asparis
Biggreydog
For what it's worth: No experience with Contax, but for a few years, years ago, I would go picture hunting with a Leica M body, with a 35 or 50, and a Pentax MX or ME Super with a 100 or 135. It worked very well, with each body doing what it does best. Very similar sizes, feel, and sound.
The big problem was that the aperture and focusing rings work in the opposite directions. Incredibly annoying at first, but you kind of get used to it.
It would be easier with a Canon or Leica SLR, but they are mostly much bigger and clunkier than Leica M's (except maybe the Leica R4).
The big problem was that the aperture and focusing rings work in the opposite directions. Incredibly annoying at first, but you kind of get used to it.
It would be easier with a Canon or Leica SLR, but they are mostly much bigger and clunkier than Leica M's (except maybe the Leica R4).
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
stong's photo above captures the feel and color of the IIa finder very well. Just keep in mind that his phone was apparently not quite centered. A 50mm lens without a hood does not intrude into the view when you look straight.
stong
Member
On the iia, you can see the whole rectangle - I just didn't want to press the iphone against the metal. I thought of another thing to consider as a side effect of the small, dim viewfinder - it's really hard to focus the iia in low light, say LV5 or 6.
The sounds between the M3 and iia are much different. The iia sounds sharper, more metal clanging around, not bad, just different than the M3.
D.O'K.
Darren O'Keeffe.
I've used both a IIa and Leica M's over some years and agree with almost everything written above.
In response to the OP's original questions, for me the important points are that:
(a) the IIa is somewhat smaller and lighter than an M, and so is a bit easier for extended periods of carrying;
(b) the IIa's shutter is quiet, but the M's is slightly quieter (and they make different sounds: to my ear the former is a metallic ZITT! whereas the latter gives a muffled KLOPP!);
(c) the standard lenses render pretty differently. I've always found the 50mm sonnars (f2 or f1.5) slightly less sharp than the 50mm Leica lenses of the same era (summicrons and elmars), but they're perhaps a little more contrasty. In colour (but where my experience is limited) I've found the sonnars' rendering distinctly warmer.
(d) bear in mind that the Leitz lenses developed significantly from c.1954 to the present, both technologically and in variety, whereas the lenses for the IIa did not, and indeed were not made--I think--after about 1960. So there's much more choice (and optical quality) available for the Leica.
Both are beautifully made and (assuming good condition) both are excellent cameras. Forced to choose one, however, I'd take the M. As stated by many others, its viewfinder is much better; and (to me) it also has superior ergonomics and handling.
Regards,
D.
In response to the OP's original questions, for me the important points are that:
(a) the IIa is somewhat smaller and lighter than an M, and so is a bit easier for extended periods of carrying;
(b) the IIa's shutter is quiet, but the M's is slightly quieter (and they make different sounds: to my ear the former is a metallic ZITT! whereas the latter gives a muffled KLOPP!);
(c) the standard lenses render pretty differently. I've always found the 50mm sonnars (f2 or f1.5) slightly less sharp than the 50mm Leica lenses of the same era (summicrons and elmars), but they're perhaps a little more contrasty. In colour (but where my experience is limited) I've found the sonnars' rendering distinctly warmer.
(d) bear in mind that the Leitz lenses developed significantly from c.1954 to the present, both technologically and in variety, whereas the lenses for the IIa did not, and indeed were not made--I think--after about 1960. So there's much more choice (and optical quality) available for the Leica.
Both are beautifully made and (assuming good condition) both are excellent cameras. Forced to choose one, however, I'd take the M. As stated by many others, its viewfinder is much better; and (to me) it also has superior ergonomics and handling.
Regards,
D.
Highway 61
Revisited
The first Contax IIa prototype was designed and made in 1942 in an at-war-Germany.
This camera should have been marketed right onwards but as a result of how the war ended, the company that was supposed to market it was completely destroyed and the IIa designers team was exfiltered to the U.S., and the blueprints got lost. Then a court dispute occured between the two halves of what subsisted of the Zeiss Ikon and so this is only after the western branch became the only one allowed to use the brand "Contax" that the IIa got marketed eventually. During that time many of the good ingeneers who had worked on the IIa project with Hubert Nerwin during the war had been caught by the Soviets and sent to Saalfeld then to Kiev to drive the Volga/KNEB project. So the camera marketed in 1950 was based on a 1942 prototype (and it was the very same) and it was so unlikely to happen that it was an underdog competitor from the first days of its commercial career.
