TenEleven
Well-known
I do like the Contax IIa, and while in many ways it was a step forward, especially the later models with the fixed take-up spool and platinum finder which are much easier to load & see through, I have to agree that in some ways it introduces new problems that that original II did not have. Most notably it now had a rangefinder that could (and often does) go out of alignment vertically. This would not have been possible on a II unless you took a hammer to it.
The feeling that the IIa is a sort of "prototype" can be confirmed in the fact that most of the IIa's design documents were actually drawn up during or before the war. Then after the war they no longer had Kueppenbender to make sense of these drawings or address some of the shortcomings which had already been identified in these very drawings, but remained unaddressed.
I still like the IIa's for the excellent "Opton" lenses though - the new Biogon in particular is a big step up over its predecessor as is their compact size and weight. The new chrome process is very beautiful, also. However if I want a camera that I can blindly rely on, I often end up taking the II ...
Edit: Oh yeah, addressing the above messages, the IIa is also the much.. much more "repairable" camera. It comes apart into three main sections (the outer shell, the shutter board, and the helical assembly) which thus can be serviced individually and the process is quite painless. The II is quite straight-forward as well, it's just involved but no worse than a Barnack Leica in my opinion. The I is an absolute nightmare to work on though, no disagreement there!
The feeling that the IIa is a sort of "prototype" can be confirmed in the fact that most of the IIa's design documents were actually drawn up during or before the war. Then after the war they no longer had Kueppenbender to make sense of these drawings or address some of the shortcomings which had already been identified in these very drawings, but remained unaddressed.
I still like the IIa's for the excellent "Opton" lenses though - the new Biogon in particular is a big step up over its predecessor as is their compact size and weight. The new chrome process is very beautiful, also. However if I want a camera that I can blindly rely on, I often end up taking the II ...
Edit: Oh yeah, addressing the above messages, the IIa is also the much.. much more "repairable" camera. It comes apart into three main sections (the outer shell, the shutter board, and the helical assembly) which thus can be serviced individually and the process is quite painless. The II is quite straight-forward as well, it's just involved but no worse than a Barnack Leica in my opinion. The I is an absolute nightmare to work on though, no disagreement there!
Last edited:






