Dralowid
Michael
After significant repairs (don't ask) the camera is working again. I ran a film through it over the weekend and await the results.
Questions:
1 What is the red dot on the film counter for? It is not at 24 or 36...
2 It is possible to set 1/100 at two different points on the shutter dial (Ic). Is there a significance to this. One is placed in the group of higher speeds and the other is next to 1/50 and employs a part fo the slow speed mechanism.
3 Does anyong have a picture of the hood normally used on an early 3.5 Tessar?
Inevitably there will be more...........
Michael
Questions:
1 What is the red dot on the film counter for? It is not at 24 or 36...
2 It is possible to set 1/100 at two different points on the shutter dial (Ic). Is there a significance to this. One is placed in the group of higher speeds and the other is next to 1/50 and employs a part fo the slow speed mechanism.
3 Does anyong have a picture of the hood normally used on an early 3.5 Tessar?
Inevitably there will be more...........
Michael
Dralowid
Michael
...And ... (if there is anyone else out there using one of these things)...can anyone help me with ideas about the spacing of the negs on the film? Right now they are 2-3 sproket holes apart and off centre. I can centre them by making little washers for the cassette but don't know how to tackle the spacing. It is not obvious in any way and I am disinclined to pull the thing apart again.
Any help appreciated
Michael
Any help appreciated
Michael
raid
Dad Photographer
Good luck, Michael.
I nearly bought a Contax I a few weeks ago, and I still may do it, but I am worried about the lack of "reasonable reliability" in this camera. It costs too much to not use it and it is too sensitive to breakdown to fully use it.
I will keep my eye on this thread to see more discussed on the Contax I.
I nearly bought a Contax I a few weeks ago, and I still may do it, but I am worried about the lack of "reasonable reliability" in this camera. It costs too much to not use it and it is too sensitive to breakdown to fully use it.
I will keep my eye on this thread to see more discussed on the Contax I.
Dralowid
Michael
Raid,
I fear that most will be adorning a shelf somewhere. The problem seems to be that the price of non functional cameras is so high that there are none left for use a spares and that few are prepared to delve into their innards.
I am lucky in that I have truly rough cameras whose collector value is minimal. There is one on 'that' auction site that looks as though it went down with the Titanic (I know, date is wrong but you get the idea). Looks like a good spares camera but still price and shipping would put you off. If you are going to take the plunge you almost need to buy two and keep one for parts!
I worry that I may have gone completely mad...ought to get back to the sanity of Leicas.
Michael
I fear that most will be adorning a shelf somewhere. The problem seems to be that the price of non functional cameras is so high that there are none left for use a spares and that few are prepared to delve into their innards.
I am lucky in that I have truly rough cameras whose collector value is minimal. There is one on 'that' auction site that looks as though it went down with the Titanic (I know, date is wrong but you get the idea). Looks like a good spares camera but still price and shipping would put you off. If you are going to take the plunge you almost need to buy two and keep one for parts!
I worry that I may have gone completely mad...ought to get back to the sanity of Leicas.
Michael
dexdog
Veteran
Either that, or get a Contax II. Much more reliable, and more functional than the Contax I. The lat version of the Contax I is the most usable IMO, but still not near as nice as the II
raid
Dad Photographer
I am also starting to lean towards finding a truely clean and shiny looking II. I already have a IIa and a IIIa, and I like them both.
Last edited:
Dralowid
Michael
For me, the II or III is not the same camera at all.
I've done the Kiev thing, and used a IIa for a few weeks. The IIa is a beautiful camera but by comparison with a Contax I it is positively modern.
Hair shirt stuff!
Michael
I've done the Kiev thing, and used a IIa for a few weeks. The IIa is a beautiful camera but by comparison with a Contax I it is positively modern.
Hair shirt stuff!
Michael
raid
Dad Photographer
If you want to actually use the Contax in the field, a Contax II or III [or the A versions] are far superior to the Contax I. If history is what you want, the Contax I is nearly unique.
Seele
Anachronistic modernist
Michael,
When the Contax was launched there was still no standardised pre-packaged 35mm film sold for still cameras, the user could bulk load (as expected) and Zeiss also sold film especially packaged for the Contax, which is much like 220: a length of film with light-proof paper leader and trailer, rolled on a spool. The red dot is for taking into account of the leader paper length so you would not be taking photographs on paper instead. Oddly enough, long after the Contax rolls had been discontinued, the Kiev series still carried this dot for some reason.
Dralowid
Michael
Seele,
Many thanks for this bit of information. I'll now give up worrying about the red dot! I'm getting used to the camera now and find the 3.5 Tessar produces very pleasant results using a cardboard tube for a hood (you can guess where that came from). It does tend to flare quite a bit, possibly because it is not exactly crystal clear...
Now I have got the hang of it, this camera is a pleasure to use even though the skin on my fingers has thickened to cope with winding it on!
Thanks again,
Michael
Many thanks for this bit of information. I'll now give up worrying about the red dot! I'm getting used to the camera now and find the 3.5 Tessar produces very pleasant results using a cardboard tube for a hood (you can guess where that came from). It does tend to flare quite a bit, possibly because it is not exactly crystal clear...
Now I have got the hang of it, this camera is a pleasure to use even though the skin on my fingers has thickened to cope with winding it on!
Thanks again,
Michael
Seele
Anachronistic modernist
Well done! I always like the Contax but having to wear glasses sure makes it very tricky; I guess Heinz Kuppenbender (and for that matter, Hubert Nerwin) had good eyesight and never wore glasses.
Regarding the Tessar, I think it is worth getting the surfaces cleaned properly; if the surfaces are not damaged, or the cement layer playing up, the Tessar is capable of giving good contrast even without coating. I use large format Tessars from the 1920s and have no problems with them whatsoever, so it's worth considering.
Regarding the Tessar, I think it is worth getting the surfaces cleaned properly; if the surfaces are not damaged, or the cement layer playing up, the Tessar is capable of giving good contrast even without coating. I use large format Tessars from the 1920s and have no problems with them whatsoever, so it's worth considering.