CONTAX motor bodies

MikeAUS

MikeAUS

Well-known
Local time
8:13 AM
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
392
Ok. So I want a CONTAX body. I want a motor drive body - auto film load and rewind. I figure its 2010 and I'm lazy :) I had a Nikon EM and Nikon FG. I hate manual film loading/rewind and I found them very hard to focus in low light :bang:. So I sold them.
I have never seen or touched a CONTAX so I am interested in your experience. My potential picks:

CONTAX Aria
Auto everything. Light and compact. Apparently fantastic view finder, easy to focus and not too noisy? Seems to be a bit rarer and pricing $250-$300 for a good one.

CONTAX 167MT
A bit older and bigger/heavier than Aria. A lot of people complain about the electronics being un-reliable? I figure if it has lasted to 2010 then it should be ok. Bright view finder and not too noisy?
Not so rare and pricing $150-$200 for a good one.

CONTAX RX.
Haven't read much bad about this one. Except its a bit heavier and bigger. The most smooth and quiet? Nice view finder. A few around. Pricing $300-$400 for a good one.

CONTAX ST.
Seems to be well thought of. Not much info really. A bit noisy?
Pricing $400+ for a good one.

CONTAX NX.
Auto focus. I have disregarded because the 50mm 1.4 is rare and very expensive. The body is cheap.

CONTAX RTS III.
Too large and expensive for me.

I would love to hear from experienced CONTAX SLR gurus! Thanks.
 
All of these have mirror boxes, mirror slap = vibration, vibration = fuzz.

Get the G2, the 45mm is the best 35mm lens in the world.
It's not about the bodies, it's about the lenses. Get a camera for it's lenses.
 
mrisney said:
All of these have mirror boxes, mirror slap = vibration, vibration = fuzz.
So all the CONTAX SLR's take 'fuzzy' pictures due to poor design?
Get the G2, the 45mm is the best 35mm lens in the world.
It's not about the bodies, it's about the lenses. Get a camera for it's lenses.
The CONTAX SLR lenses are poor quality?
Click to expand...

Anyone else concur? Should I just get a Contax G1? And no, I don't want to debate the merits of G1 vs G2. Price rules for me. Thanks.
 
The Contax AX doesn't seem to have made it to your list? The AX has a somewhat oddball approach to autofocus: it moves the film plane. Allows autofocus with manual lenses, sidestepping the cost issue associated with an NX & AF50/1.4 combination..
 
Can't really speak on the newer Contax's but I've used a 137MD for many years (bought used in '83) and just last year had to replace it. This model was the predecessor of the 167, NX and Aria. Uses simple AA batteries. Got another 137MD on ebay along with a dedicated Contax flash and some other goodies. It's a great machine, fast handling, great viewfinder and fast motor drive. Handles real well with long lenses & zooms. Don't have any Zeiss glass--I've used Tamrons with interchangeable mounts with great results. Suggest you try one, you might be surpirsed!x
 
I've had them all at one time. Still hold on to an Aria and And RX. The RX has a very accurate and useful Focus Confirmation system. There is also a DOF scale in the VF. Another very handy feature although you need to know your lenses to be affective with it. The Aria has many of the feature of the RX but lacks the 2 I just mentioned. If you plan to use a reflex for what they are really best at... Long FL lenses then absolutely take an RX. It balances the Planar 100 or Sonnar 135 and 185mm lenses perfectly. The Aria and 167 will be nose heavy to say the least. There are good RX's around. You can pound nails all day with that camera and expose film all night with it. The thing is as pro built as any camera I have ever handled. There is an RX2 that lacks the focus confirmation. That model turned into the ST. If you do go the AF route take the N1 rather than the NX. It lacks the built in flash but has better AF and ergonomics. It's of a more robust build as well. Never mind just grab an old manual focus. The lenses are the goods. Zeiss Contax lenses rock. Good luck :)
 
Last edited:
MikeAUS said:
Anyone else concur? Should I just get a Contax G1? And no, I don't want to debate the merits of G1 vs G2. Price rules for me. Thanks.
Click to expand...

No I don't. I had a Contax 139Q and loved it. I notice you didn't mention it either. It is an SLR, but well buffered. I never had a problem with the mirror causing problems. On thing nobody else has mentioned is the accuracy of the off the film plane flash. It is accurate beyong belief. The first time I used it was with the TLA 20, somewhat anemic I thought. I was photographing the blackened inside of a burned building. I kept getting indications of correct exposure, no matter where I was in relation to what I was photographing. All were indeed perfectly exposed. If you want that kind of camera but don't want to spend the money, PM me. As alreay mentioned, the lenses are incredible.

The only thing I never heard of was automatic film loading. You need a Canonet QL for that.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, it has a very nice accessory winder. I just never thought the extra weight was worth it. No matter the camera.
 
I've used a Contax 137 MD. Excellent camera although somewhat heavy.

It's fully automatic with just one manual shutter speed.

The one feature of Contax SLRs that is often overlooked is the fact that they have bright viewing screens -- much brighter than other SLRs.
 
Yes, the viewfinders are fantastic. I currently use an Aria, and also RX (which by chance is actually for sale in the classifieds.) Agreed that the RX will balance well with the faster/larger lenses. The DOF indicator is very slick. The body has tremendous build quality, built like a tank. Since I've settled on 28/2.8, 50/1.7, and 85/2.8 lenses these are all a good match for the smaller Aria.

I also tried the NX, thought it was too big (not heavy, just large), the lenses are big as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, and yes the G1 and G2 are fantastic, if film loading/rewinding is important to you. As a matter of fact, that's why I shoot a G2 instead of a Leica. I just am frustrated taking the damn baseplate off of an M. ;) Not to mention the G lenses are as good as they come, and if you want to shoot in low light, the G2 is excellent.

However the fastest lens is f/2, if that matters.
 
I've used, and still own, a 137MD, an RTS II and an AX.
The 137MD is rather noisy as a motor-driven camera and the leatherette finish got shabby quite quickly. It was my first Contax after a Yashica FX-3, a FX-D and a FR-II. I've bought a recovering kit for the 137 but haven't got round to sticking it on. I did have to get the foam light damping replaced as it had melted and I used Malcolm Taylor for this.
The RTS II has an accessory Beattie gridded screen fitted, which I find essential. It's a very solid camera and has, to my eyes, a classic design by Porsche Design. I've thought about getting an accessory motor drive, but have never got round to it.
The AX is my latest. It is physically big, but so are the DSLRs these days. The autofocus and motor wind are quiet and are in the low to mid frequency range with none of the high frequency sounds of the 137. The autofocus works well and allows an extra 10mm of extension for macro work, which has been very useful with a Vario-Sonnar 35-70mm and a Macro-Planar 60mm. With either lens, I can move away from the infinity setting and rough focus. The autofocus then provides the accuracy. Judging the hyperfocal distance still can't be done as Zeiss don't provide focus scales on the lenses.
I've got a standard viewing screen, the FW-5 cross-hairs, and on its way to me, a FW-4 gridded. Although specifically designed for macro work, I've found the cross-hairs to be very effective for aligning verticles and horizontals.
Using polarisers with the AX is much easier on lenses with rotating focusing mounts, such as the VS 35-70, as the lens is kept at infinity. Just remember to turn the filter in the right direction to prevent de-focusing.
The AX can use rechargeable R2CR5 batteries, but when changing batteries, remember that if you have a tripod adapter plate screwed into place, then you can't get the battery cover open. I now carry an allen key to enable me to remove the Kirk plate (and Kirk do do an AX-specific one).
As far as rangefinders are concerned, I've never tried a G-series, so I only have a Leica and Epson to go by. Film-loading on the Leicas is fiddly, and the Epson doesn't have any problem with this at all, being digital.

Nick
 
ZeissFan said:
I've used a Contax 137 MD. Excellent camera although somewhat heavy.

It's fully automatic with just one manual shutter speed.
Click to expand...

Get the 137 MA.

Full shutter speed/aperture control, AE, motor film advance but manual film rewind (trust me, you are not that lazy, and you don't need a rewind motor weighing down the camera).

Ordinary AA batteries, and as mentioned above, big, bright viewfinder.

One of the best camera to handle and use.
 
mrisney said:
All of these have mirror boxes, mirror slap = vibration, vibration = fuzz.
Click to expand...

You may not have noticed, but you've wandered into the "Evil SLR" portion of the forum. We don't mind those mirror boxes here. In fact, we coexist with them and use them to our advantage quite well.

A small handful of SLR cameras may suffer from notably severe mirror slap and related vibrations, but with the vast majority of cameras it jut isn't an issue in a practical sense. Even with big cameras. Heck, when I was shooting primarily with a Mamiya RB67, I could reliably get acceptably sharp exposures handheld at 1/4 second. That's with a camera about the same size and weight of a car battery with a huge freakin' mirror in it.

The observation quoted above is neither fair nor accurate.
Rangefinders are great, but so are SLR cameras. :)
 
Hi,

i have been using a ST for more then 10 years and are absolutely happy with it. Very reliable and a boon to work with for Aperture priority.

Ciao

joerg
 
David R Munson said:
You may not have noticed, but you've wandered into the "Evil SLR" portion of the forum. We don't mind those mirror boxes here. In fact, we coexist with them and use them to our advantage quite well.

A small handful of SLR cameras may suffer from notably severe mirror slap and related vibrations, but with the vast majority of cameras it jut isn't an issue in a practical sense. Even with big cameras. Heck, when I was shooting primarily with a Mamiya RB67, I could reliably get acceptably sharp exposures handheld at 1/4 second. That's with a camera about the same size and weight of a car battery with a huge freakin' mirror in it.

The observation quoted above is neither fair nor accurate.
Rangefinders are great, but so are SLR cameras. :)
Click to expand...


Got it, but take a cheap laser pointer, tape it onto the top of a RTSIII, use a cable if you like, focus on red dot from said cheap laser pointer 2 meters away, expose. Develop, print.

The red dot will not be focused.

Redo same experiment with G2, or G1. Red dot from 5 dollar laser pointer will be visibly more focused than same shot on RTS III.

I've done it, I love Carl Zeiss lenses, I love the Porsche design of the RTS. For film, SLR's - Canon 5D MKII beats any SLR, hate to say it, but it's true. But for 35mm film, rangefinder is the way to go, plus 21mm lens is something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom