Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Jason, thank you for another pleasurable camera review.
Even though many have praised the Contax, it was not until I started using my IIIa and seeing the results did I fully understand the basis of such high praise.
Even though many have praised the Contax, it was not until I started using my IIIa and seeing the results did I fully understand the basis of such high praise.
zuiko85
Mentor
Form may follow function but....I've always thought the Contax RF's were just ugly. Even if they worked well, and as noted, many do not, I just cannot make pictures with an ugly camera. (Actually I cannot make good photos with any camera, but that is a different story.)
Still, some cameras just look 'right', and some others do not.
All very personal of course.
Still, some cameras just look 'right', and some others do not.
All very personal of course.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
I think a lot of the 'unreliability' also stems from the initial delays and factory reworks of the initial design of the Contax I.
Kuc mentions in his book how retailers were pretty miffed by the delivery delays in the early days of its introduction.
Zeiss decided it would be better to rework a ready-to-ship batch of cameras in their factory to find-tune some issues.
The latest iterations of the Contax I certainly are better constucted and more reliable than the first couple of versions; Better quality alloy for the shutter crate I believe (Early ones certainly are made of softer material and screw holes wear out quickly if you mess around with them too much)
Also there have always been skilled camera repairmen available to repair your Leica, not so for Contaxes.
So while your Leica could be readily repaired, the Contaxes would generally just worked until they (mainly the shutter straps) broke.
Someone said it in another topic recently; Zeiss making 9 gears do the work of 2
That said, I do still prefer my Leicas over my 3 working Contax I cameras for their ergonomics and smoothness of operation.
Kuc mentions in his book how retailers were pretty miffed by the delivery delays in the early days of its introduction.
Zeiss decided it would be better to rework a ready-to-ship batch of cameras in their factory to find-tune some issues.
The latest iterations of the Contax I certainly are better constucted and more reliable than the first couple of versions; Better quality alloy for the shutter crate I believe (Early ones certainly are made of softer material and screw holes wear out quickly if you mess around with them too much)
Also there have always been skilled camera repairmen available to repair your Leica, not so for Contaxes.
So while your Leica could be readily repaired, the Contaxes would generally just worked until they (mainly the shutter straps) broke.
Someone said it in another topic recently; Zeiss making 9 gears do the work of 2
That said, I do still prefer my Leicas over my 3 working Contax I cameras for their ergonomics and smoothness of operation.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Yes, I agree, the Contax I is however very interesting for its styling and its historical importance. It was the starting point for the development of all kinds of very important cameras such as Contax II, Kiev and Nikon.
Erik.
mcfingon
Western Australia
My '37 Contax II is for me a piece of astonishing engineering, beautiful in its detail, that is still functioning well.
John Mc
John Mc
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Hello,
the Contax is the camera on which I've learnt the fundamentals of photography, thanks to my grandfather, who was a Zeiss Contax fan.
So, the first camera I could afford with my schoolboy's money, was a quasi-brand new Kiev-4A, back in 1975.
I still use grandad's Contax-II... and my Kiev, of course. They work just fine.
Are Contaxes ugly? It depends; I like its design.
Best wishes,
Enzo, Italy
the Contax is the camera on which I've learnt the fundamentals of photography, thanks to my grandfather, who was a Zeiss Contax fan.
So, the first camera I could afford with my schoolboy's money, was a quasi-brand new Kiev-4A, back in 1975.
I still use grandad's Contax-II... and my Kiev, of course. They work just fine.
Are Contaxes ugly? It depends; I like its design.
Best wishes,
Enzo, Italy
steveyork
Well-known
The pre-war Contax is cosmetically an attractive camera, at least to me, especially the II. Maybe not the I so much, it's kind of clunky, but all that pre-war Zeiss Ikon stuff is very Art Deco to my eye. We've had a good deal of it pass through our hands over the decades -- Ikoflex III and II, Super Ikonata B, Contax II & III -- and it is all supremely well made. Tremendous values too on the used market these days, and you can find people not named "Henry" who can work on them, or do it yourself. I've always viewed the Contax II & III as the first modern rangefinder. I like them, but I'm partial to rangefinders with contrasty patches.
markjwyatt
Well-known
Thanks for the write-up. I think it is pretty accurate. The Zeiss Contax iia has been one of my main cameras over the last couple of years. I bought it in 2018, had it CLA'd, and since then it has worked very well. I traveled a lot for work last year, and packed it with me. It is compact and precise and i love shooting it. I now have a few lenses and accessories, and hopefully it will continue to perform. The only experience I have with the pre-war design is the Kiev 4a. It is also a nice camera, but I prefer the more compact (though as you say not necessarily lighter) Contax iia.