farlymac
PF McFarland
Wow, lots to think about here. I purchased my IIa BD earlier this year, and before it came in the mail, I was already getting accessories for it. The first thing though is, I should have got an owners manual for it, as there were a few misconceptions on my part when I checked it out.
I was sure that the shutter mech was mucked up, as it was hard to get into the 500 and 1250 speeds, and the shutter wind knob was off kilter, as if the camera had been dropped. Sure didn't look like that in the photos. I got it back out of the for sale box the other day after conversing with a member of another forum, and gave it a better look.
Turns out I was lifting the shutter speed ring too far, and that was keeping it from going into the higher speeds. I also found out that I don't need a cassette for the film, that it takes regular cartridges like most 35mm cameras.
I did get burned on a couple of finders though. The 438 finder I was able to clean up fairly well, but the 440 turret has a bunged up prism that will have to be replaced, and try finding one of those for sale.
But I do feel like I have a good camera to last a while, and I'm lucky that I came across some filters in a lot of assorted stuff that go with the lens I have.
I got the camera because to me, it was just the most beautiful thing I saw for sale, and had not really heard any bad things about them. That is until I started to do some research, but none of it was of a nature that I should go running for the exit and get rid of the camera. The more I get aquainted with it, the more I can't wait to see that first roll of film go through it. It also doesn't hurt to know that it inspired so many other manufacturers to either copy the Contax, or improve on the design. Heck, even my beloved Yashica had a Contax copy that they made after merging with Nikka, who already made a really good Leica knock-off. And the early Nikons looked like the Contax, which I think seeded their design philosophy for later cameras. On looks alone, I would always choose a Nikon over a Canon. I also just happen to like the way they work.
In all fairness, I have somewhat been desirable of owning a Leica, but the sheer cost has always held me back. Try to get a bargain on an auction site, and there are ten bids in the last fifteen seconds driving the price sky high. Eventually, I got a Zorki I, just to have something that looked like a Leica. And I've never bothered to shoot a roll through it.
I was fortunate when I got my IIa in that there was a glut of them at the time, so there was plenty for the masses to choose from. And why someone would want to pay three times for a IIIa what you can get a IIa for is beyond me. It has a useless hump on top (because of the dead meter) that just adds weight to the camera. And it doesn't do anything for the aesthetics either.
So as soon as the budget will allow it, I'll be taking my Contax for a spin around the hills, and see if the old lady still has it in her. And if it is too feeble to hold up to the pressure, then I'll give it a good retirement, and put it on display as one of the finest cameras to ever be made.
PF
I was sure that the shutter mech was mucked up, as it was hard to get into the 500 and 1250 speeds, and the shutter wind knob was off kilter, as if the camera had been dropped. Sure didn't look like that in the photos. I got it back out of the for sale box the other day after conversing with a member of another forum, and gave it a better look.
Turns out I was lifting the shutter speed ring too far, and that was keeping it from going into the higher speeds. I also found out that I don't need a cassette for the film, that it takes regular cartridges like most 35mm cameras.
I did get burned on a couple of finders though. The 438 finder I was able to clean up fairly well, but the 440 turret has a bunged up prism that will have to be replaced, and try finding one of those for sale.
But I do feel like I have a good camera to last a while, and I'm lucky that I came across some filters in a lot of assorted stuff that go with the lens I have.
I got the camera because to me, it was just the most beautiful thing I saw for sale, and had not really heard any bad things about them. That is until I started to do some research, but none of it was of a nature that I should go running for the exit and get rid of the camera. The more I get aquainted with it, the more I can't wait to see that first roll of film go through it. It also doesn't hurt to know that it inspired so many other manufacturers to either copy the Contax, or improve on the design. Heck, even my beloved Yashica had a Contax copy that they made after merging with Nikka, who already made a really good Leica knock-off. And the early Nikons looked like the Contax, which I think seeded their design philosophy for later cameras. On looks alone, I would always choose a Nikon over a Canon. I also just happen to like the way they work.
In all fairness, I have somewhat been desirable of owning a Leica, but the sheer cost has always held me back. Try to get a bargain on an auction site, and there are ten bids in the last fifteen seconds driving the price sky high. Eventually, I got a Zorki I, just to have something that looked like a Leica. And I've never bothered to shoot a roll through it.
I was fortunate when I got my IIa in that there was a glut of them at the time, so there was plenty for the masses to choose from. And why someone would want to pay three times for a IIIa what you can get a IIa for is beyond me. It has a useless hump on top (because of the dead meter) that just adds weight to the camera. And it doesn't do anything for the aesthetics either.
So as soon as the budget will allow it, I'll be taking my Contax for a spin around the hills, and see if the old lady still has it in her. And if it is too feeble to hold up to the pressure, then I'll give it a good retirement, and put it on display as one of the finest cameras to ever be made.
PF
Last edited by a moderator: