[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
- Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk >
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 18:10:33 -0700
- References: <5C7752CCB00C3A47A70D5C4204A360B2554A55 > <025801c31101$4214ba40$e5d8f1c3@qnu350>
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> David Seifert wrote:
> > While I can't comment on the living/working conditions
in and around the
> > facilities in the immediate post-war era I would suggest
that the quality
> > of their efforts were never compromised.
> With due respect, that does not seem very plausible to me.
> The absolute chaos that was WW2, and its aftermath, will
have had a profound
> effect, perhaps not on the quality of their efforts, but
certainly on the
> quality of what their efforts were able to achieve.
> Will it still have been a problem in the mid 1950s? I
don't know; it will,
> but by how much?
> > Have you read Marc James Small's and Charles Barringer's
history of the
> > post war Zeiss-Ikon? There was a legal dispute over the
use of the
> > Zeiss-Ikon brand name as well. I recommend this book to
> > in understanding the post-war incarnations of these
entities. It contains
> > a thorough exposition of this Opton business as well as
> > product evolutions.
> I know the book, yes. Excellent book indeed.
> I do know too how both Zeiss Jena and Schott fared
immediately after WW2 had
> ended. And i do know about the legal disputes between the
> Funny though (but true!) that the person i was conversing
with, the person
> who told me about the initial inconsistent quality of
> products, referred to the very same book as an accurate
description of the
> turmoil that may/will have caused that! ;-)
> > Your suggestion that things weren't somehow "up to
> > snuff" at the re-formed companies until well into the
50's just doesn't
> > hold water to me. It was 1950 when Z-I release the
> > (by necessity, the Soviets made off with the pre-war
> > IIa. Most consider this one of the finest examples of
> > manufacturing ever. No Leica or even Rollei can compare
to the fit and
> > finish of these cameras. By 1954 the 21/4 Biogon was
> > design from CZ.
> That's true. Indeed a compelling argument against the
> > Sometimes a rose is just a rose. The Opton designation
was just a legal
> > necessity, nothing more nothing less.
> Oh, but it wasn't suggested that the Zeiss-Opton name was
in any way
> "responsible" for the perhaps less constant quality.
> It's use happens to coïncide with the post war,
> getting-our-act-together-again period Zeiss went through.
> So a rose is a just rose. Yes. And even by that name, it
can sometimes smell
> not as sweet?
A very long time ago, when researching microphones, I
obtained a copy of an intelligence report from the Library
of Congress. I no longer remember which group produced the
report, there were several intelligence groups.
It described the Georg Neumann factory. Those familiar
with sound recording know that Neumann is a famous name and
was before WW-2. Neumann was producing condenser microphones
in the one corner of a bombed out building that still had
some roof left. This included casting the plastic diaphragm
material. This was done on long glass covered tables,
similar to the way Kodak cast flexible film support at the
beginning of its use.
Neumann microphones show some of the problems of obtaining
parts in early post-war Germany. The famous U-47 microphone,
for instance, uses an odd tube. In fact, it was a tube
designed for five-tube AC-DC radios and was used because it
was relatively easy to get and made the design simpler. They
are awful tubes (heresy!!) and have been impossible to get
For all that the Germans were a lot better than the Brits
as makshifting decentlly after the war as those experienced
with post-war English cars know.
Los Angeles, CA, USA