Contax III-Stupid Purchase or Not

I was in the local camera store the other day and was playing with a Contax III that tempted me, especially for the offered price.

 

I know that the(useless) meter on top makes the III a bit less desireable than the II, but it still seems like a good solid camera even if it is heavy. I sold my Leica IIIc a few months ago, partially because I hated loading film in it, and this seems like a good way to get a camera that is in a lot of ways better than the Leica.

 

Here are the issues as I see it with the one I looked at:

 

1. The rangefinder works, but the viewfinder itself is hazy. How much of a nightmare is this to open up and clean? The contrast on the rangefinder is good(better than some 60s/70s Japanese rangefinders I've used)-it honestly just looked like it needed to have the back sides of the glass cleaned.

 

2. Slow speeds were dead. I can live without them, but how difficult are they to access and service? From reading the shutter ribbons are an issue, but this one seems find since the faster speeds work.

 

3. The lens is an uncoated Zeiss 50mm f/1.5. It's hazy also, and the blades are oily. I'm a bit concerned about flare in an uncoated lens that fast. I know oily blades aren't a huge deal on a rangefinder lens, but I'm guessing they're probably the source of the haze. It seems straightforward to break down and clean the glass-are there any tricks here?

 

4. Finally, is there anything else I should look at? Am I look at a money pit even at $100?

The site below should give you a good idea of what kind of service is involved on the very similar Kiev rangefinders:

 

Kiev Survival Site

 

I have a Kiev 4AM (meterless) and the viewfinder glass is fairly easy to clean (front panel of the camera just comes off with a few screws). I didn't fancy getting into repairs beyond that, though.

 

Fortunately, mine is in great shape and works fine. I think I paid $40 for it with the nice Jupiter-8M lens. It's not a Contax, but is fun to use and does the job just as well.

Edited November 29, 2019 by m42dave

Ben, the 50/1.5 Sonnar alone goes for double that if clean.

 

Like Dave, I have a Kiev, with the 50/2, 35/2.8 and 85/2. I can honestly say that is is one of ma favourite cameras to use and that many of my best photos were taken with it.

 

Get it. If it can't be made to work economically, put it on the shelf and get a cla'd Kiev as a user camera.

 

I used mine for things as diverse as protest marches to family snapshots indoors in low light. The heft of the body and the smoothness of the shutter make it a very easy camera to handhold at long shutter speeds, while the thumbwheel allows rapid focussing of the 50 or 35 mm lenses.

 

Seriously, give it a try. Soviet lenses can be picked up cheap and unlike the Leica, there is no registration issue with the Contax/Kiev as they really were the same camera.

 

 

$100 for a Contax with the 1.5? I want your local camera shop!

 

Actually, I'd settle for any local camera shop...

Thanks guys-got the message!

 

I'll call in a few minutes and ask for them to hold it for me to come and get on Tuesday.

The shutter is a problem.

 

I have a Contax IIa, and it worked perfectly until I put a roll of E100 in it......

 

I do have a couple of Kievs and they are still going fine, fortunately.

Alright, called and asked them to hold it.

 

Actually it was more of a "Hey Chuck, can you the Contax I was looking at the other day?" "Yeah sure if I can find it. Where'd you leave it? Oh, wait, here it is in that box of cameras next to my chair I've been playing with. Yeah, it's here for you." "Okay, thanks, I'll be in on Tuesday or sometime this week if not then."

 

Seems like it might be a good camera to shoot a roll of Ortho Plus in also...

 

BTW, Steve, my local camera store truly is one of a kind...

 

Inside Chuck Rubin's Legendary Camera Shop

That sounds like it might be worth the transatlantic flight...

 

... only problem would be the luggage allowance on the return trip.

I really think Chuck's shop should be a pilgrimage for everyone who likes classic cameras-you just have to get there before someone else snaps up the good stuff :) . I'm sure it's not the ONLY store like that in the US, but they're few and far between these days. The whole place even smells like old cameras-I'm sure you all know the smell I'm talking about.

 

I love the fact that I can potentially drive right by it on the way home from work(it's only slightly out of the way, and some days actually faster depending on traffic) but it's also quite dangerous for me.

Congratulations on your Contax III--the lenses are excellent and the camera definitely has a personality which you will either like or you won't, but it is unique. Film loading is certainly easier than a screw mount Leica (I have a Leica IIIa, so I know...) and the lack of a rotating shutter speed dial and the ability to change shutter speeds at any time also beats a similar vintage Leica. And yes, please tell your local camera store to open a branch near me!

No, nostalgia is a powerful thing:

I may never actually use some of my old cameras, but it is nice to have them to bring back old memories.

 

I got an old Exacta, to remind me of my father's camera, which unfortunately was not cared for, after I graduated high school.

I wish I had my father's Zeiss 135 lens :(

 

I got a Mamiya/Sekor 1000DTL, because it was my first SLR.

When I got mine in the 70s, I got to HATE the screw mount lens. It was a hassle to use, if you changed lenses often, like I did. I replaced it with a Nikkormat FTn in about a year. Except for the screw mount lens, it was actually a decent camera.

The shutter is a problem.

Very true.

I got a hankering for a rangefinder Contax many years ago, and looked at quite a few. None of them escaped 'Squeaky Shutter Syndrome' AKA triple S disease. Given how long it's been since then, I'm surprised there's a single working Contax left in the world.

 

I wouldn't get too worked up about that f/1.5 Sonnar either. For some years I had a 75mm f/1.5 Jena B of similar design vintage. It was actually my favourite lens for quite a while, and gave very good IQ from about f/4 onwards, but at f/1.5 it was total crap!

 

However, for a hundred bucks it sounds like a total bargain, regardless of condition. Even as a 'shelf queen'.

Ben,

Is it a III or a IIIa? They are different.

Hi Andy,

 

It's a III.

I've had my IIa and IIIa apart and they are pretty accessible. Top cover comes off pretty easily and a little naptha goes a long way with the speed controller. You can get at the rangefinder too. The III is probably pretty similar in this regard. Congrats on a good score. As others have said, the 1.5 is worth more than what you paid for the camera.

Thanks Andy.

 

I'm pulling a long day at work tomorrow, but hoping I can slip away around lunch time and run over to the camera store. We'll see, but at least it has my name on it even if I don't make it tomorrow.

 

I doubt I'll have a chance to even mess with it until next week at the earliest, and possibly Christmas, but I'll do what I can.

I've never messed with the RF optics on a Contax before, but it looks like I need to do it one my latest project camera.

Already replaced a broken curtain strap and got the slow speed mechanism operational.

I see many here mentioned their Kiev models as being serviceable and preisworthy. I have the Contax II of similar vintage and it performs well. Even the slow speeds are believable. This is a pre-war camera. so this is a REAL antique. Perhaps mine was serviced in the immediate postwar period as it has a PC flash coupler on the body..so maybe the straps were replaced then too. The view/rangefinder window is abysmally small, but the RF patch on mine is still quite visible. As mentioned certainly getting the lens cleaned up will be a worthwhile investment. The Jupiter 8 and 12 are great lenses in the Russian Roulette vein. I do find the II aesthetically pleasing. Be sure to post some pics when you shoot it.. Inquiring minds want to know!!

I think it's fair to say that the Contax, in the most traditional germanic sense, was simply very well engineered.

 

Sufficiently well that even the Kievs tended to be pretty reliable.

 

Like any machine though, it's liable to require an overhaul every 50 years or so.

 

German Contaxen are what, 80 years old by now? Even the youngest Kievs are pushing 40.

 

They don't make 'em like they used to...

And grab a Helios-103 50/1.8 while you're at it, 'modern' fast prime that's more usable as an everyday lens than the Sonnar.

Like any machine though, it's liable to require an overhaul every 50 years or so..

 

In contention for "Most Understatement of 2019". :) They are built so well and the quality of materials is such that after a good "windex" job, most of them look like they are a year old.

I've serviced these in the last couple of years. slightly older than your average Contax II :D

Alright, camera is in hand.

 

The lens is a CZ Jenna Sonnar, and seems to be uncoated.

 

I'll hopefully get the RF cleaned up and slow speeds working(1/50 drags noticeably-the others seem decent enough but I need to get a new 9V for my trusty Calumet shutter speed tester) and then load some film in it.

 

(bad iPhone snap)

It's a bit of a puzzle to get the top of the Contax II (and I suppose the III).

There are 3 or 4 screws on the underside inside the film chamber and a couple hidden under the knobs.

To get the chrome mask off the front there is one more screw hidden under the bulge in the leatherette next to the self-timer lever.

Once you can lift the top off, you'll have access to the large RF prism and most of the lens surfaces of the RF mechanism.

If you want to get the meter working, a suitable replacement for the selenium cell would be a silicon one. These can be cheaply obtained by dismantling a solar-powered garden light of the appropriate design.

 

I managed to get a 1" square silicon solar 'panel' into a defunct Weston V meter. The output of the silicon cell was too high initially, but after filtering it with a piece of cyan gel to attenuate its red sensitivity, the accuracy was pretty good.

Alright, camera is in hand.

 

The lens is a CZ Jenna Sonnar, and seems to be uncoated.

 

I'll hopefully get the RF cleaned up and slow speeds working(1/50 drags noticeably-the others seem decent enough but I need to get a new 9V for my trusty Calumet shutter speed tester) and then load some film in it.

 

(bad iPhone snap)

[ATTACH=full]1320173[/ATTACH]

Here's mine, fully operational including the meter after a Henry Scherer full overhaul, perched on an alien Leitz table top tripod. This was an eBay find, selling for less than the price of the overhaul. I couldn't help but notice the difference in lettering (the n and t) between yours and mine. I also have Contax II and III shelf queens that look like mine, not yours. As you probably know there are a fair number of "Contax" cameras floating around that are Kievs under the skin. Nothing necessarily wrong with that--many photographers use them happily.