Gassy For A Contax CY

P

porridgeoats

Newbie
Local time
6:48 AM
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
5
Hi guys!

I've recently been quite taken by the Contax CY SLR's (hard not to be when you have access to Zeiss glass) and, of course, I have poured over every article and site I can get my hands on! However, I've heard a multitude of worrying things about Contax bodies- mirror slip, dead capacitors, LCD leakage and so forth.

I was hoping you guys could help me reach a conclusion on which one may be right for me. I'd prefer a body with the ability to do spot and centre weighted metering, as well as a fast shutter-speed somewhere around 1/2000 or quicker. Ideally, it'd be unlikely to suffer from issues I listed before, but I understand these are 20+ year old cameras!

Thanks:)
 
Love a CY thread. I'd recommend the RX or ST. Relatively inexpensive, more reliable electronics than early bodies, 1/4000 shutter speeds. Mirror slip is an issue with these bodies but it's nothing you can't fix by yourself in 5 mins with a hairdryer and a little super glue. I don't have a lot of experience with the ST, but the RX is a very solid "pro" feeling body, like a high tech F2 in terms of heft, albeit with a better grip.
 
I have at some point owned 139Q, 159MM, RX, S2, plus an FX-3 Super 2000. Each one of the Contaxes had to have mirror slip repaired, which I did through Nippon Photo Clinic in NYC.

S2 was the nicest of the bunch, but it's only spot metering. Immaculate otherwise. S2B has center weighted metering, but they are very expensive.

159MM is an awesome camera in every way. It has nice ergonomics, not too big, and I think it checks most of the boxes above. I would recommend that, but factor in a CLA of $225. I kept this camera the longest.

RX was a bit of a beast and the shutter sound is horrible in my opinion.

The 139Q is low cost and straightforward. I kept one as a backup for a while.

FX-3 Super 2000 is a great camera too. A little less solid feeling, but also very light and it was reliable to me.

I think the Aria is what you want since it has all the metering modes, but they are pricey. The AX and other late models might work too, but I don't know much about them.

One caution though - it's a niche system with just one repair tech in the US that I'm aware of who has parts. Who knows what the future holds though.
 
I've got the S2, RX, AX and the Aria, and some years back I sold my 167MT. Never had a problem with mirror slip on any of them. Of these I can safely recommend the RX, it's a fabulous camera in use. The Aria is lighter but I use it more like a point&shoot. I use the AX if I need autofocus, but it's the heaviest of the lot next after the RTS III. Don't forget to look out for Yashica ML lenses, some of them are very close to Zeiss quality. Don't worry too much about repair options, these cameras are very well built and I have not experienced any problems during the many years I've had these. Maybe it's because I take good care of them and don't throw them about. :)
 
An ST was definitely on my list, though I've heard it's shutter is incredibly loud. I will read up a bit more on the RX and 159MM since you all seem speak quite highly of them (and that they aren't quite as expensive as the S2B and Aria!). The S2 is also tempting, though no exposure automation may rule it out.

I suppose I should research a bit into the non-Contax CY bodies, like the FX-3, but they just aren't striking the same appeal- Contax SLR's do have a certain allure.
 
I love the RTS -- got one for very cheap. Beautiful camera and well laid out. Maybe I've just been lucky though. I also picked up a 139Q and the Super 2000 -- nice reliable cameras. I think the Super 2000 might be Cosina-made; certainly it has all the hallmarks of their OEM SLR body.
 
I've got two dead Yashica FX-2, maybe the FX-3 is better. But they are nowhere as good or nice to use as the Contax'es.
 
The ST is great. It‘s shutter isn‘t too loud and it uses normal batteries plus its small.
Number two would be the 167MT - it does not suffer from mirror slip but has a slider instead of a proper dial.
 
I have had many of the Contax, easier to list the ones I didn’t: RTS 2 and 3, AX.

I kept the 159MM due to the light weight and small size and faster shutter of 1/4000. It’s the same size as the little 139, which only goes to 1000. The 139s have a covering that probably has already disintegrated; the 159 has a nice rubberized covering that lasts.

Had the other larger heavier RX, ST, but these days light/small rules. Don’t need a winder these days either.

159 has a cool LED readout of the aperture, very easy to spot.

Mine developed a little mirror slip, the mirror would hang with one lens but not others. Easy DIY fix.

The Aria would be my second choice.
 
splitimageview said:
I have had many of the Contax, easier to list the ones I didn’t: RTS 2 and 3, AX.
Click to expand...

I'm interested to know your opinion on the 167MT then, to me it seems like like a hybrid between the Contax ST and the 159MM that you spoke of. A previous reply mentioned how it used a slider instead of a dial, I wonder how "bad" that is to use?

Thanks!
 
