IIa vs Leica M (and Maybe Pentax MX)

[ChrisP]

Alright this has got to be out there somewhere but I can't seem to find it (and my god do I hate the search on this forum),

A couple questions,
First how does the contax iia compare to the M's as far as size go? Is there any site that shows visual comparrisons? Which one is bigger? Is it noticeable?

Second (and possibly most important) how does the iia's shutter compare in sound (loudness) to the legendary leica M's cloth shutters? I know it will be louder but how much? And how does the iia compare to an anologue slr (I assume much quiter? especially compared to the Pentax MX)

Finally is there a comparrison between the Contax 5cm/1.5 and 5cm/2 lenses? I'd be quite interested in the dimensions when each is attatched to the camera. Also how does each lens render images (I know it could take pages just to answer this).

Sorry for all the questions, I can't get my hands on one here in Saskatoon so I figure the forum is the best place to find out.

Anyone else's experience who's used both a iia and an M (oh and I know its more comparable to the Leica screw mount stuff than the M but I know more about M's, never handled a screw mount), and if anyone has used a Pentax MX than comparrisons to that (dimensions, sound etc.) would be fantastic!

Thanks in advance
Chris

 

[zuikologist]

In terms of shutter/mirror noise, the M is much quieter than the MX, which is about the same as a Bessa R. No experience of the Contax.

In terms of size, the MX is about the same as an M. The prism housing adds some bulk, but some M cases can accommodate an MX. Lenses are a different proposition: rf lenses are almost all smaller than their Pentax equivalents, other than the 40/2.8 pancake.

I will try to dig out a size comparison later.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Chris,
I've handled the Contax II and Leica M bodies. I wouldn't say the M is quieter than the Contax, just a bit different. As you know, the Contax has the metal venetian blind-type shutter curtain and the M has cloth. So you'd think the Contax would sound like a bunch of metal rattling around in there. But it doesn't... I was somewhat surprised when I first handled the Contax. Its nicely quiet.

Don't know a thing about the Pentax.

 

[pb908]

I have contax IIa and had contax II, pentax mx, and M2 in the past.

talking about size,
contax IIa is smaller than an M, and M is almost the same as Mx, different is M a bit thicker overall while Mx have the prism and lens mount so in some area it is bigger than M.

talking about quietness, in my case, M is quiet camera but in slow speed the timer mechanism add noise, become like"srrrrrrr cklap" sound, but my contax IIa black dial is a lot quieter than M, either in low or high speed. "srrrr slap" sound. Using both, I prefer IIa if I need to do low light photography. Mx is for sure a lot noisier, specially the mirror clap. But you can learn the trick to lock it, so at the end, it is going to be quieter

size with lenses, my contax IIa + sonnar collapsible 50mm f2 is my all around camera, fit inside NG A1212 pouch (you can google for it's internal size), maybe close to the size of a leica IIIF+elmar collapsible. But the sonnar f1.5 will add more dimension to it.

 

[Spider67]

When it comes to shutter noise (or lack thereof) My M6 and IIa are on par. The IIa is smaller than the M6. The IIa is ususlly a very well built piece of machinery with a nice feel to it. ITs baselength is greater than the M6´s but the VF is smaller and squintier and lacks parallax correction. So when it cones to composing with the IIa you are pretty close to a Leica screwmount.
No Pentaxes here only NIkons which are a)bigger b)noisier
Best regards to Saskatoon from Europe!
Des

 

[ChrisP]

How do you feel about the viewfinder of the iia vs the MX? The MX is fantastic, do you think I would be sorely dissapointed with the IIa or is not bad in comparrison?

Oh and I heard theres no framelines, and that its just made for a 5cm? Does this mean that along the outsides of the viewfinder frames for 50mm? Or how does this work?

This seems like a great camera, if I can pick one up cheap than it seems like I can play with it for a week, if its nice I can send it for a good CLA, if not than throw it on Ebay again and I'd only be out like $20 bucks.

