qqphotos
Well-known
Christ, yeah I see what you mean! It doesn't help that half what you read on old forum posts is "oh no, there's only the gearing and no other adjustments" and half are as you describe. I didn't realize you could remove the front plate without to much added misery though, I suppose it's worth a look just in case. On the other hand since it does focus more or less right, I could just leave well enough alone. Just kidding, I can't! It's a personality defect!
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
You all know I love the looks of the II. And I like them almost enough to buy one and screw around with film again. Almost. If I were to buy one I would first send it off to Oleg (?) to have it looked at and have him fix what needs to be fixed. I know nothing of camera repair and am not gong to learn by taking apart old, rare and intricate cameras. I don't even change the oil in my car anymore. I take it to my mechanic and he will do that and fix whatever he sees needs fixing..
But the II sure is a gorgeous camera.
But the II sure is a gorgeous camera.
hap
Well-known
My contax IIIa is very very quiet.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Mine starts capping at 1/500 and 1/1250 so it needs a service anyway. I suspect someone's pulled the classic "overtension everything to power through old grease" which is seemingly so common with a lot of "technicians".
This thread almost made me dust it off and load it with film last night. It's certainly a pretty thing... it just drives me nuts every time I use it.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
You guys are making me crazy. No, let me amend that, crazier. They sure are beautiful. I guess the "a's" are more competent but the predecessors look more beautiful to me. The new RF windows just do not have that pizzazz.
trix4ever
Well-known
This is an unusual post for me, this is the only camera I refuse to use.
Back in the day my father worked in China and I gave him a list of cameras I was interested in and he brought back a bagfull of old Shanghai's which I sold for a fortune. Several Barnack Leicas and this bloody thing.
At first I thought it was a fake but it is genuine, at least according to a few 'experts' that have looked at it. However I loath the engraving, really I could never use a camera with that on it. I assumed the engraving was done in Russia later, although it surprises me they bothered doing it on the underside of the chassis.
Back in the day my father worked in China and I gave him a list of cameras I was interested in and he brought back a bagfull of old Shanghai's which I sold for a fortune. Several Barnack Leicas and this bloody thing.
At first I thought it was a fake but it is genuine, at least according to a few 'experts' that have looked at it. However I loath the engraving, really I could never use a camera with that on it. I assumed the engraving was done in Russia later, although it surprises me they bothered doing it on the underside of the chassis.
das
Well-known
Is this not vintage enough? .
. 
1936ContaxII
Member
I'm not sure if this is actually genuine.
I suppose "FL" wants to announce that it would be a Contax of German air force where this seems to have been an abbreviation for "Flieger" (airmen).
But: Please have a look at this site (though it deals with Leica - but I suppose the engraving methods were the same back then, on Leicas and on Contaxes, Exaktas etc.) : It shows a genuine Leica of German air force "Luftwaffe". You may notice that the second letter “l” is a small “l”. This is followed by the abbreviation point.
Here is another site which deals with this genuine Leica copy.
On your camera, the “L” is a capital “L”. The abbreviation dot is missing. I think that's unusual.
Furthermore, I am not sure whether authentic cameras actually bore the emblem of this barbaric regime, as can be seen on your camera.
The markings on the cameras were not for the purpose of representation, but merely to identify a camera as the property of the air force, the army, the navy or even the notorious secret police “Gestapo”. The emblem was not required for this, only the registration number with the letter code as engraved on the original Leica.
In at least one respect, the emblem itself also looks unusual: The swastika with rounded shapes was used by the Nazi party and its supporters primarily in its early days: 1920 and after. In the late 1930s and the 1940s, the swastika had the widely known angular shape.
So I would suppose, you have got a fake camera. Henry Scherer has written about cameras like these. Maybe you've got a real pre-war Contax (the A series was produced in 1936 - same with a 1911XXX Zeiss Jena lens according to this list) where someone faked the engravings many decades after.
Or it's a former Kiev which got a Contax nameplate in a faking workshop (Henry Scherer has written about it) plus the fake engravings.
Last edited:
Pioneer
Veteran
Interesting. I have been using a Contax II regularly for over a decade primarily using a Sonnar 50/1.5 and a Biogon 35/2.8. I must be lucky. I have never had to adjust the focus since I bought it and had it serviced.
Never been able to say that about any of my Leica cameras, and I have owned a few, so I guess it must be a good thing that the focus on those cameras is easy to adjust. Even the focus on my Zeiss Ikon ZM has gone out of adjustment a couple of times since I have owned it. Have no intention of ever getting rid of it but it does not exactly have a habit of staying in focus over long periods of time.
Never been able to say that about any of my Leica cameras, and I have owned a few, so I guess it must be a good thing that the focus on those cameras is easy to adjust. Even the focus on my Zeiss Ikon ZM has gone out of adjustment a couple of times since I have owned it. Have no intention of ever getting rid of it but it does not exactly have a habit of staying in focus over long periods of time.
trix4ever
Well-known
What I said was the camera seemed genuine but the engraving was probably done post war in Russia.
I think you are agreeing with me...
MISH
Well-known
looking through some paperwork I discovered I had the original bill of sale and a letter where the original owner had sent the lens back to Zeiss for repair jc031699
Established
Brian I just fixed a non working shutter on a II. It was quite an experience.
Muggins
Junk magnet
I'm glad you said that! It confirms I was right to get my III done by an expert and not even poke it myself.
jc031699
Established
(In a good way... but very involved. It is a brilliantly designed and executed camera, of any vintage, but particularly considering that it was produced in the 1930's. Incredible...) I repaired the main shutter spring, flushed out a flake of film that was jamming the winding mechanism, cleaned and lubricated all of the gears that were sticky from old age, replaced the shutter leather braces, replaced the shutter ribbons, lubricated the shutter, cleaned and horizontally aligned the rangefinder and vertically aligned / reglued the rangefinder barrel lens, set the shutter slit width and timings, replaced the main spring latch, ground/polished the shutter casting. It was enlightening and a testament to top notch engineering and manufacturing. Looking for my next project, maybe a LTM japanese Barnack clone. Any takers?
I learned that there are way more blade-screwdriver sizes than there seem to be for JIS sizes. A large set of copycat Bergeon watchmaker screwdrivers has really helped with securing / protecting the screw heads in this camera. A must have.
Thank god for the internet, Maizenberg, Oleson, Elek, Javier, Van Straten, Romney, Ho, Tooke. Surprisingly, the main shutter spring "end" for tensioning the shutter has a higher tolerance susceptible to slippage at the latch when compared with the Kiev shutters that I have. I strongly believe this was the orignal shutter spring since it had the typical Contax leather pad and clearly original shutter.
I learned that there are way more blade-screwdriver sizes than there seem to be for JIS sizes. A large set of copycat Bergeon watchmaker screwdrivers has really helped with securing / protecting the screw heads in this camera. A must have.
Thank god for the internet, Maizenberg, Oleson, Elek, Javier, Van Straten, Romney, Ho, Tooke. Surprisingly, the main shutter spring "end" for tensioning the shutter has a higher tolerance susceptible to slippage at the latch when compared with the Kiev shutters that I have. I strongly believe this was the orignal shutter spring since it had the typical Contax leather pad and clearly original shutter.
Last edited:
TenEleven
Well-known
As someone who is completely Contax-insane and loves both the IIa and II's using them as daily drivers.
Don't. Like I actually love (did I say I was normal?) the way the II and the IIa work and feel to shoot. I love the focus wheel. I use it for the normal lenses and wide angles. I have about 10 Contaxes and like 100 lenses for them, I much prefer it over my button-rewind M2. Again did I say I was normal?
I also have a I(f) because it came with the two black and nickel lenses as a package (50 and 28) - and of course when I got the body I had to give it a service - so it works and works well. But... boy is this thing awkward to shoot. If you wind it in a hurry you risk rubbing on the aperture ring of the lens with your knuckles, either changing focus, the aperture setting - or both! Bonus points for knocking (and possibly denting) the hood off - which is only push-on for this generation and costs like a million bucks these days. For... reasons...
Then - it has the split VF/RF, which as I learned from my attempts to use various Barnack Leicas and copies I am not fond of. And then once or twice in the "heat of action" I managed to partially pull out the viewfinder mask which of course "deleted" the rangefinder image leaving me wondering what was wrong and missing the shot.
But god -- it is a gorgeous camera. Also the black and nickel Sonnars are so fine. It's the only camera other than a Rolleiflex, where I had wild strangers literally flag me down so they could come over to the other side of the street to take a closer look at it.
Edit, some image content. I repaired three of these - where two of the II's had their rangefinder purposefully misaligned - someone changed the RF gain (increased the gain - aka RF indicates closer quicker) so that they could use their Nikon lenses on these. They of course also took out about 0.03mm worth of shims. What the heck. The last one simply needed a clean of the finder.
Last edited:
Muggins
Junk magnet
While we are at it, how do you grip the damn thing to keep your finger out of the RF window?
(I say "damn thing" in that it's bloody frustrating when the patch vanishes - everything else is no worse than any other 1930s camera I've owned!)
(I say "damn thing" in that it's bloody frustrating when the patch vanishes - everything else is no worse than any other 1930s camera I've owned!)
TenEleven
Well-known
Behold the Contax grip!
(The IIa is admittedly better in this respect - but I just love that pre-war and war-time goodness. Luckily I was gifted with long very flexible fingers.)
Edit removed image of holding it extra awkwardly because I was holding it one handed - in shooting I hold these two handed of course with a strap around my neck. Sometimes even two of them.
(The IIa is admittedly better in this respect - but I just love that pre-war and war-time goodness. Luckily I was gifted with long very flexible fingers.)
Edit removed image of holding it extra awkwardly because I was holding it one handed - in shooting I hold these two handed of course with a strap around my neck. Sometimes even two of them.
Attachments
Muggins
Junk magnet
Thanks - I'll give that a go when I pass the cabinet later - mine are short and dumpy, but got to give it a go!
ETA - I suspect its a bit more comfortable for you, but I can do that. I'll have to practice before the next roll.
ETA - I suspect its a bit more comfortable for you, but I can do that. I'll have to practice before the next roll.
Last edited:
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
...I'd agree, but the fact they flipped the bloody direction the focusing wheel moves drives me insane on the later ones.
TenEleven
Well-known
I somehow never noticed that. I just checked and you're right. But I had to consciously focus on what my finger was doing to notice it. I guess it's just natural to me either way?
I also sometimes use LTM cameras, so I might just be used to focus direction confusion and adapt without having to think about it much.
Also: Your IIa's capping usually is ironically enough - a good sign! It often means that the camera has not been over-tightened, yet. If it had been, the shutter would make a loud "twhack!" noise running at similar speed from 1/250 through to 1/1250, gaining only 10-20% for each stop. A correctly serviced IIa is very, very quiet.
I also sometimes use LTM cameras, so I might just be used to focus direction confusion and adapt without having to think about it much.
Also: Your IIa's capping usually is ironically enough - a good sign! It often means that the camera has not been over-tightened, yet. If it had been, the shutter would make a loud "twhack!" noise running at similar speed from 1/250 through to 1/1250, gaining only 10-20% for each stop. A correctly serviced IIa is very, very quiet.
Last edited: