M3 or Contax IIa

Hi everyone! I have been a lurker here and on some other forums for

quite some time and this is my first post.

 

Anyway... So I have caught the rangefinder bug and have narrowed my

choices down to an older Leica or even older Contax. I don't want to

bother with any of the newer, automatic cameras (I shoot primarily a

Pentax Spotmatic and Bronica S2a right now).

 

My budget is approximately $1000. A Contax II or IIIa + 50/1.5

Sonnar would easily fit in such a range, but an M3 + 50 + DAG CLA

would probably be over.

 

I would like your general opinions as to the merits of each as a

first RF. I am all for the top quality mechanical build, which I

believe both cameras have, prehaps moreso the Leica. I suspect many

might say go for the Contax first and wait to earn the M3, or say

only go for the best, but I await your advice.

 

Thanks,

Bryan

"I suspect many might say go for the Contax first and wait to earn the M3.." <p> Ummm not here! The Contax, while fun (I have a 1937 III), is purely collectible in my book. For everyday usability, maintainability, lens choice, the M series is a whole different ball game.

Bryan,

 

I have a IIIa and an M3 (and 2 M6s and 2 IIIfs). The M3 is much more user-friendly and it is is much quieter. As an example, when you turn the IIIa's aperture ring you are likely to change the focus. In fact it is nearly impossible to change the aperture without changing the focus. The M3 has a lever wind and the Contax has a knob. The viewfinder on the M3 is also much better in my opinion.

 

Having said all of that. The Contax is a beautiful camera... a great shutter mechanism... good rangefinder... solid... and great looking.

 

If you want it for taking pictures, I'd go with the M3.

 

Dave

The Contax is an example of great engineering but as a useable relic? Forget it. The M3 has bright frame lines in the finder, is readily repairable should you need it, and lenses are easy to find, from classics made half a century or more ago to the latest multi-coated aspheric designs.

The Contax is an exquisite piece for it's time but the shutter is a bit tempermental, according to those I have spoken to. The M3 is still solid as a rock.

Bryan, I've got an M3 for about a week now and like it (a late >1,1million single stroke, it was CLA'd by DAG 2 yrs ago, just a lucky happenstance as was the quickload kit inside it, got from KEH in bargain for $750 and has an M4 flash port too)but I've got other M bodies and no way I'd want just an M3 because no 35mm frames. I'd suggest an M2. KEH has one in bargain for $599 now (actually they seem to have another M3 SS w. M4 flash port if you really want one). I know a camera store near here that has a super-clean 50 Cron rigid for $525, sounds expensive but they're very hard to find with intact front coating and what bargain is saving $200 and having a low-contrast flare-city lens? I've got a screw mount, cool camera as Al says but as a daily shooter I'll take an M any time.

You can quite easily get a Contax IIa + 1.5 sonnar for about $500. The M3 + 50 will take you to at least 1000 if you throw in a DAG CLA.

 

On the merits, the Contax 1.5 sonnar is an exquisitely beautiful lens, both in build and results. However, as noted above, when you turn the aperture, there is the chance that you will accidentally turn your focus. With practice that is a non-issue. The biggest pros for Contax are: small size, lighter weight, great optics, very simple reliable camera. The cons are: aperture ergonomics, VERY VERY small viewfinder compared to the M3. In fact, I consider the M3's viewfinder to be the best of all Leicas.

 

So while you can't go wrong with the Contax option, if you have the funds now, you should get the M3. For me, the viewfinder was the principal dealbreaker that made me sell my Contax IIa. But, boy did I regret letting the 1.5 sonnar go! Good luck

I've been busy doing ac oomplete restoration on a couple of prewar Contax II's. The first of two I finished on Sunday (pictured with a postwar Sonnar). One or the other might come up for sale sometime in the next while if you want a clean one.

 

I shoot these cameras because (a) they are beautiful mechanical gems (b) I am a masochist <g> © because I can afford them (d) the lenses, especially the postwar Oberkochen glass. They are wonderful cameras but I think don't compete well against an M3 in the usability department. Knob wind, 50mm viewfinder only, no parallax correction. They have the Leica beat in effective rangefinder base length (especially the II) and just slightly in top speed. The prewar rangefinder is practically immune to misalignment due to use. You won't burn a hole in a Contax curtain!

 

Its not clear from the differing title and text: is it a Contax II (prewar) or Contax IIA (postwar) that you seek? How do you figure a Contax CLA is going to be less than DAG? A Henry Scherer CLA for a prewar Contax runs over $300.<div></div>

evil...<div></div>

evil evil...<div></div>

Contax Contax Contax! - can't resist here in the Leica forum :)<div></div>

M4-2 user, Hexanon 50/2.0 and yer laughin'.

The M3 is one generation more advanced than the Contax. Compared to a LTM Leica the Contax is my choice but the M is much more versatile.

 

Another concern are spareparts and people capable of servicing them.

 

One posibility is buying a Kiev 4 with a Jupiter 8 or Helios 103 lens to play with them. They are not to different to the original :-)

Bryan,

 

I had a PERFECT IIIa and used it for a few years. Now I have an M3....WAY better camera.

 

You can get an M3 for around $600 from KEH that should work fine at least for a while.

You can get a user Summicron Rigid or Collapsible for $250 or so.

 

jmp

If you want to have some fun with a Contax, buy a Kiev 2. I own a Kiev with a couple of lenses, and it's lots of fun to use. My M2 beats it hands down, however. The difference between the viewfinders is like night and day. The Leica is much nicer to use in every way.

As a four decade long user of Leica rangefinder cameras and poor as a church mouse when I bought my M-4 years ago on a time payment plan with a local camera shop - aren't those days long gone - my high recommendation is that you save your hard earned money and purchase a Leica M-3.

 

Bill

Good God what a beautiful camera Mike! And nice job on the restoration.

'Tis a labour of love. I have over 20 hours of my precious free time in that camera. Ditto on the Kiev suggestion. My $40 1960 Kiev 4A + matching Jupiter 8M got me started with this Contax love affair. It might also give Bryan a chance to try a rangefinder before commiting a lot of money.

 

I'd like an M3 but its not going to happen anytime soon. That Contax II was only $130 off ebay but was nearly unusable as it came. I think a Leica IIIc is in my future but I want to service it myself. The prices even on junked M gear is ludicrous.

I'll echo the group, as I've had the Contax II and IIa, Kievs, and various M's. The M3 beats the IIa hands down in my book. Usability is better with lever winding. The parallex corrected, brightline finder is better in typical examples. The lens selection is 10x as good. It's no contest.

 

If you want to play with a Contax, find a nice, 1950's Kiev 3 and a Jupiter-8. This camera was very close to the pre-war Contax II in build quality, as the original equipment was still being used before being overworked in the Soviet Union. The more common 70's cameras like the Kiev 4 and 4M are OK, but definitely show the falling workmanship and worn machinery. The shutters are also usually off in the Contaxes and can be pricy to fix. Many repairmen use Kiev shutters to repair pre-war Contaxes as the parts are interchangable. The Contax's are definitely jewel-like in construction, but really are sub-standard compared to the M's for use.

 

Find a nice M3 that's been CLA'd by someone good and buy a 50/2 M-Hexanon for $250, a superbly-built copy of a late Summicron. I've got one and it's a beauty. The 50/1.5 Nokton is also a winner for about the same price, but not a well-built. If you look hard, you should be able to find a nice M3 for $750. The vulcanite might be broken in a couple of places and the top might be scratched, but if the RF is nie and the insides have had work, it's the way to go. If you can find one with a SS# engraved into the camera, that cuts another $50-150.

 

Skip

As much as it pains me to agree w/the Leicaphiles ;-), & I can quibble w/some of the opinions stated here (e.g., I don't think the Contax is really louder than an M3, just different in pitch & a CLA does *not* have to cost $300 as there are some other good repairpersons other than Mr. Scherer who charge less), but I must concur that the M3 is a better user & has the advantage of taking modern glass if you so desire.

 

My bottom line: if @ all possible, get both! I started w/the Contax & later added Leicas, but still use both.

 

A couple years ago, I received a question very similar to yours, so I'll quote from my response, which still holds true for me:

 

"I certainly enjoy using the Contax RFs, but the Leica M3 (or M2 if you prefer using a 35mm lens) is probably a better & more practical choice for *most* people. IMHO, the M3 has the best RF viewfinder ever, even compared to the current M6 or M7. The M3 was a revolutionary camera in its time because of its VF, which is indeed brighter than the Contax & has parallax-adjusting illuminated framelines (unlike the Contax, which only provides the 50mm view, has no parallax correction, & requires accessory finders for every other focal length). Also, since Leica is still in business, the M3 takes a wider variety of lenses, including some of the best modern glass (plus the old thread mount stuff).

 

That said, practicality isn't everything. The IIa is a fine, beautifully engineered & manufactured, camera. So is the pre-WWII Contax II (which I think is actually a better user camera, w/a longer & more accurate RF base, higher magnification VF, & truly shockproof RF mechanism). When you use a Contax II or IIa, you're using the same 35mm camera system used by Robert Capa, Ansel Adams, Sir Edmund Hilary's Mt. Everest expedition, & most professional photographers

from the 1930s until the introduction of the M3 in 1954 (there's nothing wrong w/a little nostalgia!).

 

True, a IIa or II is not as "user-friendly" as an M3. However, a IIa/II body in good working condition should run you considerably less than an M3 & will be just as reliable, assuming it's been properly repaired &/or maintained. More importantly, the Zeiss lenses for the Contax are usually better, & cheaper, than their Leica competition from the same time period (which is why Henri Cartier-Bresson used a thread mount Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar on his Leicas!), although not as "good" (i.e., sharp & flare resistant) as modern Leica glass. I love my modern Leica lenses, but I also love the unique look provided by the old Zeiss stuff.

 

The bottom line is that if you don't care about using modern lenses, do most of your photography during the day & w/a 50mm lens (or don't mind using accessory finders), or just prefer a more leisurely shooting style, the IIa is an economical alternative to the M3. If you do a lot of low-light shooting, tend to use a wide variety of focal lengths, & want to use modern glass, then the M3 is the way to go."

 

 

FYI, here are some other threads on Contax RFs:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002dLe

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0057ES

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009Fur

I started with Leica's and always wanted a Contax, so now I have a couple of Kiev's. Like has been said before buy the Leica but pick up a Contax or Kiev to play with they are great fun.

The M3, maybe take a long term approach if you can stand to. Buy a user body that you can afford, "the" auction site occaisonally has more sellers than buyers. Make sure to find out that the rangefinder isn't separating, i.e., dark. Count on needing a CLA when you can afford it.

 

Leica bayonet mount lenses like the 135mm Hektor ($75) and 35mm summeron ($100+) can go really cheaply at auction if you are patient and disciplined. You can also acquire screw to bayonet mount adaptors for 50mm, 90mm and 135mm and use old Leica screwmount lenses or for that matter Nikon screwmount, etc.

 

M3's don't wear out but do require adjusting and cleaning every 15 yrs or so. The main thing to watch for is rangefinder separation although I've read that the later models are not as prone as the earlier ones. If you do decide on a Contax don't bother with the pre-war Contax II, the curtain ribbons have a tendancy to break with age and many camera techies won't touch them, I don't believe there are shutter ribbons on the post war IIA version.

There are just as many techies out there who can & will work on a Contax II as there are those who will work on a IIa, not even including the guys who work on Kievs (which are mechanically similar, if not identical to the pre-war Contax).

 

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

 

"If you do decide on a Contax don't bother with the pre-war Contax II, the curtain ribbons have a tendancy to break with age and many camera techies won't touch them . . ."

The 50/1.5 Sonnar is an exceptional piece of glass. It is sharp above f/2, high color fidelity, smooth bokeh, and it is cheap. $250 at the most for a really clean sample. I have the IIa but recommend instead the Cosina Voigtlander R2C. The R2C's finder is way brighter and better and then there is TTL metering.

The M3 is for sure the more practical camera. It's the one I'd choose in your position. OTOH the Zeiss lenses for the Contaxes are excellent even by modern standards. The 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar wipes the floor with any high-speed 50 Leitz made prior to the last pre-ASPH Summilux (I personally prefer the Sonnar to the 'Lux) and can be had inexpensively. Though I still own a Contax IIa I ended up getting a Sonnar in LTM. Problem solved. :-)

 

-Dave-