that of itself doesn't make it less reliable if the design and manufacturing are good. Although Kiev cut a lot of corners and weren't the hottest on QC, that's not the designer's fault. If you look at the shutter, it outperforms a Leica in various aspects - like no fading or capping and no susceptibility to sun-burning. The RF is also a much longer baselength, giving focus accuracy without the need for such high-precision components.

 

[Valkir1987]

There are a lot more over-engineered camera's instead of the Kiev or Contax. Like the french Foca Universal for example. Some Praktica SLR models are more complicated then the Contax.

The reason that they cannot be easily cleaned, lubed and adjusted like most FSU camera's makes them complicated for most users. Most camera's remain precision instruments, and the Contax is no exeption.

The external bajonet solves the problem of making an extra helical in the lens to move the rangefinder arm. Such lenses (like the J9) won't focus quickly on a Leica, but will focus a little more quickly on a Contax. But it makes the exchange of lenses more difficult instead.

 

[batterytypehah!]

Both interchangeable lenses and coupled RF were advanced features in the brand-new 35mm camera segment at the time. It makes sense to me that Zeiss wanted to keep those complications internal to the body, as much as possible.

Now, once you have a focusing mechanism that's dedicated to a standard 50mm lens, and graduated for that, it follows that you need to hide it when other focal lengths are mounted. Hence the wide collar on shorter and longer lenses.

My geometry is a little rusty but it also seems to me that Leica's simple swivel arm, to translate linear movement of the lens into angular movement of the RF optics, is theoretically inferior. Of course now we know it makes no practical difference, with careful adjustment, but if you're a Zeiss engineer in 1932 you have another argument right there. "Theirs" must be adjusted, "ours" never goes out of alignment.

 

[Valkir1987]

My geometry is a little rusty but it also seems to me that Leica's simple swivel arm, to translate linear movement of the lens into angular movement of the RF optics, is theoretically inferior. Of course now we know it makes no practical difference, with careful adjustment, but if you're a Zeiss engineer in 1932 you have another argument right there. "Theirs" must be adjusted, "ours" never goes out of alignment.

Well, it does makes sense. For instance the fact that many other (including Russian made) Leica thread lenses which have a larger focal length (52.5mm) which will give incorrect readings at close focus using the same rangefinder arm.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Leica came first and I expect every single aspect of the camera was patented to protect their investment in time (R&D) etc. So Zeiss would have to find another way of doing it to avoid a complicated and nasty court case.

Kiev won the right to copy as it was compensation for war damage and simplified the design. In the same wayReid got permission from the UK Govt to copy the Leica and weren't the USA making copies as well. It's all well documented.

Exacta also had two bayonet sockets, one internal and one external. Also a long focus lens would need a bigger hole in the body to get all the light in and every mm would count.

Regards, David

 

[sevo]

Hi,

Leica came first and I expect every single aspect of the camera was patented

While they patented a lot, they were unable to patent it all - many relevant rangefinder patents originate with gun sights and date back to WWI or earlier. Hence the mid 1930's rangefinder boom, when these WWI patents gradually expired.

Besides, the Contax I came only a few months after the Leica II - both had been in design for years before that. If any, it might be said that the Zeiss engineers arrived at their solution because they had not seen the Leica II in time (or had disregarded it).

 

[outfitter]

Hi,


Kiev won the right to copy as it was compensation for war damage and simplified the design. In the same wayReid got permission from the UK Govt to copy the Leica and weren't the USA making copies as well. It's all well documented.


Regards, David

"won the right" only in the sense that the Soviet Union conquered Germany and got to Dresden and Jena before the Allies. The SU grabbed the parts and machinery as war booty (aka reparations) and required the Zeiss people to construct one or more production lines (ie machinery) for export to Kiev. A number of skilled Zeiss workers were also "induced" to settle in Kiev to train the locals in Contax production. BTW the Contax and lenses was not the only German cameras and lenses so grabbed.

The Americans did the Soviets one better and grabbed most (but not all) of the rocket stuff and scientists. That's how a nice Nazi like Werner Von Braun became a Texan.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Didn't the USA's President (FDR?) have something to do with how they "won the right" by agreeing to it? And weren't the Soviets part of the Allies? So they hardly grabbed Zeiss and some would say it was to make up for their camera works that were flattened by the Nazis.

Great Britain got some very nice super sonic stuff out of them, if I remember correctly. It was landed in England just down the road from here and several of the Germans live there still - alongside their former enemies in the RAE. It gets very confusing.

Regards, David

 

[mdarnton]

If you look at the whole of camera history, you'll see that modern cameras, relatively, are all the same camera with different clothes. Camera history from, say 1890 through even the 60s, is a wonderful time of all sorts of odd solutions to various problems, the best of which hadn't really shaken out yet. Things like SLRs with optical viewfinders, external auto diaphragm mechanisms. . . the solutions to so many possibilities weren't obvious the way they are looking backwards.

 

[stevebrot]

"won the right" only in the sense that the Soviet Union conquered Germany and got to Dresden and Jena before the Allies...

Not true. The U.S. and Brits got there first, but fell back to allow the Soviets to occupy per the earlier negotiated terms (Yalta?). Many Zeiss engineers and designers were assisted by the troops in fleeing to the non-Soviet zones and were instrumental in setting up the West German Zeiss organization.

There was nothing illegal or immoral in regards to the expropriation of the German optical industry as war reparations. Remember, the Soviets were part of the Allied Forces and suffered huge losses, both human and material as a result of the Nazi occupation. Compensation was appropriate.


Steve

 

[stevebrot]

...some would say it was to make up for their camera works that were flattened by the Nazis...

This is true. The German troops razed the FED factory in Karkiv, Ukraine and pretty much destroyed the rest of the city as well. I believe that was true of the KMZ plant as well.


Steve

 

[David Hughes]

Not true. The U.S. and Brits got there first, but fell back to allow the Soviets to occupy per the earlier negotiated terms (Yalta?). Many Zeiss engineers and designers were assisted by the troops in fleeing to the non-Soviet zones and were instrumental in setting up the West German Zeiss organization.

There was nothing illegal or immoral in regards to the expropriation of the German optical industry as war reparations. Remember, the Soviets were part of the Allied Forces and suffered huge losses, both human and material as a result of the Nazi occupation. Compensation was appropriate.


Steve

Hi,

Yes, it was the Yalta Conference. The text of the agreement is here

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1945YALTA.html

and you'll find reparations as paragraph V when you scroll down.

Regards, David

PS And I hope that settles things...