Spider67
Well-known
Only one out of three IIa's....
Just found that piece of information on the web. The guy uses Photos to prove his point. He claims that from the time of assembly at Contax only one in 3 IIa's/IIIa'a was working as it should as the assembles were poorely trained and the hand made parts made it very tricky to assemble.
Is this just lore or is it based on facts?
How are your experiences with your IIa's.
I just got mine and it has a high quality feel to it and handles very well.
best regards
Des
Just found that piece of information on the web. The guy uses Photos to prove his point. He claims that from the time of assembly at Contax only one in 3 IIa's/IIIa'a was working as it should as the assembles were poorely trained and the hand made parts made it very tricky to assemble.
Is this just lore or is it based on facts?
How are your experiences with your IIa's.
I just got mine and it has a high quality feel to it and handles very well.
best regards
Des
Last edited:
Silva Lining
CanoHasseLeica
Well its possible I suppose, but I think unlikely that two-thirds of the cameras were faulty. Even in the pre-internet era, a reputation for poor workmanship and build would have spread quickly
BillBingham2
Registered User
Sounds like the same source as Elvis and Howard sightings.
B2 (;->
B2 (;->
gabrioladude
Member
considering Zeiss's reputation I don't think they would have let poor quality leave the factory. My guess is that the comment is meant to suggest that one third of the cameras had to be redone because they would not function properly once they reached the end of the assembly line.
with regards to how they function now assuming the camera hasn't deteriorated over the years with fungus etc I think the shortcoming is the fact that the shutter needs to be continually maintained if the camera just sits and and is not used. Apparently the camera has the reputation for this issue.
I inherited my IIa from my father who purchased it new in 1952. I recall that he had a german clockmaker friend who worked on it a few times over the years. So I know that he had some maintenance issues from time to time. When I got the camera it had probably not been used in about 15 years. The cosmetics were perfect but the slow shutter speeds were totally off. So I had it CLA'ed. Since then it works fine for me.
with regards to how they function now assuming the camera hasn't deteriorated over the years with fungus etc I think the shortcoming is the fact that the shutter needs to be continually maintained if the camera just sits and and is not used. Apparently the camera has the reputation for this issue.
I inherited my IIa from my father who purchased it new in 1952. I recall that he had a german clockmaker friend who worked on it a few times over the years. So I know that he had some maintenance issues from time to time. When I got the camera it had probably not been used in about 15 years. The cosmetics were perfect but the slow shutter speeds were totally off. So I had it CLA'ed. Since then it works fine for me.
ZeissFan
Veteran
What's the source of that little piece of knowledge?
A couple of years ago, classic camera author Ivor Mantanle did a fairly thorough writeup on the Contax II (not the IIa) for Amateur Photographer. What he said was that one of the reasons the Contax II was so expensive is that it had a high rejection rate during assembly. If a camera didn't meet certain specs, it was rejected. That meant that Zeiss Ikon was very careful not to release non-working cameras onto the market, and the price reflected that.
Enter the Kiev. When they started production of the Kiev using the seized Zeiss Ikon equipment and with German techs overseeing the operation, there was one difference: The Soviets were interested in generating as much cash as possible.
One of the things the Soviets did was set production quotas in grand communist tradition. While the Germans did the best they could to maintain quality, ever-increasing production quotas meant that cameras that would have been rejected by Zeiss Ikon were deemed acceptable under Soviet rules. He didn't go too deeply, but apparently, no camera was too poorly constructed to be ignored as a possible sale.
Regarding the Contax IIa, I simply don't believe this. Not true.
The cameras almost always need to be serviced, but two out of three unworkable? No way.
Granted, I've only encountered nine Contax IIa cameras and four Contax IIIa cameras, and eight were operating fine after being serviced. The one that wouldn't work had suffered severe water damage. I stripped it for parts.
A couple of years ago, classic camera author Ivor Mantanle did a fairly thorough writeup on the Contax II (not the IIa) for Amateur Photographer. What he said was that one of the reasons the Contax II was so expensive is that it had a high rejection rate during assembly. If a camera didn't meet certain specs, it was rejected. That meant that Zeiss Ikon was very careful not to release non-working cameras onto the market, and the price reflected that.
Enter the Kiev. When they started production of the Kiev using the seized Zeiss Ikon equipment and with German techs overseeing the operation, there was one difference: The Soviets were interested in generating as much cash as possible.
One of the things the Soviets did was set production quotas in grand communist tradition. While the Germans did the best they could to maintain quality, ever-increasing production quotas meant that cameras that would have been rejected by Zeiss Ikon were deemed acceptable under Soviet rules. He didn't go too deeply, but apparently, no camera was too poorly constructed to be ignored as a possible sale.
Regarding the Contax IIa, I simply don't believe this. Not true.
The cameras almost always need to be serviced, but two out of three unworkable? No way.
Granted, I've only encountered nine Contax IIa cameras and four Contax IIIa cameras, and eight were operating fine after being serviced. The one that wouldn't work had suffered severe water damage. I stripped it for parts.
DanOnRoute66
I now live in Des Moines
I agree. If anyone thinks Contaxes are expensive now, they were even more so on an inflation-adjusted basis when they were bought new. I can't believe they would have been so highly regarded in their day, especially among photojournalists, who simply didn't/don't put up with unreliable gear, if the numbers you cite were true.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Yep, right on:
That's from Henry Scherer's site.
On the same page he goes on and on about vintage cameras being covered with bacteria and allergens and whatnot. Clearly a self-serving statement.
I only know Mr. Scherer by his excellent reputation (and corresponding waiting lists). I have not had a camera serviced by him.
That's from Henry Scherer's site.
On the same page he goes on and on about vintage cameras being covered with bacteria and allergens and whatnot. Clearly a self-serving statement.
I only know Mr. Scherer by his excellent reputation (and corresponding waiting lists). I have not had a camera serviced by him.
MISH
Well-known
If this statement was some how true one could expect that one or two of my three IIAs would be pretty screwed up, after sitting unused for about thirty years the two black dials had the expected slow shutter speed problems (one of which I had a CLA done on with no further problems) the color dial camera still works great even after sitting unused for such a long time and has never been serviced in any way. However I must admit I have fallen for Henry Scherer's mystique as I have been on his waiting list for 21 months (and I still have over 50 people in front of me in that line) to get the third body seviced
Bill58
Native Texan
It could be true given the legendary over-complexity of most German-made products. Look at many of the weapons they produced during WWII--thankfully prone to failure and difficult/ costly to repair.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Perhaps that stems from how the person who said this defines "work". If the 1/1250 setting gives an exposure of 1/1100 instead; or if one function or part goes more than 1/10 of a millimetre than its ordained action, the camera can be qualified as not working "right"...
However, Peter Hennig writes this, about the way the Contax mechanism was made:
So what 'works' may be relative...
ZeissFan
Veteran
First off, Henry needs to back up some of his assertions with raw data. If he can prove that two out of every three Contax IIa cameras coming off the line in the 1950s and early 1960s were non-functioning, then I'll believe it.
Second, he also needs to show some factual data to support his claim that most Contax II cameras out "there" today have Kiev shutters.
Until he can back up his claims, I think he should zip it.
And finally, this is a perfect opportunity to point out that not everything you read on the Internet is true.
Second, he also needs to show some factual data to support his claim that most Contax II cameras out "there" today have Kiev shutters.
Until he can back up his claims, I think he should zip it.
And finally, this is a perfect opportunity to point out that not everything you read on the Internet is true.
furcafe
Veteran
I agree. My guess is that Mr. Scherer is simply extrapolating from his own experience working on the cameras. Of course, the cameras that are sent to him for CLA &/or repair aren't exactly a representative sample of all of the cameras produced.
I think he does make a valid point that people should not expect the same level of "out of the box" reliability for camera gear from the 1930s that they do from equipment today. Even when they were new, mechanical cameras like the Contax or Leica (or a mechanical wristwatch even today) required more regular maintenance & adjustment than a modern body w/their electronics, etc. However, as DanOnRoute66 points out, the Contax system was highly regarded by photojournalists (@ least those using 35mm) & other demanding professionals/amateurs who I doubt would have tolerated a system that was 66% lemons. If that were true, perhaps the Kodak Ektra would have conquered the 35mm market during WWII!
I think he does make a valid point that people should not expect the same level of "out of the box" reliability for camera gear from the 1930s that they do from equipment today. Even when they were new, mechanical cameras like the Contax or Leica (or a mechanical wristwatch even today) required more regular maintenance & adjustment than a modern body w/their electronics, etc. However, as DanOnRoute66 points out, the Contax system was highly regarded by photojournalists (@ least those using 35mm) & other demanding professionals/amateurs who I doubt would have tolerated a system that was 66% lemons. If that were true, perhaps the Kodak Ektra would have conquered the 35mm market during WWII!
Dralowid
Michael
Unlikely in the extreme, I suspect. Although many a meal has been made out of the problems that early Contax Is had, the later cameras were all examples of excellent German engineering at the highest price. What has happened to them since is surely not Zeiss's responsibility.
Heck, even some Kievs work flawlessly and despite the 'folklore' the Contax I can be made to function well.
Michael
Heck, even some Kievs work flawlessly and despite the 'folklore' the Contax I can be made to function well.
Michael
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Ah, Henry. Should have known. He's a tech, not an engineer; I'll just leave it at that.
William
William
Spider67
Well-known
Thanks for the input folks: I did not copy the statement from, the site as I was interested in the experiences members had and not Henry Scherer's reputation.
I read the description of the assembling process which reminded me of a Contax sweatshop with people being paid for every assembled body (strangely resembling the Soviet quota system).
So thanks for helpinng me to check these statements
I read the description of the assembling process which reminded me of a Contax sweatshop with people being paid for every assembled body (strangely resembling the Soviet quota system).
So thanks for helpinng me to check these statements
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I had read so many descriptions of the unreliability and complexity of Contaxes that I was quite surprised to find how beautiful, heavy, solid, and smooth they are when working right, once I finally got my hands on one.
dee
Well-known
My 1951 Kiev II , serviced by an ex-Arsenal tech , is a dream to use .
The quality seems no different from my lovely Contax III , serviced and fixed at Arsenal , but NOT fitted with a Kiev shutter . a very dead Contax III offered it's meter parts so mine can live again .
A near mint 1952 Kiev II which has obviously been standing for decades , feels dry and just off ... but not for long .
I can't believe Zeiss could afford to put faulty cameras on the market - at those prices , customers would demand perfection .
It seems to be more about any vintage machine neading more TLC than most modern cameras / cars etc .
The quality seems no different from my lovely Contax III , serviced and fixed at Arsenal , but NOT fitted with a Kiev shutter . a very dead Contax III offered it's meter parts so mine can live again .
A near mint 1952 Kiev II which has obviously been standing for decades , feels dry and just off ... but not for long .
I can't believe Zeiss could afford to put faulty cameras on the market - at those prices , customers would demand perfection .
It seems to be more about any vintage machine neading more TLC than most modern cameras / cars etc .
Vics
Veteran
This idea does come from Henry Scherer's site, and he goes on to discuss the intense pressure that was placed upon the piece-workers who built the cameras. Working from ancient memory, I think he said that after the war these workers had to build more than one camera per day to make the rent and so they were hurried in their work. I thought is sounded reasonable, so I sent my IIIa to him for a complete rebuild. The camera like the ones in his article, LOOKED beautiful, but the shutter release packed up after half a roll. Henry fixed me up with a camera that is working perfectly after six years and hundreds of rolls. I don't know about his numerical statistics, but it does make some sense to me.
Vic
Vic
micromontenegro
Well-known
In the post war years, money did not grow in trees. If you got a really expensive IIa and it didn't work right, you sent it back to Zeiss Ikon. The same that would happen to a M9 today. That "it never worked right" thing is, IMHO, the southbound stuff coming from a bull heading north.
BTW, my IIIa worked for 55 years without a glitch. The first 50 were totally CLA free.
BTW, my IIIa worked for 55 years without a glitch. The first 50 were totally CLA free.
outfitter
Well-known
Harry is truly great as a restorer of Contax cameras but he has many off the wall views about the history of Contax cameras. Some think it is pure self promotion but I just think its they way he his.
In Harry's view few Contaxes (including pre-war) left the factory functioning up to spec because they were so complicated and he also makes much of the inexperience of the West German workers in the early days of Carl Zeiss Stuttgart. That well may be true and I have no doubts when a skilled engineer and machinist lavishes endless time on rebuilding the camera it comes out "better than new". Nevertheless the design was so robust that even Russian QC and the loosening of specs couldn't screw up the camera.
The Contax IIa is a much cleaner design, you can easily re-lube the slow speed gears yourself). I have two redone by Harry and they are truly magnificent, but I have had eBay bought ones unused for decades and they also were quite good with a little owner cleanup and lube. How many of today's cameras will be functioning 50 or more years from now?
In Harry's view few Contaxes (including pre-war) left the factory functioning up to spec because they were so complicated and he also makes much of the inexperience of the West German workers in the early days of Carl Zeiss Stuttgart. That well may be true and I have no doubts when a skilled engineer and machinist lavishes endless time on rebuilding the camera it comes out "better than new". Nevertheless the design was so robust that even Russian QC and the loosening of specs couldn't screw up the camera.
The Contax IIa is a much cleaner design, you can easily re-lube the slow speed gears yourself). I have two redone by Harry and they are truly magnificent, but I have had eBay bought ones unused for decades and they also were quite good with a little owner cleanup and lube. How many of today's cameras will be functioning 50 or more years from now?
Last edited: