Tell me about the Contax D (or Pentacon)

They do show up occasionally on evil-bay.

But be ready for something pretty primitive by today's standards. They were about the next step after the original Exaktas. I have three classic Exaktas, and you have to be willing to take some time to do anything with them. Only the last Dresden-made model (VX1000) even had an instant-return mirror.

I've never had one of the Contax S or D models, but I doubt if they were much of a step up from the Exaktas. However, if collecting is your hobby, jump to it.
 
They were quite a bit easier to use than Exaktas, but still heavy, blocky, slow-operating (semi-auto diaphragm, no instant-return mirror, dim finder, front-mounted angled release).

If you want 'high 50s' consider a Contarex Cyclops/Bullseye (not Special as I first wrote) -- or for versatility, a Praktina with clockwork motor drive.

Cheers,

R.
 
Sonnar2 said:
It was the smallest and most technically advanced SLR until the PENTAX came out.
Click to expand...
The Gamma Duflex (1947) was unquestionably more technically advanced (though in all fairness staggeringly rare) and I'm fairly sure (it's been years since I handled either) the Wrayflex was smaller.

The '57 Pentax still had semi-auto lenses and twin-dial shutter speeds (single dial in '59, the year the first modern SLR, the Nikon F, appeared, fully auto Super Takumars, 1960) and I'd back the Praktina IIa (1953) as more technically advanced than the Contax S/D, especially when fitted with the spring motor drive.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I've repaired and used a couple of the Pentacon variants. One thing to keep in mind is that most of these will have stiff, dried out &/or pinholed curtains that will need raplacing. Ric Oleson has a wealth of information and simple instructions for curtain replacement here.

I think these are great cameras once they're in working order - the original selection of lenses (Tessar, Biotar, Flektogon, etc) are top-notch too. The dual-range speeds and the spinning selector dial are pretty funky.


These are pretty crappy print scans.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The Gamma Duflex (1947) was unquestionably more technically advanced
Click to expand...

I haven't even seen a picture of it. Does it ever come out as a product for sale?

(though in all fairness staggeringly rare) and I'm fairly sure (it's been years since I handled either) the Wrayflex was smaller.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a Wrayflex too, nor have the technical data and measures. Has it had a prisma? The Asahiflex (without a prism) is also smaller than the Pentax/ Contax D....

The '57 Pentax still had semi-auto lenses and twin-dial shutter speeds (single dial in '59, the year the first modern SLR, the Nikon F, appeared, fully auto Super Takumars, 1960) and I'd back the Praktina IIa (1953) as more technically advanced than the Contax S/D, especially when fitted with the spring motor drive.
Click to expand...

I would concern the Praktina as an evolution of the Praktiflex, which was technically top just in 1939. There was never a good prism for it.

1959 the Pentax S2 had single speed dial, same year as the Nikon F. I cannot see a reason why it has to bee the "first modern SLR", two years later than the Pentax..

have fun, Frank
 
Peter Dechert has written a long article on the (east German) Contax SLR I think he published the links on his coffee with the experts forum
 
Sonnar2 said:
I haven't even seen a picture of it. Does it ever come out as a product for sale?



I haven't seen a Wrayflex too, nor have the technical data and measures. Has it had a prisma? The Asahiflex (without a prism) is also smaller than the Pentax/ Contax D....



I would concern the Praktina as an evolution of the Praktiflex, which was technically top just in 1939. There was never a good prism for it.

1959 the Pentax S2 had single speed dial, same year as the Nikon F. I cannot see a reason why it has to bee the "first modern SLR", two years later than the Pentax..

have fun, Frank
Click to expand...
Dear Frank,

Duflex: about 150 made, but yes, they were sold. Hungarian!

Wrayflex: I am reasonably sure it has a prism. It's certainly eye-level and (as far as I recall) right way 'round. No measurements, sorry: that's from memory only.

'Never a good prism for the Praktina'? In what sense? The one I had was no worse than any other East German SLR. And with the motor drive, you had effectively an instant-return mirror.

For me, the single speed dial (1959, Pentax + Nikon) AND fully-auto diaphragm (1959 Nikon, 1960 Pentax) mark the coming of age of the modern SLR; the original Pentax had neither.

But it's all a question of definition...

Cheers,

Roger
 
AFAIK the Praktica/ Praktina prisms were 3rd party made, as the cheaply ones made for Exakta. The Contax D/F prisms were quite dark too. The Ihagee prisms were way better, and the best prisms around before Asahi Optical started their PENTAX. This was the reason why they developed more than 2 years on that camera. Even today you hardly find a prism which starts desilvering on a Pentax. Tired shutter springs yes, but no desilvered prisms. Just the opposite to Nikon.

What makes "the first modern SLR" is a matter of definition, though. For a fan of Nikon it's probably the Nikon, for a fan of Zeiss-Ikon the Contarex would be the one and only. For me it's more a form than a total of features. The Original Pentax (1957), the Pentax K (1958), S2 (1959) and S3 (1960) are the same joy to use. It's no real difference. Even the Asahiflex is a joy to use, much more than a Praktiflex/ Praktica. It's precise feel like Leica.

have fun,
Frank
 
Sonnar2 said:
AFAIK the Praktica/ Praktina prisms were 3rd party made, as the cheaply ones made for Exakta. The Contax D/F prisms were quite dark too. The Ihagee prisms were way better, and the best prisms around before Asahi Optical started their PENTAX. This was the reason why they developed more than 2 years on that camera. Even today you hardly find a prism which starts desilvering on a Pentax. Tired shutter springs yes, but no desilvered prisms. Just the opposite to Nikon.

What makes "the first modern SLR" is a matter of definition, though. For a fan of Nikon it's probably the Nikon, for a fan of Zeiss-Ikon the Contarex would be the one and only. For me it's more a form than a total of features. The Original Pentax (1957), the Pentax K (1958), S2 (1959) and S3 (1960) are the same joy to use. It's no real difference. Even the Asahiflex is a joy to use, much more than a Praktiflex/ Praktica. It's precise feel like Leica.

have fun,
Frank
Click to expand...
Dear Frank,

My first decent camera was an SV, which I believe to be the best Pentax of all time (despite, as you say, tired shutter springs). I am not anti-Pentax; I have myself gone on record as saying that an SV is the closest I have ever used to a reflex, screw-mount Leica. I still own two SVs today.

But I'd still say that the Nikon F was the first series-production camera to have ALL the features of a modern SLR. I completely agree that it's a matter of definition, but without single-dial shutter speeds and full auto diaphragm, I'll back features over form, much as I appreciate and understand your viewpoint.

It's been over 25 years, but I recall (as clearly as one can, after almost half my lifetime) that the Praktina prism on my IIa was fully integrated into the system, not a third-party add-on like (as you say) cheap Exakta prisms.

Cheers,

R.
 
Isn't there also an obscure Russian contender for the title of "first" 35mm SLR (or am I thinking of the Duflex)? I would still tend to think of the Contax S as the first modern 35mm SLR with built-in pentaprism, even though it lacks features such as instant return mirror, single speed range (one dial does selects all speeds, but there is a switch to change from low to high speeds) and auto stop-down. The later Contax/Pentacon F model did have an auto stop-down mechanism.
 
Wayno said:
Isn't there also an obscure Russian contender for the title of "first" 35mm SLR (or am I thinking of the Duflex)? I would still tend to think of the Contax S as the first modern 35mm SLR with built-in pentaprism, even though it lacks features such as instant return mirror, single speed range (one dial does selects all speeds, but there is a switch to change from low to high speeds) and auto stop-down. The later Contax/Pentacon F model did have an auto stop-down mechanism.
Click to expand...


No you are right - it is the "sport" Odd but solidly built looking little creature but I believe it was never too reliable.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002jRb

Here is a picture- scroll about 7/10th the way down and you will see a camera labelled cnopm (The Cyrillic equivalent.)

http://www.novacon.com.br/odditycameras/exakta.htm


and here

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/SLR_History_1950_e.html
 
Last edited:
My first decent camera was an SV, which I believe to be the best Pentax of all time (despite, as you say, tired shutter springs). I am not anti-Pentax; I have myself gone on record as saying that an SV is the closest I have ever used to a reflex, screw-mount Leica. I still own two SVs today.

I could not agree more strongly. I own several SVs, S1s and S1as. Their form factor makes them feel like a screw mount Leica and I think they are amongst the best Pentaxes made.
 
Wayno said:
Isn't there also an obscure Russian contender for the title of "first" 35mm SLR (or am I thinking of the Duflex)? I would still tend to think of the Contax S as the first modern 35mm SLR with built-in pentaprism, even though it lacks features such as instant return mirror, single speed range (one dial does selects all speeds, but there is a switch to change from low to high speeds) and auto stop-down. The later Contax/Pentacon F model did have an auto stop-down mechanism.
Click to expand...
Auto stop-down, yes, but still had to be re-opened manually -- like Auto-Takumars, unlike Super Takumars (introduced 1960) which also reopened automatically. As far as I know, the first fully-auto lenses were for the Nikon F in '59.

My argument is that once you're used to a Nikon F, a 1960 or later Pentax, or any other camera with all the features of the 1960s, older SLRs really do feel a bit primitive; having to reopen the diaphragm manually is a very minor chore, but still a chore compared with fully-auto.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Auto stop-down, yes, but still had to be re-opened manually -- like Auto-Takumars, unlike Super Takumars (introduced 1960) which also reopened automatically. As far as I know, the first fully-auto lenses were for the Nikon F in '59.

My argument is that once you're used to a Nikon F, a 1960 or later Pentax, or any other camera with all the features of the 1960s, older SLRs really do feel a bit primitive; having to reopen the diaphragm manually is a very minor chore, but still a chore compared with fully-auto.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Its funny you know, but I actually do not mind using auto takumars and having the added chore of manually opening the aperture by cocking the lens. I find that it is a task which adds to the experience, perhaps because it is so unusual to a modern user and adds a contemplative aspect to the process of taking pictures. It kind of forces you to slow down a tad and think about what you are doing.
 
peterm1 said:
Its funny you know, but I actually do not mind using auto takumars and having the added chore of manually opening the aperture by cocking the lens. I find that it is a task which adds to the experience, perhaps because it is so unusual to a modern user and adds a contemplative aspect to the process of taking pictures. It kind of forces you to slow down a tad and think about what you are doing.
Click to expand...
Dear Peter,

I fully understand, but for me, it goes against the grain of 35mm (as it were). If I want to slow down, I'll use a bigger format -- or maybe a REALLY awkward SLR like my Varex IIa.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Auto stop-down, yes, but still had to be re-opened manually -- like Auto-Takumars, unlike Super Takumars (introduced 1960) which also reopened automatically. As far as I know, the first fully-auto lenses were for the Nikon F in '59.
R.
Click to expand...

No, the Contax/Pentacon F models (and matching Zeiss automatic lenses) operate the same as the later Pentax models (like the Spotmatic), although I think there was a changeover period with "semi-auto" lenses.

I have (and use) one of those Auto-Takumars (a 3.5/35) with the button to re-cock the diaphragm. It's fun to use clunky early 35mm SLR technology every now & then, but I agree that it defeats the purpose of the format to some extent...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom