Contax I: How valuable?

I have a Super Nettel II kicking around here, and managed to find an elusive lens hood for it (very tiny!). It is a super-duper camera to use, and very quick focusing.

Another one that's pretty fun is the Tenax II, but trying to find a lab to print 24x24 can be a bit of an issue.....fortunately I have a very sympathetic lab nearby!
 
A Contax I with 2.8 Tessar has just arrived in the post. Serial number starts with a 'Z' 44525 and no factory repair letter added. Four screws on the shoe. Can anyone accurately date this? No Zeiss bumps either. Happy man am I but I suppose the Super Nettel will just now have to wait. (pics in a few days)

Michael
 
Dralowid said:
A Contax I with 2.8 Tessar has just arrived in the post. Serial number starts with a 'Z' 44525 and no factory repair letter added. Four screws on the shoe. Can anyone accurately date this? No Zeiss bumps either. Happy man am I but I suppose the Super Nettel will just now have to wait. (pics in a few days)

Michael
Click to expand...

By the numbers according to Kuc' "On the Trail of the Contax, Volume I" yours should be a version 7 camera, produced late 1935 and 1936 (same as my camera shown above with the Biotar). I'm not aware of any references that date the production more specifically.
 
H-H,

It certainly looks the same but lacks the raised guard around the shutter release that yours has. Is this a detachable or aftermarket item? The shutter release on this I(f?) camera looks the same as the one on the earlier camera (Ic) that I posted above.
 
Michael,
This is interesting (never knew this), again from Kuc': "The raised ring is first mentioned in literature in September 1934. It was intended to reduce shaking when the shutter was released by allowing the photographer to feel the "release point." This ring could be easily removed and remounted and could be purchased separately from the camera. This detail is not a help for classification."
Hope this helps... sounds as though you have a nice camera!
Cheers,
 
H-H, I enjoy this kind of stuff and being relatively new to the Contax I (at least a functioning one) it is a voyage of discovery for me.

I'll try and post some pictures to illustrate the camera over the weekend. For some reason the rangefinder is excellent but the viewfinder is very murky. The windows are of course 'the other way round' on the 'f' as opposed to the 'c' so I assume the inetrnal construction of the viewfinder differs.

I am a bit wary of pulling it apart while it still works but know that I am asking for trouble some way down the line if I don't!

Michael
 
Yes, the later cameras use a rotating prism rangefinder in place of a movable mirror system. The prism system is all around better: more accurate, trouble-free, and clearer.

BTW, this is an early camera of mine, version 5 (1934), first of the "new" body (rounded rear corners) and last to use the mirror system rangefinder.

U634I1247683156.SEQ.0.jpg
 
A very 'used' looking Contax I(c) with 3.5 Tessar and case has just sold on Ebay UK for over £400. s/n started with a V.

Was this an abberation, something special, or are we early Contax owners now suddenly very affluent?

Michael
 
Posing with coffee mugs

Posing with coffee mugs

What's the significance in the photos of the camera posing next to the coffee mug, or is it purely coincidental?

e
 
Generally, a Contax I will always have value, usually from a collector's standpoint.

As users, the later Contax I is a better camera. Better rangefinder, will have slow speeds and should be more reliable.

I have an early Contax I and a later one, and the later one is by far the better camera.
 
attachment.php


Unfortunately I don't drink coffee, nor am I able to compose a picture like 'Honu Hugger'. This is a recent arrival, any help with identifying the version appreciated. I am confused by the black distance scale on what appear to be a I(d).Tripod bush is nickel with chrome foot. S/n V36395.

Michael
 
Thanks,Michael. I find the Contax I to be a very beautiful camera with a very sleek design.I wish I had one.
 
Raid, the Contax I is a sort of 'right of passage'. The ergonomics fall woefully short of a contemporary Leica and the reliability apparently falls short of the later Contax II.
I say apparently because mine, once serviced, works. (the one I serviced myself has incorrect frame spacing that I am yet to rectify!)

They are however charming yet complex devices that are rewarding to use and take some excellent lenses. I think you have to be part user, part gear head and interested in the history of photography to use one. If you fit this profile, consider it, if not, don't bother

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top