New to Forum

[zeitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, willeica said:

unrestrained abusers of monopoly power (e.g. Kodak and Zeiss)

Could you give some examples of the unrestrained abuse of power by these two companies?

As far as I can tell Kodak only lost two anti-trust suits.  One in 1954 addressed the sale of prepaid processing along with Kodachrome film; the other in 1974 had to do with Berkey and color printing paper.  Bell & Howell and others did sue because Kodak did not give information on new film formats until Kodak's cameras went on sale.  Before going to court Kodak agree to give information during creation of new film formats.  George Eastman was always ahead of competitors in technology improvement which does not constitute a monopoly.  But he was also ahead of everyone in social awareness.  In 1919 he gave 1/3 of his company to his employees.

Carl Zeiss was also socially unique in that in 1889 the company became a not-for-profit (stiftung) with one of its main goals being the advancement of the German photographic industry.  Nearly every company that was brought into the Stiftung was about to go bankrupt and out of business.  This was particularly true after World War I when much of Zeiss Ikon was assembled.  (Gubas, Zeiss and Photography, pg 25.)  Zeiss sold its components, such as Schott glass to everyone and Prontor / Compur shutters, to any manufacturer who wanted them.  We can thank Carl Zeiss Jena for many of the Leitz' lens designs, including Elmars which were copies of Zeiss Tessars.  Schneider Xenars were also Tessars.  Tessar, Planar, and Sonnar were the basis for many manufacturers' optical designs.  "If you identify some innovation to do with optics from 1975 until 1940 and you can be almost 95% certain that it was developed and designed by the firm of Carl Zeiss."  (Gubas pg 17.)  Again technical achievement does not constitute a monopoly.

[willeica]

1 hour ago, zeitz said:

Could you give some examples of the unrestrained abuse of power by these two companies?

As far as I can tell Kodak only lost two anti-trust suits.  One in 1954 addressed the sale of prepaid processing along with Kodachrome film; the other in 1974 had to do with Berkey and color printing paper.  Bell & Howell and others did sue because Kodak did not give information on new film formats until Kodak's cameras went on sale.  Before going to court Kodak agree to give information during creation of new film formats.  George Eastman was always ahead of competitors in technology improvement which does not constitute a monopoly.  But he was also ahead of everyone in social awareness.  In 1919 he gave 1/3 of his company to his employees.

Carl Zeiss was also socially unique in that in 1889 the company became a not-for-profit (stiftung) with one of its main goals being the advancement of the German photographic industry.  Nearly every company that was brought into the Stiftung was about to go bankrupt and out of business.  This was particularly true after World War I when much of Zeiss Ikon was assembled.  (Gubas, Zeiss and Photography, pg 25.)  Zeiss sold its components, such as Schott glass to everyone and Prontor / Compur shutters, to any manufacturer who wanted them.  We can thank Carl Zeiss Jena for many of the Leitz' lens designs, including Elmars which were copies of Zeiss Tessars.  Schneider Xenars were also Tessars.  Tessar, Planar, and Sonnar were the basis for many manufacturers' optical designs.  "If you identify some innovation to do with optics from 1975 until 1940 and you can be almost 95% certain that it was developed and designed by the firm of Carl Zeiss."  (Gubas pg 17.)  Again technical achievement does not constitute a monopoly.

I think that we have been through this before. Looking for patent court cases won't give you an answer. Let me say before I start that, for me, the single greatest name in the history of photography was Kodak which brought about the democratisation of photography for the mass market. Zeiss was probably in second place and Leitz/Leica's great achievements were the first practical 35mm camera and also the system camera, but I would put Leitz behind the two already mentioned and possibly a few others such as Nikon, which brought the SLR system to a peak, particularly for working professionals. I am speaking now as someone who owns a large quantity of vintage Leicas, even though I would not describe myself as a 'brand person'. I know all about the influence of Zeiss lenses on those of Leitz and, in particular, the work of Dr Paul Rudolph.

The issues with Kodak and Zeiss relate to how they treated competitors and then bought them up e.g. Boston Bulls Eye Camera in the case of Kodak and then Zeiss controlling both Deckel and Gauthier which were the two main suppliers of shutters to the German market. I agree that there is a fine line between being 'good at business' and market abuse. I am, among many things , a former competition regulator and both Kodak and Zeiss had significant market power by today's standards and they would be regulated accordingly today. Anti-Trust law was not so well developed back then. However, in 1921 and 1954 Kodak entered into anti-trust decrees as follows

"1. The Consent Decreesa. The 1921 Decree

The 1921 Decree arose out of antitrust enforcement proceedings initiated by the government more than 80 years ago.   These proceedings led to a finding by the district court in 1915 that Kodak had monopolized the amateur camera, film, and photofinishing industries through acquisitions and a variety of exclusionary practices.   See United States v. Eastman Kodak Co., 226 F. 62, 79-80 (W.D.N.Y.1915), appeal dismissed, 255 U.S. 578, 41 S.Ct. 321, 65 L.Ed. 795 (1921).   Six years later, while its appeal of the district court's decision still was pending in the Supreme Court, Kodak entered into the 1921 Decree with the government and withdrew its appeal.

The 1921 Decree imposed both short- and long-term obligations on Kodak.   In the short term, the decree required Kodak to divest itself of many of its acquisitions so as to “effectually dissolve the combination found to exist in violation of the [antitrust] statute.”  Id. at 81.   These provisions were satisfied long ago.   In the longer term, the consent decree proscribed certain sales and distribution practices that the government believed to be anti-competitive.   A number of these restrictions remain in force today.   Section X of the decree prevents Kodak from selling private-label film by requiring its products to “be labeled in such manner as to show clearly that the [product] is manufactured by [Kodak].”   Sections VI and VII of the decree enjoin Kodak from entering into exclusive dealing contracts and from imposing other restraints on its dealers.

b. The 1954 Decree

The 1954 Decree concerned Kodak's practice of tying its photographic film and photofinishing services.   Until the 1954 Decree, the sales price of Kodak color film included Kodak photofinishing.   Since Kodak sold approximately 90 percent of the color film in the United States during that time, this practice allowed Kodak to maintain a 90-percent share of the photofinishing market as well.   The government filed suit to stop this practice, and, prior to trial, Kodak and the government entered into the 1954 Decree.   The decree principally required Kodak to make its color photofinishing technology available to competitors.   Kodak fully complied with this requirement.   The only provision of the 1954 Decree that remains operative today is Section V, which prevents Kodak from “[t]ying or otherwise connecting in any manner the sale of its color film to the processing thereof.”   The broad language of Section V precludes Kodak from engaging in the otherwise lawful practice of bundling its film and photofinishing services. "

This quote is from here:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/1300513.html

The point I was making was despite their market power, neither of these firms is in the camera business today

If you want to find a more recent court decision against Kodak have a look at this one where people were still arguing about the merits after the case:

https://gai.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2021/05/Session-6_Klein-Market-Power-in-Antitrust.pdf

This long and complex article is written from a perspective that appears to be sympathetic to Kodak and it does not deal at all with the camera market.

As regards Zeiss, we have been through this before in relation to its various acquisitions and controlling shareholdings, but German anti-trust law was not as developed as that in the US. I will leave it at that, particularly as you know a lot about Zeiss yourself. I might add that I am a huge admirer of the technical achievements of the Zeiss company

William 

 

Edited April 27, 2024 by willeica

[UliWer]

Well, if we just stick to Hensoldt for a moment ...

Moritz Carl Hensoldt learned mechanics in Thuringia and later met a certain Carl Kellner 1846 in Hamburg. Both were friends and had plans to found an opto-mechanical enterprise together, but these plans didn't realize. Whilst Kellner founded his own factory for microscopes in Wetzlar, Hensoldt did the same in Sonneberg (Thuringia) in 1847, though in 1861 Hensoldt went to Wetzlar as well and started his factory for microscopes and telescopes again there. Kellner had died young in 1855 and his factory was continued by Friedrich Belthle, who also died rather young but had a mechanic named Ernst Leitz who continued the factory under his own name since 1870.

Hensoldt continued his own factory independently and specialized on telescopes and binoculars. He died in 1903 and the factory under his name was continued by his sons until 1928 when it was acquired by .... guess by whom.... the Zeiss Company.

After WW II Zeiss founded two branches from the Hensoldt origin: Zeiss Sportoptics which produces binoculars and rifle scopes (still in Wetzlar) and Zeiss Optronics for military and aeronautic products. This military and aeronautic branch was later acquired by EADS (Airbus Company), but later EADS gave up its military engagement which was continued under the name Hensoldt and still exists today: https://www.hensoldt.net

So it looks as if producing or rebranding some cameras shortly after the war was only a deviation from Hensoldt's main course, which was telescoping. Immediately after the war the main market for telescopes, the military sector, of course didn't exist any more in Germany and nobody knew if it ever would exist again in the future. They had learned from their neighbor Leitz that cameras might be something to make money with, but they didn't succeed. And of course Zeiss as owner of Hensoldt was not interested in another brand besides the original Zeiss brand which was produced at Stuttgart-Oberkochen (former factory of Nagel Cameras - whilst August Nagel's own production of cameras he had started after he had left Zeiss Ikon 1928 (the Retina) was sold to - guess to whom - Kodak AG Berlin). 

[willeica]

10 hours ago, UliWer said:

Well, if we just stick to Hensoldt for a moment ...

Moritz Carl Hensoldt learned mechanics in Thuringia and later met a certain Carl Kellner 1846 in Hamburg. Both were friends and had plans to found an opto-mechanical enterprise together, but these plans didn't realize. Whilst Kellner founded his own factory for microscopes in Wetzlar, Hensoldt did the same in Sonneberg (Thuringia) in 1847, though in 1861 Hensoldt went to Wetzlar as well and started his factory for microscopes and telescopes again there. Kellner had died young in 1855 and his factory was continued by Friedrich Belthle, who also died rather young but had a mechanic named Ernst Leitz who continued the factory under his own name since 1870.

Hensoldt continued his own factory independently and specialized on telescopes and binoculars. He died in 1903 and the factory under his name was continued by his sons until 1928 when it was acquired by .... guess by whom.... the Zeiss Company.

After WW II Zeiss founded two branches from the Hensoldt origin: Zeiss Sportoptics which produces binoculars and rifle scopes (still in Wetzlar) and Zeiss Optronics for military and aeronautic products. This military and aeronautic branch was later acquired by EADS (Airbus Company), but later EADS gave up its military engagement which was continued under the name Hensoldt and still exists today: https://www.hensoldt.net

So it looks as if producing or rebranding some cameras shortly after the war was only a deviation from Hensoldt's main course, which was telescoping. Immediately after the war the main market for telescopes, the military sector, of course didn't exist any more in Germany and nobody knew if it ever would exist again in the future. They had learned from their neighbor Leitz that cameras might be something to make money with, but they didn't succeed. And of course Zeiss as owner of Hensoldt was not interested in another brand besides the original Zeiss brand which was produced at Stuttgart-Oberkochen (former factory of Nagel Cameras - whilst August Nagel's own production of cameras he had started after he had left Zeiss Ikon 1928 (the Retina) was sold to - guess to whom - Kodak AG Berlin). 

You managed to get in Zeiss and Kodak, though 😇

William 

[Gary Schulz]

This topic has evolved to become a very interesting treatise on the history of American and German photography.  I am fascinated by the breadth of knowledge of those contributing to the discussion.  I have a few low resolution pictures of a few of the documents related to the history of this particular camera.  I don't think any of this information is going to shed a whole lot of light on the history of these companies nor will it provide much historical context to the events taking place in the immediate post-war period.  I just thought it might be of interest to some...  Based on the dates of these equipment purchases and knowing a little bit about my uncles role in this time period, I think it is safe to say he was involved with Leitz for a period starting right after the war until at least March or April 1946.  Not sure why I saved this stuff but I thought it to be interesting.  I know at the end of the war American forces started cracking down on people liberating "spoils of war" and in order to better control things they needed to have definitive proof of the origins of material sent back to the states.  I suppose that is why my uncle still had these documents (and others to follow)...

 

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!

[Gary Schulz]

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!

[Gary Schulz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hensoldt scopes

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!

[Gary Schulz]

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!

[Gary Schulz]

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!

[Gary Schulz]

Looks like I don't need to contact the Leica archives to get a date for the first purchase of the camera.  It shows March 12, 1946 !

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, Gary Schulz said:

they needed to have definitive proof of the origins of material sent back to the states

A lovely set of documents. Interesting that the Invoices/Receipt are in english, maybe for reason stated. 

[UliWer]

Yes, it‘s great to see this.

Though it‘s also strange:

Sgt. Hickmann bought a couple of lenses (also a 3.5cm Elmar) in Nov. 1945, and then an enlarger, another lens, even a MOOLY and other items in December 1945. Both invoices say that the items were delivered.

But the camera together with another 3.5cm Elmar (different serial number than on the invoice of Nov. 45) was only delivered in March 1946. 

[Gary Schulz]

4 hours ago, UliWer said:

Yes, it‘s great to see this.

Though it‘s also strange:

Sgt. Hickmann bought a couple of lenses (also a 3.5cm Elmar) in Nov. 1945, and then an enlarger, another lens, even a MOOLY and other items in December 1945. Both invoices say that the items were delivered.

But the camera together with another 3.5cm Elmar (different serial number than on the invoice of Nov. 45) was only delivered in March 1946. 

I actually never understood the purchase of the MOOLY because I can remember looking at it quite closely and pondering why he had this accessory since it clearly would not fit the IIIc camera.  I know, I tried repeatedly but as I recall it was a bit shorter than the length of the IIIc.  The MOOLY looked like it had never been used...

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Gary,

Welcome to the Forum.

There were 2 different sizes of MOOLY motors that were made.

The slightly shorter model of the MOOLY that your uncle bought was available from around 1938, This fits the IIIb and a number of the earlier screw mount Leicas.

The slightly longer MOOLY (?) that fits the IIIc and IIId Leicas was available from the early 1940's.

There are any number of reasons why your uncle might have gotten the MOOLY that did NOT fit the camera he bought. It might have been bought to be used on a IIIb or earlier camera. It might have been sold in the wrong size by mistake. Or, a number of other reasons. 

Best Regards,

Michael

 

 

Edited April 29, 2024 by Michael Geschlecht

[Gary Schulz]

6 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

There are any number of reasons why your uncle might have gotten the MOOLY that did NOT fit the camera he bought. It might have been bought to be used on a IIIb or earlier camera. It might have been sold in the wrong size by mistake. Or, a number of other reasons.

 

 

Yes I think it must have been very likely that he already had an older model Leica and perhaps he still had it when he purchased various accessories in late 1945.  Then in March 1946 he must have purchased the "new" camera and perhaps he thought he could still use the previously purchased accessories.  Everything but the Mooly would have worked just fine on the new camera...

I still have a couple rolls of very old exposed 35mm film that were with this camera when I got it.  I wonder what is on this film?  Can you still get usable negatives from 75 year old film?

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!

[pippy]

26 minutes ago, Gary Schulz said:

...I still have a couple rolls of very old exposed 35mm film that were with this camera when I got it.  I wonder what is on this film?  Can you still get usable negatives from 75 year old film?...

Very possibly although there is a phenomenon called 'Latent Image Regression' which can severely lessen the resultant image-contrast of film over time once the emulsion has been exposed to light. Much depends on how, exactly, the film has been stored during the ensuing time. Having been kept in a cool, dark place with very little dampness in the air would help. If the film cartidges have been kept in their protective canisters then that would also help.

The only way to find out - stating the obvious - is to have them developed. If you have access to a lab yourself then so much the better. If not then, if there is a GOOD b/w processing house available nearby, then you might explain matters to them and they might be able to advise on the best way to go forward.

FWIW when I was a student (many years ago) I worked in a camera dealership which had a process/print side to the business. One day a lady who had been recently widowed brought in a roll of B'n'W film which had been taken she-knew-not-when by her late husband. On processing / printing it transpired that the roll had been taken during the Isle of Man TT motorcycle races some 55 years earlier! Apart from the negatives being on the 'thin' side (i.e. it resembled having been underexposed) the photographs - whose printing had been manually overseen to correct for this issue - turned out just fine! Had we known about the state of the emulsion it might be that a much longer time spent in the developer could have helped to obtain 'meatier' negatives but Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Fascinating story by the way, Gary, and thanks for posting.

Philip.

Edited April 29, 2024 by pippy

[willeica]

2 hours ago, Gary Schulz said:

 

I still have a couple rolls of very old exposed 35mm film that were with this camera when I got it.  I wonder what is on this film?  Can you still get usable negatives from 75 year old film?

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!

Yes , you can. I found 70 year old film in a Leica FILCA cassette and with advice from an expert friend I developed some negatives. One hour stand development with diluted developer if I remember correctly. I wrote an article about it and another friend who is Picture Editor at the BBC put it on their website. It then went viral during the first Winter of Covid and appeared in the New York Times and CNN etc , eventually getting about 5-6 million reads 

https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-54175441

https://www.macfilos.com/2020/09/11/swiss-roll-hidden-for-70-years-these-photographs-were-recovered-from-an-ancient-leica-film-cassette/

https://www.macfilos.com/2020/12/22/swiss-roll-the-facts-of-the-70-year-old-photo-mystery-as-we-now-know-them/

My advice is to go to an expert person with the rolls and explain all of the facts as you know them. Do not hand these into a regular lab for processing. Let us know how you get on. Given their age and provenance these could contain interesting material.

William 

[beoon]

22 hours ago, Gary Schulz said:

Hensoldt scopes

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!

I have seen a Leica camera with the name Paul Snyder engraved on the back of the top plate.

Looks like it is the same gentleman as per this invoice.

I cannot remember where I have seen this engraved camera, might have been a presentation by Jim Lager

[willeica]

2 hours ago, beoon said:

I have seen a Leica camera with the name Paul Snyder engraved on the back of the top plate.

Looks like it is the same gentleman as per this invoice.

I cannot remember where I have seen this engraved camera, might have been a presentation by Jim Lager

Bill Rosauer (derleicaman) might know. His father was with the US forces in Wetzlar around that time.

William 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Gary Schulz]

4 hours ago, beoon said:

I have seen a Leica camera with the name Paul Snyder engraved on the back of the top plate.

Looks like it is the same gentleman as per this invoice.

I cannot remember where I have seen this engraved camera, might have been a presentation by Jim Lager

 

2 hours ago, willeica said:

Bill Rosauer (derleicaman) might know. His father was with the US forces in Wetzlar around that time.

William 

It has been my impression that Lt. Paul Snyder was another member of the same team of individuals (along with my uncle) assigned to this duty at Wetzlar post war.  Could be that all the team members bought equipment around the same time and all had that same personalized engraving done??  It would be incredible to find information on Lt Snyder and his involvement here.  What an amazing coincidence!