What's up with Contaxes IIa/IIIa

[Roger Hicks]

Well if there is something particularly reliable, efficient, very superior to what Leica made and almost impossible to get out of specs on a Contax - unless age has some glass elements come unglued but this happens on Leicas as well - it's "the rangefinder coupling linkage" which relies on some very clever and actually quite basic geartrains...

The rangefinder (and the viewfinder/rangefinder combined unit) is just what makes the Contaxes so interesting over their contemporary Leicas.

Are you sure you know those cameras actually ?

Probably a good deal better than most people, though not as well as yourself.

Most of what I know about engineering in general, I learned from my father, a marine engineer.

Most of what I know about camera engineering in general, I learned from Lipinski's Miniature and Precision Cameras, though the Report of the British Intelligence Sub-Committee on Leica (1946) also makes interesting reading -- http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=b...OPjPvdQrHrB9TD2iyj8jDTVsruU3OaJbWjdlF8H5uvfsa. And of course manuals such as Tomosy.

After that, I have actually had quite a few cameras apart and do occasional repairs, though as I don't enjoy it, I prefer to use professional repairers. There is however a 3-page report on a Contax stripdown in my A History of the 35mm Still Camera.

EDIT: There's some sort of glastly red blob over your quote -- sorry. I don't know how it got in there and I can't see how to get rid of it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mephiloco]

I was wondering the same. I've never used a Contax, or even seen one in person (let alone held one), but figure they can't be that bad, especially considering how much cheaper the lenses are (compared to Leica lenses) and the, for the most part, superior lens formulas. Been wanting to grab one just so for all the sonnar choices.

 

[mob81]

I'm selling mine mine because their lenses is very expensive "I was trying to get 35mm post war to work with my iiia" and couldn't find one cheaper than $800! Even the 35mm won't work on mine.

Otherwise, my iiia is a real keeper and I sure will miss it once it sold.

 

[mob81]

I was wondering the same. I've never used a Contax, or even seen one in person (let alone held one), but figure they can't be that bad, especially considering how much cheaper the lenses are (compared to Leica lenses) and the, for the most part, superior lens formulas. Been wanting to grab one just so for all the sonnar choices.

You can use the sonnar on your leica m mount via adapter! Which I tried and it's range finder coupled.

 

[literiter]

I was able to buy a Contax IIIA with a 50mm and a 35mm (with finder) for a very reasonable price, last year. Everything worked, even though the light meter was a tad off.

The IIIA is a beautiful thing, no question about it. Very well made. Operation is smooth. The shutter is quiet. Having shot 4 rolls; Nice pictures.

I also have a Leica M2 and a M4-P with 50, 35, and 90mm lenses. To place the IIIA beside the Leicas one is struck by the beauty of the Contax to the relative dinginess of the Leicas.

In use, however the whole Contax thing falls apart. Hard to change lenses, no frame lines, Have to use finder with 35mm lenses, awkward winding, ugly film loading. The rear element of the expensive 35mm lens protrudes and could be easily damaged.

I got rid of the whole outfit. It is a beautiful well made camera but a ergonomic disaster.

 

[Highway 61]

There's some sort of glastly red blob over your quote -- sorry. I don't know how it got in there and I can't see how to get rid of it.

I guess I don't have the engineering skills to have it go away either, sorry.

Yet I'm still surprised that you first mentioned the rangefinder to be the significant weakness of the Contax, given that it's obviously its major strength and what had it be one of the best 35mm cameras produced in the 1930s and 1950s.

The Contax has many weaknesses (infamous shutter ribbons that always break once every decade for the prewar camera, shutter running closed at high speeds and dumb selftimer design for the postwar camera) but one of its remarkable points is the rangefinder, for both versions.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I guess I don't have the engineering skills to have it go away either, sorry.

Yet I'm still surprised that you first mentioned the rangefinder to be the significant weakness of the Contax, given that it's obviously its major strength and what had it be one of the best 35mm cameras produced in the 1930s and 1950s.

The Contax has many weaknesses (infamous shutter ribbons that always break once every decade for the prewar camera, shutter running closed at high speeds and dumb selftimer design for the postwar camera) but one of its remarkable points is the rangefinder, for both versions.

Sorry, I've not made myself clear, and I can see why.

The rangefinder is the very best example of overengineering in the Contax. Overengineering is a design weakness, in that it is never a good idea to make something heavier and more complicated than it needs to be, except to impress (a certain kind of) people.

As a rangefinder, it's superb and long-lived. As a piece of design, it's wildly over-designed and over-engineered, with far too many small parts and tight tolerances -- which is of course a classic German trick, cf Tom's Rapidwinder vs. Leica's Leicavit.

Twin bayonet mounts, with a focusing mount for the inner mount, and a fixed rotation for the rangefinder coupling, is just absurdly complicated compared with the simple roller-follower of a Leica. Yes, the Leica could with advantage have made some things bigger and stronger (though not necessarily more complicated). But the Contax could have benefited from making several things smaller, lighter and less complicated -- and indeed it did, as this is exactly what happened in the history of the Contax (I-II/III-IIa/IIIa).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Highway 61]

Hmm.

I wonder what you may think of the Nikon rangefinder design - twin bayonet mounts, with a focusing mount for the inner mount, and a fixed rotation for the rangefinder coupling AND the simple roller-follower of a Leica, altogether.

Nippon Kogaku engineers might have been that (certain kind of) people Zeiss Ikon wanted to impress eventually. 😀

 

[Sonnar Brian]

"German Over-Engineering", The Voigtlander Prominent. Even the Kodak Retina to a lesser degree.

On the Contax: no easy way to adjust vertical alignment on the rangefinder. If it goes out, it is a major problem.

But you have to remember: these cameras were designed to last a lifetime. They are WAY past the lifetime of the person that bought them. Of course they need repair.

I got the double-shutter blades of the Prominent working. Flood cleaning of Biblical Proportions. The Pharoah's Army could be seen drowning in Isopropyl Alchohol. But it is working, and I did this 4 years ago.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

EDIT: There's some sort of glastly red blob over your quote -- sorry. I don't know how it got in there and I can't see how to get rid of it.

Cheers,

R.

To get rid of the "ghastly red blob", EDIT the post, scoll down to "post Icon" and click "none".

Post Engineering. I AM a Powerpoint Ranger.

 

[Dralowid]

I launched into a Contax love affair a couple of years ago, and restricted myself to a Contax I. Why Contax I? Because it is black....sorry.

This camera is really one for the gearheads but don't let anyone try and convince me that it is in any way easily useable. I am safely back in the Leica camp now.

Michael

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I have a Contax II and a Contax IIIa. I could never get rid of them because of the shutter mechanism, the "look and feel". The Contax II has an early CZJ 5cm/1.5 Sonnar "T" on it. The IIIa has a CZO 50/2 on it.

The Leica M's are easier to use, the Nikon RF's have better viewfinders. So I've adapted Zeiss Sonnars to the Leica and Nikon, and adapted a Nikon S2 to the Zeiss lenses.

 

[Highway 61]

This camera is really one for the gearheads but don't let anyone try and convince me that it is in any way easily useable.

The Contax I was an emergency trial at Dresden to make something usable with 35mm film and compete with Leitz not to leave the Wetzlar guys alone on the market on the high-end segment. It must be seen as a prototype marketed just out of the blueprints. It's a camera with way more flaws than actual usage qualities.

The Contax II, released three years later, not only is a great improvement over the I, but a camera that inspired many followers, including the Leica M3 and all the Nikon rangefinders. It's a piece of history by itself (both for its engineering design and its marvelous art-deco aesthetics).

 

[Dralowid]

The Contax I was an emergency trial at Dresden to make something usable with 35mm film and compete with Leitz not to leave the Wetzlar guys alone on the market on the high-end segment. It must be seen as a prototype marketed just out of the blueprints. It's a camera with way more flaws than actual usage qualities.

Agreed, but Zeiss's contemporary Super Nettel IS a useable 35mm camera so they were certainly capable. I guess on the Contax side they had an early version of that scary beast, The Product Manager, who insisted on the development of a product benchmarked against the opposition with a 'better than you' message for every feature.

Read early Contax I literature and it confirm this approach.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The Contax I was an emergency trial at Dresden to make something usable with 35mm film and compete with Leitz not to leave the Wetzlar guys alone on the market on the high-end segment. It must be seen as a prototype marketed just out of the blueprints. It's a camera with way more flaws than actual usage qualities.

The Contax II, released three years later, not only is a great improvement over the I, but a camera that inspired many followers, including the Leica M3 and all the Nikon rangefinders. It's a piece of history by itself (both for its engineering design and its marvelous art-deco aesthetics).

You need to be a fairly, shall we say, devoted Contax-lover to say this. After all, you might as well say that the Leica 'inspired' the Contax, or that Astin Martin 'inspired' Ferrani. Once people start improving designs, some things are pretty much inevitable.

Of course there's also the theory that the Contax I was a lash-up from a (possibly 127) prototype from one of the other companies that joined up in the 20s: Contessa, maybe. Sorry, I don't recall a source but you may be able to throw more light on it.

Michael's comment about Product Managers is distressingly feasible.


Alleged quote from Kodak in the 1930s (reported by someone in one of their ad agencies at the time, though it seems infeasible to me): "We should have bought the Leica and killed it..."

Cheers,

R.

 

[furcafe]

True enough, but competition does "inspire" or accelerate innovation. My understanding is that Leitz came up w/the M system as a direct response to the Contax II. My guess is that if it had not been for the (relative) success of the Contax II, they would have been content to stick w/the "Barnack" form factor for even longer than they ended up doing w/the IIIg (@ least until some other company, probably Japanese, introduced an improved combined VR/RF, bayonet-mount, RF camera after the war).

You need to be a fairly, shall we say, devoted Contax-lover to say this. After all, you might as well say that the Leica 'inspired' the Contax, or that Astin Martin 'inspired' Ferrani. Once people start improving designs, some things are pretty much inevitable.

 

[furcafe]

I think it's just the ebb & flow of the market.

I've seen various camera models go in & out of vogue on the RFF classifieds (Canon P, Leica M2, etc.).

Everybody seems to be selling his/her Contax IIa/IIIa lately. I count five in last weeks classifieds. Don't we want them no more? I have a IIa color dial myself and it's a wonderful camera. In their days they used to be more expensive than contemporary Leicas and their build is of equal (if not better) quality. Their asking prices here seem to be very modest, yet they
don't seem to sell...

What's up??

 

[furcafe]

Ever tried a screw-mount Leica? 😉 Per D.O'K.'s post, many of your ergonomic complaints apply even more to those cameras.

In use, however the whole Contax thing falls apart. Hard to change lenses, no frame lines, Have to use finder with 35mm lenses, awkward winding, ugly film loading. The rear element of the expensive 35mm lens protrudes and could be easily damaged.

I got rid of the whole outfit. It is a beautiful well made camera but a ergonomic disaster.

 

[Roger Hicks]

True enough, but competition does "inspire" or accelerate innovation. My understanding is that Leitz came up w/the M system as a direct response to the Contax II. My guess is that if it had not been for the (relative) success of the Contax II, they would have been content to stick w/the "Barnack" form factor for even longer than they ended up doing w/the IIIg (@ least until some other company, probably Japanese, introduced an improved combined VR/RF, bayonet-mount, RF camera after the war).

I really don't think so. To begin with, consider the wartime Leica IV and the 1949 Steinheil Casca, or even the 1942 Kodak Ektra. You are absolutely right that competition encourages innovation, but to lay it all at the foot of the Contax is rather generous. And remember that the IIIg was released after the M-series, to pander to the kind of reactionaries you now find on RFF saying that the last decent Leica was the M3.

Cheers,

R.

 

[furcafe]

I respectfully disagree, i.e., I don't think the M system as we know it was inevitable. Yes, there were the Leica IV &, later, the Casca II, but they were not conceived of in a vacuum. IIRC, the Leica IV & Contax II prototypes were contemporaneous (1934-5?), but as of 1936, the Contax II existed as a working camera that was relatively successful w/advanced amateurs & professionals. What other competing system 35mm RF was there in the late '30-40s? Certainly not the Kodak Ektra. I'm not saying that Leitz simply copied or updated the Contax (as Nikon effectively did), only that it was a competitive kick in the pants.

As far as the IIIg, I brought that up because it demonstrates that even in the company's early days, there was a strong conservative faction within Leitz that simply wanted to improve the basic Barnack design rather than go w/the more innovative M. My point is that but for Contax II, or maybe the Casca II (assuming it had become a success), Leitz may have taken longer to greenlight Leica IV/M production or they might have gone w/something more like the bottom-loading Canon RFs (which actually adhere more closely to the Leica IV form).

I really don't think so. To begin with, consider the wartime Leica IV and the 1949 Steinheil Casca, or even the 1942 Kodak Ektra. You are absolutely right that competition encourages innovation, but to lay it all at the foot of the Contax is rather generous. And remember that the IIIg was released after the M-series, to pander to the kind of reactionaries you now find on RFF saying that the last decent Leica was the M3.

Cheers,

R.