Nicht immer nur Kaviar ... (English Version)

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, zeitz said:

The definition of cartel is something like "A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. ... Cartels are distinguished from other forms of collusion or anti-competitive organization such as corporate mergers."  Perhaps the stiftung is better thought of as a being an emergence of socialism, but it is not communist.

I know all that. I have been a regulator and enforced competition law in my time and I have obtained court orders against price fixing.. The reference to 'cartel' may relate to Zeiss being invested in two competitors in a different market ( central shutters), giving rise to the possibility of collusion or market rigging by Zeiss as a controlling party of both companies. All of this is irrelevant today and what I am researching is an entirely different topic about the high degree of open cooperation between the various parties which was organised around central shutters such as the Compur. 

I am somewhat interested in the commercial or market aspects of this, but I have no real interest in any political aspects unless they impacted on the cameras which were made in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s with central shutters. 

Would I be right in thinking that nobody has done a comprehensive study on this subject, even in German?

William 

Edited December 30, 2021 by willeica

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[zeitz]

7 minutes ago, willeica said:

I know all that.

Will, you used the word cartel.  Where did the reference to Zeiss as a cartel otherwise come from?  Isn't controlling party of both suppliers by one company called a monopoly, not a cartel?  

I don't think the aspect was political, but it was strictly business in the difficult financial times between the wars.  Business/financial aspects impact all product designs.  As an example Henry Ford designed and built his cars so his employees could afford them; Henry Royce did not.

[willeica]

10 hours ago, zeitz said:

Will, you used the word cartel.  Where did the reference to Zeiss as a cartel otherwise come from?  Isn't controlling party of both suppliers by one company called a monopoly, not a cartel?  

A cartel is effectively where dominance is shared by two or more companies in order to control a market. What would you call the situation where Zeiss effectively controlled the two biggest players in the market for central shutters? As I said, this is not what I am after. 

Have you anything to add about the questions which I posed? I'm amazed that something which was so common ( Compur type shutters) in a major industry ( the German camera industry) has apparently so little written about it. I still have not got anything here to add to my knowledge.

This has been the most interesting thing that I have found, but I've had to use Google Translate as it is in German.

https://zeissikonveb.de/start/geschichte/pronto, presto, subito!.html

I still feel that this is a very under-researched topic, which needs a book, preferably available in both German and English.

William 

[thomas_schertel]

IHAGEE

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

yours sincerely
Thomas

[Pyrogallol]

Something I always wondered. Why are those compur  type shutters called a lens in a shutter when they are really a shutter in a lens, a sandwich of a shutter between two or more lens elements?

[pgk]

16 hours ago, UliWer said:

Only Zeiss Jena in East Germany after WW II until 1990 was not "capitalist" by denomination but a "socialist" "Volkseigener Betrieb" though they acted in the same manner by acquiring all other parts of photographic industry in Eastern Germany to dominate the whole sector. 

Its interesting that there is a similarity here to The Rank Organisation (which many will know of from the gong sequence used for its flim distribution/production - some info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rank_Organisation) in the UK, which acquired many of the original makers of photographic equipment (many of whom shared componentry) post WW2 and distributed key Japanese makers such as Nikon anti the late 1970s. Some were later 'disengaged' from the parent organisation in one way or another, which means that business which can claim to be descendants of firms like Beck and TTH still exist.

I might add that Nikon were very expensive in the UK under Rank distribution and finally Nikon UK was formed to handle UK distribution and Rank lost their monopoly on Nikon sales here.

Edited December 31, 2021 by pgk

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Pyrogallol said:

Something I always wondered. Why are those compur  type shutters called a lens in a shutter when they are really a shutter in a lens, a sandwich of a shutter between two or more lens elements?

They were a shutter in a lens with glass on either side, but the Compur and others were also mounts, which is one of the points which I am after.  In most cases the aperture was set on the shutter and not the lens.

One exception to that was the rare Kochmann Korelle K, which I have shown here before, and which has tiny aperture controls on special lenses made by Zeiss, Leitz and others. In this case the aperture control on the Compur was disabled. This is the choice which purchasers had. As  regards the Leitz Elmars, I have one of the few 3.5 cm Elmars that have survived. There is one 7.5cm lens in Wetzlar in the Leica Archives and Lars Netopil is of the view that the 5cm may never have been made. If anyone has one you have one of the rarest lenses in the world. Most surviving examples of the K seem to have Zeiss or Schneider lenses. Note that the f3.5 3.5 cm Tessar and Elmar options were the same price, but the 5cm Elmar version was to have been 30 RM cheaper than the equivalent Tessar version. Back then, Zeiss probably had a better name as regards optics than Leitz. Note that the 7cm Zeiss version was 25.50 RM more than the 7.5 cm Leitz version. The only surviving example of the Leitz version sold for almost €10,000 about 10 years ago. I presume that Leica AG bought it for its Archives. I can show a picture of that item if anyone is interested. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

59 minutes ago, pgk said:

Its interesting that there is a similarity here to The Rank Organisation (which many will know of from the gong sequence used for its flim distribution/production - some info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rank_Organisation) in the UK, which acquired many of the original makers of photographic equipment (many of whom shared componentry) post WW2 and distributed key Japanese makers such as Nikon anti the late 1970s. Some were later 'disengaged' from the parent organisation in one way or another, which means that business which can claim to be descendants of firms like Beck and TTH still exist.

I might add that Nikon were very expensive in the UK under Rank distribution and finally Nikon UK was formed to handle UK distribution and Rank lost their monopoly on Nikon sales here.

The Gaumont business also made cameras as well as having cinemas in the early 1900s.

Today, Leica has a highly vertically integrated set up, but it can probably argue that this facilitates service quality and repairs to cameras that are probably somewhat away from the rest of the market as regards design etc. 

William

 

[romanus53]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Pyrogallol:

Something I always wondered. Why are those compur  type shutters called a lens in a shutter when they are really a shutter in a lens, a sandwich of a shutter between two or more lens elements?

Perhaps a translation that's not that precise, the German word is "Zwischenlinsenverschluß" - means shutter between the lens-elements.

[romanus53]

on the mentioned Korelle K there is an article written by Claus Walter in vidom 119, the 7,5 cm lens has separete aperture control on front, just two were made; maybe the compur was than used as "Hinterlinsenverschluß" - means sutter behind the lenses as used later in many cameras like Bessamatic

[UliWer]

18 hours ago, zeitz said:

A foundation in the US does not operate as a manufacturing corporation. 

Same for the German "Stiftung". The "Carl Zeiss Stiftung" was and is not the producer but the shareholder of "ICA A.G. (until 1926), "Zeiss ikon AG" (until 1972) and "Carl Zeiss AG"(present). "AG" stands for "Aktiengesellschaft"  - stock or public corporation. The AG was and is an entity of its own. A "Stiftung" can be shareholder of an AG as well as a private person. You find many "Stiftungen" as shareholders of important industrial companies, e.g. "Robert Bosch Stiftung", "Alfred Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Stiftung",  "Bertelsmann Stiftung" etc.  

You may even draw parallels to Leica today. The ACM Holding has the majority of shares of Leica Camera AG. Though ACM itself is owned by "Socrates Privatstiftung" - a foundation by the Kaufmann family under Austrian law.

[willeica]

2 hours ago, romanus53 said:

on the mentioned Korelle K there is an article written by Claus Walter in vidom 119, the 7,5 cm lens has separete aperture control on front, just two were made; maybe the compur was than used as "Hinterlinsenverschluß" - means sutter behind the lenses as used later in many cameras like Bessamatic

Thanks. I had Claus's article translated into English for the LHSA Viewfinder magazine. I have one of the special 3.5cm Leitz lenses for the Korelle K and, yes, you are correct, the shutter in that case is behind the lens. The aperture is determined on the lens and not on the shutter.  The 7.5cm lens is the same. There is some evidence that 2 of the 7.5cm lenses may have been made, but we only know where one is and that is in the Leica Archives.

And you are right to mention some later camera/lens combinations with Compur type shutters, but, for the moment, I am just looking at the 1920s and 30s. 

William

Edited December 31, 2021 by willeica

[willeica]

45 minutes ago, UliWer said:

You may even draw parallels to Leica today. The ACM Holding has the majority of shares of Leica Camera AG. Though ACM itself is owned by "Socrates Privatstiftung" - a foundation by the Kaufmann family under Austrian law.

You are right and Dr Kaufmann is quite proud about this. I have often thought that we should be referring to Leica/Leitz as an Austrian Company with its HQ in Salzburg.

William 

[willeica]

On 12/31/2021 at 10:44 AM, willeica said:

A cartel is effectively where dominance is shared by two or more companies in order to control a market. What would you call the situation where Zeiss effectively controlled the two biggest players in the market for central shutters? As I said, this is not what I am after. 

Have you anything to add about the questions which I posed? I'm amazed that something which was so common ( Compur type shutters) in a major industry ( the German camera industry) has apparently so little written about it. I still have not got anything here to add to my knowledge.

This has been the most interesting thing that I have found, but I've had to use Google Translate as it is in German.

https://zeissikonveb.de/start/geschichte/pronto, presto, subito!.html

I still feel that this is a very under-researched topic, which needs a book, preferably available in both German and English.

William 

To add to the very complex story about the development and ownership of the main players (Deckel and Gauthier) in the German central shutter industry in the 1920s and 1930s, this piece is in English

https://www.fotohistoricum.dk/riess_wp/om-compur-d/abaut-compur-gb/

It seems that Zeiss owned patents for such shutters and also owned or controlled companies which supplied such shutters to itself and to its competitors. It was a complex situation and it is possible that the full story cannot be discovered at this stage, although the linked piece states 

"Friedrich Deckel undertook nothing without first consulting Carl Zeiss. Agreements did exist about working co-operations, about price strategy and about supplies to competitive companies."

As regards Gauthier it is stated

"Since 1910, Carl Zeiss had also owned a portion of Alfred Gauthier GmbH, which would later develop into the largest shutter factory in the world. By 1931 Carl Zeiss had acquired a majority of the Gauthier stock, but this fact was kept secret so that Gauthier could supply shutters to Zeiss’ competitors."

There is, however, no evidence that Zeiss tried to shut out other lens manufacturers (eg Meyer, Schneider and Leitz) from the market. Indeed, in the case of Leitz it only dabbled in this market sector. A quick look at Thiele's book shows that most of the company's lens manufacturing output consisted of lenses for the focal plane shutter Leica cameras and that lenses for central shutter cameras were but a sideline. There was some manufacture of such lenses at Leitz in 1932 and 1933, but, thereafter, Leitz more or less withdrew from that market. There were probably a number of reasons for this, including concentration of resources for the increasingly successful Leica and also the fact that Leitz did not make any central shutter cameras itself apart from the Compur B, which more or less faded away into tiny numbers as the 1930s progressed. 

The fact that Zeiss had control of the shutter output probably ensured quality control and also the success of this market. Deckel, himself, was upset when Zeiss Ikon started to produce cameras with focal plane shutters. There may be a further postscript to this after World War II with the disappearance of large chunks of the German camera industry and with Leica the 'last man standing' today. Leica's decision to stick with with the focal plane shutter was probably one of the keys to its longevity and survival. 

I intend to end my research at WWII as what fascinates me is an industry which built around the glue of a particular shutter type, which facilitated both camera and lens manufacturers, but in the end this was mining a short term solution to what was a long term issue.

For what its worth, Collectiblend lists about 425 German camera manufacturers, of which only Leica/Leitz survives today. There are a few more in the lens and accessory fields. I am going to take about 100 of those firms (chosen both at random and also by name recognition) to see how many of those firms used shutters made by Deckel or Gauthier, which were under the control of Zeiss. It seems that Deckel concentrated on the more expensive end of the market, whereas those made by Gauthier were largely found in cheaper cameras.

If anyone has material relating to what I describe above, I would be most grateful to receive it.

William 

[jpattison]

10 hours ago, willeica said:

To add to the very complex story about the development and ownership of the main players (Deckel and Gauthier) in the German central shutter industry in the 1920s and 1930s, this piece is in English

https://www.fotohistoricum.dk/riess_wp/om-compur-d/abaut-compur-gb/

 

A fantastically interesting text, thanks.

John

[cary]

Nikon F with 35mm f2 Nikkor lens:

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pgk]

20 hours ago, cary said:

Nikon F with 35mm f2 Nikkor lens:

Great combination which has never achieved quite the same (cult) following as a Leica M c/w 35/2 for some reason. It probably should have.

[willeica]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

Great combination which has never achieved quite the same (cult) following as a Leica M c/w 35/2 for some reason. It probably should have.

I’m not sure about that, Paul. The Nikon F has many followers and enthusiasts around the world and it started a major change in standard photographic equipment which nearly brought Leica down. It is a camera of extraordinary build quality as Don McCullin will attest. M2s will fetch a lot more money today and the 35mm Summicron is a wonderful lens, The f2 Nikkor is also a fine lens, but in the popular imagination the Nikon F was a true game changer and must be regarded as one of the most significant cameras of the 20th Century. 

William 

[pgk]

1 hour ago, willeica said:

The Nikon F has many followers and enthusiasts around the world and it started a major change in standard photographic equipment which nearly brought Leica down. The f2 Nikkor is also a fine lens,

Yes, I do agree. But the combination of Nikon F/35/2 Nikkor does not have the status of say the Leica M4/35/2 Summicron although it probably deserves it. I've often thought that tese two combinations reprsented a high point in 'applied photographic usability' so to speak.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[zeitz]

There were nearly 200,000 of the 35mm f2.0 lenses made.  That is just the non-AI lenses.  I didn't add in the AI, AI-S and AF lenses.

[pippy]

Co-incidentally as I was clearing out old files from an external hard-drive I came across this odd little snap which has an unlikey assortment of bits'n'bobs including some of my old Nikon stuff - the latter of which dates back to my student days of the mid-late '80s. As it also happens to have my M8.2 that dates it to at least five (but probably more) years ago. I took it for a bit of fun when I was transferring a lot of the old clobber to a different storage box after I discovered that humidity/fungus had started to eat away at some of the SLRs...

Crap snap, I know, and shot at 1/6th second so camera shake is very much present!...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Philip.