Why is the Contax AX so inexpensive?

[rbiemer]

I’m looking to start my summer with a “new” 35mm slr and am also wanting to use something I’ve not had before.

Been photographing for a long time so that means a fairly short list.

The AX was seriously advanced (and expensive) in its day.

But it’s looking like I can find decent looking examples for about $250-ish these days.

Roughly a third of other brands’ flagship cameras in similar condition.

Any ideas about why? They certainly seem wildly capable.

 

[Craig Schroeder]

I have a couple. Look new. I'm a bit paranoid using them as they will intermittently act up. They're bulky but serious feeling gear. If I'm off to something that matters, I'll have a bag with RX's along if I'm in a jam. They always seem fine at home and toying with them but very often will hang up in different ways in the field. One of them has the mirror shift issue that I can rectify with a bit of heat and care (mirror sticks up). I've actually had fun with them and the price makes the experience innocent enough to rationalize.

 

[santino]

Fat, af is rather slow and I wouldn‘t call it a pro SLR (in comparison to the Nikon F4-F6 or Canon EOS 1 line). It is not as tough as a real pro SLR… but it is kinda unique and CY lenses are excellent!

Btw I prefer the Contax ST to all Kyocera made bodies.

 

[splitimageview]

Supply/demand sets the price. Always. Demand is low for multiple reasons…

I agree with the ST-smaller than the RX, uses cheap common batteries, and I love the LED readout. 😀

 

[valdas]

They used to be more expensive. I had one, it was bulky, heavy, but I liked it. Electronics failed. Not the most reliable of already not very reliable electronic Contax line. There is a reason there are plenty of AX “ for spares or repair” on ebay.

 

[rbiemer]

All fair points.
But. I really like the Contax viewfinders. And, I really like the lenses.
And, the stated specs--the shutter speed range in particular--seem to be quite good. Much broader range than most other cameras of the time.

 

[Freakscene]

All fair points.
But. I really like the Contax viewfinders. And, I really like the lenses.
And, the stated specs--the shutter speed range in particular--seem to be quite good. Much broader range than most other cameras of the time.

These things are true. But the AX is horribly unreliable, and no-one, or almost no-one, will even try to fix one these days. I have two, just because I am a Contaxaholic, but if I go to use a Contax SLR I use the Aria, or, if I want to balance a really heavy lens, an RX II with a re-cemented mirror.

@Phil_F_NM here Contax AX -- Is there ever a happy ending after purchase? is right. There are no happy endings with the AX, not for serious use.

 

[rbiemer]

OK.
Here is why I am interested:
4 minutes to 1/6000 shutter speeds. The automatic bracket exposure, The viewfinder--every Contax vf I have used has been astonishingly good. And the manual focus lenses.
SO. If I skip the AX, what other camera will do?

 

[Freakscene]

OK.
Here is why I am interested:
4 minutes to 1/6000 shutter speeds. The automatic bracket exposure, The viewfinder--every Contax vf I have used has been astonishingly good. And the manual focus lenses.
SO. If I skip the AX, what other camera will do?

The RX, RX II (brighter viewfinder) and ST are gorgeous and good users among the larger cameras. The Aria is the newest Contax, does not suffer from mirror slip and is light and responsive in use. Several of the older small cameras are really nice, particularly the 139q Contax 139 Resource @monopix member here at RFF runs that site.

 

[splitimageview]

RX, Aria, ST, 167MT have ABC. ST has 16s to 1/6000. 159 is small and light like the 139 but has 1/4000.

Mirror slip is not hard to eliminate.