Contax I CLA?

[DennisM]

I inherited several vintage cameras a few years ago and have had several CLA'd and which I now use. However, I've hesitated to do so with a Contax I since I'm not familiar with the camera and consequently don't know how easily they can be put in operating condition and how usable they would be if so restored, assuming that the repair person I regularly use is capable of and willing to perform a CLA. Mine is a later model I from the shutter speed sequence. The camera is in good shape, and I cock the shutter and fire it; and set apertures and speeds. I'm assuming that I can use an Ilford B&W film cartridge spool as a film take up spool. In short, should bother with a CLA?

 

[DennisM]

Sorry for the confusion. The camera is a fixed lens SLR, a Contaflex; I don't post often, and always seem to have a problem adding images to a post, hence the 2d post and the name correction. BTW, this camera must be made of a lead alloy; it weighs a ton.

 

[p.giannakis]

Contax cameras are notoriously complex to service. If it works well, i would suggest to avoid it - use it and see how you feel about it - if it starts malfunctioning (and you like it enough to justify it) then maybe consider a CLA. Thats my 2c.

 

[Pioneer]

My Contaflex II was serviced by Chris Sherlock. Did a fine job but check with him before you send it in case he is not doing these any longer.

 

[raydm6]

Chris has recently retired.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I inherited several vintage cameras a few years ago and have had several CLA'd and which I now use. However, I've hesitated to do so with a Contax I since I'm not familiar with the camera and consequently don't know how easily they can be put in operating condition and how usable they would be if so restored, assuming that the repair person I regularly use is capable of and willing to perform a CLA. Mine is a later model I from the shutter speed sequence. The camera is in good shape, and I cock the shutter and fire it; and set apertures and speeds. I'm assuming that I can use an Ilford B&W film cartridge spool as a film take up spool. In short, should bother with a CLA?
filedata/fetch?id=4804820&d=1665175704

Hi Dennis,
What you have there is a Contaflex III. It is a fixed lens SLR, (in as much as none of the 35mm Contaflex SLRs are capable of interchanging their entire lens optics).

Unlike the original Contaflex or Contaflex II, however the Contaflex III front 50mm Tessar lens cell may be removed, and several Pro Tessar interchangeable lenses of various focal lengths fitted in its place. The Contaflex III was, in fact the first Contaflex model designed to use Pro Tessar lenses (not to be confused with the Teleskop additional lens for the Contaflex (I) and Contaflex II, which was an additional lens, mounted in front of their standard 45mm Tessars which themselves, cannot be detached at all).

The Contaflex III is not truly rare; but it is one of the lowest production models of the Contaflex series. A figure of 20,000 comes to mind (to put this in perspective, total production of all Contaflex SLR types (including the quite distinctly different 126 Contaflex) was just shy of one million units. A Contaflex Rapid is a rarer camera (8,000 units I think?), nevertheless the III is sometimes absent from Contaflex enthusiasts' cabinets (I believe I have two examples myself).

None of this matters much in terms of having it serviced, of course, if you don't want to use it. To try and answer your question on this point—I gather you believe it may be working? We'll get to that, but if so, it seems sensible to suggest shooting a roll or two through it—to see how you feel about both the experience of using it, and the resulting images, yes?

With both a mirror and rear capping plate to actuate, Contaflexes are good at sounding like they're fully functional when in fact they will not expose correctly. So it's worth a quick check to verify basic function. Typical age-related but not terminal problems will include: shutter blades sticking and not opening and closing in a timely manner (or in severe cases, perhaps even not opening and closing at all); and aperture blades which do not stop down rapidly enough to reach their pre-set aperture before the exposure is made.

The latter is essential (which makes sense if you think about it). If Eg. You've set the aperture to f/11—regardless of whatever shutter speed you've set—the aperture must be at f/11 for the entire 1/60, or 1/125 (or whatever speed). Not merely for a portion of this interval. So—the aperture must be fully set before the shutter blades even start to open for your exposure, right?

Fortunately it's not hard to check this visually. If you set 1/500 (the shortest time) and f/22 (the smallest aperture, requiring the blades to move the most for the longest amount of time, before exposure can begin) you can observe through the lens pointed at a bright light source. With the camera back off, obviously.

If all is well you will see a very small pentagon of light representing the set f/22. If the shutter can manage f/22 OK, it should function fine at f/11, f/5.6 et al. Perhaps counterintuitively—using a fast time such as 1/500 and a bright light can make it easier to observe the actual size of the lens opening as the shutter is fired, whereas at, say 1/60 the additional light might give a less helpful retained image by your retina.

If the slow speeds seem to run off OK, setting Eg 1 second or even Bulb and f/22 can help remove any doubt about the aperture moving sharply enough. Looking through the lens again—once the shutter blades have opened, if you can see any trace at all of the lens opening becoming smaller as you're watching it—the aperture isn't reacting fast enough. The blades must be stationery at the pre-set aperture, from the instant the exposure begins.

If your camera passes these quick and basic checks you can be fairly confident it's capable of exposing film at least tolerably well.

It's worth noting that whilst Sun and various third party makers offered numerous add-on converter lenses for all manner of rangefinders, SLRs and even TLRs in the 1950s and 1960s especially—these generic additional optics varied in the effects on image quality from dreadful to reasonable—depending, to no small extent, on not just the quality of the add-on, but that of the main lens involved, and the pairing of the two systems. Thus, modular lens systems such as those produced for various leaf shutter SLRs from Japan and Germany are sometimes written off, as a group, as capable only of mediocre results.

In certain cases this must be true—however some "converter lenses" are definitely better than others, and (having used them extensively) the Contaflex Pro Tessars may just be the standard against which all others should be judged. They're surprisingly good. The 115mm is weakest (good central sharpness, but benefits more from stopping down than the 35mm and 85mm Pro Tessars for edge sharpness, field curvature, perhaps). The 35mm and 85mm perform acceptably at all apertures, or better than acceptably (as defined by Modern Photography in period). As a bonus, they're reasonably light and by today's pricing of many vintage lenses—very affordable.

The Pro Tessars can certainly suffer from cement separation. The 35mm, 85mm and 115mm can all be afflicted, the 85mm is extremely susceptible. Many were sold, though, and good examples are still out there. I have two 85mm Pro Tessars: a f/3.2, which is perfect; and an f/4 with a small edge separation. Results from either seem to be indistinguishable, hence, whilst one naturally wants flawless glass—if you like the Contaflex, and are offered a Pro Tessar with moderate separation for a song, don't discount it. It'll probably shoot fine providing coatings are reasonable and haze isn't intrusive, and serve well—at least, until a pristine replacement comes along.

The Contaflex SLRs are not for everybody. What is beyond doubt is they feature 45mm or 50mm Tessar lenses of good to superb definition, build quality that's beyond reproach and (once serviced) some of the best reliability and durability in the 35mm leaf shutter SLR category. Late Contaflexes have a 50mm Tessar that is bitingly sharp. If you find them enjoyable to use, and can live with their limitations, for certain purposes (they excel at landscapes), there is no doubt that they are capable of excellent results.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[flavio81]

You should edit the title of your thread to "Contaflex CLA", and this post should be moved to the SLR section of the forum.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I have a very nice looking Contaflex. Everything moves, clicks, and whirrs seemingly OK, but while the shutter is open for viewing, shutter does not open during exposure. I checked a number of places and was discouraged from attempting a repair, was told, "super complicated, can't make a reliable repair." So, I enjoy mine as a shelf queen.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I have a very nice looking Contaflex. Everything moves, clicks, and whirrs seemingly OK, but while the shutter is open for viewing, shutter does not open during exposure. I checked a number of places and was discouraged from attempting a repair, was told, "super complicated, can't make a reliable repair." So, I enjoy mine as a shelf queen.

I'm not, obviously, disputing you were given that advice. But it's not really accurate. Is a Contaflex more complicated than, say, a rangefinder with a Synchro-Compur shutter? Yes, it is. It needs a reflex mirror, and a rear shutter (Zeiss, in their period literature, called it a "capping plate"). And its lens shutter has some additional parts to hold the shutter and aperture blades open for viewing. But all these extra parts are rarely problematic, in themselves. These were very well made cameras. When new, they sold very well, and with good reason. They had good lenses, made fine photographs and were reliable.

Yours is the earlier, and slightly less common type of Contaflex II—it has the two slots in the meter flap, hence it has the dual range uncoupled light meter later replaced by a single range meter. Hence it probably dates to some time around 1954 to maybe 1955 (or thereabouts). So it's nearly 70 years old now.

Without even seeing it, I can tell you that it really just needs its shutter cleaned, and also the drive rings behind the shutter that re-cock it. When you wind it, the blades are being forced open against the drag created by a film of evaporated lubricant fractions on their surfaces. You press the button, then: the hold lever that keeps the shutter open is released; the blades close; but the shutter main spring isn't powerful enough to defeat the contaminants gluing the shutter blades together. So, when you depress the release it closes, and it's trying to open and close as it should, but it's dirty, and can't manage this. Nothing's broken. And—unless you decide to wind and wind it, and perhaps shear off a blade from the stresses involved in dragging them against each other whilst they're sticking—nothing is likely to break. Sure, for a complete job there are some other things that could be done: take off the top cover, clean the wind gears, focus screen, which is all nice. But pull the shutter out, clean it and the back rings, and it'd run again for years, with excellent reliability. And you'd notice it winds more easily with less effort too.

You should bear in mind that the story of the Contaflex SLRs (and subsequently, the Retina Reflexes and Bessamatic) originated from a surprising source—Victor Hasselblad. Victor wanted to move to a system of lens shutter medium format SLRs, and he needed a collaborator with expertise in the manufacture of lens shutters. Deckel, the makers of the Compur line of shutters was the obvious partner, but apparently there was some push back. They felt an automatic reflex version of their lens shutters wasn't possible. Ultimately, Victor and his senior engineer travelled to München where—if my recollection is accurate, forgive me, please, if that's not the case—they met with Friedrich Deckel, who, as the story goes, was somewhat embarrassed when he was shown the working prototype that Victor's people had devised. Deckel agreed to manufacture the shutters Victor wanted for the lenses Zeiss were going to supply him with (for what would later be known as the 500C), on the condition they could hold the relevant patents, and manufacture smaller ("000") versions of the shutter. Which, of course, were fitted to the Contaflex. Victor himself touched on how this unfolded in a 1967 television interview he did with the Swedish national broadcaster (which I've previously shared at Rangefinder Forum).

So: these places, which have advised you a Contaflex is "super complicated", and that they "can't make a reliable repair". They must, presumably, also give 500 Hasselblads a wide berth—for precisely the same reasons? Yes? Because a Contaflex, particularly the pre-Super series, is less complex than a Hasselblad. You do not need any alignment jigs to re-assemble a Contaflex, (which are recommended for a Hassy). Detaching the shutter and refitting it is easier than a reflex Hasselblad lens shutter.

Granted, a Hasselblad is a better made camera than the various 35mm lens shutter SLRs. I'd argue, though, that the Contaflexes generally were the best quality cameras in that category. Voigtländer's Bessamatics are well made, basically reliable, (if more complicated) and delightful, effective cameras with good lenses, however they will wear more, internally, with hard use. No, a Contaflex is not as well made as a Hasselblad 500; it is however made from excellent, durable, materials and not a poor quality design. The Prontor shutter equipped versions with Pantar lenses were cheapened: I've had little to do with them (and have little interest in changing this state of affairs, when they generally sell for little less than the better models with a Tessar lens and superior build).

Logically, then, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the repairers you contacted preferred not to quote for repairing your Contaflex II because they'd rather stick to types they know, or don't really know much about Contaflexes. Ie there was a bit of BS going on.

I hope this doesn't read as being adversarial, Richard, because it's not intended to be, at all. You made enquiries in good faith and have simply relayed what you were advised. I've just tried to outline an alternative perspective based on a bit of experience using and working on various Contaflexes. Over the years I have handled a few dozen here and there. I don't keep track of such things but I must have serviced 15 or more probably. There have been a couple which were actually broken, but this is the exception, not the norm. Apart from selenium cells, (which sometimes are actually still sound, but, like nearly any other cells in most makers' models, can be defective) or fungus, most non-functional Contaflexes can be brought back to life.

Have you tried contacting Radu Lesaru? He's in the USA and will work on Contaflexes. If the light meter of your example still works (models with a cover flap fare better than those without, so it's possible) he could service it and make it spot on. Unlikely to be the least expensive technician but he does very good work from all I've heard.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[DennisM]

A postscript. Many thanks to Sarcophilus Harrisii for his illuminating comments on the Contaflex, and apologies to all for misstating the title of my original post. I went ahead and handed the camera over to the repairman I've used in the past through a local camera store and asked if it was worth repairing. The reply was that no, it wasn't worth repairing. I've accepted that verdict notwithstanding my inclination to rehabilitate old cameras and put film through them; I've certainly given second lives to enough of them.