SimonPJ
Well-known
Can you help me learn to love my Contax rangefinders?
With time on my hands during COVID-19 lockdown I have been thinking about the different RF systems on my shelves. After starting out with Leica M and LTM RF systems, like many here I’m sure, I branched out to explore Nikon, and Contax, and Canon - and finally other Leica copies. My main interest was always to try out all of the different interpretations of the rangefinder camera for their varying strengths as photographic tools, though along the way I did succumb to the lure of the odd rare or exotic version.
Looking back over the past twenty years of my rangefinder photography experience the picture is pretty clear.
Leica M - probably at least 90% of my photography. Practical and dependable as an extension of my hand and eye for everything from weddings, to theatre, documentary, social, travel, sailing and even occasional bird photos via the surprisingly effective Viso system. Practically perfect in every way from clear and intuitive ‘seeing the subject’ (as per Sean Reid), to a wide range of image rendering from modern crystalline clarity to different flavours of atmospheric character.
Leica LTM - around 5%. Mostly on holidays or business travel as a highly portable companion to the M system, with the benefit of sharing lenses. Mainly used with focus and exposure estimation - always a pleasure to return to - and with wonderfully tactile feel in the hand.
Nikon RF - most of the remaining 5%. Just falling short of the Leica M user experience. But the combination of S2, SP, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.5 and 105/2.5 has made a very viable and enjoyable system to take when travelling.
Contax RF - less than 1%. I have put barely more than a handful of films each through my I, II, and IIIa. Despite their engineering beauty, the boxy form factor, the awkward claw-grip needed to accommodate focusing, and the so-so viewfinders mean that I have very rarely reached for my Contaxes, and I really haven’t explored the potential of the Zeiss lenses. My IIIa is the closes thing I have ever seen to a new old stock vintage camera, having been completely rejuvenated by Henry Scherer. It’s beautiful! But shamefully under-utilised.
So, can anybody sell me on the virtues of the Contax RF’s as users. What kind of photography have they worked well for? What are the virtues that I have overlooked? Why do you love them?
With time on my hands during COVID-19 lockdown I have been thinking about the different RF systems on my shelves. After starting out with Leica M and LTM RF systems, like many here I’m sure, I branched out to explore Nikon, and Contax, and Canon - and finally other Leica copies. My main interest was always to try out all of the different interpretations of the rangefinder camera for their varying strengths as photographic tools, though along the way I did succumb to the lure of the odd rare or exotic version.
Looking back over the past twenty years of my rangefinder photography experience the picture is pretty clear.
Leica M - probably at least 90% of my photography. Practical and dependable as an extension of my hand and eye for everything from weddings, to theatre, documentary, social, travel, sailing and even occasional bird photos via the surprisingly effective Viso system. Practically perfect in every way from clear and intuitive ‘seeing the subject’ (as per Sean Reid), to a wide range of image rendering from modern crystalline clarity to different flavours of atmospheric character.
Leica LTM - around 5%. Mostly on holidays or business travel as a highly portable companion to the M system, with the benefit of sharing lenses. Mainly used with focus and exposure estimation - always a pleasure to return to - and with wonderfully tactile feel in the hand.
Nikon RF - most of the remaining 5%. Just falling short of the Leica M user experience. But the combination of S2, SP, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.5 and 105/2.5 has made a very viable and enjoyable system to take when travelling.
Contax RF - less than 1%. I have put barely more than a handful of films each through my I, II, and IIIa. Despite their engineering beauty, the boxy form factor, the awkward claw-grip needed to accommodate focusing, and the so-so viewfinders mean that I have very rarely reached for my Contaxes, and I really haven’t explored the potential of the Zeiss lenses. My IIIa is the closes thing I have ever seen to a new old stock vintage camera, having been completely rejuvenated by Henry Scherer. It’s beautiful! But shamefully under-utilised.
So, can anybody sell me on the virtues of the Contax RF’s as users. What kind of photography have they worked well for? What are the virtues that I have overlooked? Why do you love them?
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Sorry, I can't help. I sold off my Contax IIa and committed to Nikon. The Nikon shutter is more reliable and the finder is far superior to the Contax.
steveyork
Well-known
I've owned and used a pair of pre-war Contax II for a bit of time. Such a piece of history and beautiful 'art-deco' styling. I love all that pre-war Zeiss stuff; it's craftsmanship at a high quality.
In some respects, I liked the Contax better then an M -- the long rangefinder base, a massive rangefinder patch, and so contrasty that the image snapped into focus. I was always surprised (in a good way) with the quality of the old Zeiss optics. The collapsible 50 Sonnar is just so convenient, and who doesn't like a Sonnar? When walking the dog it made me feel like Robert Cappa storming the beaches at Normandy.
Alas, I no longer have any of it. Like the Nikon S2, another beautiful camera, the viewfinder of the Contax just scratched up too many eyeglasses. Great camera though.
In some respects, I liked the Contax better then an M -- the long rangefinder base, a massive rangefinder patch, and so contrasty that the image snapped into focus. I was always surprised (in a good way) with the quality of the old Zeiss optics. The collapsible 50 Sonnar is just so convenient, and who doesn't like a Sonnar? When walking the dog it made me feel like Robert Cappa storming the beaches at Normandy.
Alas, I no longer have any of it. Like the Nikon S2, another beautiful camera, the viewfinder of the Contax just scratched up too many eyeglasses. Great camera though.
steveyork
Well-known
steveyork
Well-known
Hanging Fruit (Contax II, 1937) by Steve, on Flickr
collapsible f/2 Sonnar (1937) on expired Agfa Vista 200
steveyork
Well-known
SimonPJ
Well-known
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
It's a long time since I've looked through the viewfinder of a Contax (before I started using a Leica III). At the time I thought it a bit pokey, but since then I've become rather more used to this sort of thing. Perhaps it's time for another look.
SimonPJ
Well-known
This looks terrifying. What happened?
Clearly an example of the best camera being the one you have on you.
steveyork
Well-known
Just a vandalized bus (we believe) belonging to a church in their parking lot. It was pretty wrecked, so probably had been there for some time.
But yeah, best camera the one you have, because I really needed something wider for the interior. As you probably know, the drawback of the Contax (like an M3 and Nikon S2), is the viewfinder is limited to a 50mm focal length. I shoot mostly (almost exclusively) 35mm lenses now days; another reason the Contax didn't survive 'the Great Camera Sell-Off of 2018.'
Wish I still had the Contax. Incredible piece of craftsmanship. I just get antsy when I have gear sitting around that isn't used much. Definitely a necessary piece in any rangefinder collection.
Pre WWII, Contax had by far the best 35mm rangefinder camera and camera system. period.
Leica was not even remotely close to the Contax II as a PICTURE TAKING machine. Barnacks had a great looks and marketing, but that was pretty much it.
The Contax II and III advantages were
1) better and faster optics 35/2.8 Biogon, 40/2 Biogon, 50/1.5 Sonnar, 85/2 Sonnar
2) much better RF / VF
3) much much much better film loading and unloading.
The Barnack cameras are cute adorable works of art, but poor picture taking machines. Not that you can't take great pics with them, but the gyrations photogs have to go thru to get those pictures are awfully inconvenient.
Have you ever noticed that near mint Barnacks are not that hard to find? That is because so many new Barnack owners gave up on trying to load film into the damn thing and just put it on a shelf.
Have you ever noticed it is VERY difficult to find a near mint Contax II ? That is because pre war Contax II owners were out taking loads of photos with their easy to use camera with GREAT FAST optics.
Capa was shooting a Contax when he was killed in action. Not a Barnack. I don't wonder why.
Post war with the M cameras was when Leicas became picture taking machines. But that day never really existed with a Barnack camera. The myth of Barnack camera greatness as picture takers is mostly the result of repeated hype by collectors who never really shot with them that much, or Barnack photogs who never shot a Barnack system and a Contax II system side by side.
Stephen
EDIT I will use those post start a Barnack vs Contax II thread
Leica was not even remotely close to the Contax II as a PICTURE TAKING machine. Barnacks had a great looks and marketing, but that was pretty much it.
The Contax II and III advantages were
1) better and faster optics 35/2.8 Biogon, 40/2 Biogon, 50/1.5 Sonnar, 85/2 Sonnar
2) much better RF / VF
3) much much much better film loading and unloading.
The Barnack cameras are cute adorable works of art, but poor picture taking machines. Not that you can't take great pics with them, but the gyrations photogs have to go thru to get those pictures are awfully inconvenient.
Have you ever noticed that near mint Barnacks are not that hard to find? That is because so many new Barnack owners gave up on trying to load film into the damn thing and just put it on a shelf.
Have you ever noticed it is VERY difficult to find a near mint Contax II ? That is because pre war Contax II owners were out taking loads of photos with their easy to use camera with GREAT FAST optics.
Capa was shooting a Contax when he was killed in action. Not a Barnack. I don't wonder why.
Post war with the M cameras was when Leicas became picture taking machines. But that day never really existed with a Barnack camera. The myth of Barnack camera greatness as picture takers is mostly the result of repeated hype by collectors who never really shot with them that much, or Barnack photogs who never shot a Barnack system and a Contax II system side by side.
Stephen
EDIT I will use those post start a Barnack vs Contax II thread
Erik van Straten
Veteran
steveyork
Well-known
If I recall correctly, from what I've read, believe he had both a Contax IIa and Nikon S when he stepped on the landmine, but the last picture he took was through the Nikon. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
"According to Richard Whelan in "Robert Capa - The definitive collection", after the blast, the Contax IIa was in his left hand, clutched, but the Nikon S was blown several feet away."
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Cascadilla
Well-known
I briefly used a Contax III 50 years ago and remembered it fondly, especially the 50 f/1.5 Sonnar lens. When I seriously got into RF 8 years ago I started with a Contax IIIa and a 50 mm f/2 Sonnar. Since then I've acquired most of the common lenses that Zeiss made both pre and post WW II and several Henry Scherer restored bodies, and gotten used to the quirks of using using what is mostly 1930's technology. The lenses stand up quite well and the bodies have a solid feel that contemporary equipment just doesn't have. I solved the scratched eyeglass problem with O rings from a hardware store. If the prices of Leica M gear weren't so astronomical I might have gone that route, but I'm not a billionaire. I also own a Leica IIIa, so I think that the Head Bartender's point about general usability is valid. I love the Leica's small size and lighter weight, but for film loading and the combined range/viewfinder of the Contax II/III, I'll take the Contax any time.
My commercial work now is all digital, so I enjoy the Contax for the differences in how you make pictures with a camera of that vintage. The fact that it isn't the fastest way to shoot doesn't matter to me. All of this is personal--if a camera isn't comfortable on some basic level, it doesn't matter how great its reputation is or how fantastic the lenses are. I didn't buy Nikon SLRs back in the 1970's because I use my left eye for focusing and turning on a Nikon meter in the ones that I tried poked my right eye with the winding lever. Nikon has made a lot of great SLR cameras and lenses, but I've never bought any of them, though I have made thousands of prints exclusively with Nikon enlarging lenses.
My commercial work now is all digital, so I enjoy the Contax for the differences in how you make pictures with a camera of that vintage. The fact that it isn't the fastest way to shoot doesn't matter to me. All of this is personal--if a camera isn't comfortable on some basic level, it doesn't matter how great its reputation is or how fantastic the lenses are. I didn't buy Nikon SLRs back in the 1970's because I use my left eye for focusing and turning on a Nikon meter in the ones that I tried poked my right eye with the winding lever. Nikon has made a lot of great SLR cameras and lenses, but I've never bought any of them, though I have made thousands of prints exclusively with Nikon enlarging lenses.
phrons
Established
I can only comment on the Nikon RF vs the Leica system.
The Leica system is more refined in almost every single way. Even the sounds are better.
The Nikon glass is superb.
The vf on the s2 is not as good, the rf patch is not as good, the weird ergonomics, and the materials don’t feel as nice. Also, for whatever reason I feel that the Leica would stand up to more abuse. Even though I know that the s2 is just the F body, and we know those are made to last.
FWIW the same glass can be found in LTM. I also feel the canon LTM glass is just as good. Especially the 50 1.4 and 35 f2.
There’s a lot of great glass from that era. However, I feel that in terms of the camera bodies Leica is worlds ahead.
The Leica system is more refined in almost every single way. Even the sounds are better.
The Nikon glass is superb.
The vf on the s2 is not as good, the rf patch is not as good, the weird ergonomics, and the materials don’t feel as nice. Also, for whatever reason I feel that the Leica would stand up to more abuse. Even though I know that the s2 is just the F body, and we know those are made to last.
FWIW the same glass can be found in LTM. I also feel the canon LTM glass is just as good. Especially the 50 1.4 and 35 f2.
There’s a lot of great glass from that era. However, I feel that in terms of the camera bodies Leica is worlds ahead.
css9450
Veteran
The M bodies though; they're like a face only its mother could love. The pre-war Contaxes were beautiful. As are the Nikons.
Post-war Contaxes though... Who was it - Larry C. I think? - who said they look like they've been poked in the eye with a sharp stick? I'd love to own one though. A working one that is. Broken ones are easy to come by cheap.
For me, the virtues of Contax are the glass, and film loading. Assuming one is speaking of a fully working body, working shutter, clean/clear viewfinder with a contrasty RF patch. Unfortunately those are not givens...most of the ones I've acquired (all postwar IIa and IIIa) have had problems in one area or another. I'd estimate that these are generally similar to Barnacks, in terms of needing service at acquisition time. Most Barnacks I've acquired also need shutter work, and beam splitters. But they are far easier to work on, Contaxes being much more complex.
The last Contax I had was a IIIa that was in pristine condition, with a working meter. I had it serviced and it was essentially like new, not even a Zeiss bump.
However, I never really used it. Viewfinder/RF is a little better than a Barnack, but by only a slim margin. I don't mind separate RF and viewfinder on the Barnack. Film loading is much preferable to a Barnack, but the camera is the size of an M and heavy. Barnacks are light and nearly pocketable depending on which lens is attached.
Compared to Nikon RF, the Contax film loading is the same, but the Nikon viewfinder is fantastic, with life-size view (and the SP has 28/35 built-in, although not life size.) And the lenses are great, with the usual 50mm and up being Sonnars, just like the Contax.
I prefer the rendering of the Contax Biogon to the Nikon 35/2.5, if I could only choose one, but the Biogon is like a boat anchor; super-heavy.
As a result, my choices when picking up gear when heading out to shoot came down to:
• if I want something small and light -- Barnack.
• if size isn't an issue, give me the big viewfinder and easy loading -- Nikon.
The Contax ultimately came in third in this group, so I sold it.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
No shortage of opinions in this thread so far!
I just finished six weeks of photography with my Contax IIIa (*). It reinforced what I already knew: I hate hate hate the infinity lock. I'm not fond of the wandering aperture selection as the lens rotates for focusing, either. It's also too easy to change aperture inadvertently. Focusing, however, was easy with its rangefinder patch.
That said, the camera is solid. My 1/1250 works without capping - but I've never made a photo at that speed. To me, the metal slat shutter driven by gears (rather than belts, previously) is very cool.
On my Nikon S2 from KEH, someone modified the focus wheel infinity lock so that it doesn't engage. Thank you.
The Barnack Leicas - I really do not understand the issue with loading. I trim the leader and simply ensure a lower sprocket hole in the film has engaged a sprocket on the shaft (this is easily visible if you look for it), put the base plate on, and voilà it's ready to go. Once the film has been trimmed, I've never spent more than 30 seconds loading film. I've used my 1934 Leica III exclusively for months and I enjoy it.
Of the M's, I'm not sure whether the M3 or M6 is my favorite. They both look and feel good.
(*) For my last frames yesterday, on Tri-X and at f/16, I used a Vivitar 285 - perhaps a bit anachronistic, but fun.
I just finished six weeks of photography with my Contax IIIa (*). It reinforced what I already knew: I hate hate hate the infinity lock. I'm not fond of the wandering aperture selection as the lens rotates for focusing, either. It's also too easy to change aperture inadvertently. Focusing, however, was easy with its rangefinder patch.
That said, the camera is solid. My 1/1250 works without capping - but I've never made a photo at that speed. To me, the metal slat shutter driven by gears (rather than belts, previously) is very cool.
On my Nikon S2 from KEH, someone modified the focus wheel infinity lock so that it doesn't engage. Thank you.
The Barnack Leicas - I really do not understand the issue with loading. I trim the leader and simply ensure a lower sprocket hole in the film has engaged a sprocket on the shaft (this is easily visible if you look for it), put the base plate on, and voilà it's ready to go. Once the film has been trimmed, I've never spent more than 30 seconds loading film. I've used my 1934 Leica III exclusively for months and I enjoy it.
Of the M's, I'm not sure whether the M3 or M6 is my favorite. They both look and feel good.
(*) For my last frames yesterday, on Tri-X and at f/16, I used a Vivitar 285 - perhaps a bit anachronistic, but fun.