nongfuspring
Well-known
I'm a happy owner of a contax RX, though increasingly I've been finding that I just don't really take it out, especially on overseas trips - it's just too heavy. Recently I came across a 139q in a second hand market, it was much lighter and smaller than I imagined, though seemed to be as well built as the RX.
So I've been thinking of picking up a second body, either an RTS or a 139. My needs are pretty basic, so either camera is OK spec-wise (though the 1/2000 of the RTS is definitely nice to have above the 1/1000 of the 139), I'm just more curious about reliability and if there are any serious differences in quality/weight. Does anyone have experience with the two cameras?
So I've been thinking of picking up a second body, either an RTS or a 139. My needs are pretty basic, so either camera is OK spec-wise (though the 1/2000 of the RTS is definitely nice to have above the 1/1000 of the 139), I'm just more curious about reliability and if there are any serious differences in quality/weight. Does anyone have experience with the two cameras?
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
RTS is a heavy beast too, I tried one and decided to stick with 139Q, IMO better ergonomics and slightly bigger VF.
mbisc
Silver Halide User
The best bang for your buck (in terms of capabilities and weight) is the Aria -- it is also the newest one, so it will likely live longer before it will need (non-existing) service...
littleearth
Well-known
I can vouch for the 139Q, because it's my favourite small SLR.
Beautiful Porsche design, bright viewfinder and surprisingly small and light. No issues whatsoever, but I bought mine from Contax139.info, who rebuilds these cameras.
Beautiful Porsche design, bright viewfinder and surprisingly small and light. No issues whatsoever, but I bought mine from Contax139.info, who rebuilds these cameras.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
My favorite Contax camera is the 137MA, which is the automatic-film-advance version of the 139q. But because of the 4 AA battery requirement, the 137MA would be heavier than the 139q. Although I never find it too heavy.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Thanks for the advice guys. I've always been interested in the Aria since so many people seem to love them so much, but they seem to have kept their value much better than the other bodies and are pretty expensive, I could easily buy 7 139qs for the price of one Aria.
The 137MA is a really cool camera, but I don't really need the motorised film advance. I'm kind of looking for a bare bones body since if I think about it realistically I only really shoot film 10% of the time but I would like to always have an SLR in my bag.
I've been keeping and eye on the contax139.info website and they don't seem to have any stock. I've won an auction on a cheap 139q, so let's see if I get lucky with the condition.
The 137MA is a really cool camera, but I don't really need the motorised film advance. I'm kind of looking for a bare bones body since if I think about it realistically I only really shoot film 10% of the time but I would like to always have an SLR in my bag.
I've been keeping and eye on the contax139.info website and they don't seem to have any stock. I've won an auction on a cheap 139q, so let's see if I get lucky with the condition.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
A bare-bones body would be something like a Yashica FX-2.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I have a refurbished 139 and a refurbished Yashica FX D .... both done by Peter Robinson.
Nice cameras and all that remain now of my film SLRs.
Nice cameras and all that remain now of my film SLRs.
oftheherd
Veteran
Never had one of those, but I do have a Yashica FX3. Doesn't die if the battery fails. There is also a version with a 1/2000 shutter. I think it was called the FX3 Super.
You may be different, but I fined shutter speeds above 1/1000 of very limited value.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Spec wise the FX3 sounds a bit like the Contax S2. Seems interesting, though half the reason why I'm interested in the 139 is that I much prefer the feel of Contax SLRs to pretty much any other SLR I've picked up. I've also never had a battery die or fail on me, and in the unlikely event of that being the case I have a spare in my bag anyway.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
The FX3 Super 2000 is a Cosina-made body. I think it's the same camera (barring mount) as the Nikon FM10 and Olympus OM 2000 - and perhaps some of Vivitar's offerings?
mdx
Member
RX has perfect measurement of exposition, indication of focusing. With C-Z lens it is nice tool. As second body is Aria better choice. Aria is beautiful camera.
oftheherd
Veteran
I can understand that. I got my Contax 139Q at an incredible bargain as nobody seemed to know what it was. When it died, I first got a Yashica so I could use the 50mm f/1.4. More recently I got a 167mt. That camera fits my hands so well it is just amazing. It is a little heavy with the internal motor drive (but not too bad), as was the 139Q with an attached motor drive. But I really enjoy using it.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Hi everyone. I don't mean to resurrect a dead thread, but since I now own a 139 and FX-3 (thanks oftheherd for the recommendation) I thought I'd give an update.
First off, the 139 is beautiful. Much better looking in person than I expected - the black finish in combination with the minimal design makes the camera look understated and sleek. The viewfinder is big and very bright, brighter and larger than the RX but does not have the same amount of contrast. The RX is probably better to focus in fairly bright conditions, where the 139 seems easier to focus at night. Shutter quiet (sounds sort of like a robot sneezing) is very well dampened, which is just as well since there doesn't seem to be any mirror lockup. Shutter button is extremely responsive and I much prefer it to the half-press of other cameras. Second button on the front for metering in manual works very well. Lots of other things to mention, but otherwise a really well designed camera. The only negative is that the film advance lever wobbles slightly, which I find a bit annoying. I've tried to tighten the screw that fixes the lever to the body but it doesn't make any difference, I'm assuming that there's some spring or rubber pad in there somewhere that has flattened with age and produced some slack.
Surprisingly I really like the FX-3 in spite of it being so cheap and having so much plastic. I'm not sure if the viewfinder has as much coverage as the 139, but it seems just as bright and even larger. I prefer the 139 finder, if only for the horizontal rather than diagonal split screen, otherwise there isn't much in it. The shutter is really bloody loud with significant mirror slap and the body rings slightly, which I find to be a bit of a dealbreaker - though it has mirror lockup once self timer is activated (which the 139 doesn't have). Both the self timer lever and the film advance lever wobble a lot and don't improve with screw tightening. It's very light, but only a bit lighter than the 139. Shutter release action is quite long and not great but does have a cable release thread. Even though it's plastic, seems to be extremely robust (reminds me of those indestructible Nokia cellphones from the late 90's) and I have a suspicion that it'll probably keep ticking along well after all my other cameras have needed overhauls. It's not the camera of choice for when I head out the door but it seems to really be the ultimate backup camera - light, reliable, takes my good lenses etc. I'll probably pick up a second one if it's cheap.
Anyway, thanks again for the tips!
First off, the 139 is beautiful. Much better looking in person than I expected - the black finish in combination with the minimal design makes the camera look understated and sleek. The viewfinder is big and very bright, brighter and larger than the RX but does not have the same amount of contrast. The RX is probably better to focus in fairly bright conditions, where the 139 seems easier to focus at night. Shutter quiet (sounds sort of like a robot sneezing) is very well dampened, which is just as well since there doesn't seem to be any mirror lockup. Shutter button is extremely responsive and I much prefer it to the half-press of other cameras. Second button on the front for metering in manual works very well. Lots of other things to mention, but otherwise a really well designed camera. The only negative is that the film advance lever wobbles slightly, which I find a bit annoying. I've tried to tighten the screw that fixes the lever to the body but it doesn't make any difference, I'm assuming that there's some spring or rubber pad in there somewhere that has flattened with age and produced some slack.
Surprisingly I really like the FX-3 in spite of it being so cheap and having so much plastic. I'm not sure if the viewfinder has as much coverage as the 139, but it seems just as bright and even larger. I prefer the 139 finder, if only for the horizontal rather than diagonal split screen, otherwise there isn't much in it. The shutter is really bloody loud with significant mirror slap and the body rings slightly, which I find to be a bit of a dealbreaker - though it has mirror lockup once self timer is activated (which the 139 doesn't have). Both the self timer lever and the film advance lever wobble a lot and don't improve with screw tightening. It's very light, but only a bit lighter than the 139. Shutter release action is quite long and not great but does have a cable release thread. Even though it's plastic, seems to be extremely robust (reminds me of those indestructible Nokia cellphones from the late 90's) and I have a suspicion that it'll probably keep ticking along well after all my other cameras have needed overhauls. It's not the camera of choice for when I head out the door but it seems to really be the ultimate backup camera - light, reliable, takes my good lenses etc. I'll probably pick up a second one if it's cheap.
Anyway, thanks again for the tips!
littleearth
Well-known
Happy hour resulted in my 139Q flying from my unclosed backpack and landing straight on the concrete ! : (
The end result ? A little scratch and that was it, it just keeps going ! I love contax cameras.
The end result ? A little scratch and that was it, it just keeps going ! I love contax cameras.
Huss
Veteran
Both my RTs and RTSII died, w/o possibility of repair.
It seems once the electronics go, that's it.
So, as lovely as they are, I cannot recommend them.
It seems once the electronics go, that's it.
So, as lovely as they are, I cannot recommend them.
nobbylon
Veteran
Ever since the RTS release and my first handling of one back in '76 I always fancied one. Sadly it seems that nobody can repair the electronics.
valdas
Veteran
I have just bought 139q - I have found it locally (flea market) and could not resist despite owning Aria and S2. It seems to be a very nice camera - small and ligthweight.. Sure, can't beat Aria (1/4000), but nevertheless so far I like it...
nongfuspring
Well-known
Probably not much use to mention since I don't know if it'll be possible to communicate with them without Cantonese, but there's a place in HK that still fixes them, a few former Contax repairmen work there. But you're right, I'm a bit reluctant to pick one up, especially since the RTSII is still fairly expensive.
I was a bit concerned about the 139 regarding reliability, but fortunately there are still repairmen around and from what I've read the most common problems aren't to do with electronics themselves but instead to do with contacts/magnets getting jammed, usually by failing seals/foam etc. I would assume with a camera like the RTS II it'd be a similar situation, just more complicated.
I haven't worked on electronic cameras at all besides some digital circuit bending, but I've done a fair bit of work repairing and modifying audio equipment of the 80s and 90s. 99% of the time when anything goes wrong it's to do with moving parts, the actual electronic parts are usually pretty indestructible.
CVickery
Established
The 139Q was my first SLR...I bought a rebuilt one from Contax139.info and can recommend them as well.