Griff Loc: Warwick U.K.

Never mind the mirror/mirrorless debate; why does nearly everyone extol the virtues of film Leicas when the Contax blew them out of the water in every respect except perhaps weight?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Uh, not really - the summicrons, elmarits and noctiluxes were always better than the Zeiss alternatives. But they were more costly so they were less popular. Besides, Contax shot themselves in the foot when they partnered with Yashica for their SLRs. I used to own M4s and later owned a couple of RTS II - trust me, the Leica stuff was WAY better in all respects. And Zeiss glass has always had (and continues to have) an advantage over most Japanese glass. Just my opinion, having owned both.

djenrette Loc: Philadelphia

Welcome to the Ugly Hedgehog Historical Debating Society!

djenrette Loc: Philadelphia

Welcome to the Ugly Hedgehog Historical Debating Society!

TedPaul Loc: Madison, MS

I always owned Leica, but had respect for Contax.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

I actually prefer my Canon rangefinder.


As far Leica vs Contax, the greatness of Contax has been obscured. While many great photographers used Contax including Robert Capa. However, if you watch the Leica M commercial it refers to Robert Capa. He was using Contax in his later years.

http://petapixel.com/2013/06/26/award-winning-short-film-tells-the-story-of-the-leica-m-monochromes-soul/

amehta Loc: Boston

I don't think you'll be able to get this in the "UHH Top-10 Dogmatic Discussion Topics (TM)". But it might make the Top-100, with a few more topics posted. :lol:

Guy Johnstone Loc: Ocean Shores WA

Oddly this is the old, and I do mean old, Nikon versus Canon debate. Both camera brands were early Japanese copies of German brands. To compare and contrast the two brands borders on the absurd. Both companies were photographic pioneers. I don't think either company built anything particularly bad, but over the past nearly 100 years both companies have built some mediocre equipment. and both companies have built some incredible equipment. I personally prefer Leica. I always felt that Leica had the edge as far as build quality. The East German Zeiss stuff was great optically, but the build quality was dreadful. the West German stuff was much better but still not equal to the Leica.

Preachdude Loc: Geneva, OH

This debate has been going on since Leica first began making cameras. Zeiss was making lenses long before Leica began. Leica's prime focus has always been cameras, whereas for Zeiss, cameras [Contax] were/are simply a segment of their MUCH larger business. Zeiss makes most of the equipment used to test optics, binoculars, microscopes, telescope eyepieces, all the custom lenses for the Apollo space program, etc.

djenrette Loc: Philadelphia

And so the Ugly Hedgehog Historical Debating Society returns once again...

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

Right... Unless we can somehow morph this into a Canon vs Nikon debate, and include all the usual suspects (like SharpShooter and MT Shooter), this has no chance to penetrate the UHH Top-10. Actually, that's just fine with me; the Zeiss vs Leica discussion is a nice change with a definite element of civility!

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

I am in love with your avatar... :P

Griff Loc: Warwick U.K.

I was thinking particularly of the immediate pre 2nd world war Contax II etc. and the equivalent Leicas.
With a Leica, just loading the film is an unnecessary pain . . .

brrywill

Interesting comparison. It is both right and wrong, depending on which side of the coin you choose to look. I have owned all Leica M, R, and Leicaflex cameras at some point. I have also owned all models of Contax SLR's. The only thing I can't compare is Contax rangefinder cameras since I have never owned one. I have also owned the majority of both makers glass, including many of the exotics. Base on that, the following is my opinion.

I believe it comes down to design philosophy. Early on Leica chose the path of extremely high mechanical quality in both their cameras and lenses. The ruggedness of Leica lenses is legendary. I believe their M series cameras hold the high water mark for quality to this day, with the new Fuji mirrorless bodies perhaps coming close. Leica lost some of that edge however, when teaming up with Minolta, just as Contax did when joining with Yashica. Both companies were forced to do it to gain the electronic expertise.

As for their lenses, many of both companies designs were absolutely ingenius and ground breaking. The edge for complexity of design might go to Contax, I believe their 25mm retrofocus design is still considered to be the best ever. Leica, on the other hand, was superb in their execution with few companies to this day matching their combination of build quality and optical quality.

As I said, a lot comes down to design philosophy. Leica, in many of their designs, chose to emphasize image contrast even over pure resolution. This is what gives that "Leica look" to their images, they just pop. Contax chose tonal purity and resolution uber alles, but the complexity of some of their designs and the resulting number of glass surfaces actually held their contrast curve down. As a result, I usually used Leicas for landscape work and Contax and Nikon for portrait work.

This is not dissimilar to audio design. Many speakers use crossover design to emphasize tweeter output. This gives the initial impression of great detail and tends to draw in potential buyers. In the long run however, it is this very feature that tires the listener and drives him to a more neutral design.

Anytime one is chosing between the rarified air of Leica and Contax, there is no wrong choice. There is only personal opinion and the knowledge that history has given a reason for these to be among the finest of choices.

Frayud Loc: Bethesda,MD

Originally back in the 50's Canon was a copy of the Leica and Nikon was a copy of the Contax. During the Korean "Police Action" (it never was a war as congress never declared it) David Douglas Duncan picked up and used a Nikon which was virtually unheard of before that time, His pictures in Life caused a sensation both as to subject matter and their optical sharpness. Nikon was made! These lenses, all primes, were designed without computers.
Zooms were unknown. The first of these (the Garutzo(?) was introduced as a professional lens for the movie industry and slowly caught on in the early 50's.