Contax III v post war Contax IIIa

[dee]

I read somewhere that not all the changes to the post war Contax may have been an advance .

I am not trying to be controversial - I love my Kievs - but am curious - is the later shutter more delicate ? The rangefinder less accurate ? Or is it just talk ?

This makes me wonder if , despite the more advanced post war meter , if a Contax III / Kiev IIIa bodied + Compact Kiev 4 meter top plate , might be no less good to use , or less reliable than a Contax IIa / IIIa .

Obviously , a post war Contax has age on it's side , but so does my 1957 Kiev IIIa / IV hybrid ...

Maybe it's down to personal preference only .

 

[raid]

A Kiev is a Kiev,and a Zeiss Contax ...is a Zeiss. This pretty much sums it up. I have a Kiev 4 and a Contax IIa and IIIa.There is no comparison here. You get what you pay for.

I got the Kiev in the end just to see if I would get a better camera or not. I paid $40 for a CLA'd Kiev 4, and I hesitated a lot.In fact, I changed my mind about buying the camera, but then I felt that the seller was a good man who wanted to give me a good deal, so I got the camera.

The IIa and the IIIa are of the highest craftmanship. Most importantly, the post-war Contax cameras are viewed as being more reliable than the pre-war II or III. The II and III had a longer RF base, but they also had problems with the shutter ... etc.

The Kiev is a Kiev, and you get the good with the not so good characteristics.

 

[Kozhe]

"might be no less good to use"

Even a Holga is good to use enough. Everything is up there in our heads after all.

 

[furcafe]

As far as I can tell, the advantages of the post-WWII Contax are that is smaller, lighter, has a more serviceable shutter (once fixed/CLAed, the pre-WWII & post are pretty much equally reliable), has a more ergonomic shutter speed dial, & nicer chrome finish. The advantages of the pre-WWII Contax, which should also apply to a well-made Kiev, are that it has a more accurate (longer baseline & slightly greater magnification) & shock-resistant RF mechanism (different prism arrangement); in my experience @ least, the pre-WWII cameras, once cleaned, also have a brighter VF (less tinted).

I read somewhere that not all the changes to the post war Contax may have been an advance .

I am not trying to be controversial - I love my Kievs - but am curious - is the later shutter more delicate ? The rangefinder less accurate ? Or is it just talk ?

This makes me wonder if , despite the more advanced post war meter , if a Contax III / Kiev IIIa bodied + Compact Kiev 4 meter top plate , might be no less good to use , or less reliable than a Contax IIa / IIIa .

Obviously , a post war Contax has age on it's side , but so does my 1957 Kiev IIIa / IV hybrid ...

Maybe it's down to personal preference only .

 

[raid]

The VF of the IIa and the IIIa is not as bright as what I have in my Leica M3 or M6 or the Bessa R. This is a good point.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I have a Contax IIIa and a Contax II. The IIIa seems a bit simplified, but for the better. The Viewfinder on the two- I think it arrogant that Zeiss left off the mechanism to adjust horizontal and vertical alignment, almost all other major vendors have them. My IIIa has a slight vertical misalignment, but not enough to throw off the accuracy or be too annoying. I would correct it on any of my Nikons in 10 minutes.

 

[ZeissFan]

Horizontal alignment on a postwar Contax (IIa or IIIa) is very simple. Vertical alignment is another matter.

The prewar and postwar Contax cameras share no parts. Not even the screws. The mount is mechanically identical, but not interchangeable between the prewar and postwar cameras.

And remember that Zeiss Ikon unified the rangefinder and viewfinder into a single window in 1936.

Focusing is easier with the prewar Contax but I like the smaller body of the postwar camera.

 

[raid]

Yes, but how does a Kiev camera stack up against the Contax?

 

[ZeissFan]

A Kiev is a Contax. Having disassembled a Kiev, I found the camera to be mostly identical to the Contax with the exception of two parts: the arm that holds the shutter curtain in place after it's tensioned, and the material on the lower curtain drum.

 

[dee]

Thanks for concise replies .
Obviously , a post war Contax is superior to a pre war [ it should be ! ] I was wondering how much they had abandoned to make it more compact .
Now I know .

As for the Contax II / Kiev II equation - I have been advised by exArsenal techs who sorted my Contaxes and Kievs , that the quality of an early Kiev from the 1st few years of production is similar to a Contax . Which makes my virtually unused Kiev II 1952 something special .
Later cameras being more compromised .

However , I have settled for scrap Contax Bodies for my set of Contax II / III / IV [ with help from a Kiev 4 LOL ] plus a really cheap grunge Contax II body which I am now told is a gem -
dee'slexia ruled here !

The lens factor is interesting - post war Zeiss lenses being superior , but being fine with a Summitar on my M8 , I am firmly in vintage land !

A humble Helios performs exquisitely on my Kievs , so I don't feel I am missing out too much !
I have yet to try out my Sonnar mounted J 3 [ thanks again Brian ] awaiting a suitable CLA camera .

 

[gzuiko]

Kiev/Contax

Kiev/Contax

I traded for a Kiev 4a some ten years ago now, and at the time I hated it. I got rid of it after one roll of film. It just seemed too unreliable. I have since thought that maybe I should have kept it, and have now gone from falling in love with a Nikon S, to falling for a Contax II, and a Contax I, which I dearly love. I've also still got a Contax III that I need to get to know better.

But somehow, the experience of shooting with a Contax is nothing like shooting with a Kiev. For me anyway...

Jim

 

[raid]

I will have to try using my Kiev 4 to see how smoothly it functions.

 

[outfitter]

The Contax IIa shutter is supposed to be more robust than the Contax II but I don't think that is all that significant as long as you understand that the Contax II shutter ribbons were meant to be replaced every 20 years as a regular maintenance item. Cleaning and lubing the Contax IIa slow speeds are an easy DYI job. The rangefinder base on the pre-war Contax is wider and the image larger and I find it easier to use. The Contax IIa is smaller and lighter and doesn't require a crab claw grip.

I use mostly the post war cameras because mine have been rebuilt by Henry Scherer, but also use with pleasure Contax IIs and Keivs - the early Kievs at least are truly German cameras made in Kiev and the good and bad is analagous to Zeiss and Rollei cameras made in Singapore.

 

[David Murphy]

Contax/Kiev etc

Contax/Kiev etc

I've owned or own and use all the models under discussion here. The post-war Contax is clearly superior to the pre-war Contax and Kiev which are not bad cameras at all (and can make good backup bodies if you own a IIa or IIIa). The IIa/IIIa is closer to a Leica M2 or M3 in terms of fit, finish and build quality and the prices generally reflect this. Of course the M2/M3 finders are better, but then again one still pays more for an M and Leica is a different universe in many other respects. Prewar Contax bodies in good repair are hard to find, while there are still many good working post-war bodies not in pressing need of a CLA.

A Contax IIa or IIIa in proper repair has a whisper quiet shutter, a silky smooth film advance, is light and easy to handle, and is a master work of finely finished metal and precision mechanical engineering. Need I say more???

 

[batterytypehah!]

[...] the Contax II shutter ribbons were meant to be replaced every 20 years as a regular maintenance item.

Is that an actual factory schedule? I'm not challenging you in the least. I just marvel at the standards of 70 years ago, that's all.

Just think about that. Every 20 years. Anybody willing to bet on an M9 going for 20 years without a major service? Or even going at all?

 

[raid]

The IIa/IIIa is closer to a Leica M2 or M3 in terms of fit, finish and build quality and the prices generally reflect this. QUOTE]

Hi David,
What would be an applicable range of asking prices for the IIa or IIIa these days without a lens?

less $200 $250 $300 more ?

 

[dee]

Thanks for all your import - I won't be indulging in a post war Contax , having recently graduated from Kiev ... and only this camera and Leica II are real to my ASdee glitch .

It tends to be forgotten how complex these cameras are - it's quite amazing how many are still working with little or no maintenance , let alone new shutter ribbons after 20 years .
That's why I have been buying inexpensive shutter collapsed examples .

Much maligned Kievs may be 40 years old and more , yet many still function , if somewhat erratically ... how will my rat Contax II stand up to my near mint KNeB II from 1952 ?
What appears to have been a lifetime of experience contrasted with what was probably an unappreciated gift from the Soviet Regime .

The similarity ? Each cost the same ... and yes , the Contax was because I was curious about the effects of use and non use .

 

[David Murphy]

Raid,

I'd say $300 and up for a IIa/IIIa in good working condition with no serious defects and reasonably good cosmetics. Some late model Color Dial IIa's in really good shape might sell for as much as a Leica M2 or M3 (these are the best-of-the-best!). Say $300-600 overall. One usually gets better overall value if they are purchased with lenses. The main hidden defect to look out for on a IIa or IIIa is vertical misalignment of the rangefinder patch, which is very difficult to have repaired on this camera.

The IIa/IIIa is closer to a Leica M2 or M3 in terms of fit, finish and build quality and the prices generally reflect this. QUOTE]

Hi David,
What would be an applicable range of asking prices for the IIa or IIIa these days without a lens?

less $200 $250 $300 more ?

 

[dee]

I guess , like old / classic cars , age , or even country of origin , is less important than condition / wear etc ... I would love to play with a Contax II Closet Queen to compare with a post war IIa and near mint Kiev II . Actually , I am satisfied with having just the latter !

 

[outfitter]

Is that an actual factory schedule? I'm not challenging you in the least. I just marvel at the standards of 70 years ago, that's all.

Just think about that. Every 20 years. Anybody willing to bet on an M9 going for 20 years without a major service? Or even going at all?

I picked that 20 year pronouncement up somewhere and wouldn't bet the ranch on it but it all has to do with the fraying of silk shutter ribbons so 20 years seems reasonable. BTW the pre-war Contax is not that difficult to keep running as any Russian or Ukrainian repairman and even most dealers are pros at Contax repair and they have immigrated all over the world! A 100 bucks will get you anew set of ribbons and a CLA. Moreover you have Harry Scherer who basically re-manufactures them better than new - worth every penny. All and all we have a new Golden Age for pre-war Contax cameras.