Entry Level Contax-es versus Yashica SLR's

[p.giannakis]

Hi everyone,

I came across a few pages that suggest that some entry level Contaxes are identical to their Yashica siblings (i.e 139 Quartz identical to FX-D). I know that companies that were collaborating in production of cameras (i.e. Leica-Minolta, Yashica-Contax) share some common features on some models but would you say that those cameras are so different that could justify the (usually) big price difference? I can find a 139 for £80 and an Yashica FX-D for £20 or a Minolta XD-11 for £90 and a Leica R6 for £400.

A nice link here.

What is your opinion?

 

[shadowfox]

Pan (may I address you as Pan?),

I am a big fan of Contax SLRs.
To me, their build is different than Yashica ones.

To the point of the article you quoted, the innards and electronics may be the same, but the sheer ruggedness of the build is very different. And since we don't handle the electronics when we use the camera, I prefer the Contax bodies.

Having said that, I think one may equate FR-1 to RTS, but for sure it won't be mistaken as a Contax ST or RTS III, which feel like metal bricks, literally.

If price is a concern, I suggest you to start with Contax 137 MA (not MD, which lacks manual settings). In the US, these run at about $50 to $100 depending condition. Most of these have flaky leatherette, so they look ratty, but inside they are most likely fully operational. So get one that works, replace the leatherette and you'll have one beautiful and solid camera that takes Zeiss optics.

 

[p.giannakis]

Hi Will (yes of course you can address me as Pan).

I suppose I was wondering whether there are any real difference between "sister" cameras such as the ones I already mentioned or it is just a marketing trick ( I've also read that a Contax S2 is in fact a reworked Cosina and so on). I've been eyeing a 139 Quartz for some time now but I suppose it is not high enough in my priorities at the moment.

 

[redisburning]

actually, I've found myself wondering the same thing as I look for a real camera (read: not digital 😀 ) to work with my planar 50/1.7 which quickly proved itself to me as a most excellent optic.

to be honest, I think I will spend the extra money and buy an RTS II from KEH. I'm dying to get a 35mm for my Leica, but the 50/1.7 is so good I cannot bear to let it go to waste.

I had hoped there was an OM-1 style camera in the Contax line up; all mechanical, large viewfinder and inexpensive. at this point I am not sure 100% sure I shouldn't just cheap out and get an FX-3; I can probably get one with a 50/1.9 for 30 dollars instead of the 220 of the RTS II.

 

[Roscoe]

Although I've used My FR for only one roll, I really enjoy it. Almost as much as my OM's. But not quite...

 

[ath]

In the case of Contax / Yashica AFAIK both were trademarks used by Kyocera, so they have the same origin. Not just collaboration.
How similar the specific models are is another question.

 

[oftheherd]

My first thrust into Contax was a 139Q. I really enjoyed that camera and the 50mm f/1.4 lens I got with it. I wasn't big on the motor winder, which at first I thought I would be. My thumb still works fine after all these years, and I am more in control. 😛

But it was very accurate exposure wise. Most especially the TTL OTF(off the film) flash metering. That was astounding. I once took a photo inside a burned out building with the TLA 20 flash (almost classic black cat in a coal bin). I got good exposure indication in the viewfinder. I couldn't believe it until I got the prints. Perfect. If you like flash in areas where sufficient light will be reflected from all areas, that is a fantastic combination.

Many of the cameras from that era, Contax or Yashica will have leather problems. I don't know what Kyocera's specs were, or who they got those coverings from, but if you find one with good leather, it has probably been replaced. You can recover yourself, or just clean the rest of the outer leather(ette) off and use shoe die. That's what I did.

Unfortunately, the camera died. I never found out what was the cause, but at the time I didn't have the money to find out and get it fixed. However, as some time went by, I happened to look at what Yashica had to offer. I discovered that many of the Yashic FX line seemed very similar to the Contax line. I chose one. I liked it so much, I got two more before the prices started going up. I will now always have a body for my 50mm. As time goes by, I may sell some (too much) extra cameras I have to fund some Contax lenses I would like to have. Perhaps a 28mm and a 135mm.

The FX I got has the same OTF flash metering, accepts the TLA series flashes as well as the Yashica line of flashes. It has the same great normal metering. It also has a couple of other options for metering. Unfortunately, like the Contax, it is a paper weight without a battery. Knowing that when I got the 139Q, I also purchased an FX-3 at the same time. It is a very basic camera, with no frills, and no reliance on batteries except for metering.

Are there any Yashica and Contax cameras that have the exact same innards? I don't know for sure. There do seem to be some that have similar functions, so it may well be so. I don't care. I now have a Contax 167mt as well. I like it very much. But I still sometimes use one of my FX cameras because they are nice and then there is that pesky motor wind which can't be bypassed on the 167mt. 😀

I would say from my point of view, the Yashica FX line is fine. The 139Q and 157 never seemed as robust to me as the 167 or RTS. I never owned a 157, but they just didn't feel as robust. The 139Q did, but for didn't turn out to be.

Good luck in your choice.

 

[jbielikowski]

139Q is a great camera, the VF is one of the best I've seen (maybe not as big as OM-1 but with far better eye-relief and so crispy). Also very light so it works better with smaller lenses (with 85/1.4 handling was bit weird). I bought it for circa 40$ and changed letherette for another 20$ with the one from CameraLeather.

 

[oftheherd]

139Q is a great camera, the VF is one of the best I've seen (maybe not as big as OM-1 but with far better eye-relief and so crispy). Also very light so it works better with smaller lenses (with 85/1.4 handling was bit weird). I bought it for circa 40$ and changed letherette for another 20$ with the one from CameraLeather.

Thanks, I have been in a bit of a hurry this morning. I forgot to mention the crispy sharp look in the Contax line viewfinders. Really shows off the sharp lenses. I don't see it as much in the FX line, but still more than good enough. And the Contax 50mm f/1.4 is really sharp. I don't have any other Contax glass. Yet.