Honu-Hugger
Well-known
A while back someone asked what model Contax was the best and the genral consensus pointed to the IIa, and more specifically the later Color Dial version of that camera. "Best" questions are always difficult to answer, especially with no parameters, and it occurred to me that there are similarities between the development and evolution of the Contax cameras and that of the Nikon "F" series.
Both the Contax I and the Nikon F were first of their kind cameras for the respective companies, and both went through many evolutionary changes and improvements while retaining the original model designation. In much the same way as the Nikon F2 was the result of all of the refinement Nikon had learned in building the F, the Contax II was in effect the final version of the Contax I with all improvements and ergonomic changes in place. It is a wonderfully designed and solidly built camera, much in the same way as the Nikon F2.
The Contax IIa resembles Nikons' introduction of the F3; a total redesign yet retention of the basic concept. The IIa is not a "better" camera than the I or the II anymore than the Nikon F3 is a "better" camera than the F2 or the original F -- "better" and "best" always need to be qualified. The IIa is smaller and lighter than the I and II; do these qualities make it better? Not necessarily; inertia counts for something in stability and I've never had a problem with the size of the I or the II, or the smaller size of the IIa for that matter. The IIa shutter underwent redesign and problems with the durability and operation of the I and II shutters were addressed, but a properly rebuilt early shutter now performs as reliably as the later shutter thanks to modern materials.
The I and II have a longer rangefinder baseline than the IIa, but due to the optical design of the IIa accuracy is claimed to be the same. The I and II cameras will mount all of the available Contax lenses, but the IIa can not accept the pre-war 35mm f/2.8 Biogon. Flash can not be fired with the I and II, but can with the IIa.
All things considered I would be hard pressed to pick a best Contax or a best Nikon "F" series. If I could only keep one Contax camera I suppose when forced to make the decision I would reluctantly give the nod to the IIa Color Dial only for the modern flash synchronization, but I sure would miss the others.
Both the Contax I and the Nikon F were first of their kind cameras for the respective companies, and both went through many evolutionary changes and improvements while retaining the original model designation. In much the same way as the Nikon F2 was the result of all of the refinement Nikon had learned in building the F, the Contax II was in effect the final version of the Contax I with all improvements and ergonomic changes in place. It is a wonderfully designed and solidly built camera, much in the same way as the Nikon F2.
The Contax IIa resembles Nikons' introduction of the F3; a total redesign yet retention of the basic concept. The IIa is not a "better" camera than the I or the II anymore than the Nikon F3 is a "better" camera than the F2 or the original F -- "better" and "best" always need to be qualified. The IIa is smaller and lighter than the I and II; do these qualities make it better? Not necessarily; inertia counts for something in stability and I've never had a problem with the size of the I or the II, or the smaller size of the IIa for that matter. The IIa shutter underwent redesign and problems with the durability and operation of the I and II shutters were addressed, but a properly rebuilt early shutter now performs as reliably as the later shutter thanks to modern materials.
The I and II have a longer rangefinder baseline than the IIa, but due to the optical design of the IIa accuracy is claimed to be the same. The I and II cameras will mount all of the available Contax lenses, but the IIa can not accept the pre-war 35mm f/2.8 Biogon. Flash can not be fired with the I and II, but can with the IIa.
All things considered I would be hard pressed to pick a best Contax or a best Nikon "F" series. If I could only keep one Contax camera I suppose when forced to make the decision I would reluctantly give the nod to the IIa Color Dial only for the modern flash synchronization, but I sure would miss the others.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
My first Rf was a IIa with the 1.5 50mm, great camera. Thanks for your insight here.
Todd
Todd
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I always enjoy what you have to say about the Contax line. As I look over at my Kiev 5 though, I always wonder what it would be like had the good folks in Stuttgart had made it. Not to say that Arsenal didn't do a very interesting job, but I've heard tell of the VK21 and VK27 prototypes that would have made for very interesting cameras even at the dawn of the SLR era. Ah, well, so it goes... 
William
William
FrankS
Registered User
I'd vote for the F4 as best Nikon model. This would be the only electronic camera I'd vote for though.
N
nwcanonman
Guest
Frank,
Of course, as previously mentioned, "Best" is subjective based on that person's needs/desires. Having owned both, I found the weight and slow AF of the F4 to be objectional. I love my F3HP/T for a tough all manual focus body and use the more modern lightweight N80 for AF and VR lenses.
Dispite the F4's reputation as "tank-like", my example had been used/abused by it's previous owner and always gave me problems. It was much cheaper to buy a new N80 than repair the F4 (which I sold).
Of course, as previously mentioned, "Best" is subjective based on that person's needs/desires. Having owned both, I found the weight and slow AF of the F4 to be objectional. I love my F3HP/T for a tough all manual focus body and use the more modern lightweight N80 for AF and VR lenses.
Dispite the F4's reputation as "tank-like", my example had been used/abused by it's previous owner and always gave me problems. It was much cheaper to buy a new N80 than repair the F4 (which I sold).
FrankS
Registered User
As always: your mileage may vary! I use my f4 with manual focus lenses and rely on the focus confirmation light if needed. My f4 has not let me down and I have not abused it from new.
andrewn
Member
William, over the years I have owned several Leica Ms, a Contax IIIa, a Nikon S3 and the Kiev 5. I too wonder what the Kiev 5 could have been had it been manufactured to Contax standards. As it is I found found it frustrating, a great design but poorly executed.
A fascinating camera with bags of character but it could have been truly world class... It's such a shame that Zeiss didn't continue the race and build something to take on the M3s, SPs and Canon 7s of this world (ironically as we enter the 21st Centuary perhaps that is exactly what they are doing... )
The best Nikon F series camera? The SP!!!!
A fascinating camera with bags of character but it could have been truly world class... It's such a shame that Zeiss didn't continue the race and build something to take on the M3s, SPs and Canon 7s of this world (ironically as we enter the 21st Centuary perhaps that is exactly what they are doing... )
The best Nikon F series camera? The SP!!!!
N
nwcanonman
Guest
"The best Nikon F series camera? The SP!!!!"
.......................................
andrewn,
Hmm? Wasn't the SP a M39 screw mount lens RF?
I believe the first F-type beyonet-mount body was the "Nikon F" , which is why it's called the F-mount ever since.
.......................................
andrewn,
Hmm? Wasn't the SP a M39 screw mount lens RF?
I believe the first F-type beyonet-mount body was the "Nikon F" , which is why it's called the F-mount ever since.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
andrewn said:
Guess I can't say I've found it frustrating. It has its ... quirks, shall we say :angel: ? OTOH, given the heaping mounds of abuse I've read in some quarters about it, I probably had such amazingly low expectations that I couldn't help but be impressed...
And the finder with 50 & 85 parallax corrected bright lines is really pleasant.But Arsenal had some interesting ideas. The Kiev TTL prototype, the Kiev 5, the modified back that went into production on the Kiev 4m/am series...
I had thought only the SPX was based on the F? But I know much less about the Nikons, alas. Perhaps someday I can afford one of the S3-2000's now that the SP-2005 is out and hopefully driving down their cost.
William
kiev4a
Well-known
I had a friend who was a United Press International Photographer back in the early 1970s. He used Nikon Fs--then the F2. When he heard the F2 was to be replaced by the F3 he brought three brand new F2 bodies. He wanted to make sure he would have enough F2s to last him until retirement. Don't know if he ever had to dip into his F2 reserve. Wish I knew where he was now. Wouldn't it be great to find an F2 still in its original wrrppings?
The Nikon F was a great camera. I accidently threw one about 15 feet and then it rolled another 10 feet down a gravel road after it hit. The only damage was a ding in the FTN finder. It was still working four years later when I sold it. Never owned an F2, F3, F4 or F5. My first auto Nikon was the F100. It's a nice camera but I seriously doubt it could survive a roll down a gravel road.
I have a couple of Kiev 4As and a Contax II. The Contax takes great pictures for a camera built in 1937. But I've never been able to get comfortable with the Contax design--especially the lens mount--which has always struck me as rather Rube Goldberg. But I'm sure my feeling is in the minority.
The Nikon F was a great camera. I accidently threw one about 15 feet and then it rolled another 10 feet down a gravel road after it hit. The only damage was a ding in the FTN finder. It was still working four years later when I sold it. Never owned an F2, F3, F4 or F5. My first auto Nikon was the F100. It's a nice camera but I seriously doubt it could survive a roll down a gravel road.
I have a couple of Kiev 4As and a Contax II. The Contax takes great pictures for a camera built in 1937. But I've never been able to get comfortable with the Contax design--especially the lens mount--which has always struck me as rather Rube Goldberg. But I'm sure my feeling is in the minority.
andrewn
Member
nwcanonman said:
Forgive me I am being deliberately ironic!! The Nikon rangefinder cameras had there own bayonet lens mount, similar but not identical to that used by Contax.
The Nikon F SLR was developed from the SP, aside from the viewing mechanism they were, according to Robert Rotoloni, the guru on such matters, basically the same camera.
The only SLR I have owned in recent times was the Nikon F3, a magnificent beast but I am a confirmed rangefinder man and didn't keep it.
Regards
Andrew