So the only fair comparison is to compare the Contax IIa with the Leica IIIc which was the Leica designed at the same period as the IIa (1942). If you do so you realize that :
- both cameras have the same size and weight
- the Contax has a better finder with an unified VF/RF combo
- the Contax has better ergonomics
- the Contax has a self-timer (relying on a dumb mechanical design but this is another story)
Comparing the Contax IIa with the Leica M3 is like comparing the Pentax Spotmatic with the Nikon F3 - totally anachronistic.
This camera should have been marketed right onwards but as a result of how the war ended, the company that was supposed to market it was completely destroyed and the IIa designers team was exfiltered to the U.S., and the blueprints got lost. Then a court dispute occured between the two halves of what subsisted of the Zeiss Ikon and so this is only after the western branch became the only one allowed to use the brand "Contax" that the IIa got marketed eventually. During that time many of the good ingeneers who had worked on the IIa project with Hubert Nerwin during the war had been caught by the Soviets and sent to Saalfeld then to Kiev to drive the Volga/KNEB project. So the camera marketed in 1950 was based on a 1942 prototype (and it was the very same) and it was so unlikely to happen that it was an underdog competitor from the first days of its commercial career.
So the only fair comparison is to compare the Contax IIa with the Leica IIIc which was the Leica designed at the same period as the IIa (1942). If you do so you realize that :
- both cameras have the same size and weight
- the Contax has a better finder with an unified VF/RF combo
- the Contax has better ergonomics
- the Contax has a self-timer (relying on a dumb mechanical design but this is another story)
Comparing the Contax IIa with the Leica M3 is like comparing the Pentax Spotmatic with the Nikon F3 - totally anachronistic.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Odd that nobody, including the OP, has mentioned prices yet. There's a vast difference between them. You can get a decent user, no-immediate-work-needed Contax IIa body and Zeiss 50 combo for under $200 (I did, mid-2009, pictured above).
In Leica M terms, that sum buys a body on life support, maybe, and a pinhole...
In Leica M terms, that sum buys a body on life support, maybe, and a pinhole...
ChrisP
Grain Lover
Other info (focusing)
Other info (focusing)
Price is definitely one of the reasons I'm looking into them, also on one website I read the build quality of the interior workings is amazing. Everything is coated to prevent anything from rusting.
Now that all the important stuff has been covered I have another question, mostly out of curiousity. How does focusing with a 50mm work, I know that you turn the little knob etc, but how does that focus the lens? Does it just move the lens closer and further film when your turn the knob? Or is it more complex than that? I think this is a really interesting idea as far as focusing goes, and, from what I've read, it makes the lenses totally void of the need for a CLA ever (unless you need to clean dust out).
Other info (focusing)
Price is definitely one of the reasons I'm looking into them, also on one website I read the build quality of the interior workings is amazing. Everything is coated to prevent anything from rusting.
Now that all the important stuff has been covered I have another question, mostly out of curiousity. How does focusing with a 50mm work, I know that you turn the little knob etc, but how does that focus the lens? Does it just move the lens closer and further film when your turn the knob? Or is it more complex than that? I think this is a really interesting idea as far as focusing goes, and, from what I've read, it makes the lenses totally void of the need for a CLA ever (unless you need to clean dust out).
Highway 61
Revisited
Hoax. Some parts are made of bluished steel, some others of regular brass, some others of die-cast aluminum, some others of nickel plated brass, but all can get oxydized or even severely etched by corrosion when the camera has spent most of its life in a basement and inside its leather case.
Actually the oxydization of the 1st curtain shaft inside its sealed housing is the main reason why 1/1250 does not work on many of those cameras and is so hard to fix when it does not work.
pb908
Well-known
You can focus in two way. By turning the lens focus ring and by by focus wheel in top area.
In both way, you will turn the lens focus helical which is on the mount of the lens (inside the body). With 50mm, turning the helix means turning the lens itself,and the focus scale (you can see the scale on lens mount). Whe the heliz turn, this will move the whole lens forward or backward during focusing. As simple as that.
When you focus to infinity, there is lock which will be engaged.you need to unlock it by pressing the button in front of focus wheel,or by pushing up the pin next to lens mount.this lock is helpful as well to lock the focus helix when you are about to change the lens.
If you want a nice small packages,try to get CZJ 5cm f2 collapsible like mine.hope this help
In both way, you will turn the lens focus helical which is on the mount of the lens (inside the body). With 50mm, turning the helix means turning the lens itself,and the focus scale (you can see the scale on lens mount). Whe the heliz turn, this will move the whole lens forward or backward during focusing. As simple as that.
When you focus to infinity, there is lock which will be engaged.you need to unlock it by pressing the button in front of focus wheel,or by pushing up the pin next to lens mount.this lock is helpful as well to lock the focus helix when you are about to change the lens.
If you want a nice small packages,try to get CZJ 5cm f2 collapsible like mine.hope this help
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
That focus wheel is a love it or hate it kind of thing. I never use it, others swear by it. Unless you get a recently CLA'd body, though, chances are it's not smooth enough to use, anyway.
So, couple steps back, Contax mount 101: The camera has the focusing mechanism built into the body, along with distance and DoF markings for 50mm lenses. 50s (only those) mount directly to it. The lens itself has no focusing, no distance scale, and the only moving parts in the lens are for the aperture.
Upside: Contax 50mm lenses can be very small. Downside: Inevitably, the entire lens rotates as you focus. This means your aperture scale rotates, too (many lenses have two scales), and you can only use round lens hoods.
Shorter and longer lenses have a wide collar that covers the entire mechanism. It still engages internally, to provide RF coupling, but you have conventional distance and DoF scales on each lens.
By the way, standard caution to Contax IIa/IIIa newbies: You can mount most of the excellent and cheap Jupiter lenses made for the Kiev except the J-12 (35/2.8). That one only fits prewar II/III bodies, which is what a Kiev is originally. Real life consequence: if you plan to shoot 35 FL, it's (post-war) Zeiss and Nikon lenses only. So the IIa is not a cheap way to do 35.
So, couple steps back, Contax mount 101: The camera has the focusing mechanism built into the body, along with distance and DoF markings for 50mm lenses. 50s (only those) mount directly to it. The lens itself has no focusing, no distance scale, and the only moving parts in the lens are for the aperture.
Upside: Contax 50mm lenses can be very small. Downside: Inevitably, the entire lens rotates as you focus. This means your aperture scale rotates, too (many lenses have two scales), and you can only use round lens hoods.
Shorter and longer lenses have a wide collar that covers the entire mechanism. It still engages internally, to provide RF coupling, but you have conventional distance and DoF scales on each lens.
By the way, standard caution to Contax IIa/IIIa newbies: You can mount most of the excellent and cheap Jupiter lenses made for the Kiev except the J-12 (35/2.8). That one only fits prewar II/III bodies, which is what a Kiev is originally. Real life consequence: if you plan to shoot 35 FL, it's (post-war) Zeiss and Nikon lenses only. So the IIa is not a cheap way to do 35.
furcafe
Veteran
I'm pretty indifferent to the focus wheel. It's there on the rare occasion I need to shoot 1-handed (e.g., holding an umbrella or beverage), but not necessary to focus the regular way, & the infinity lock is no more annoying or difficult to deal with than those built into the older Leica-mount lenses. In my experience w/IIa's, the wheel has been functional & smooth on those in otherwise decent/good (KEH "bargain") condition.
Yes, the Jupiter-12 (a copy of the pre-WWII & post WWII "E. German" 3.5cm/2.8 Biogon) will not mount on the IIa/IIIa. Another option for wides are the Cosina Voigtlander wides in "SC" (Nikon RF) mount. Not cheap, but you do get the advantage of modern coatings, etc. Although they're no longer made by Cosina, Mr. Gandy has some for sale on his site: http://www.cameraquest.com/nrfVClens.htm
Yes, the Jupiter-12 (a copy of the pre-WWII & post WWII "E. German" 3.5cm/2.8 Biogon) will not mount on the IIa/IIIa. Another option for wides are the Cosina Voigtlander wides in "SC" (Nikon RF) mount. Not cheap, but you do get the advantage of modern coatings, etc. Although they're no longer made by Cosina, Mr. Gandy has some for sale on his site: http://www.cameraquest.com/nrfVClens.htm
richardhkirkando
Well-known
I love the focus wheel - makes one-handed shooting super easy, and I have to do that quite a bit with a small child clinging to my other arm much of the time. Granted, you still need two hands to wind, but I can do that whenever.
My biggest Contax complaint is the the viewfinder, and that's why I use my M more often. Not so much the size, but I've cut off more than my fair share of feet due to the lack of framelines. The rangefinder patch is fine, though, and the wide base is excellent - I rarely ever miss focus.
My biggest Contax complaint is the the viewfinder, and that's why I use my M more often. Not so much the size, but I've cut off more than my fair share of feet due to the lack of framelines. The rangefinder patch is fine, though, and the wide base is excellent - I rarely ever miss focus.
aoresteen
Well-known
Mine as well. That's why my Voigtlander 25mm is on my IIa most of the time. You HAVE to use an aux finder with a 25mm lens for both the IIa, M3, or any Zeiss or Leica RF body. So the viewfinders become equal with wide angle lenses (exception is the Voigtlander R4).