Gassy For A Contax CY

The ST is for me the best of the bunch. The most refined and beautiful body design. Perfect ergonomics. Takes AAA batteries. And most importantly, a feature than many people fail to mention, is that is has the best finder display because selected aperture and shutter speeds appear as red LEDs in very distinct and not distracting placements. For me, its display is far superior to the RX which has smaller numerals, green lights and a useless digital focus scale. The claim that the ST is somehow noticeably louder that the RX is a non-issue. I never noticed any difference at all.
 
porridgeoats said:
I'm interested to know your opinion on the 167MT then, to me it seems like like a hybrid between the Contax ST and the 159MM that you spoke of. A previous reply mentioned how it used a slider instead of a dial, I wonder how "bad" that is to use?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

It’s not necessarily ’bad,’ just different. I shoot aperture priority so no worries about the slider.

However the size and weight and motor are negs for me. AAA batts are easy to find but take up a lot more space/weight than a couple of S76 which the 159 uses. Those are not really that hard to find and last for ages... Since the basic 159 doesn’t have a built-in motor it doesn’t need the extra juice. And not having a motor saves weight... One can also use the P5 battery pack on the 167 to use AA batts, also fits the ST if not other bodies. But this makes things that much more larger and heavier.
 
The Aria is the only Contax SLR that does not suffer mirror slip. It has a cradle that the mirror sits in that holds it in the front. The mirror can only slip if the camera breaks. I live somewhere really hot, and in summer, until they were fixed, the mirrors in any of the other Contax SLRs would slip. I have owned essentially all of them, and they almost all have much to recommend them. The Aria is fantastic.

My only disagreement with the above is about the S2/S2b, which I found cheaply made and disappointing. I outlined that here: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2948853&postcount=3

One thing I’d add is that since I wrote that I spoke to the buyer of my S2 who said that the mirror slipped some time last (Austral) summer.

Marty
 
No, the 167MT can‘t suffer from mirror slip too (same cradle which holds the mirror, not just a piece of tape). We already had this discussion in another thread.
The slider doesn‘t bother me since I almost exclusively shoot in aperture priority mode...
If you have the cash go for the ST, otherwise I‘d suggest the 167MT but the 159mm is nice too.
 
PunkFunkDunk said:
The ST is for me the best of the bunch. The most refined and beautiful body design. Perfect ergonomics. Takes AAA batteries. And most importantly, a feature than many people fail to mention, is that is has the best finder display because selected aperture and shutter speeds appear as red LEDs in very distinct and not distracting placements. For me, its display is far superior to the RX which has smaller numerals, green lights and a useless digital focus scale. The claim that the ST is somehow noticeably louder that the RX is a non-issue. I never noticed any difference at all.
Click to expand...


The digital focus scale of the RX is far from useless, it's very helpful in low light and other difficult situations. And before somebody starts telling me how slow it is: I don't do action photography, I do SLOW photography.
 
I own an Aria, two RTS II, 167MT, and I think I have a 139Q in a drawer downstairs. The 167MT was the first, purchased in Hong Kong in the mid-1980’s, and it has worked flawlessly all these years. I bought the AA battery pack baseplate so I didn’t have to use AAA batteries, just for peace of mind. Great camera, always found the exposures accurate. I too preferred to shoot on Aperture Priority; manual was not difficult but I would have preferred a shutter speed dial to the slider, but it’s certainly not a deal breaker. With Contax flash units, you can do cool fill-flash exposures using the camera’s +/- exposure override. The Aria is a very capable camera, especially with the D-9 databack that records all the exposure data and prints it on the first two frames of the roll — not more hand-written exposure notes. The Aria is a great travel camera. In a certain sense, I kind of prefer the RTS II above the others because it uses bright LEDs, not LCDs, to show exposure in the viewfinder. Very simple, very accurate, easy to control. Mine is playing up at the moment, have to send to NYC for repair
 
Thank you all! I think I've settled on either the 167MT or the ST, with preference to the ST. Just seeing what comes up (and what I can afford lol). I find it very interesting many of you own multiple different Contax bodies, seems to speak well to how much they are loved:)
 
I had a Contax 139Q and now have the 167mt. I really liked the 139 but it died after a house fire. I later replaced it with the 167. I didn't like the idea that it had a build-in winder and no manual hand crank to advance film, but I got over that considering the other features it had. I like its features, and it does have spot metering and can lock in that exposure. You can find a manual at the orphan camera site which you may already know about.

I think you will like it as long as it is in good nic. If you get the Contax 50mm f/1.4 in good nic you won't be disappointed either. Contax lenses can be expensive so you might want to consider some of the Yashica lenses as somebody already mentioned. Long ago they bought out Tomioka and used it for their lenses.
 
I've had a 139Q for nearly forty years. No mirror slip, only issue was the interlock mechanism caused some minor problems. Cost me £10 to fix last year. In the past five years I've added FX3, FX3 Super 2000, Aria and a few weeks ago an bargain priced RTS ii. They all have their merits but the 139Q probably remains my favourite for size , intelligent layout and quality feel.

The Aria is an amazing piece of engineering , my only complaint is that there is very slight shutter lag. The RTS ii feels the most solid , really just like a better specified 139Q so I can see myself using it quite a bit.
 
Hi guys! Very excited- I just got a good condition Contax 167MT with the Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.7 for £100! Arrives monday:) Thanks all again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom