Does the camera matter. . . Contax /Yashica

[navilluspm]

Hello

I have a nice SLR set. A Contax 167MT with the 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 85/2.8. I am very happy with this lens set. The problem is that I hate my camera. It is so glitchy. Sometimes it decides to freeze up after a shot while advancing, and then I have to turn off and on the camera. I thought I could live with it, but it is getting really annoying and I have missed nice shots because of it.

I don't really want to buy a new Contax SLR camera. I want something smaller and more manual. I was thinking about getting a Yashica FX-3, which is nice and manual, and won't freeze up. It is small and inexpensive.

My question is, would using a inexpensive camera like that affect the image quality over a more expensive camera if the same lenses are used. I know that the metering will be different, but would there be anything else?

(My other choice would be to sell off the lenses of this set - because I would not want to wish the camera on anybody - and get from KEH a BGN grade Contax G1 green label kit with 35 and 90 to compliment my Pen Ft Kit which has the 20 (28mm equiv.) and 38 (55mm equiv))

EDIT: I know the Contax G1 is not manual, but it is small and I hear good things about it.

 

[oftheherd]

When I got my Contax 139Q years ago, I got a Yashica FX 3 as my backup. The only thing electronic is the meter. Everything else is manual. I have hardly ever used it, but it is there as a backup for my replacement to the Contax which died.

You might want to look at the FX 103. That is what I went to. If you want to be able to enjoy the automation, especially the flash, that is the way to go (did the 167 have the otfp flash?). I haven't checked lately, but I don't think they go for much more than the FX 3. You get aperture and shutter preferred as well as program automation. It takes the lenses you have. It has manual speeds. However, like the 139Q, and the 167 if I recall, it is a doorstop without a bettery.

 

[bmattock]

The FX-3 2000 Super is a Cosina-made camera, same basic body numerous others, such as the Nikon FM-10, Canon T60, Bessaflex TM, lots of Vivitar models, etc, etc. I have one, it works, pretty much the same as the others. Good basic platform for the lenses. No manual speeds - everything electronic.

 

[nickdando]

For something with a bit more solidity and useful features then the manual-only Contax S2 is worthy of consideration. I've not used one myself, but I have used a Yashica FX-3, a Yashica FX-D, a Yashica FR-D, a Contax 137 MD, a Contax RTSII (a great camera) and, my current favourite, a Contax AX.

The FR-D was a good solid camera with, if I remember correctly, match needle metering. I believe that it would still work without a battery, though I could be wrong. It was able to make use of the RTS Winder, but didn't have the greater flexibility of the RTSII (mirror lock-up, manual emergency shutter speed, different focusing screens, external battery pack, etc).

The big advantage of the Contax cameras over the Yashica models is the build quality and the Porsche Design styling. And the name, of course.

This is from the Contax history page about the S2:

"The Contax S2 was introduced as a commemorative of the 60th year of Contax cameras. It's namesake, the Contax S was the world's first successful 35mm SLR. The Contax S2 is a very deliberate camera. It offers no automation, other than a diode light meter coupled to a spot meter. It is a simple camera with a mechanical shutter that provides shutter speeds up to 1/4000 second and a 1/250 second X sync. The S2 was followed shortly by the S2b, a smoky black sibling with only one difference, other than color, the S2b had a center weighted averaging light meter installed."

Nick

 

[PaulDalex]

I second nickdando. I have had the Yashica and I still have an S2 (and a RTSIII).
I did not like much the viewfinder of the Yashica.
As i posted many times the S2 is a sweet camera, near to perfect (I wish it had the aperture info in the viewfinder).
Aside from that (one cannot have it all) I love the S2. I have used it for landscape and street photo and it is just great. Lightweight and all mechanic.
Strongly recommended
All the best

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I don't really subscribe to the belief that a more mechanical camera will necessarily be more reliable. I'm sure you don't trust your 167, but why not consider an Aria? It's tiny. It retains the motorized film advance that you're used to. The viewfinder is lovely. It's a marvelous little camera.

 

[shadowfox]

Wait, don't give up yet on Contax bodies.

Get a 137 MA, powered by four AA batteries, motor film advance, but manual rewind (no grating rewind noise at the wrong time). The heft is just perfect, very balanced.

The MD doesn't have shutter dial, but the MA does. It's my favorite Contax body.

 

[historicist]

From what I've heard the S2 is the same basic Cosina camera as the FM/FE10, Olympus OM2000, etc. etc. which makes its current price and quasi-collector status somewhat ironic.

Of course, I could be competely wrong...

 

[navilluspm]

I would love to have an Aria, or AX, or S2. . . But the problem is that they are expensive compared to a Contax G1 kit. I could build a Contax G1 for the price of an AX, or (if I sold my 28 and 85 which are in superb shape) I could probably build a G1 set with two descent lenses. Then I would have a smaller camera which would be nice, but I am a little hesitent to do that because two great lenses in the hand are better than a new system in the bush - or something like that.

I guess I am looking for something that is not too expensive - say under $100.

Or, do you think that maybe a Contax G1 system is worth looking into. I never shot with one, and can not get a hold of one in the Regina area, but I don't thnk any camera will annoy me as much as the 167MT right now.

That said, I am scanning some pictures, and they are gorgeous. I love the lenses on that camera and don't want to sacrifice the quality they are producing.

 

[yefeihe]

The Yashica FX-3 2000 Super is a well sought after camera, and it's price is a bit higher than other cameras of similar vestige, but still well under $100. I don't personally own one but I trust it is a reliable camera. And it's a relatively recent model, unlike some other motorless Yashica models such as FX-1 or FR-I, etc., which are from the '70s. The shortcomings in the body, such as metering complexity, mirror damping, viewfinder brightness, can all be overcome by the photographer. I think it's worth getting one.

 

[Ming The Merciless]

I have the Contax S2, the RX, & the Aria. I used to own the Yashica FX3 which is a fine little camera. Picture taking is in the skill of the photographer first and then it helps to have great lenses second. The camera itself is essentially a box that houses film and lenses. By the way, I had less problems with my FX3 2000 than I have had with my Contax S2.

 

[jaap]

I don,t recommend the cheap contax bodies. I've owned a S2 and didn't like it. Bad viewfinder noisy not up to Contax standards. The more expensive Contax body are IMHO the best SLR money can buy. Especially the RX it has all the qualitys of the RTS 3 in a smaller package. Wonderfull viewfinder for accurate focussing silent and fast. And build as a tank. An other good Contax body is the Contax ST but a bit noisier as an RX. And ofcourse the RTS3 but a bit too heavy and big imo.

 

[shadowfox]

I would love to have an Aria, or AX, or S2. . . But the problem is that they are expensive compared to a Contax G1 kit. I could build a Contax G1 for the price of an AX, or (if I sold my 28 and 85 which are in superb shape) I could probably build a G1 set with two descent lenses. Then I would have a smaller camera which would be nice, but I am a little hesitent to do that because two great lenses in the hand are better than a new system in the bush - or something like that.

I guess I am looking for something that is not too expensive - say under $100.

Or, do you think that maybe a Contax G1 system is worth looking into. I never shot with one, and can not get a hold of one in the Regina area, but I don't thnk any camera will annoy me as much as the 167MT right now.

That said, I am scanning some pictures, and they are gorgeous. I love the lenses on that camera and don't want to sacrifice the quality they are producing.

Did I mention that 137 MA is currently below $100 on the used market? 🙂

I used to have a G2 kit. It is a very well made camera, reminds me of an old Contax (complete with the little focusing ring, very cool)...

But, I don't know what, it annoys me when I use it, it felt very cramped, and the focusing, even in manual mode, it's neither a true RF nor it allows me to see things coming in focus, it's just an LED indicator. I do not like it at all.

Not trying to dissuade you from trying, but that's my experience with it.

Back to SLR, I'm surprised no-one suggested RTS II. RTS III is sure nice, but too expensive.

 

[navilluspm]

What's the size of an 137 MA like? Is it the size of the 167MT, smaller? bigger?

I saw a Yaschia Fx 103 Program in a local camera store. They wanted $50 CDN firm. I liked the size: about the same size as the OM's next to it, but it looked to be worth a little less than $50. I would like to get a camera about that size - is the 137 MA that size?

 

[nickdando]

The 137 is the same size as the RTSII, which is pretty good going considering that it has four AA size batteries in the base to power the wind-on mechanism, which gives two frames per second at the shorter shutter speeds. It also uses a similar unlocking method to the Leica M series to undo the baseplate - a twist and turn D-ring. I have a 137MD which is an auto-only model. The 137MA has manual exposure as well and is therefore more flexible. One thing to be aware of with these models is the leatherette finish which is rather fragile and gets to look shabby quite quickly. Replacement covers in a variety of finishes are available at a very reasonable price from cameraleather.com.

I'd say, from memory, that the 139, 137 and RTSII are of a similar size which is smaller than the 167.

Nick

 

[Ming The Merciless]

The Contax 139Q was the smallest of the Contax line. I purchased on used and quite beat up and used it for about a year. It was a fine little camera and I think it was better damped than the Contax S2. Mine died after one year. I had it fixed and it died again. Don't forget cameras like the 139Q are about 30 years old.

 

[kdemas]

The ST is an incredible camera, solid as a rock. I also have the Aria which is small and nice and light, a great choice for all day trekking.

I just sold my last ST, I have sellers remorse 🙂

Kent

 

[Kin Lau]

The FX-3 2000 Super is a Cosina-made camera, same basic body numerous others, such as the Nikon FM-10, Canon T60, Bessaflex TM, lots of Vivitar models, etc, etc. I have one, it works, pretty much the same as the others. Good basic platform for the lenses. No manual speeds - everything electronic.

I have the FX-3 Super 2000 as well and it's manual everything, except for the meter. Maybe Bill is thinking of a different camera.

It's very light weight with a somewhat plasticy feel, but it certainly works just fine.

 

[oftheherd]

Flog me if you will, but I find the FX 3 and FX 103 to be fine cameras. I think the 103 is especially well made. I missed my Contax 139Q. The T* 50mm f/1.4 is a supurb lens. The Contax died and would have been expensive to fix or replace.

Some 8 or 10 years ago I found the 103 was the Yashica brand comparible in features to the 139Q. My first one cost me about $15.00 on ebay. I stilll have it and it still works well. It takes all the good T* lenses, the 139Q winder (if you want), and all the flashes the 139Q takes. It is just as good with the off the film plane metering as the 139Q. That to me was a big plus.

I was surprised with the 139Q at how well it measure flash use. I may not use it as much as I used to, but it sure is nice to know it is there when I need it. When you get that flash confirmation in the viewfinder, you know you can trust it.

The choice is yours, but I wouldn't dismiss the FX 103 too hastily. And at current prices, you might want to look at the FX 3 as a backup.

 

[Mudman]

I've used the 167mt as well and I hated it as well. Traded it for nikon gear and never looked back. The 139q is a nice camera, and but I don't know if I'd call it a step up from the Yashica fx3-super. Its nice enough but it has its quirks that I never got used to. I have one that I'm donating to the local highschool soon.