Grytpype
Well-known
I recently bought an incomplete Contax III for spares. The serial number on the back has an M prefix, which according to the usual list makes it 1940/42. Unfortunately, the accessory shoe, where the body serial would be on a late model, is one of the parts missing!
The camera has a PC flash socket, and on removing the back casting, I find that the flash is identical to the one described here by Rick Oleson (also an 'M' prefix). As he points out, there is no way this could be an aftermarket modification (without the entire shutter chassis having been changed). There was an RFF thread five years ago on this subject. Have any more like this surfaced since then?
Note the extra cubic-shaped bit of chassis and the tiny brass plunger depressed by the 1st curtain that operates the contacts.
The top-right picture above has the 1st curtain raised slightly to show both ends of the brass plunger.
The only rather amateurish part of the thing is the way the flange of the PC socket overlaps the enamelled strip.
It seems to be rather a shame to use the camera for spares. I'm wondering if I should investigate the possibility of getting a plain accessory shoe engraved to match the back - or would that be too close to fakery!?
Steve
The camera has a PC flash socket, and on removing the back casting, I find that the flash is identical to the one described here by Rick Oleson (also an 'M' prefix). As he points out, there is no way this could be an aftermarket modification (without the entire shutter chassis having been changed). There was an RFF thread five years ago on this subject. Have any more like this surfaced since then?
Note the extra cubic-shaped bit of chassis and the tiny brass plunger depressed by the 1st curtain that operates the contacts.
The top-right picture above has the 1st curtain raised slightly to show both ends of the brass plunger.
The only rather amateurish part of the thing is the way the flange of the PC socket overlaps the enamelled strip.
It seems to be rather a shame to use the camera for spares. I'm wondering if I should investigate the possibility of getting a plain accessory shoe engraved to match the back - or would that be too close to fakery!?
Steve
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
No, don't turn it into a spare parts camera! Of course, it may be too incomplete, but this is probably a rather rare item. Very interesting. I don't remember Kuc mentioning anything about factory-synched prewar Contaxes; I'll need to take another look.
I too have an M-serialed III, which is probably in large part a Kiev actually, since it was serviced by Oleg Khalyavin before I bought it. Hefty beasts.
As for the accessory shoe -- don't engrave it, but definitely replace it. Not sure whether there's interchangeability of this part with other ZI cameras or not. (Nor do I know where you can go to get spare Contax parts these days.)
I too have an M-serialed III, which is probably in large part a Kiev actually, since it was serviced by Oleg Khalyavin before I bought it. Hefty beasts.
As for the accessory shoe -- don't engrave it, but definitely replace it. Not sure whether there's interchangeability of this part with other ZI cameras or not. (Nor do I know where you can go to get spare Contax parts these days.)
Grytpype
Well-known
Thanks for the comments. I do have enough spares to replace the missing parts.
I had rather a nasty moment just now when I began to think it could be a Kiev chassis! I've been looking at pictures I took when stripping a Kiev, and ones that I took when dismantling a 'G' prefix Contax and unlike the Contax shown in Rick Oleson's first picture, they do both have a rectangular bit of chassis at the bottom-left, like this 'M' prefix, which as far as I remember acts as a stop for the 1st curtain.
However these sections are both rather thinner than pictured above, and not thick enough to take the brass plunger, so I still think the above may be original.
Edit: Actually, the more I look at it, the less I feel that it is up to original Zeiss Ikon factory standards, but since it is identical to Rick Oleson's example, maybe it could have been an early post-war factory mod. Maybe ZI made that rectangular piece thicker on the later cameras with such a mod. in mind. If the Kiev 2a/3a used the same flash arrangement as the 4/4a, then it is not a Kiev chassis, because the holes for the contacts are not there.
I had rather a nasty moment just now when I began to think it could be a Kiev chassis! I've been looking at pictures I took when stripping a Kiev, and ones that I took when dismantling a 'G' prefix Contax and unlike the Contax shown in Rick Oleson's first picture, they do both have a rectangular bit of chassis at the bottom-left, like this 'M' prefix, which as far as I remember acts as a stop for the 1st curtain.
However these sections are both rather thinner than pictured above, and not thick enough to take the brass plunger, so I still think the above may be original.
Edit: Actually, the more I look at it, the less I feel that it is up to original Zeiss Ikon factory standards, but since it is identical to Rick Oleson's example, maybe it could have been an early post-war factory mod. Maybe ZI made that rectangular piece thicker on the later cameras with such a mod. in mind. If the Kiev 2a/3a used the same flash arrangement as the 4/4a, then it is not a Kiev chassis, because the holes for the contacts are not there.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
That protrusion on the frame might be more common than you think. It is there on each II I own, and the Tooke book illustrates it as well. No holes drilled into any of mine, though, and no use as a sync ground post illustrated in the Tooke book either - so that curtain and contact might still be a after market (factory) modification.
Grytpype
Well-known
Agreed! I was misguided by Rick Oleson's first image. For comparison, though, I've posted images of that part on a G-prefix camera and an image of the part on this M-prefix. They are taken from different angles, but I think you can see the difference in thickness.
The conversion is a better job than the usual sync bodge, though Rick Oleson's looks a little better than mine. The notable co-incidence is that they are so similar.
It would be interesting to see pictures of other war-time production chassis to see if they all had this thicker lug, making this conversion possible.
I think my money now might be on a dealer mod, rather than factory.
It would be interesting to see pictures of other war-time production chassis to see if they all had this thicker lug, making this conversion possible.
I think my money now might be on a dealer mod, rather than factory.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
What's the Tooke book? (Sounds like something I might need to get.)
So, a general question -- I know Henry Scherer works on Contaxes generally, and Oleg works on the I and II only. There are also certain very talented and knowledgeable folks here who do Contax work. But is there any other repair source out there -- especially in North America? I'm concerned that there is only a very short list of people who know these cameras.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Peter Tooke "Zeiss Contax Repair Manual Models II & III" - a book made up of fragments of the original service manual and his own research. As Zeiss tightly controlled their service at in-house facilities and the Soviets grabbed everything that survived WWII, there seem to be no originals that made it to the hands of any of the regular service manual reprinters.
Grytpype
Well-known
Peter Tooke's book is very useful, but some words of warning:
Don't shorten a broken self-timer spring the way he says. Find a clock repair book and do it right.
He implies that you can strip the curtain spring-spindle completely, including springs. I wouldn't try it!
Take no notice of his figures for lens register.
Don't shorten a broken self-timer spring the way he says. Find a clock repair book and do it right.
He implies that you can strip the curtain spring-spindle completely, including springs. I wouldn't try it!
Take no notice of his figures for lens register.
Highway 61
Revisited
Yes you can do it and re-hook the main center spring. Not easy and very time-consuming, but it can be done, definitely.
Of course taking a spring-spindle off a Kiev shutter donor is easier, but if you don't have parts available and in case the main spring is unhooked and broken not too far away from its original end, it can be fixed.
The side springs haven't to be tensioned before you install them back so it's easier to deal with them.
ZeissFan
Veteran
There is this fairy tale spread by a noted repairer that most Contax II/III cameras have Kiev shutters. That simply isn't true. It takes considerable effort to swap the shutter. It's simpler to replace those broken straps than to do a shutter swap.
It is possible to swap the shutter with a Kiev, but because of the amount of teardown required, it doesn't make much sense to do it.
And even if it is done, so what? It's essentially a Contax shutter, because it's a Zeiss Ikon design made with Zeiss Ikon equipment - often under the guidance of Zeiss Ikon people.
It is possible to swap the shutter with a Kiev, but because of the amount of teardown required, it doesn't make much sense to do it.
And even if it is done, so what? It's essentially a Contax shutter, because it's a Zeiss Ikon design made with Zeiss Ikon equipment - often under the guidance of Zeiss Ikon people.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Well said. For the $88 that Oleg charges, even if that's at the high end of his repair prices, that would not cover the cost of a shutter swap. My understanding (and Mike and others please correct me if necessary) is that the Kiev shutter tapes will fit the Contax shutter with a slight adjustment to the metal pieces through which the tapes slide (I realize I may not have that quite right).
Grytpype
Well-known
I suppose I was thinking mainly in terms of cleaning (I rebuilt a very rusty Kiev). I would have liked to be able to strip the spindle completely, but you can do it reasonably well without detaching the springs. I don't think you could remove a 2nd curtain roller spring AND replace it without destroying it.
If you have a damaged spring, then the best and only option is a spindle from a donor camera as you suggest - unless someone has a secret supply of new springs!
Grytpype
Well-known
Some more thoughts:
I started this thread rather at half-cock, without fully thinking it through, or doing enough research! I'm sure this flash mod could never have been a factory job; I think it's probably true that no Contax II/III ever left the factory with flash synch. There are still two interesting points though:
1) Why did Zeiss Ikon increase the thickness of that rectangular lug?
2) It is surprising to find two identical, and rather neatly done, flash mods. Absolutely the only difference between the one on Rick Olesons site and my example is that the spring contact strips on his have contact points riveted in, whereas mine simply uses the spring-strips as contacts.
Unless someone can think of a better theory, I do think it is at least plausible that Z-I may have increased the depth of this lug with the idea of using it in future for this very purpose. If this is the case, then it does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility that they could have issued a service bulletin to dealers giving details and plans of the modification. Even if these two cameras were not modified in the same workshop, they surely must have been done using the same plans.
I cannot say for sure what the serial number of this camera is, due to the missing accessory shoe, but the fact that there is no number stamped on the underside of the body suggests the number must have originally been in the shoe, which I think is a feature only of late models, and it could well be as late as the M-prefix back. Possibly the conversion was carried out in the '50s. There is no evidence of there ever having been any connection other than the PC socket. When did these first come into general use?
If anyone finds themselves stripping a late Contax, M-prefix or later, it would be very interesting to know what this lug looks like on theirs.
Steve.
I started this thread rather at half-cock, without fully thinking it through, or doing enough research! I'm sure this flash mod could never have been a factory job; I think it's probably true that no Contax II/III ever left the factory with flash synch. There are still two interesting points though:
1) Why did Zeiss Ikon increase the thickness of that rectangular lug?
2) It is surprising to find two identical, and rather neatly done, flash mods. Absolutely the only difference between the one on Rick Olesons site and my example is that the spring contact strips on his have contact points riveted in, whereas mine simply uses the spring-strips as contacts.
Unless someone can think of a better theory, I do think it is at least plausible that Z-I may have increased the depth of this lug with the idea of using it in future for this very purpose. If this is the case, then it does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility that they could have issued a service bulletin to dealers giving details and plans of the modification. Even if these two cameras were not modified in the same workshop, they surely must have been done using the same plans.
I cannot say for sure what the serial number of this camera is, due to the missing accessory shoe, but the fact that there is no number stamped on the underside of the body suggests the number must have originally been in the shoe, which I think is a feature only of late models, and it could well be as late as the M-prefix back. Possibly the conversion was carried out in the '50s. There is no evidence of there ever having been any connection other than the PC socket. When did these first come into general use?
If anyone finds themselves stripping a late Contax, M-prefix or later, it would be very interesting to know what this lug looks like on theirs.
Steve.
johank
Established
I have a Contax II in the F series that have a flash contact on same location. According to my CLA-man Peter Hennig, this was a pre and post War service addition to the cameras. In a price sheet I have seen from end of the 40s there was a service price on the add on.
As you may know there was a III factory rebuild too for wanting II owners.
In my younger Kiev-days I learnt that there was the same service for older Kievs without flash connection.
As suggested before in this thread I'm also convinced that Zeiss stated how and dimensions as they did for other services.
Hope this can clearify some of the mist.
My F marked camera has no markings in shoe.
As you may know there was a III factory rebuild too for wanting II owners.
In my younger Kiev-days I learnt that there was the same service for older Kievs without flash connection.
As suggested before in this thread I'm also convinced that Zeiss stated how and dimensions as they did for other services.
Hope this can clearify some of the mist.
My F marked camera has no markings in shoe.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
This sounds likely as Zeiss Ikon is known to have actively banned (or at least discouraged, in countries where they were in no legal position to prohibit it) third party repairs - most modifications and repairs done to the cameras when they were relatively young will have been at the factory repair service.
Grytpype
Well-known
That is extremely interesting, johank. It does indeed clear quite a lot of the mist! Peter Hennig is undoubtedly a man who would know.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I remember reading in some 1950s American photo magazines that repair shop flash synced Contax II and III were preferred on photo assignments by some photojournalists to the more modern factory synced Contax IIa and IIIa or the Nikon S cameras in the 1950s.
Edit:
I did find my own comment on RFF from Sept. 19 2006 and here is what I wrote back then:
"In a related topic, the Popular Photography edition of August 1959 has an article about Life mag. photographer Ralph Morse.
Morse talks about his camera gear and states that along with his motordrive Nikon SP, he uses two pre war Contax II's all with 35mm lenses and states" these old boxes are worth their weight in gold on fast news events.They are the only 35mm cameras that can be electronic flash synched for 1/100 of a second.This speed eliminates the ghost image made by the TV and newsreel lights "
I do not know how this can be done, as their clone the Kiev 4a synchs at no faster than 1/25 of a second,
unless Morse had the shutter modified on each Contax II."
Edit:
I did find my own comment on RFF from Sept. 19 2006 and here is what I wrote back then:
"In a related topic, the Popular Photography edition of August 1959 has an article about Life mag. photographer Ralph Morse.
Morse talks about his camera gear and states that along with his motordrive Nikon SP, he uses two pre war Contax II's all with 35mm lenses and states" these old boxes are worth their weight in gold on fast news events.They are the only 35mm cameras that can be electronic flash synched for 1/100 of a second.This speed eliminates the ghost image made by the TV and newsreel lights "
I do not know how this can be done, as their clone the Kiev 4a synchs at no faster than 1/25 of a second,
unless Morse had the shutter modified on each Contax II."