Gben
Established
I had this Contax I and lens overhauled in the last year by a very well known Contax specialist. He said That the lens was the best example of a Contax I f1.5 he had ever seen. He also said the camera body had prototype features in it that were of higher quality than a regular production camera. This photo was taken before the work was done to the camera and lens. I would not doubt that this particular technician has had as many of these cameras and lenses through his shop as anyone in the world, so what he said carried a lot of weight with me. Before the overhaul I shot a roll of film with it, now I am sort of afraid to take the camera out in public and use it.
Ccoppola82
Well-known
Care to mention who overhauled it? I have that very kit and have always wanted to bring it back to life. Currently the lens is in an Amadeo adaptor for the M
davidswiss
Established
For goodness sake use it. If what you were told is true then it should be a great picture taker.
Mongo Park
Established
Henry Scherer?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I have always thought I'd like to have a Contax rangefinder, but held back out of not wanting to get spread too thin. It could be that I just like the name (always have) but I don't think it's just that--it seems like a really cool camera as well.
I think you should use it. Maybe carry it in a small shoulder bag if you are afraid of banging it up.
I think you should use it. Maybe carry it in a small shoulder bag if you are afraid of banging it up.
Dralowid
Michael
Is this version 7 or f? I'd be interested to see it after it has been worked on.
Gben
Established
It is a "V" serial number, so it and the lens both are 1933/1934. I will use it, just not that much. I have another Contax I "beater" and a II and IIa the same gentleman worked on in past years, so I have options. This is the most noteworthy of them all though just because the lens is apparently something special.
It does not look much different after the overhaul, just cleaner, and of course there are no Zeiss bumps or problems with the leather etc. anymore.
It does not look much different after the overhaul, just cleaner, and of course there are no Zeiss bumps or problems with the leather etc. anymore.
Gben
Established
Here are photos of it post-overhaul, including photos of a readycase in nice shape that I got with the camera.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Fascinating. Having worked several decades for a well-known manufacturer of electromechanical devices for consumers, I can attest to the series of “cost reductions” that occur during the lifecycle of a product.
Despite extensive testing, usually the first batch of the product has a few flaws which, while usually not significantly affecting the performance of the product, certainly warrant improvement. The second batch, typically six months after introduction, was, in my opinion, the best: the more obvious (but still minor) flaws are fixed and the components, both mechanical and electronic, are the best. The third and subsequent batches, usually a year past introduction, show cost reductions in materials and components. Software and firmware continues to improve, so there’s a tradeoff.
However, I’m describing consumer devices which have a target lifetime of about five years, with devotees perhaps hanging on to the thing for 10. For something in the era of the Contax, Leica M3, or Nikon F, their lifecycle and update cycle was far longer.
It seems you have something of a unicorn - and that is a very good thing. I say use it as often as possible!
David Hughes
David Hughes
Some of you might like this, from a 1937 magazine:-
For prices in US dollars you need only multiply by 5...
About a year later the Contax I with the f/3.5 Tessar was being discounted at about UKP 23.
Regards, David
For prices in US dollars you need only multiply by 5...
About a year later the Contax I with the f/3.5 Tessar was being discounted at about UKP 23.
Regards, David
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Yes, with a reason: the least reliable Contax in history. But I have a Contax I that works good. They are out there.
Erik.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Yes, I think CZ were trying to bring out a camera to compete with Leica and at the same time to avoid infringing Leitz's patents which probably covered everything. So a difficult path to travel.
I think they got there with the Contax II.
Regards, David
Gben
Established
All Zeiss Contax cameras are unreliable. If you find an old Contax laying around at any estate sale, flea-market etc. it is usually going to have zero to little ability to function. The most reliable old cameras I have found seem to be Pentax Spotmatics, most of these I have found laying in the wild work very well.
It makes sense that Zeiss would sell off the Contax I stock at bargain-basement prices once the Contax II was out.
With all the history of the Contax I in their pocket, along with modern technology, lubricants and other information etc.., some Contax I cameras that have been overhauled in the last few decades seem to hold up very well, it is possible to do a better job of putting one together than Zeiss was able to do in the 1930s.
I like the 1930s cameras the best of all eras, it was an exciting time for photography, and the Contax I is an important part of the history of that era and it is not common to see one laying around or being used, I am glad I have been able to help preserve a few of them if only by financing the work done to them and to give them a place to stay for a while until I go tits-up.
It makes sense that Zeiss would sell off the Contax I stock at bargain-basement prices once the Contax II was out.
With all the history of the Contax I in their pocket, along with modern technology, lubricants and other information etc.., some Contax I cameras that have been overhauled in the last few decades seem to hold up very well, it is possible to do a better job of putting one together than Zeiss was able to do in the 1930s.
I like the 1930s cameras the best of all eras, it was an exciting time for photography, and the Contax I is an important part of the history of that era and it is not common to see one laying around or being used, I am glad I have been able to help preserve a few of them if only by financing the work done to them and to give them a place to stay for a while until I go tits-up.
David Hughes
David Hughes
It's hardly a surprise that the Spotmatic which is 30 to 40 years younger would be more reliable; a lot changed in the interval; especially lubricants...
Without knowing the history of a camera it is difficult to comment on its reliability, and even then the result applies only to that camera. I'd be looking for a sample size of 200 or more before even considering such judgements.
Regards, David
Without knowing the history of a camera it is difficult to comment on its reliability, and even then the result applies only to that camera. I'd be looking for a sample size of 200 or more before even considering such judgements.
Regards, David
Dralowid
Michael
Just look up the 'Contax Ribbons' thread for fun.
It is said that version 7 like the OPs, with an arrow pointer for shutter speeds, was the most reliable. I'm not at all sure that I agree. The early ones without slow speeds are simpler and from my point of view easier to coax back to life.
Whatever, they have a poor 'reputation' but the same cannot be said for the Contax II.
By reputation I mean a reputation that pre dates the internet. I am far happier with an old analogue reputation.
It is said that version 7 like the OPs, with an arrow pointer for shutter speeds, was the most reliable. I'm not at all sure that I agree. The early ones without slow speeds are simpler and from my point of view easier to coax back to life.
Whatever, they have a poor 'reputation' but the same cannot be said for the Contax II.
By reputation I mean a reputation that pre dates the internet. I am far happier with an old analogue reputation.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I had a pretty good reputation for a lot of things then and before the predecessors of the internet like the large public networks. Like Telecoms Gold and so on; I just wish I could remember what MiniTel was as we had a terminal in my office even earlier than the TG one, perhaps.
Regards, David
PS Oh dear! Was that an analogue reputation?
Regards, David
PS Oh dear! Was that an analogue reputation?
Erik van Straten
Mentor
This one I did with my working Contax I. It is a version 3 (according to Kùc), serial number V37084. Even 1/1000 sec. works, so it is better than my Kiev IV.
It is also a beautiful camera to look at. I have a near mint nickel-and-black Sonnar f/1.5 that fits perfectly and also a black 433/24 Van Albada 50mm finder.
gelatine silver print (s skopar 50mm f2.5) contax I v3
Erik.
It is also a beautiful camera to look at. I have a near mint nickel-and-black Sonnar f/1.5 that fits perfectly and also a black 433/24 Van Albada 50mm finder.
gelatine silver print (s skopar 50mm f2.5) contax I v3
Erik.
Dralowid
Michael
David, I'll reply by Telex!
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
In the IIa and IIIa the shutter slats are driven by gears instead of curtain straps. I can reliably get 1/1250 from my IIIa - its shutter was tested before I bought it.
That 50/1.5 has given me stunning B&W images.
That 50/1.5 has given me stunning B&W images.
Gben
Established
The last Contax iia/iiia rolled out of Zeiss in 1961, the first Spotmatics appeared in 1964. I have had my hands on a lot of Contax cameras of every generation, and a lot of Spotmatics too. I would put money down on an early 60s Spotmatic being more likely to have all of it's shutter speeds working well than an early 60's Contax having any shutter speeds working at all, if neither of them have had any servicing since they left their manufacturers.