Viewfinder Contax IIa or IIIa

[steveyork]

I've read that they're "small and dim." Can anyone flesh that out a bit. I'm familiar with the viewfinder on Leica Ms for comparison. Thanks.

 

[Roberto]

I've read that they're "small and dim." Can anyone flesh that out a bit. I'm familiar with the viewfinder on Leica Ms for comparison. Thanks.

If you're used with Leica M, forget about Contax, I would sell mine just for the VF..

 

[bogelgelbo]

I actually sell my IIa for an leica M purely because the viewfinder reason.

 

[Vics]

I have an M3 and a Contax IIIa. I like the M3 for its large finder and its parallax correction, and I like the Contax for its contrasty, easy-to-focus RF patch. I like the Leica for its ergonomics and the IIIa for its small size and jewel-like feel. I use them both all the time.
Vic

 

[dexdog]

I think that small and dim is an exaggeration. The finder is not nearly as big and bright as a Canon P or M-series leica (few cameras are), but definately better than a barnack leica, IMO. In any case, quite usable. I have never understood why people are so fussy about viewfinders anyway. As long as you can focus accurately, it is a good viewfinder.

 

[batterytypehah!]

The VF on the M was THE big improvement Leica made to compete with Zeiss. I haven't had a chance to try an M, only a CL, but regardless: don't buy a Contax if you want a VF with bells and whistles.

The Contax finder does one thing only, and does it well: A precise field of view for a 50 lens with a contrasty RF patch.

There are no brightlines, no parallax correction, and sure as heck no speeds or meter needles.

It has good eye relief (I wear glasses) and is tinted a slight gray/green, while the RF patch is gold. This is probably what people mean when they call it dim.

 

[raid]

The Contax is meant for the Zeiss lenses, with the 5cm 1.5 being the prime reason to get a Contax camera. The craftmanship is awesome, and if you insist on a very large and bright viewfinder, use an external finder. It works great.

 

[rover]

I think that small and dim is an exaggeration. The finder is not nearly as big and bright as a Canon P or M-series leica (few cameras are), but definately better than a barnack leica, IMO. In any case, quite usable. I have never understood why people are so fussy about viewfinders anyway. As long as you can focus accurately, it is a good viewfinder.

I think it is very important to keep in mind that the Contax is a contemporary of the Barnack Leica, not the M. The Contax IIa and IIIa are re-engineered pre-war II and III cameras. In that light its viewfinder is superior to its Leica competition, but not Leica M.

 

[steveyork]

Thanks everyone. I have a Contaflex iV and that viewfinder matches some of the best of the era -- Nikon Fs, Leicaflex Sl, ect., but predates them all by a few years. A real fine piece of machinery. I'm not surprised that the Contax, a more expensive Zeiss offering, has a very adequate viewfinder.

 

[jamesmck]

II have never understood why people are so fussy about viewfinders anyway.

For me, a nice viewfinder is an invaluable aid in composing and just 'getting into' what is about to be shot (apart from ease of focusing).

Ditto what Rover said about which Leicas are most fairly compared with the Contax IIa and IIIa