View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 Posts: 5883 Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:40 am Post subject: 1968: Contarex Super / 50/2 Planar "Camera 35" rev |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
This is quite a camera, and the lens is something special - I highlighted the resolution numbers.
Click on pic to get full size scan
_________________ -Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 2167 Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
Thanks again for another drool-inspiring taste of yesterday! _________________ Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
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. _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 2167 Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
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. _________________ Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mos6502
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 Posts: 960 Location: Austin
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mos6502 wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 Posts: 5883 Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
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. _________________ -Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|