Leicaflex or Contarex?

Dralowid said:
But, but, but...

...the SL is chrome....surely, just to make the decision more emotional and the choice more difficult it should be black?!?

Michael
Click to expand...

Ooh -- if it were to be a black one, I'd choose the 1st Leicaflex instead!


Judging by the weather forecasts for this weekend, I think many of the photos will be very white.
 
Ooh -- if it were to be a black one, I'd choose the 1st Leicaflex instead!
Click to expand...

...sorry I can't offer a pic of one of those but will post black SL pic in due course.

Something else to appreciate is the shape of the SL, rounded back, flat front, falls to hand very well. If the Contarex is in the Contax tradition it is all corners...

But I am biased, very biased.

Michael
 
Yes Michael - I can definitely understand, and I'm doing my darndest to remain strong and to not succumb to keeping both systems (somebody once said something about the spirit being willing, but the flesh....???).

When I was talking to Frank Marshman yesterday, he of course has seen more than a few of the insides of both of these cameras (I read an old internet posting of his from a few years back, and he said at that time that he'd repaired over 70,000 cameras, which I can't even get my head around!). He doesn't find either camera to be more difficult to work on than the other, though he did say that the Contarex can be intimidating to the uninitiated. The Leicaflex has that 1/2000th shutter speed, which utilizes an additional spring, and he said that adds another level of complication to its mechanism. For him, both cameras are very very good, but holding that Contarex is really something special, plus it's just so unique looking. But, as you say Michael, that Leicaflex has a way of seducing you in very subtle ways, which makes this decision all the more challenging.

Just keep telling yourself Vinny -- be strong, don't give in, don't give in...only one system or the other.....be strong....
 
Last edited:
Vince Lupo said:
Let the testing begin!
Click to expand...

😱

After looking at your pic of that pair, all I can do is quote Hans and Franz channeling Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Ve vant to pump -- [smack!] -- you up!"

Better get the Ibuprofen ready; by Monday morning your muscles'll be a-achin'!

😀
 
scottgee1 said:
😱

After looking at your pic of that pair, all I can do is quote Hans and Franz channeling Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Ve vant to pump -- [smack!] -- you up!"

Better get the Ibuprofen ready; by Monday morning your muscles'll be a-achin'!

😀
Click to expand...

Good thing I'm not doing a side-by-side of a Hasselblad 500 ELM and a Rollei SL66, eh?!
 
Well I've done a grand total of 4 shots with each camera so far (same shots with both cameras), and already I'm noticing differences. The Contarex is a beast - I mean, there is no doubt that you are handling SOME kind of camera. I mean, a D3X is wimpy by comparison! Plus, that shutter sound has a very distinct sound...almost like it has a Swiss watch mechanism as part of the shutter assembly. So this is a very good camera indeed.....

Now, the Leicaflex.....even after only 4 exposures, this may be the perfect 35mm camera. It fits in your hand beautifully. The film advance lever/meter on-off actuation is the ideal design, and your thumb naturally falls into its perfect spot (one thing that I can say that the Contarex does not have). The meter is unquestionably the easiest I have ever used....my dead grandmother could work it, it's so nice.

So yes, this is going to be a very tough decision...I love the Contarex, but I've also been looking at 90/2.8 2 cam Elmarits on eBay....not a good sign.
 
Dear Vince,

A lot is certainly going to depend on how much you use it. As I use SLRs very little, I could live with the Cyclops, and it's just such a magnificent chunk of engineering. But for more frequent use I strongly suspect I'd go for the Leicaflex.

I was interested to in what your repairer said. I'd never heard anyone compare the two; I'd merely been told that the Contarex was difficult, and, separately from that, that the Leicaflex was nothing unusual. It may well be that I was hearing different repairers' perspectives.

Cheers,

R.
 
Hi Roger -- yes, Frank and I had about a 20 minute discussion on the phone yesterday, and he really didn't think that the Contarex is really a big deal to work on (As I say, he's been repairing cameras since about 1972, and probably has repaired every kind of camera you can think of). I like asking Frank's opinions about certain cameras, mainly due to the fact that he knows what these things look like on the inside and he doesn't mince words -- don't ever ask him about Alpas, by the way...not good.

I was thinking about the comparisons as we were making dinner tonight, and I can sort of make an analogy between these two cameras and motorcycles. The Leicaflex is like a '69 Honda CB750 -- very fine, perfectly made, utterly reliable, but slightly boring (even period reviews said that about the bike). The Contarex is brash and out there -- maybe like a Triton or a Series C Black Shadow? But boy, if anything goes wrong - look out.
 
Now HERE'S an interesting phenomenon - and those of you who are familiar with Leicaflex SL's can tell me if this is part of the Leicaflex mechanism, or if it's just mine:

When advancing the film (after taking a picture), if you don't happen to advance the lever fully so that it advances the film and fully re-cocks the shutter, it won't take the next picture, right? Okay, now advance the lever again so that it fully re-cocks the shutter, BUT you have also just advanced the film another frame without taking another picture. As well, if you don't advance the lever all the way AGAIN, and it still won't take a photo because the shutter isn't fully cocked, you have to advance the lever one more time, BUT it then will advance the film ANOTHER frame without taking another picture. So, if you're not careful, you could advance through the whole film so long as you continue to not fully advance the lever to its fullest extent (so that you feel and hear the 'click' of the shutter re-setting itself).

So, is that just my camera, or do they all do that?

Also, I'm using both cameras in their 1/2 cases, and that beautiful feel of the Leicaflex in your hand is lost in its 1/2 case. The Contarex 1/2 case is the one with the 'pouch' in the back (for the interchangeable backs), so it's not the most ergonomic either.
 
Last edited:
Vince Lupo said:
The Leicaflex is like a '69 Honda CB750 -- very fine, perfectly made, utterly reliable, but slightly boring (even period reviews said that about the bike). The Contarex is brash and out there -- maybe like a Triton or a Series C Black Shadow? But boy, if anything goes wrong - look out.
Click to expand...

I was following this story, empathising, knowing I'd really want the Contarex, principally so I could use that magniicent 21/4.5 Biogon. Then you really started to talk me out of it, when you mentioned the Leicaflex in use. But damn, when you mentioned the Series C Black Shadow, you made the decision right there.

My ex-girlfriend's dad used to restore old Brit bikes, he had a Vincent and several other prewar models... I so regret I didn't get chance to absorb his knowledge while he was still around.
 
Yeah - that Contarex is something sweet (so is a Series C Black Shadow for that matter, but since I don't have that kind of money, I have to be satisfied with my '66 Honda CB7 SuperHawk). So the question is - do you want something that does the job beautifully, reliably (except that lever wind question is a bit suspicious!), but a bit on the boring side, OR do you want this bold piece of machinery that announces itself to the world every time you sling it around your neck, knowing that if it goes south on you, there might be trouble. Very tough decision.

But then we can get into the whole philosophy about what we're doing in the first place - is it about getting the image, or is it about getting the image BUT perhaps doing it in our individual style, and how does the equipment play a role in defining our individual style etc etc.

BTW, if you still want the Contarex, and plan on using the 21mm lens, be sure to get a Contarex that has the mirror release/lockup function (you can't use the lens with the mirror down, hence the necessity for the 21mm viewfinder). My Contarex must be an early one, as it does not have the mirror release/lockup function, so I'm SOL in terms of using the 21mm lens.
 
Last edited:
Vince Lupo said:
So, is that just my camera, or do they all do that?
Click to expand...
Mine didn't do that. It advanced film once, but if not cocked fully the curtains springed back to initial position. It never spoiled a frame.

The lack of ratcheted advance was very irritating after M4 thoguh.
 
On the Contarex Bullseye, you guys know that the mirror release is inside the mirror box, right? Just checking ...

Also, the 21mm Biogon is the Contax lens fitted to a Contarex mount.
 
Remove the lens. In the bottom of the mirror chamber is a small tab. Tension the shutter and press the tab down. The mirror should raise with that "zzzzhhh" sound.

The mirror will return when you release the shutter. But because the 21mm Biogon's rear elements sits so deeply into the mirror box, the mirror simply rests on the rear barrel of the lens. You only need to raise it the one time.
 
Last edited:
ZeissFan said:
Remove the lens. In the bottom of the mirror chamber is a small tab. Tension the shutter and press the tab down. The mirror should raise with that "zzzzhhh" sound.

The mirror will return when you release the shutter. But because the 21mm Biogon's rear elements sits so deeply into the mirror box, the mirror simply rests on the rear barrel of the lens. You only need to raise it the one time.
Click to expand...

A-HA!

Many thanks for that bit of advice -- I knew I wasn't so smart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom