Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, we're dealing with counterfactual conditionals here, and matters of opinion, so neither of us can be proven right. All we are disagreeing about is the extent to which the Contax influenced Leitz. I do not doubt for an instant that it did; but equally, I do not think that it was as important as you say. System RFs? Well, the 1934 Robot didn't have a rangefinder, but it eventually grew one, and the Retina IIa (1936) didn't have interchangeable lenses, but it (sort of) grew them later. Were Perfexes (nominally) interchangeable-lens? I forget. Alpas had interchangeable lenses, rangefinders and reflex viewing in about 1942.
Bear in mind that in the early days, no-one was sure that 35mm was going to survive, so quite slow development was no great surprise.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
I've always felt (opinion) that the Argus C2 and C3 "styling" was loosely based on the Contax I. "Brick" design, gear train for the lens, etc. Not a copy, more like look at a Contax I and translate the macroscopic features into a low-cost, economy camera fit for mass production.
Last edited:
Dralowid
Michael
As the proud owner of three Contax Is of which only one could be described as reliable I'm keen to have the last word on this much maligned camera. Problem is that the only word that really fits is...interesting.
Shame on me.
Michael
Shame on me.
Michael
furcafe
Veteran
Highway 61
Revisited
Those alleged and reported by someone sayings are always so funny.
Anyway no company would neither have "bought Leica and killed it" nor killed it with the launching of a camera with the very same features and performances yet marketed at half the price of a Leica or so. This is a basic marketing tip students learn to know on economy universities benches : killing your competition is shooting yourself in the foot. That's certainly why Nikon never launched a D-RF to compete with the M8 and M9 although they had a prototype with an hybrid viewfinder (like the one Fuji fitted in their new X100) : people dreaming of the M9 but not having the dollars for it will buy a D700.
In the 1960s after the SP Nikon could have successfully pursued on the rangefinder path with models that had outperformed the M2 and M4 (the SP-X and its possible descenders) but they chose to get rid of the RF world and went for something different (the Nikon F) to seat down on their own market segment. Then Leitz efforts to made some attractive SLRs were pityful and almost lead the factory to bankrupt (at the same time the M5 failed to find his customers, they were making three times more Leicaflex cameras than RF ones : lesson learnt, and recently they decided not to compete with DSLRs manufacturers, leaving their R customers behind to be alone on the D-RF market, just because the D-RF is something different as well...).
To get back onto the Contax history : no need to be devoted or so to acknowledge the many durable things the Contax system brought out to the whole 35mm photography universe ; and actually nobody can say how things would have turned out, Leitz vs Zeiss-Ikon competition wise, if the second world war hadn't happened. At the end of the war one of the two companies was in ruins and splitted in many plants, some located on one side of the iron curtain, some on the other side of it, while the other company was still safe and sound and all on the good side of the red line, and it had some considerable importance on what happened at the beginning of the 1950s.
So we're pretty much discussing in the blue when it comes to Leica vs Contax if the discussion background takes place 60 years back in the past. You don't agree with me on some points, I don't agree with you on some other, yet I won't change my mind from any fraction of inch because I just can see obvious data popping-up in front of me.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
That's why I said 'alleged' and 'infeasible'. I thought it an amusing story, which illustrates how some people (especially the hard of thinking) felt about the Leica. I heard it from my first wife's late father, who worked at the agency in question.
You're right: slavish devotion is by no means necessary to acknowledge the good points of the Contax. It is however possible to overstate any viewpoint, no matter how defensible.
An SP successor could have outperformed the M2 and M4? Again: a counterfactual conditional and a matter of opinion - though it couldn't have been done with that lens mount. There's something else to disagree about.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Gary E
Well-known
I would not say that the M3 was the last decent Leica made, but the viewfinder is optically superior to those that followed. The M2 was an "economy" model, and the viewfinder was simplified. All full-sized Leica M models that followed adopted the M2 finder concept. The design of the M3 finder prevents the RF patch from flaring, which happens with the M2 style finder.
micromontenegro
Well-known
Highway 61
Revisited
Yes - the SP hasn't any rangefinder coupled viewfinder for the 35mm lens, and the 28/35 secondary minifinder is better than nothing but the SP main viewfinder wasn't large enough to accomodate at least a 35mm frame.
Too bad because it could have be done with no problem, the VF prism had room enough for it.
Too bad because it could have be done with no problem, the VF prism had room enough for it.
bigcao
Newbie
well,and i'm looking for a contax iiia...
David Murphy
Veteran
I own and use a really nice IIa. Decent IIa and IIIa 's bodies are worth in actuality $175-300, not much more. I know, i've sold a few. Many people simply ask too much for CLA'd Contaxes and they often remain unsold.
In my view the post-war models are all outstanding user cameras, very reliable, and with great lenses. Yes, the post-war Zeiss lenses are a little expensive, but they are as good or better than Leica offerings of the time (probably better on average). Their performance will astonish you (at least it does me!). The Contax IIa/IIIa are quiet, precise, elegant, reliable, and compact cameras that are not too heavy. The lenses are easy to change. Everything is easy to carry and use in the field. I regard a good IIa/IIIa as comparable to a Leica M2/M2 in quality, except for the internal finder - the main weakness (but one that can be dealt with).
I feel, having owned an example or two (or maybe three!), that the pre-war models are best left to collectors. They are not as well made and almost always need servicing when encountered randomly. The uncoated lenses just don't hack it either - a nice system, certainly amusing to collect, but evolutionary in my view. It sort of becomes a painful effort trying to build and operate a pre-war Contax system. The post-war Contax scene really improved build quality and performance noticeably.
In my view the post-war models are all outstanding user cameras, very reliable, and with great lenses. Yes, the post-war Zeiss lenses are a little expensive, but they are as good or better than Leica offerings of the time (probably better on average). Their performance will astonish you (at least it does me!). The Contax IIa/IIIa are quiet, precise, elegant, reliable, and compact cameras that are not too heavy. The lenses are easy to change. Everything is easy to carry and use in the field. I regard a good IIa/IIIa as comparable to a Leica M2/M2 in quality, except for the internal finder - the main weakness (but one that can be dealt with).
I feel, having owned an example or two (or maybe three!), that the pre-war models are best left to collectors. They are not as well made and almost always need servicing when encountered randomly. The uncoated lenses just don't hack it either - a nice system, certainly amusing to collect, but evolutionary in my view. It sort of becomes a painful effort trying to build and operate a pre-war Contax system. The post-war Contax scene really improved build quality and performance noticeably.
Last edited:
ray*j*gun
Veteran
I own a IIa and a IIIa both done by HS with the IIIa having a new custom burgandy leather covering and a new light meter (meaning I have way too much money in both lol) and I can tell you that when these cameras are right there is nothing else like them. They are quit, extremely accurate, and feel like the finest of machines during shooting.
The issue is, they are expensive to service correctly and therefore most have too much invested to sell.......that's OK cause I wanted them to shoot not to sell.
The issue is, they are expensive to service correctly and therefore most have too much invested to sell.......that's OK cause I wanted them to shoot not to sell.
elmer3.5
Well-known
Surprised
Surprised
Hi, a couple weeks ago i traded some vc lens for a contax IIa with a pristine sonnar 50mm f1.5.
I didn´t payed much attention to this cameras due to the leica glow getting me blind, after using this superb camera i really understood why so many sources and people consider it as being much better than leica in those times.
I´m pretty used to leica III series cameras and i think i use them very well, have to say this IIa lets me get quicker on everything compared to it´s contemporary iii series !!!!
If it wasn´t for it´s parallax error and the fact you have to raise the speed dial to set it i wouldn´t think about an M3 (i did let go all film M´s)!!!
The sonnar lens isn´t what i would call an old lens, it´s very sharp and contrasty despite it´s not even coated!!!
This shot at about 4 or 5.6 on fp4. Perhaps i should used 400 iso instead!
Definitely it´s a keeper and will geopardize my IIIG
Bye!
Surprised
Hi, a couple weeks ago i traded some vc lens for a contax IIa with a pristine sonnar 50mm f1.5.
I didn´t payed much attention to this cameras due to the leica glow getting me blind, after using this superb camera i really understood why so many sources and people consider it as being much better than leica in those times.
I´m pretty used to leica III series cameras and i think i use them very well, have to say this IIa lets me get quicker on everything compared to it´s contemporary iii series !!!!
If it wasn´t for it´s parallax error and the fact you have to raise the speed dial to set it i wouldn´t think about an M3 (i did let go all film M´s)!!!
The sonnar lens isn´t what i would call an old lens, it´s very sharp and contrasty despite it´s not even coated!!!
This shot at about 4 or 5.6 on fp4. Perhaps i should used 400 iso instead!
Definitely it´s a keeper and will geopardize my IIIG
Bye!
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Hi, a couple weeks ago i traded some vc lens for a contax IIa with a pristine sonnar 50mm f1.5.
I didn´t payed much attention to this cameras due to the leica glow getting me blind, after using this superb camera i really understood why so many sources and people consider it as being much better than leica in those times.
I´m pretty used to leica III series cameras and i think i use them very well, have to say this IIa lets me get quicker on everything compared to it´s contemporary iii series !!!!
If it wasn´t for it´s parallax error and the fact you have to raise the speed dial to set it i wouldn´t think about an M3 (i did let go all film M´s)!!!
The sonnar lens isn´t what i would call an old lens, it´s very sharp and contrasty despite it´s not even coated!!!
This shot at about 4 or 5.6 on fp4. Perhaps i should used 400 iso instead!
Definitely it´s a keeper and will geopardize my IIIG
Bye!
If you are using Zeiss lenses contemporary with your IIa then they would be coated lenses. Even some late pre war Zeiss lenses for the Contax II/III were factory coated.
David Murphy
Veteran
Nice shot! (CNC mill?)
Yes the Sonnars are user fifity's entirely. Are you sure you have an uncoated Sonnar? Most IIa's are paired with coated Sonnars, even though they may not be marked as "T" or "T*" or anything like that. Look for a very light purple shading on the front element (a single layer coating).
Black and white film is more tolerant to uncoated glass in my opinion, and in any event Zeiss mastered the art of flare reduction on uncoated lenses, not just on camera optics, but binoculars too.
Yes the Sonnars are user fifity's entirely. Are you sure you have an uncoated Sonnar? Most IIa's are paired with coated Sonnars, even though they may not be marked as "T" or "T*" or anything like that. Look for a very light purple shading on the front element (a single layer coating).
Black and white film is more tolerant to uncoated glass in my opinion, and in any event Zeiss mastered the art of flare reduction on uncoated lenses, not just on camera optics, but binoculars too.
elmer3.5
Well-known
Hi folks! No it´s not cnc mill it´s a roto moulding machine wich makes rubber ducks and rubber sets of little animals for kids!!!
I think like you, it Should be coated being an iia and so, but i cannot get the purple or blueish reflectons out of the lens optics, it´s Plain transparent!!
Any way perhaps it s coated, because it really handles flare quite well!
Is it any source to look for serial numbers os coated lenses?
Bye!!
I think like you, it Should be coated being an iia and so, but i cannot get the purple or blueish reflectons out of the lens optics, it´s Plain transparent!!
Any way perhaps it s coated, because it really handles flare quite well!
Is it any source to look for serial numbers os coated lenses?
Bye!!
ZeissFan
Veteran
What's the serial number on the lens? And is it marked in cm or mm? And what's the aperture range? f/1.5-f/11 or f/16?