M3 or Contax IIa

The Nikon F killed them all. Contax died, Leica entered into a sort of coma.

Bryan, your question.

 

"Also, despite the M3 not having 35mm framelines, I have read that the entire viewfinder can be used as a 35mm approximation. Is this true? I would really like to use an M3 due to the higher magnification and two-eye shooting capability."

 

Re: 50mm framelines and a 35mm lens: Not really practical, if you attach any M mount 35mm lens you will not be able to focus except at infinity. Leica 35mm lenses with goggles were made only for use with the M3. They attach as 50mm lenses but are corrected to convert the viewfinder and behave like 35mm lenses. The Summeron 35mm, f3.5 w/goggles is one example and there are several others as well. You can still blind focus a standard 35mm on the M3 if you wish.

Huh? A 35mm M-mount lens will focus on the M3 just like any other focal length lens, you just don't have a 35mm frame line for "accurate" framing (all framing on an RF being an approximation). The lenses w/the built-in "eyes" just change the magnification of the M3's VF to convert its 50mm frame to the equivalent of a 35mm frame on an M2, etc.

 

The entire M3 VF, incl. the area outside the 50mm frame, is really closer to 40mm (which is why some of us like to use 40mm lenses on the M3) so it's pretty close to 35mm & can be used in pinch; obviously, there will be no parallax compensation, but you can guesstimate by checking the position of the 50mm frames.

 

---------------------

 

"Re: 50mm framelines and a 35mm lens: Not really practical, if you attach any M mount 35mm lens you will not be able to focus except at infinity."

<p>Owned Leicas, everything from an M4 through an M7, used them exclusively for more then a decade, but now I shoot 50's Kiev IIs and a prewar Contax II. The Contax mount cameras are at least 85% of a Leica M3 onward at 5% of the price. Both are capable of great pictures; of course, old lenses are different then modern optics. </p>

I know this is an old thread, but it's so on the nose for me that I feel like I want to respond.

 

I currently have 2 Leica M2s and 2 Contax IIAs with a pretty complete selection of lenses for the Contaxes. I've also owned (in the past) a Contarex Bullseye and I still have my Yashica/Contax SLRs and they still work (though they're super heavy to carry!).

 

My Contax cameras were serviced by Henry Scherer along with some of my lenses so my Contax cameras approximate their condition when they were new (more or less). They are smooth to focus, the glass is clean and in good condition and the cameras all function as they should. All that said, even in that condition, beautiful as they are (and the Bullseye was maybe the most beautiful camera I've ever seen), I'd still use the M's anytime. It's just a better, easier to use camera, and you can use modern lenses if you can afford them or anything back to screwmounts. The viewfinder is better, it's easier to focus, and it's way easier to mount the lenses.

 

Another consideration is what you're likely to find if you just get a random M or a random Contax II. It's likely the Contax II will probably not work, or the lenses won'f focus properly (and watch out because some lenses that fit some contax cameras protrude too far into the camera and damage the shutter, later Contaxes don't use all early lenses) or they'll be stiff to focus (and you only focus the 50s with the wheel in front). Most repairers who repair vintage cameras can handle an M or a screwmount Leica but very few can handle Contaxes (at least not well). And Henry Scherer has quite a backlog (or he did many years ago when I was sending stuff to him) and it took a LONG time to get a camera back). And Leica is still around and can repair at least some older Ms where the contax that made the IIas is LONG gone.

 

If you happen to get a working one (as I did) and are willing to take the time to have them serviced, they can be good serviceable cameras, but even so I don't recommend steady use. They're more a thing of beauty and a piece of history (much as I see the Leica Scrwmounts). The lenses are great for the time, but then so were Leica screwmount lenses. They're no match for modern lenses, even Voigtlander's modern screwmounts and M lenses. And you can use THOSE lenses on a M from the 1950s. The last manmade object on earth after we go extinct might just be an M, still working. The Contaxes, though amazing cameras, just don't have this longevity without loving care.

 

And that Bullseye SLR? Stunning beauty, but they also need a lot of care and they're not as easy to put back into shape as the IIs are. They're also the most annoying cameras to use I've ever seen. Very good glass in good condition but I'd rather the Contax Yashica cameras to use with their Zeiss lenses. Beauty isn't everything and the M is pretty great looking itself, and it's functional beauty. And those Contax/Yashica cameras were some the best user interfaces I've ever had. Pretty funny considering that the lenses for that system are almost direct descendants from the Bullseye's lenses.

Year 2018 ACE -

I gots one Leica M3 and one Contax IIA

I also have a Canon VL2 and a Nikon S2

 

And a whole bunch of other Leica and Contax clones and copies.

The Leica is a superb shooting experience, but the others are too.

 

Why have just one?

It’s funny but I don’t shoot film anymore much so I got rid of most of my really old cameras. The only ones left are the M2s, a IIIf RD, a Konica I rangefinder (my first camera given to me by my dad), a Minolta XE5 (my first purchased camera), and a Leica CL (no battery available and the meter is probably dead). Oh and I do have two Contax IIAs fully refurbished to as close to new functionality as possible with a pretty good spread of lenses. But the only one I still use now and then is the M2s.

 

In the next generation, only the Contax RTS III and Aria survived the years and I have two Minolta 600si’s. Everything else is digital. And the most useless of that lot are the digitals that are really too obsolete to use like the early Minolta prior to Sony buying them.

Agree with JD. have Contax IIA outfit and Leica M4/M6 outfits. Love both. The Contax is jewel-like, bought from Henry Scherer 4-5 years ago. Works like a fine watch.

Agree with JD. have Contax IIA outfit and Leica M4/M6 outfits. Love both. The Contax is jewel-like, bought from Henry Scherer 4-5 years ago. Works like a fine watch.

 

Like so many IIAs, mine had rangefinder alignment problems, dim viewfinder, rough focusing, etc. when I bought t hem. Scherer really made them feel like new again. Of course the downside is the waiting period in his queue. It was over a year when I did it both times and I understand it may be longer now. I have also bought two Leica screwmounts. One was pronounced DOA, it was an old one but not really repairable. I sold that one one and I suspect it ended up going into some collection. The other was in pretty good shape. I had it serviced anyway and it works well.

 

The M2 I bought was in very nice condition when I bought it, cosmetically not so good, but very nicely working. No service required despite 5 decades of use. The second M2 was a tiny bit rougher, probably need to send that in to be serviced someday but it works fine as it is. It's a KS15-4 I think (bought it as a regular M2 from KEH but it has the extra seals and the quick load kit and all the other stuff associated with the M2R). It's amazing how little servicing these have and how long they last in service.

No doubt about it -- to make pictures it's gotta be the M3, but there is a really special aura to hold and fondle the Zeiss Contax IIa.

The IIA I bought from Henry was not a body I sent to him, but one he had serviced and placed for sale on his site, so no wait. Similarly I purchased the 21mmf4.5 Biogon and 85mm f2 Sonnar in my outfit from Henry in a similar fashion. Outstanding lenses.

 

Compared to the M4 and M6 Leica's, shooting with the Contax IIA is definitely a more deliberate experience. Even the film loading process can be an exercise in patience. I do not use the in-body finder for framing shots with even the 50mm lens, choosing to utilize the universal finder since it can be set very accurately, right down to parallax correction, albeit completely manually.

 

I need to get out with the Contax again. Just shot some color and B&W film with the Leica's last week. Time to load up the IIA with some film.

Remember though the M3 does not have frame lines for 35mm lenses. That's my most used lens. Hence the M2 as the preference. On the other hand, if you like the 135mm lens, the M3 is better, though I have the massive 135 with goggles (which I almost never use).

Yeah, the 135mm Elmarit would be a big one (comparatively) to lug around. I'd definitely need to re-think my bag choices.

 

I have an older 135mm f4 Tele Elmar (nice lens), an even older but almost mint 135mm f4 Elmar that's surprisingly good, and a copy of the current 135mm f3.4 APO Telyt that I use with the digital M's as it is 6 bit coded and hence, no effort or memory is needed for the 135mm focal length to show up in the file data, and optically it is quite excellent.

 

The post-war, West German 135mm f4 Carl Zeiss Sonnar for the Contax IIA is another outstanding performer, and focuses very easily/accurately.

Interesting to revisit this issue after so many years. I have a "No Name Kiev" Contax copy that I use with a 50 Nikkor 1.4 lens but it is more of a paperweight now. Most of my film work is done with an M3 or M4-2 when I'm shooting with a 35 or 28 focal length lens. Based on my usage, the only Contax advantages are film loading ease, accurate focusing and the 1/1250 shutter speed. Not enough to overcome the M3"s much better viewfinder and user feel.