Documentary on Carl Zeiss that hardly mentions cameras!

I don't think Zeiss really made many memorable cameras. It is my impression that camera sales were mainly driven by their reputation in lens making.

If I should drop a pin on the timeline of camera history, the only place where there is a Zeiss camera I would rather own than any other on the market, is the Contax II of the late 30's, but that is only by the tiniest margin over a Leica IIIC or Rolleiflex.
If you ask me today, I'd probably take the IIIC - it has aged better.
 
Carl Zeiss was the lens making division of the Zeiss Ikon conglomerate. So technically, they didn't make cameras. Fascinating how Zeiss Ikon came be -- bunch of companies came together to survive the depression of the 20's in Germany and Carl Zeiss was only one of those companies. So big they had a hand in almost everything.

I've shot a lot of their pre-war MF and rangefinders and I think they're amazing. Such Art Deco stuff too. The contax II/III and Zeiss Sonnar was so much better then the competition (of course, in my opinion), and the Ikoflex/Super Ikontas were equal to anything out there. It's equally fascinating to learn why they didn't survive the post-war period. Kind of a sad story regarding the destruction caused by the war, politics, mismanagement.
 
I think Zeiss Ikon (not Carl Zeiss) was a victim of trying to be all things to all people -- too many camera models. And I think the cameras were too complicated (and thus, expensive) to be competitive over the long haul. Over-engineered, in a word.
 
Zeiss Ikon is one thing, Carl Zeiss another.
Carl Zeiss made optics and microscopes. No cameras. It also owned Schott for his glass supply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top