What Were They Thinking? A compendium of camera design blunders and omissions

[wes loder]

So here's my many issues with the Contaxes:
1) the rewind knobs. Dear god, the rewind knobs. Yes, I know, they support cassette-to-cassette operation, but why would you have a rewind knob at all when they're so barely useable?! Trying to rewind film in a Contax II is one step removed from torture, and the slightly more useable one in the Contax IIa is a mild improvement at best.
2) the shutter speed selector. You have to hold the camera at a weird angle to see what you've chosen on a Contax II, and while the IIIa is again a massive improvement... you can't actually read the whole speed from above, so 500 becomes 50. Yes, you can understand which is which with context, but jesus, that's an oversight.
3) removable take up spools shouldn't be able to drop out freely the second the back is removed. This is far more annoying than anything in a bottom loader. Especially as the removable take up spool is so limply held in place that keeping tension on the film when loading is a pain in the ass! I've had more film transport issues with Contaxes and Kievs than any other camera as a result. Which reminds me...
4) the fact film is pushed along by the sprockets instead of pulled into place by the limp-wristed take up spool is a huge design error. I've shot 30+ frames on a five centimetre strip of film multiple times because of faulty film transport in a Contax. This could have been fixed by actually holding the take up spool in place properly - something proved by the fixed-spool Kiev 4AM.
5) it also doesn't help that all variants of the Contax take up spool seemingly do a really poor job of holding the film in place and would probably be incapable of pulling the film along anyhow. I've got a few, pre-war and post-war, and I'm not convinced by any of them. At least the ones for bottom-loaders (Leica, Canon, Leotax, etc) really hold the end of the film. The Contax ones just seem to make a half-hearted effort at it.
6) despite the fact film transport is all on the sprockets, film spacing is determined by friction/tension at both ends of the film transport (if I remember right). It is, in true Zeiss style, more complex than it needed to be.
7) Speaking of more complex than it needed to be: two bayonet mounts on one camera. Who thought this was a good idea? You can take a 3 lens kit out with you and need a different lens cap for each one (internal, external shallow, external deep). The bayonet isn't even faster than Leica's screw mount as you have to make sure everything's set to infinity every time (which, inevitably, it isn't).
8) Oh, and another thing that's less convenient than a Leica: I can put a Leica III baseplate in my mouth and load while walking. Try holding an entire Contax II back in your mouth (while also looking around for where that take up spool has gone). Good luck.
9) Internally, these things are even more poorly thought out than externally. Ever tried adjusting vertical alignment in a Contax? Utter nightmare. On a Leica? Spin an easily-accessible prism. On a Contax? Dismantle half the camera, dissolve some glue, reposition the prism, rebuild the rangefinder, check it, find out it's still wrong, and repeat until you want to throw the thing at a wall. People say "oh, the rangefinder never goes out of alignment vertically". Absolute nonsense. It does. I have far more Kievs and Contaxes in this house than is even remotely healthy and half of them have slight vertical misalignment. The glue ages, dries out, and allows things to shift. Zeiss seemingly went "our work is perfect and no one will need to adjust this", which is borderline arrogance compared to Leitz' "let's make this as easy as possible to adjust" mentality.
10) Contax grip is more irritating and inconvenient than bottom loading - and this is coming from someone who likes the Contax grip. You load a film once per 36 frames, but you have to do the Contax grip every single frame.

And special bonus round: why, oh why did Zeiss reverse the direction of the focusing wheel on a Contax IIa compared to the pre-war models? It confuses me every single time I pick one up. Which is a shame, because the bodies are objectively nicer in every way.

That's my rant over. I'm now going to make a cup of tea and stare at a Contax in disdain. It's a shame because I love the bloody glass on the things! I'm just glad Amedeo adapters exist.

You don't try to hold the back in your mouth. You clip the right edge of the back in the left edge of the camera. Works most of the time.

 

[Evergreen States]

So as the old "Hee-Haw" joke goes: "Well, don't do that!" Do this instead:

I've done this once or twice before, without any increase in success. I guess I can practice more, but if you think something is idiot-proof I will assuredly find a way to prove you wrong!

I love the sense of humor in you videos.

 

[TenEleven]

You don't try to hold the back in your mouth. You clip the right edge of the back in the left edge of the camera. Works most of the time.

Man I have been shooting Contaxes (II and IIa) for a decade now and I did not know that! That's going to make reloading while standing up much easier. (Normally I briefly chuck the back into my camera bag or a shirt pocket if I have a large enough one.)

Immediately went and tested it and it looks a bit precarious, but it's actually in there quite solid.
It works well on both my pre-war and post-war cameras.

Useful, thanks!

 

[Mos6502]

Plus, bottom loading cameras - even the weird octagonal Canon bottom loaders - are solid. No flappy back means a more rigid construction, a better feel in the hand (no seams or joins), and far fewer light leaks.

This is one of those things I've seen repeated often, but I don't think there's any truth in the idea that they are more rigid. And even if this were true, what the practical advantage would be is beyond me, as in any event the pressure plate is still spring mounted, so that rigidity, real or imagined, doesn't do anything for image quality. It might make a stronger brick though.

The real reason for bottom loading is probably just that it eliminates a hinge and requires less light seals.

 

[Mos6502]

So as the old "Hee-Haw" joke goes: "Well, don't do that!" Do this instead:

This will work fine on some cameras... but will not work on many others. You have to have a camera where the 135 cartridge can be dropped straight in, if it has to be angled to load it, the film will slip off the sprockets, and in many cases also out of the take up spool. So cameras with rewind knobs that don't pull out, or which have a hole to trap the extended portion of the feed spool don't play nice with this method.

 

[Coldkennels]

This is one of those things I've seen repeated often, but I don't think there's any truth in the idea that they are more rigid.

I am talking exclusively about how rigid they are in the hand.

Grab a flappy back camera - any flappy back camera - and there's always a little bit of play in the back. Same with removable back cameras (unless it's so tightly made that you can barely get the back off, anyway). Bottom loaders never have that. They just feel solid - no extraneous movement anywhere.

Does that translate to better photographs? Possibly, but I really doubt it. Does it make them feel nicer to use? Yes - for me, at least.

 

[KoNickon]

I am talking exclusively about how rigid they are in the hand.

Grab a flappy back camera - any flappy back camera - and there's always a little bit of play in the back. Same with removable back cameras (unless it's so tightly made that you can barely get the back off, anyway). Bottom loaders never have that. They just feel solid - no extraneous movement anywhere.

Does that translate to better photographs? Possibly, but I really doubt it. Does it make them feel nicer to use? Yes - for me, at least.

Yeah, it's a nice feeling but really it doesn't make a practical difference. Actually, having a removable or hinged back, insofar as it makes loading and unloading film much more convenient (and no trimming of leaders), DOES make a big difference in actual use.

Now, if you want rigid, try a Nikonos.

 

[aw614]

Call me crazy, but I noticed a bit of flex on my bottom loader Nicca similar to what I experienced in a flappy back camera. Maybe it is just the copy I have, but it flexes more than the Zorki 1 I have. Does the flex/play bother me enough on both? No.