I have contax IIa and had contax II, pentax mx, and M2 in the past.

talking about size,
contax IIa is smaller than an M, and M is almost the same as Mx, different is M a bit thicker overall while Mx have the prism and lens mount so in some area it is bigger than M.

talking about quietness, in my case, M is quiet camera but in slow speed the timer mechanism add noise, become like"srrrrrrr cklap" sound, but my contax IIa black dial is a lot quieter than M, either in low or high speed. "srrrr slap" sound. Using both, I prefer IIa if I need to do low light photography. Mx is for sure a lot noisier, specially the mirror clap. But you can learn the trick to lock it, so at the end, it is going to be quieter

size with lenses, my contax IIa + sonnar collapsible 50mm f2 is my all around camera, fit inside NG A1212 pouch (you can google for it's internal size), maybe close to the size of a leica IIIF+elmar collapsible. But the sonnar f1.5 will add more dimension to it.

 

[rover]

The Contax IIa is a very nice camera. I would say it is slightly smaller than the a Leica M. The viewfinder is small (more to come on this) and the whole area is @ a 50mm view. The 50mm lenses also mount inside of the mount and can be focused with the wheel on the body. It is made as well as a Leica quality wise.

As far as the finder, there is no comparison. The IIa is small and squinty, more like a Barnak finder. This is where Leica truly set itself apart with the M3 and M2. There is no compaison between an M and the IIA when it comes to the finder.

 

[aoresteen]

I have a IIa (my second) and I have an M3 and a M4-P. I had a pair of MX bodies but sold them around 2003/4 (I have 4 OM-1 and 2 OM-2 bodies so the MX bodies were excess).

Two weeks ago I took a trip to San Juan and took my IIa with the Voigtlander 25mm f/4 lens.

Your questions:

First how does the contax IIa compare to the M's as far as size go?

The IIa is a bit smaller. The viewfinder shows only the 50mm lens frame.

Second (and possibly most important) how does the iia's shutter compare in sound (loudness) to the legendary leica M's cloth shutters?

They are about the same. Outside taking pictures it's not an issue. The M has the edge. The Contax shutter is metal so it is louder. But I don't have to worry about burning a hole in the shutter like I do with my Leicas.


It is quiter than the MX. And if you use a winder/motor with the MX, the MX sounds like a train.


Finally is there a comparrison between the Contax 5cm/1.5 and 5cm/2 lenses? I'd be quite interested in the dimensions when each is attatched to the camera.

The two lenses are about the same size. Both use 40.5mm filters. With a shade attached they are the same. I've owned both and I like the 1.5 Sonnar better. Personal choice. YMMV.


The bad news about a Contax IIa is getting them serviced. Mine was restored by Henrey Scherer 5 or 6 years ago when the wait was only 6 months. Now it's much longer. If you are seriously going to use a Contax IIa then you need to have it serviced. Mine was in mint shape but inoperative. The shutter hung up on my first roll of film and the RF didn't work. It was never properly assembled and adjusted at the factory. The camera was bought used around 1958 by an Air Force officer stationed in Germany. He took a couple of rolls with it, couldn't get it to work right, and put it in a drawer, never to be used until I got it around 2004 or so. I got it from a person who was helping his widow dispose of his estate. I paid too much for it!

Henry had to replace the RF (not cheap!) to get it working properly. He also cleaned and adjusted the 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar. It is now a great camera.

I use it mostly as a wide angle body with the CV 25mm lens. I also have a 105mm Nikkor with a Nikon BL finder for it that is a great tele lens.

 

[batterytypehah!]

As far as the finder, there is no comparison. The IIa is small and squinty, more like a Barnak finder. This is where Leica truly set itself apart with the M3 and M2. There is no compaison between an M and the IIA when it comes to the finder.

I can't speak to the M finders (yet) but I have experience with a IIa and IIIf in direct comparison. The IIIf finder is barely usable if you wear glasses. The IIa finder is much better. Not effortless but one gets used to it. On the IIIf, you quickly understand why the 5cm SBOOI accessory is so popular. In both cases, yes, the outside edges of the VF are your frame.

I took a couple of quick size comparison shots (Contax IIa with prewar collapsible 5cm/2 Sonnar, ME super with 50/1.7). As you can see, the Pentax body is slightly narrower. Front to back with a lens mounted, and top to bottom, the Contax wins.

In all fairness though, I rarely shoot the Contax like this. You pretty much need a good shade at all times with an uncoated lens.

Shutter noise: Not much difference; I find Pentax M bodies very quiet. My Contax could do with a CLA, though, so it might not be the quietest there is.

 

[furcafe]

I have, & use, both Leicas (LTM & M) & Contax RFs (pre & post-WWII). Most of your questions have been answered, but the 1 regarding the lenses is a bit unclear. When you refer to 5cm/1.5 or 5cm/2 you are using terminology for the pre-WWII & post-WWII ("E. German") lenses from Jena; the post-WWII "W. German" lenses, initially marked "Zeiss-Opton" & later "Carl Zeiss" (no Jena as they were made in Oberkochen) are designated "50mm," not "5cm." Does this mean you are looking @ only Jena lenses? After WWII, neither Jena or Oberkochen produced a collapsible version of the 5cm/50mm f/2 Sonnar.

If you are referring to the rigid versions of the 5cm/50mm Sonnars, I agree w/aoresteen that the lenses are approximately the same size, though the f/1.5 versions are heavier. Personally, since they're typically similar in price, I see no reason to get the slower lens.

Note: 1 tip for better searching, use Google "advanced search" to look within the rangefinderforum.com domain.

Alright this has got to be out there somewhere but I can't seem to find it (and my god do I hate the search on this forum),

A couple questions,
First how does the contax iia compare to the M's as far as size go? Is there any site that shows visual comparrisons? Which one is bigger? Is it noticeable?

Second (and possibly most important) how does the iia's shutter compare in sound (loudness) to the legendary leica M's cloth shutters? I know it will be louder but how much? And how does the iia compare to an anologue slr (I assume much quiter? especially compared to the Pentax MX)

Finally is there a comparrison between the Contax 5cm/1.5 and 5cm/2 lenses? I'd be quite interested in the dimensions when each is attatched to the camera. Also how does each lens render images (I know it could take pages just to answer this).

Sorry for all the questions, I can't get my hands on one here in Saskatoon so I figure the forum is the best place to find out.

Anyone else's experience who's used both a iia and an M (oh and I know its more comparable to the Leica screw mount stuff than the M but I know more about M's, never handled a screw mount), and if anyone has used a Pentax MX than comparrisons to that (dimensions, sound etc.) would be fantastic!

Thanks in advance
Chris

 

[ChrisP]

Lenses

Lenses

Alright, Now I'm quite confused so I looked on some websites and have a few unasnwered questions,

1.How does the Jupiter 3 compare to pre-and post-war sonnar 1.5's? Similar?
2. Are there any coated Jupiter 3's? The coating seems to make a fairly large difference is this correct? How do coated Jupiter 3's compare (if they exist) and how do I tell if the Jupiter is coated?
3. What is the best way to tell the difference between the 1.5's with coating or without (especially looking on ebay).
4. How can I tell East German from West German and is there a difference I should care about?
5. Is there anything in particular I should be looking for with lenses? Are they prone to any specific problems?
6. Telling everything apart seems to have alot to do with chrome vs brass vs alloy vs aluminium, how do I tell these different metal apart?

Thanks for all the answers so far,
Chris

I have, & use, both Leicas (LTM & M) & Contax RFs (pre & post-WWII). Most of your questions have been answered, but the 1 regarding the lenses is a bit unclear. When you refer to 5cm/1.5 or 5cm/2 you are using terminology for the pre-WWII & post-WWII ("E. German") lenses from Jena; the post-WWII "W. German" lenses, initially marked "Zeiss-Opton" & later "Carl Zeiss" (no Jena as they were made in Oberkochen) are designated "50mm," not "5cm." Does this mean you are looking @ only Jena lenses? After WWII, neither Jena or Oberkochen produced a collapsible version of the 5cm/50mm f/2 Sonnar.

If you are referring to the rigid versions of the 5cm/50mm Sonnars, I agree w/aoresteen that the lenses are approximately the same size, though the f/1.5 versions are heavier. Personally, since they're typically similar in price, I see no reason to get the slower lens.

Note: 1 tip for better searching, use Google "advanced search" to look within the rangefinderforum.com domain.

 

[furcafe]

Sorry to add to your confusion, but the history of Zeiss Ikon & the Carl Zeiss foundation is a bit complicated. Here are simplified answers to your questions (more on the internet if you do your research but a lot of this history is in RFF threads like these: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78882 & http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6777 ):

1 & 2. The Jupiters are basically Soviet copies of the Zeiss designs from before & during WWII, only all are coated.

3. Unless they were coated privately by 3rd-parties (possibly even Zeiss themselves in the late 1930s) @ the request of their owners, the Carl Zeiss Jena ("CZJ") lenses that are coated will have a red "T" on the bezel. Zeiss started coating their lenses in the 1930s. The coatings are usually a blue-purple tint, more blue in the early days & more purple as time went on.

4. Before & during WWII, Germany was obviously not divided, so all the lenses will be marked "Jena." After WWII, as I wrote before, the lenses produced by the western part of Carl Zeiss in what became known as "W. Germany" were marked "Zeiss-Opton" @ 1st & later just plain "Carl Zeiss" (no "Jena"); again, as I wrote before, they also used millimeters to refer to the focal length rather than centimeters. Visually, the E. German CZJ lenses were made of aluminum or metal alloys & weren't chromed, whereas the W. German lenses were chromed brass & steel (see answer to 6) & have a different exterior design (the optics were also tweaked). Before WWII & part of the way through WWII, all the lenses were marked "Jena" & are chromed brass & steel (usually even heavier than what was made after WWII in "W. Germany"). The gray area is lenses that were made during & immediately after WWII, as Germany diverted chrome, brass, & steel to the war effort, Zeiss began using other metal alloys for their lens barrels & steadily reduced & then eliminated chrome (this practice continued in Jena when what became "E. Germany" was created).

For your purposes, unless you want to become a Zeiss nerd , all you need to know is that they are all good lenses optically, including the Jupiters (even allowing for notoriously spotty Soviet quality control).

5. As w/all vintage lenses you'll want to look for fungus (looks white or black threads/fuzz), scratches (also called "cleaning marks" as many owners inadvertently scratched their lenses while cleaning them w/abrasive paper or cloth), separation (looks like a spreading oil slick), & fogging (self-explanatory). This isn't to imply that every lens will suffer from 1 or any combination of these problems. All in all, Zeiss lenses tend to be less vulnerable to scratches & fogging than Leitz lenses of the same time period (Zeiss's patented coating was harder, not sure why they seem to fog less). Fungus is more the result of humidity & storage conditions where the lens ended up.

6. Visually, chrome is much shinier than aluminum or the alloys that replaced the chromed brass & steel. If you can examine the lenses physically, as noted above, the chromed brass & steel lenses are much heavier.

Alright, Now I'm quite confused so I looked on some websites and have a few unasnwered questions,

1.How does the Jupiter 3 compare to pre-and post-war sonnar 1.5's? Similar?
2. Are there any coated Jupiter 3's? The coating seems to make a fairly large difference is this correct? How do coated Jupiter 3's compare (if they exist) and how do I tell if the Jupiter is coated?
3. What is the best way to tell the difference between the 1.5's with coating or without (especially looking on ebay).
4. How can I tell East German from West German and is there a difference I should care about?
5. Is there anything in particular I should be looking for with lenses? Are they prone to any specific problems?
6. Telling everything apart seems to have alot to do with chrome vs brass vs alloy vs aluminium, how do I tell these different metal apart?

Thanks for all the answers so far,
Chris

 

[ChrisP]

iia vs 70's compact rangefinders?

iia vs 70's compact rangefinders?

Thanks furcafe!
You've been ridiculously helpful! Thanks!

One last thing I can think of... How does the rangefinder/viewfinder compare to 70's compact rangefinders?

Brighter, dimmer, bigger smaller? (I assume more accurate, the baselength on these seems to be great) Anything it is quite similar to? I have a shop nearby with a couple of these sitting around so I can try them out if the view/rangefinder is similar to any of them. Or at least use them for a reference.

 

[batterytypehah!]

I don't have a lot of those to compare to but the ones I've used all have bigger and brighter finders than a IIa. Most if not all will have brightlines and parallax marks, too. You're jumping two decades there, after all.

The VF in the IIa is tinted gray/green for contrast (RF patch is a yellow/gold rectangle) so it's not the brightest by design. If you can get your hands on a FED-2, it looks a lot like that. (Except on a FED-2 the patch is circular, and you can't make out the edges of the frame, particularly with glasses.)

 

[rover]

Regarding the viewfinder, keep in mind that it is more of a "Peep Hole" for lack of a better description. I think as mentioned by batterytypehah, it is similar, but I agree better, than the Barnak Leicas. Keep in mind, the Contax cameras were originally designed before WWII with the intent of competing with Leica's LTM cameras. The M Leicas were a huge step forward with regards to the finder, so it really isn't a fair fight to compare the finders from the two cameras. They are a generation different. Compared to the 70s fixed lens RF cameras. I would say that in general the compacts would have just as bright larger finders, but by no means more accurate. The EBL of the Contax finder is very long and therefore the finder is very accurate. Also, the finders in the compacts are not necessarily bright or as well built. Keep in mind that the Contax at the time was state of the art. The compact cameras were always low cost options and relatively simple. Again, I think this is an apple vs orange comparison. A IIa will always be a superior camera to a compact RF, but if you get a really nice compact with a good clean finder then it may be better than a IIa with a poor finder.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I would suggest handling a COntax IIa before committing to one. The viewfinder is miserable compared with a Leica M. It does have a combined VF/RF, but the eyepiece is squinty. No parallax correction, and only works with the 50mm lens.

I have a Contax II and a IIIa, would not give them up. But compared with a Leica M3 of the same period, it is the reason why Zeiss went to the Contaflex and Contarex rather then stay in the RF business. The Nikon S2 has a much better viewfinder, a lifesize 1x view. I love the Zeiss lenses, and have modified a Nikon S2 to the Zeiss standard. I also adapted the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm f2 and 5cm F1.5 to Leica mount.

 

[pb908]

How do you feel about the viewfinder of the iia vs the MX? The MX is fantastic, do you think I would be sorely dissapointed with the IIa or is not bad in comparrison?

Oh and I heard theres no framelines, and that its just made for a 5cm? Does this mean that along the outsides of the viewfinder frames for 50mm? Or how does this work?

This seems like a great camera, if I can pick one up cheap than it seems like I can play with it for a week, if its nice I can send it for a good CLA, if not than throw it on Ebay again and I'd only be out like $20 bucks.

you can't not compare viewfinder of SLR to RF
it is different way to see the world/scene so I can only say that both have it's own benefit.
MX VF is bigger, I agree (even my LX VF is bigger than MX), and IIa is "smaller" if you like to comare, but the idea of RF is to see the scene during exposure, as well to compose by seeing the world outside of the VF.
it takes a while for me to FEEL what is the benefit of RF over SLR viewfinder, you will need some time to learn it as well I believe.

Contax IIa is a nice piece of equipment, when you turn the film winding wheel, the inner film counter plates rotates almost 360degree and point you what frame number you use, it's a whole new adventure I can say, compare to SLR.
I like the way pentax do (I still have LX, istD, some F/FA*), the hyperprogram/hypermanual, double dial, user friendly, how much information you can gain from VF, etc. at that time i start to play with RF, I try to get the same feeling as close as I can be when I hold pentax slr/dslr. I can say Contax II is the closer as it can be. at some point, the VF is smaller than M, but bigger and better than barnack, you can focus with your pointing finger (you can hold camera,focus, composing, and take picture with ONE hand, somethink that i feel very "user friendly"). and a lot more to share.

regarding framelines, sorry this don't have framelines, as well as paralax compensation, firstly I think I can't live with it, but I was wrong. if you focus closer than (i can say) 3m, try to think that the object captured will be a little bit on the bottom right of the VF, as easy as that. later on if you think you need other FL, a lot of external viewfinder will help you.

I believe this will be a whole different experience for you. with a chance of ONLY loosing 20$, you can learn something new, possibly something you'll like later on. get one and share your experiences !

isn't she beautiful ???

 

[stong]

I agree with all the above comments. If you only had a iia and never looked through another camera, you would probably get used to the viewfinder. Once you have seen through the VF of the M3...

Since the OP asked for comparison pics, here are some quick iphone photos:

 

[stong]

Unscientific iphone-through-the-VF shots. Cameras are the same distance from the metronome, the iphone is about the same distance from the VF's. What you see is what the relative difference feels like to me.

Note the green tinge and gold focus spot on the iia.

 

[charjohncarter]

Too many questions, but I find as much as I don't like metering and Barnack messing. To me, at least, the quality of RF is superior. Maybe it is my not being able to see the split image on my Pentax SLRs, but I just find a RF camera sharper. I know it is a small point, but here are two; Elitechrome, the first from my Pentax and the second with a 35mm Serenar on my Bessa:

Maybe it doesn't show here, but I just do better with my RFs, when focusing is an issue. By the way the second one was with flash so maybe that added to the sharpness?????????????.