CoCam: Koni-Omega Mail List Archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [KOML] KO History





You are taking what I said the wrong way.  Besslar marketed in the US, the
Exakta EDX-3 (which I own) as the Topcon Re-2000 (there was also an EDX 2
which was marketed as the Re-1000), which they sold to the US Gov. and to
the public at large.  I too, own Exakta's,  I also own and think that the
Besslar Topcon Super-D (Topcon RE-Super) as one of the best, if not the
best, 35mm cameras ever made. But that is not what we are talking about. I
also can put my little hot hands on (take then out of their cases) A
Koni-Omega Rapid, or a Koni-Omega Rapid M.  Konishiroko Photo Industry Co.,
Ltd. is the company that make the Konica Cameras at that time.  Mamiya got
into the game very late. 
Jim 

----------
> From: pjcaplow@sprynet.com
> To: koni-omega@snoopy.cmagic.com
> Subject: [KOML] KO History
> Date: Saturday, 10 January, 1998 0:11 AM
> 
> Reply to James Simmons:
> 
> You said:  "The difference between the Rapid and the 100 or the Rapid M
and the 
> 200 is very simple.  During the last 50's early 60's congress passed law,
that 
> all government agencies use items made in part in the US. And that gave
us the
> Besslar Topcon Super D (Topcon RE Super), The Omega 100 (Koni-Omega
Rapid),
> The Omega 200 (Koni-Omega 200)."
> 
> You seem to be implying that the name change from Koni-Omega to Rapid
Omega was 
> prompted by a US law requiring that government agencies buy American. 
This 
> doesn't make much sense if the name change coincided with the manufacture
of the 
> cameras being taken over from Konica by Mamiya which is also a Japanese
firm.  
> Most authorities on the subject seem to think this was the case.  One
such 
> authority I can cite is Bob Shell writing in the 1/92 Shutterbug, page
66.  
> 
> I would also take issue with your statement to the effect that Exakta's
became 
> Topcons.  The ONLY thing those cameras had in common was the lens mounts.
 I 
> collect Exaktas and I'm also familiar enough with the Topcon line to know
that 
> they're entirely unrelated.