steveyork
Well-known
For comparison, I have a pair of modern Leicas, a mid-50's Nikon S2, and a 50's Zeiss Ikon Contessa. They all have pretty good contrast; the big difference is the viewfinder magnification. The Nikon is 1.0 (very nice!); the Leicas are 0.72; and the Zeiss Ikon is less then the Leica, but I don't know the specifics.
Is the viewfinder on the IIA/IIIA the same as what I see through the Contessa?
Just curious. Thanks in advance.
Is the viewfinder on the IIA/IIIA the same as what I see through the Contessa?
Just curious. Thanks in advance.
literiter
Well-known
I have a Leica IIIf. The finder is not really all that nice when compared to a M2 or a M4-P. I think the finder on my Contessa folder is actually a bit better.
I'm not sure of all the reasons why a person would own a IIIf, but you won't buy one for it's general ease of use, it's cost, or it's finder.
I think you buy a Barnack because you have always wanted one, they are very well made, they work quite well, they look kinda neat, they are small and they could easily be a Babe magnet.
I'm not sure of all the reasons why a person would own a IIIf, but you won't buy one for it's general ease of use, it's cost, or it's finder.
I think you buy a Barnack because you have always wanted one, they are very well made, they work quite well, they look kinda neat, they are small and they could easily be a Babe magnet.
S.H.
Picture taker
I do not think we talk about Barnack Leicas here... 
I do have a Contax IIA : finder looks the same as a prewar Contax II. Very well contrasted rectangular patch, but the viewfinder is small, it gives only approximately the 50mm FOV. No framelines! It is just not in the same league as an M viewfinder, it is still 1930s technology. On the Cameraquest site, it says 0.75 mag for the IIa finder.
But I like them, when I am in the mood. And they are reputedly more accurate than the Leica rangefinders (longer base).
Don't know about the Contessa.
I do have a Contax IIA : finder looks the same as a prewar Contax II. Very well contrasted rectangular patch, but the viewfinder is small, it gives only approximately the 50mm FOV. No framelines! It is just not in the same league as an M viewfinder, it is still 1930s technology. On the Cameraquest site, it says 0.75 mag for the IIa finder.
But I like them, when I am in the mood. And they are reputedly more accurate than the Leica rangefinders (longer base).
Don't know about the Contessa.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Be careful with the IIa finder if you wear glasses - the metal ring surrounding the finder can easily scratch plastic eyeglass lenses. That's how I trashed my Zeiss progressive lenses.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
"Adequate" describes it best. I can't compare to any of the cameras you listed but I can say it works for me, and I wear glasses and have a hard time with some finders (my FED and Zorki, for example).
It has a green tint, the RF patch is gold. Gives good contrast but is less than ideal in low light. Magnification looks more like 66% to me. Peering at some picture frames across the room right now and that's clearly less than three-quarter size.
It has a green tint, the RF patch is gold. Gives good contrast but is less than ideal in low light. Magnification looks more like 66% to me. Peering at some picture frames across the room right now and that's clearly less than three-quarter size.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I used to own two Leica IIIf's. They are wonderful pieces of historic design, quite useable (if a little quirky in some respects) and very "fondleable". The viewfinders though are barely adequate by today's standards, even if they and the rangefinder are in good nick. They only frame the 50mm FOV and you're better off using an accessory viewfinders for all lenses.
I sold my IIIf's, not because I didn't love them but because the "fondle" factor didn't outweigh the "get the photo" factor and I found the Bessas to be a lot better in that regard. I'm not one to keep lots of desirable old cameras on the shelf that I don't use so I periodically cull those I don't use any more. My two Nikkormat FTn's are about to go that route.
I sold my IIIf's, not because I didn't love them but because the "fondle" factor didn't outweigh the "get the photo" factor and I found the Bessas to be a lot better in that regard. I'm not one to keep lots of desirable old cameras on the shelf that I don't use so I periodically cull those I don't use any more. My two Nikkormat FTn's are about to go that route.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
I more often than not use my IIIf my M3 mainly because of its cost and packaging when using a collapsible 50 or low profile wide-angle lens. Yes, it is fiddly in use and its finder a bit squinty.
The Contax on the other hand may not have a viewfinder to match the M2 or M3 Leica - but its wider RF base-length puts some RF cameras to shame when focusing a 50/1.5 wide open both in accuracy and consistency - in my case that was a Canon P and my still in service Bessa R.
steveyork
Well-known
I had that experience with a Contarex Bullseye. Apparently, the engineers at Zeiss Ikon all had perfect vision.
wilsonlaidlaw
Member
I would describe my IIA CD finder as "barely adequate". It is small and dingy. The RF is very accurate, even if the focus wheel does tend to rip the skin off your finger. I have always felt that most Zeiss/Contax cameras other than the RX and RTSII, were a great series of lenses in search of a better camera. Zeiss failed to update the Contax RF effectively from the mid 1930's onwards. Apart from flash sync, the RF when it died in 1960, was the same camera which was reintroduced in in 1949/50. The M2/3 VF makes the Contax VF look plain poor.
Wilson
Wilson
RObert Budding
D'oh!
I ended up selling my Contax gear because I decided that there are better options. My Mamiya 7 has never scratched my glasses.
Alfasud
Old Toys
IIIa Finder
IIIa Finder
I too lost a pair of glasses to a metal view finder eyepiece. To solve this problem, I bought a package of assorted-size 'O' ring tap washers at the hardware store. One was the correct size to stretch over the metal eyepiece. It projects enough to prevent the metal from touching my glasses.
IIIa Finder
I too lost a pair of glasses to a metal view finder eyepiece. To solve this problem, I bought a package of assorted-size 'O' ring tap washers at the hardware store. One was the correct size to stretch over the metal eyepiece. It projects enough to prevent the metal from touching my glasses.
Highway 61
Revisited
Of course.
This tip is well known and has been documented with pictures for long here.
Actually the metal ring surrounding the viewfinder eyepiece has threads and the cameras came out of the factory with a protective plastic ring screwed on thereb (same for the external viewfinders made for the IIa/IIIa cameras).
Most of them having littered the pavement now, it's wise enough to replace them with a costless plumbing rubber gasket if you wear glasses.
Mongo Park
Established
Am long sighted so don't need glasses for the Contax IIa. Having said that, the viewfinder is a bit squinty. But there's just something about that camera with a 50 1,5 Zeiss Opton Sonnar - superb photos when the composition is right. I'm still learning.
Vics
Veteran
The VF is awful compared to my M3, But I think the IIIa (I'd love to have a IIa) is a great camera. I love the focusing wheel idea. I find it's a really accurate way to focus, and that (for some reason) it's easier to hand-hold slow speeds. The Sonnar 50/1.5 matches perfectly with the Summaron 35/2.8 on my M3. From the signature, I can't tell them apart!