Contax I ribbons

Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
I can't comment about the original, but a well sorted II/III can be both accurate and reliable, whilst not giving the sorts of capping problems that seem to be far too common with the fast speeds of the post war IIa and IIIa designs. I think they're technically brilliant, personally, actually the finest rangefinders ever made. For example, few 80 year old Leicas can be made to work well with nothing more than a couple of ribbons, and fewer will have their rangefinders still as perfectly calibrated as the day they were made either. None will be as accurate then, or now.
Cheers
Brett
Click to expand...

I agree with you, my Contax II/III performs very well.
 
I have tested speed accuracy on my Contax I
Bad thing 1/1000 give me only 1/300s;
1/500 - 1/110s;
1/200 - 1/80s;
1/100 - 1/66s
Good news, I have repeated test 4-5 times for each exposure with exact same numbers.
 
I can only speak from my own experience. I have no shutter tester. I have a v4 that performs very good, but I am sure it has been serviced before (it has a flash synch). I have a v7 that has got new AA ribbons that performs perfectly, with the exeption of the "sports group". In that group the shutter does not open. I have a v5 that performs very strange. It has an aluminium shutter. Whith the back detached, the shutter works quite good, but when the back is installed, it is not reliable: the shutter sticks so now and then. Another problem is that the perforation of the film shows in the picture. I can't find the cause of that problem.

Erik.
 
Deklari said:
I have tested speed accuracy on my Contax I
Bad thing 1/1000 give me only 1/300s;
1/500 - 1/110s;
1/200 - 1/80s;
1/100 - 1/66s
Good news, I have repeated test 4-5 times for each exposure with exact same numbers.
Click to expand...

Great that you've got it at work at all! Congratulations!

These are the results of the "sports group"? Not bad at all, I would say. How does the shutter perform in the "normal group"?

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Great that you've got it at worki at all! Congratulations!

These are the results of the "sports group"? Not bad at all, I would say. How does the shutter perform in the "normal group"?

Erik.
Click to expand...

Thanks, But ideal for me will be to get 1/500
"Normal" perform better; 1/25 - 1/20, 1/50 - 1/40, 1/100 - 1/60
 
Erik van Straten said:
Another problem is that the perforation of the film shows in the picture. I can't find the cause of that problem.

Erik.
Click to expand...

Capa had the same problem :rolleyes:
The "new" pre-loaded cassettes are shorter than the Zeiss Ikon cassette or daylight spool, designed specifically for their cameras. This causes the new cassette to drop and mis-align against the film gate allowing the top line of sprocket holes to become partially exposed to the incoming light from the lens.
(early Leicas had the same problem up to I think IIIf)
There is an excellent photograph on this page showing the effect and of Capa's film, which is part of a long series on D-day and Capa and the now proved non existent darkroom accident.

http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandpho...guest-post-16-rob-mcelroy-on-robert-capa-2-a/
 
ChrisLivsey said:
Capa had the same problem :rolleyes:
The "new" pre-loaded cassettes are shorter than the Zeiss Ikon cassette or daylight spool, designed specifically for their cameras. This causes the new cassette to drop and mis-align against the film gate allowing the top line of sprocket holes to become partially exposed to the incoming light from the lens.
Click to expand...

Yes, well, my other Contax I cameras (and the screw-mount Leicas) align the film perfectly when a small piece of cardboard is put under the cassette. I do not understand why this is not the case with my v5.

Why did Capa use this camera for this dangerous job? Didn't he try the camera before embarking?

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Yes, well, my other Contax I cameras (and the screw-mount Leicas) align the film perfectly when a small piece of cardboard is put under the cassette. I do not understand why this is not the case with my v5.

Why did Capa use this camera for this dangerous job? Didn't he try the camera before embarking?

Erik.
Click to expand...

The difference in cassette height is quoted as 2mm or 2.2mm depending on the source.
There was nothing wrong, mechanically, with his camera. I don't suppose loading with a washer or "small piece of cardboard" is worth the bother in a combat zone.
Have you tried a larger piece in the V5? it can only be misalignment of the film as it passes across the gate, unless the gate is more than 24mm. You can see the effect clearly:
http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Capa_composite6.jpg

And should be able to demonstrate it and correct it in your camera.

Capa was not alone in not bothering:

http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandpho...2015/05/Capa_Orkin_contact_sheet_closeup2.jpg

A rather famous shot by Ruth Orkin.

Kodak did sell re-loads for Leica and Contax alongside the ready loaded coded 135:
235-size was for Zeiss Ikon cameras
435-size was for Leica cameras.
335 was a daylight loading spool for the 24 × 23 mm stereo format

Again when in the field re-loadable cassettes were dropped in favour of the Kodak cassette very quickly for convenience and presumably the rather complex logistics of returning the empty cassette!!

Kodak as they did many times launched 135 for their own camera the Retina
 
ChrisLivsey said:
Have you tried a larger piece in the V5? it can only be misalignment of the film as it passes across the gate, unless the gate is more than 24mm.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Chris, for all these examples. But I tried everything. My other Contax I cameras (v4 and v7) expose perfectly between the perforations when a piece of cardboard is placed under the cassette, but not this one. That is what I do not understand.

Contax I v5, Tessar 50mm f/2.8, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

28836798192_979510dc7f_c.jpg
 
Erik van Straten said:
I think you should be really happy with these results. For B+W it is good enough! Not for color slides.

Did you try some extra tension?

Erik.
Click to expand...

I have try extra tension (two turns) but no any significant changes. I have also try 1/1000 without the cover plate (to avoid any friction), it still show same results approximately 1/300s.
Finally, roller replacement from Kiev make Contax I live again.
"Sport group" 1/300, 1/120, 1/100, 1/80
"Normal group" 1/20, 1/50 (1/100 give me 1/35s)
"Night group" 1/10 (1/5 no working)
"Time group" 1/2 (B no working stop at middle of frame)
I think I will spot here.. and try first B+W film.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Thank you, Chris, for all these examples. But I tried everything. My other Contax I cameras (v4 and v7) expose perfectly between the perforations when a piece of cardboard is placed under the cassette, but not this one. That is what I do not understand.
Click to expand...

Thought I'd jump in here. Been curiously watching/reading this thread for a while. I have no intention of opening my Contax I but it's interesting to see the innards and complexity of design.

I am lucky to have a Contax I(f) that works almost perfectly...the 1/1000 setting caps, but other than that, it works fine - except mine does the same thing as you mention! Even with something in the film chamber holding up the cassette as high as it goes. I honestly have no idea how it could happen. I have a couple of Leica III cameras that work fine with a small bit of foam in the film chamber propping up the cassettes.

Frustrating, but workable. My camera seems to have been worked on in the 90's from a sticker inside, hence why it works so well. It's fun to shoot and an interesting conversation piece. Here's a photo I shot recently at a little wet-plate collodion workshop, with a black & nickel 5cm f/1.5 on Fuji 160 NPS

wetplateseminar-5096ss.jpg
 
'Painting' the blinds, I think chemically 'blueing' them might be the best option.
But you need to take them down to bare metal first.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Thank you, Chris, for all these examples. But I tried everything. My other Contax I cameras (v4 and v7) expose perfectly between the perforations when a piece of cardboard is placed under the cassette, but not this one. That is what I do not understand.
Click to expand...

That is classic cassette misalignment if you look carefully at the perforations they are not level across the gate, being slightly higher on the RHS.
As the film starts too low across the gate (inverted and reversed with respect to the image) more is exposed on the LHS (on your image the perforations are seen higher on the reversed bottom RHS) as the film is drawn up to the take up spool at the slight angle as the take up is at the correct height. it is a small effect but visible.
There may be an issue at the top of the film chamber preventing you pushing up the cassette, but I have never shot or owned a Contax, I am here because I'm just loving the thread!!!

Note it was 1952 before Leica added the bar to the base plates (Barnack) to fix this problem, no idea about Contax when they changed and if they had a retrofit solution available.
 
And...before it all goes back together, a study of 'friction clutches'.

IMG_2878 by dralowid, on Flickr

The actual buckle part of the Contax I (white Kiev ribbon) is very similar to the Contax II (blue unkown ribbon). The Kiev buckle, on the right (no ribbon) is slightly larger and the cross piece is more 'raised', presumably for a thicker ribbon.

You can see that I have raised up the buckle on the Contax I to reduce friction on the white Kiev ribbon. The buckle on the Contax II has been bent down to increase friction on the thinner blue ribbons. Being 'new' the Kiev buckle is unbent and unused.

These close ups make it all look like scrap metal. I must say I take some pleasure in having drilled into what was one of the world's most expensive cameras with a simple power drill from a discount store!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom