Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

1968: Contarex Super / 50/2 Planar "Camera 35" rev
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:40 am    Post subject: 1968: Contarex Super / 50/2 Planar "Camera 35" rev Reply with quote
This is quite a camera, and the lens is something special - I highlighted the resolution numbers.

Click on pic to get full size scan





PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks again for another drool-inspiring taste of yesterday!


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with the metering philosophy they used, I wish more cameras were like that.
Pure spot lets you select the exact area you want to meter, which is what you need to do anyway.
Most of the time I am compensating exposure, even on guesstimated exposures.

However this is not a system that's friendly to casual users as you really do need a better grasp of metering/exposure plus some more care to use this effectively vs averaging or center-weighted metering. You can't let the camera do the thinking.

I also wonder whether Zeiss tried hard enough to get professionals using this thing, and that may be a reason why it failed.
It certainly didn't seem to manage to compete with the Nikon F, as a professional tool, in spite of some advantages.
I don't think they thought as much as they should have who their optimum market for a very highly specified camera should have been.
This seems less like a camera that would be sought after by someone who needs to make a living than an aspirational object for advanced amateurs and collectors.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
. . . I also wonder whether Zeiss tried hard enough to get professionals using this thing, and that may be a reason why it failed.
It certainly didn't seem to manage to compete with the Nikon F, as a professional tool, in spite of some advantages.
I don't think they thought as much as they should have who their optimum market for a very highly specified camera should have been.
This seems less like a camera that would be sought after by someone who needs to make a living than an aspirational object for advanced amateurs and collectors.


Having tried to sell the later, slightly improved, version of the Super (and the Super Electronic) during the early 1970s, I can certainly confirm that it didn't compete with the Nikon. I also agree wholeheartedly that they never actually identified what its target market was. And I love your expression "aspirational object".

We ordered both camera models but never actually got a Super Electronic. Zeiss pulled the plug on the whole idea and I believe very few were delivered in the UK. Our Super came packed in a dirty white polystyrene clamshell container which looked secondhand, and had an instruction book that looked as though it had been run off on an office duplicator. It seemed that was the standard delivery package.

The problem when it came to trying to sell the camera was that although it looked great in adverts and the glossy brochures and had a terrific specification, when you actually handled the Contarex it had all the tactile pleasure of a broken brick. It was heavy, felt huge and made some funny noises when it went off. And it was very, very expensive. In the end we suggested to the Zeiss representative that it would be best if they took it back for credit. Which they did, largely because we were selling a lot of their binoculars and they dodn't want to rock that boat.

I once owned the original version (bought cheaply secondhand from a shop which had had it in stock for ages). It was another of Zeiss's "masterpieces of misplaced ingenuity". Magazine backs, splendid lenses, brilliant viewfinder . . . top line specification but oh-so-awkward to use. A bit like the Swiss Alpa. Still, I wish now that I'd kept it - we'll never see anything like it again, that's for sure.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There was unfortunately no market for the thing. It simply didn't offer the flexibility of system SLRs, and was priced too high for consumers. The Contaflex had become outdated by this time, and the Icarex was a bit too little too late to win the amateur/consumer market back.

It is of course a really neat looking camera regardless.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
did ya check out the resolution numbers on the Planar though? That to me is proof that Zeiss made the best lenses, period. There was a Canon 85 that managed something close but not at the edges and not for 4 stops in the center.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
Page 1 of 1