What’s Contax RF good for as a user system, compared to Leica and Nikon RF systems?

[splitimageview]

I haven't disabled the focus wheel on a Contax, but I did on my Nikon SP. Should be pretty simple to do...

As for Barnack loading, it's really just bottom loading I'm not fond of. This goes for Ms, too.

 

[ranger9]

The pre-war Contaxes were beautiful.

To look at. In use? I haven't owned one in years, but in damp weather I still get twinges of pain in my pinkie finger where it was gouged by that damned little pin below the self-timer lever.

 

[ranger9]

My take, and let's reiterate that we're talking about USER systems: Up until 1954, when the M3 appeared, Contax was 'way ahead of Leica in technological sophistication (combined range/viewfinder and non-rotation shutter speed dial) as well as breadth and quality of lens line. Many users preferred Leica for its more comfortable handling and better real-world reliability; however, by 1950 the smart play for Barnack fans would have been to buy a Canon, which had similar handling and quality plus the operational advantage of a combined range/viewfinder with switchable magnification. Likewise, Contax admirers could have gotten the same overall handling plus the less complex Leica-type shutter by opting for a Nikon S, although they would have to give up the single shutter-speed dial.

By modern usability standards, the main drawback to all of these — and the reason I can't take any of them seriously as user cameras today — was their dinky, squinty, ornery viewfinder eyepieces... necessary to keep the user's eye centered behind their simple Galilean viewfinders, but infuriating by today's standards. Slooooow operation enforced by knob wind and rewind also was par for the course for the era, but harder to accept today if you're serious about taking pictures. Inconvenient, or even absent, flash-sync arrangements are less mission-critical, but still annoying if you want to slip a strobe onto your camera occasionally.

With the M3 of 1954, Leitz obliterated (almost) all of these headaches and went from last to first place in usability. The M3 had a large, comfortable eyepiece thanks to its system of projected viewfinder frames; a rapid film-advance lever; all shutter speeds on a single dial that didn't rotate as the shutter fired (hence no risk of hanging up on an errant finger) and straightforward flash sync. (The only place they dropped the ball was in retaining knob rewind, which spawned generations of cottage-industry aftermarket solutions until they got back on track... 13 years later!!!... with the crank-rewind M4 of 1967.)

Of the rest of the system-rangefinder Big Four, two rose quickly to the challenge. By late 1954 Nikon had rolled out the S2, with a bigger, more comfortable reflected-frame viewfinder — not as flexible or as easy to use as the M3's projected-frame finder, but still a huge advance over the dinky Nikon S finder. The S2 also had both lever advance and crank rewind for much faster operation, and a PC flash contact with X sync. Its main usability drawback by modern standards was its system of separate, rotating fast and slow shutter speed dials, which are much more likely to confuse the modern film newcomer than the M3's single dial. Nikon rectified this by 1957 with the SP model, which filled out the full slate of modern conveniences by adding single-dial shutter speed control and easier-to-see projected finder frames.

Canon wandered a bit longer through several transitional models until 1958, when it brought out its VI and P models, all with reflected framelines, lever (or trigger) advance and crank rewind, single shutter speed dials, and strobe-friendly flash sync. Projected finder framelines came in with the big-selling model 7 of 1961.

So by 1961 three of the Big Four had all the convenience features we expect of a modern RF camera: a large finder eyepiece with projected framelines, rapid advance lever and crank rewind (aftermarket on the Leicas), single-dial shutter speed control, and strobe-friendly flash sync.

Meanwhile, though, Zeiss had been sitting on its Stuttgart backside, and by the time it went out of production the Contax STILL had a tiny, squinty finder eyepiece and knob advance and rewind, although it had had single-dial shutter speeds all along and the color-dial model added a PC flash contact with strobe sync.

By these standards I would say the Contax NEVER made it into the modern era of usability — beautifully crafted, yes, and rewarding to use for the enthusiast, but a little too quaint and frustrating for the contemporary user who's more interested in photography than in cameras.

Again, remember we're talking about modern standards of usability... by classical standards, I love the darn old things...

 

[narsuitus]

Can you help me learn to love my Contax rangefinders?

I love using my two 35mm film rangefinder systems at the same time.

I will put a telephoto on one body and a wide-angle on the other and enjoy them both.


35mm Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[farlymac]

Well, Simon, I can't say I came to the Leica system the way you did. Quite the opposite, actually. I started with a Contax IIa because it was less expensive than any Leica I had looked at (budgetary constraints at the time dictated this). Lenses on the other hand were another matter, plus it had a mechanical issue that made it impossible for me to keep track of exposures, so I let it linger. I didn't realize I could use FSU lenses until I had already gone in a different direction.

But I wanted to explore the Barnack design, so I purchased a Zorki-1d, and used that until it was worn out. It was fun in a challenging way, but still the Leica's were priced out of my reach. Later on I replaced it with a Zorki-1e that is in better shape, and extended my lens line.

Until I finally fixed the frame counter on the IIa, I didn't get to explore the Contax much, then I found a couple of other lenses for it. It was then I realized I hated the finder, so I started to look at the Nikon S2, and found it to my liking. It was like an improved version of the Contax, plus the lenses were more plentiful and affordable.

I continued to use the Zorki line, getting other models that each had some upgrade to the original design to make them easier to use (well, as long as they weren't a worn out hulk), culminating in the Zorki-6 with it's hinged back, and lever winding. No more film leader trimming for me. Plus the lenses were way more affordable, with decent performance. But the body of the -6 is somewhat tinny, the gearing of the winder is suspect, and it lacked a full set of shutter speeds.

I also acquired a Yashica YF (think screw mount M), and Canon P (LTM with hinged back and lever winding) to keep my interest in Leica style cameras going. But they were casual use cameras.

Still, I yearned for something newer that had a solid feel to it, and combined all the attributes I had come to like in the various makes and models I had tried so far. The Leica CL fit the bill for a while. I like the compactness, the two-lens system, and the bayonet mount. Yeah, it has a removable back, but then so did the Contax and Nikon, and most of my Zorki's and FED's. It has a built in meter, but I kind of ignore that because of the battery issue.

That lead me to getting an M4-P after researching all the available M film versions. I feel really comfortable with using it, and have put together a decent kit over the last couple of years utilizing a mix of lenses from Leica, Voigtlander, and Konica.

So when I hit my official retirement age, I bought a Leica IIIf that was made the same year I was born, then proceeded to get a set of Leica lenses common to that model. I found that liking an anachronistic camera system can only go so far, as two of the lenses were ergonomically defective in my opinion, so I've already replaced them with other makes or models. The build of the IIIf is so nice compared to all the clones and wannabe's out there. It's slightly larger body over the IIb and Nicca III-S fits my hands better, and mechanically it just purrs.

Of all the above mentioned cameras, I like to think I can find that their good attributes outweigh the bad, even if that is sentimentally based reasoning. I commend any manufacturer that improves on a design instead of pushing the same old thing down the road with only slight updates because of their marketing acumen. It's why I avoided Leica for as long as I could by using FSU and Japanese models. And though I don't always get the highest attainable design (I started and stopped on Nikon with the S2), I do get the one I feel will work for me.

So to answer your original question, other than the viewfinder, I'd be happy to have the Contax IIa as a daily user, but I feel the Nikon S2 outshines it.

PF

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

The M bodies though; they're like a face only its mother could love. ...

Sorry what?

I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all, but the classic Leica M is almost universally regarded as one of the best looking cameras ever made.

 

[Erik van Straten]

By these standards I would say the Contax NEVER made it into the modern era of usability — beautifully crafted, yes, and rewarding to use for the enthusiast, but a little too quaint and frustrating for the contemporary user who's more interested in photography than in cameras.

In those years Zeiss was more into the enormously successfull Hasselblad system. They lost the battle and didn't care about 35mm anymore.


Erik.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Every time I have something which is five percenter from total use, I sell.
If I can’t sell it, I give it for free.
If OP can’t do it, get glass cabinet and call it as collecting.

 

[Cascadilla]

I think that Zeiss pretty much gave up on the Contax system after they came out with the color dial IIa/IIIa bodies and the 21 mm Biogon. I've seen a couple of pictures of prototype replacements but they never went anywhere and from what I've seen of those prototypes they probably wouldn't have been big sellers anyway. As Erik mentions, Zeiss became the supplier of Hasselblad lenses and in 35 mm they turned to SLRs instead, producing many more Contaflex leaf shutter SLRs than they ever did Contax RFs. Given how SLRs replaced RFs by the late 60's for most photographers, and Zeiss's continuing financial problems the decision to discontinue development and eventually the whole Contax RF system probably made business sense, even if it disappointed some photographers.

 

[markjwyatt]

I cannot compare to the Nikon or Leica, but I can say that I have used my Contax iia extensively for over a year and a half. I traveled a lot of work, especially last year, and it was compact and easy to bring in my computer bag. It is a joy to shoot, reliable, precise, quiet and takes great photos. Focus of course is dead nuts. Generally I packed my Voigtlander SC Skopar 21mm f4 adn Zeiss Optron 50mm f2 Sonnar, plus a light meter, filters, and two viewfinders. I like to use viewfinders (many do not), so the squinty RF window is not a big issue for me. I could bring SLRs, but they are bulkier. My Fujifilm XT-2 is easier to shoot, but not compact. I have a P&S that packs easier, but prefer manual mechanical in general. I have used many cameras over the years, and the Contax iia so far is one of my favorites. I am sure Leica M3+ or Nikon RFs would be great also.

ADD: I started with a Kiev 4a (close to a Contax II in design). ran a few roll though it and that led me to look for a Contax iia. I chose to go post war thinking it may be a little improved. There is an ongoing valid debate about that, so I will leave it at that.

 

[ranger9]

What Cascadilla said... they certainly didn't give up on 35mm, they just gave up on the rangefinder system to concentrate on SLRs (same as Nikon and Canon did, and as Leica probably would have done if they had been able to get the Leicaflex system to take off...)

 

[Bingley]

I’ve been using Leica Barnack, Ms, and Canon LTM cameras. About two years ago, I branched out into Contax and got a IIIa and later a IIa. For me, the being drawing point of the Contax system was the Zeiss glass, but I also appreciate the small form factor of the IIa.

And then the shutter on my IIa broke. The camera is now with Henry Scherer for repair/overhaul. I hope he can repair it. But this was a reminder that, as beautiful as Contax cameras are, their complicated shutters may not be as robust as Leica and Canon rangefinders.

Notwithstanding Stephen’s comments about Barnark Leicas, I find my IIIc and Canon IVSB2 a joy to shoot. I always use an auxiliary vf, so that takes care of a lot of the squintiness. The small size and robust construction, I find, make these great cameras for taking on hikes. The shutters are pretty quiet. I’ve used mine for street photography too. Most importantly, if something does go wrong, Barnack Leicas and their Canon counterparts can be easily repaired.

I also love my M cameras, but if I’m going for a walk in the woods, I’m more likely to pack the IIIc or IVSB2 in my bag b/c of the smaller size and lighter weight. The IIIc with the CV Color Skopar 50/2.5 is a great shooting kit. I used it extensively last summer in NYC (in the before times) and in the Adirondacks. I had similar hopes for the Contax IIa, which has a nicer VF than the Barnacks and is much easier to load.... until the shutter broke...

 

[Cascadilla]

You're right that Contax body repair is a lot harder to come by than it is for other cameras, but I think the thing that is easy to forget is how old all of this equipment is and thus how likely any of it is to need repairs or at least a CLA. I would be confident that your IIa will come back from Henry Scherer looking and working like new--that has been my experience with several Contax bodies and lenses.

 

[Bingley]

You're right that Contax body repair is a lot harder to come by than it is for other cameras, but I think the thing that is easy to forget is how old all of this equipment is and thus how likely any of it is to need repairs or at least a CLA. I would be confident that your IIa will come back from Henry Scherer looking and working like new--that has been my experience with several Contax bodies and lenses.

Thanks. I hope you’re right.

 

[Philip Whiteman]

I have had huge enjoyment from my self-rebuilt Contax IIs, none of which cost more than just over £100 (in the last three or four years) - so much so that the Leica IIIC my dad gave me in the 1970s has seen no use at all. However, now my son has returned my old M6, that's again become the go-to film camera.

I must say the rangefinder Nikons are lovely things - my brother has several - but it was the Robert Capa connection to the prewar Contax that drew me. Plus, of course, they are actually quite straightforward, if a little tricky to service - and seemingly very reliable once they've been serviced. I am tempted by a IIa - but several times the price, and with a reputation for the rangefinder going out of alignment etc?

 

[steveyork]

... 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.

Proving the world is circular, ha, ha, I just ordered a Contax II to replace the one I sold several years ago. It's the history of the piece, no M mount Leica can match it!

According to my rule #4 of camera gear, I'm allowed to repurchase something I sold only once -- based on the one dumb move philosophy -- but then if I sell it again, its gone for good.

Actually it's it's the fault Larry Gubas. I was just looking through his book "Zeiss and Photography." Pre-war Zeiss cameras from the 30's have to be some of the coolest looking cameras out there. The fact that they can take great pictures too is just icing.

 

[xayraa33]

That is a great dog walking vibe!

Everyone knows what kind of cameras Robert Capa favoured ( Nikon S at the very end)..but what brand of fine quality cigarettes did he favour?

 

[PRJ]

Zeiss was planning on updating the Contax IIa. They had some interesting prototypes. Shame they didn't put them into production. I don't have any links offhand but they have to be out there somewhere on the interwebs. I remember seeing them in a book somewhere once.

I used Contax IIas and IIIas quite a bit back in the 90s. They were great carry around cameras and travel cameras. The lenses were really special I thought and still think even today hold their own. I still have one beat up IIIa CD and only one lens, a pre war uncoated 1.5 Sonnar. The lens is incredible which is why I kept it. I wish I didn't sell off the other lenses years ago. I had some rare ones that I stumbled over at Central Camera in ChiTown back in the mid 90s. I didn't konw they were rare, I just asked if they had any lenses for Contax and that was what they had... Shame I sold them...

I used to be able to wind them in a split second by rotating my wrists in the opposite direction right in front of my nose. Only thing I never liked about them is the lack of framelines in the finder, of course. I used one of those turrit finders which worked fine. These days I use glasses instead of contacts so I don't really use the one remaining body much. I probably haven't shot a roll of film in it for maybe eight or ten years. Much easier to use a Leica of course. Contaxes have their charm though.

 

[stephen_lumsden]

I enjoy putting a roll through my own Contax ii every month. I had not used it for a while and was thinking about getting rid of it. Still getting used to it again. I think I may have a slow shutter speed (1/50) problem as some are blurry (have to look into that). I use the old Russian lenses with it and it is good value in this respect. One has to slow down though and not rush it, but thats part of the charm.

 

[RObert Budding]

I've owned both a Contax IIa and IIIa that were serviced by Henry Scherer before his wait list spanned a decade, or more. They were beautiful cameras, but I sold them and cut over to Nikon. The simpler shutter is a plus, the finder is superior, and the lenses are fantastic. No regrets.