Who favors a Contax II, III, IIa, IIIa over a Leica M?

<p>The Zeiss Contax cameras seem to have a faithful following.<br>

I can see some people favoring the Contax over a Leica Barnack camera, but what about a Leica M?<br>

The Leica M cameras have viewfinders that are much brighter and larger than a VF in a Contax.<br>

If you use a modern external VF with a Contax, would it make a Contax somehow competetive with a Leica M? The CZJ 5cm 1.5 is a classic, and it is one of my alltime favorite RF lenses. Is it sufficient for making a Contax a camera a top choice? Is it the history of the Contax that makes it special?<br>

How do view your Contax RF cameras?</p>

<p>They are all gorgeous, and the Contax is probably the most beautiful camera ever made.<br>

I love my Contax IIa/Sonnar f:2, as well as my Barnack and M Leicas. But to tell the truth they are all mucho outdated and are better for fondling than for photographing.</p>

 

<p>Although pricey, unless you are willing to buy one that is in user condition not collector quality, the Nikon S or S-2 is a great compromise between Contax with dreadful roller blind shutter (my opinion) and Leica M series. I have the Nikon S-2 with the 50mm f1.4 but use my M-3 with DR Summicron far more, heavier, quieter and I am used to it.The annoying task on Contax and Nikon is the need to insure that body and lens are on infinity when mounting or dismounting the lens, something I'm not used to. I know on thread mount Leicas sometimes one must make sure that the lens is on closer focus to get the lens cam to glide smoothly over the rangefinder cam, but it's not always an issue!</p>

<p>Seriously, assuming you have a fully CLA'ed body, the early Contax RF camera offerings don't even campare to the Leica M or even the Leica LTM cameras starting from the IIIc on.<br /> Let me count the ways...</p>

<ol>

<li>The shutter speeds don't have adjustment provisions for exact curtain balance & speeds.</li>

<li>The shutter release button isn't consistent or smooth.</li>

<li>The detached back door and loose take-up spool is a joke.</li>

<li>The rewind button doesn't lock as you rewind.</li>

<li>The viewfinder is tiny when compared to an M Leica.</li>

<li>The "dual bayonet" lens removal & install is finicky at best.</li>

<li>The counter is "old & cruddy" when compared to an M Leica.</li>

<li>Accessory shoe and strap lugs weak & deficient.</li>

<li>Contax II shutter speed dial strange procedure to set.</li>

<li>Some early Zeiss lenses don't fit the IIa units.</li>

<li>Contax metered bodies are ugly & too large (III & IIIa)</li>

<li>Louder shutter sound</li>

<li>Poor repair record: One self proclaimed expert tech, who takes too long (2 years plus) and is too expensive ($400 plus per body) In my particular case he serviced both, a II & IIa; was a complete waste of film, time & money. You just can't rely on these overly complex Contax cameras.</li>

</ol>

<p>The advantages over the Leica units would be:</p>

<ul>

<li>Several <strong>fantastic</strong> Zeiss lenses (Some ahead of Leica specs)</li>

<li>Metal curtains ( No burned in holes)</li>

<li>The centered tripod socket (More conventional position)</li>

<li>One-handed focus & release (Right hand)</li>

<li>Beautiful accessories (Viewfinders etc.)</li>

</ul>

<p>The story is that Contax had to get around Leica patents of the day, and their solutions were far from improvements to the original (Leica). Bill's right: "better for fondling"<br /> Lens advancements kept them in the game though.</p><div></div>

<p>I favor (and use) the Contax G2 over any old or new Leica; maybe not over a ZM, though. ...</p>

<p>From reading Henry's page, it's obvious that the Contax is a quintessential example of German over-engineering. The shutter mechanism is insanely complicated.<br>

It's also clear that it was beyond their ability to produce on a piece-work basis without statistical process control. Like the screwmount Leica, the parts are not truly adjustable, they are either "select to fit" or "adjust to fit". But the Leica shutter is a simple enough design that it's forgiving, the only select to fit parts are the curtain latches.<br>

But, I'm sure that a properly manufactured and CLA'd Contax has more accurate and repeatable shutter speeds than a Leica. <br>

Does that accuracy really buy you anything in real-world results? I don't think so.<br>

The lenses were definitely better than Leica's screwmount lenses. Both key lens designs (50/1.5 Sonnar) and technologies (hard coating) were well patent-protected. Even after World War II, while the Japanese could use any German patents, the Germans still observed the patent laws domestically. The Leitz Xenon/Summarit 50/1.5 was a desperate attempt to compete with Zeiss, and they had to license that design from TT&H.<br>

Leica's key patent protection was on their lens mount with simple rangefinder coupling. The ridiculous lens mount and rangefinder coupling system Zeiss had to use on the Contax to avoid Leica's patents were a major albatross.<br>

The Leica M sunk Zeiss' Contax battleship. The vastly superior finder left them in the dust.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm sure that a properly manufactured and CLA'd Contax has more accurate and repeatable shutter speeds than a Leica"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gosh John, I just don't agree and I think it's important. That's why I mentioned <strong>Leica IIIc</strong> and on.<br>

<strong>They are totally adjustable.</strong></p>

<p>Each curtain can be balanced independently (Not the Contax), the 1,000th has it's own eccentric (Not the 1,250th Contax), along with the 500th thru 60th.<br /> <strong>No eccentrics whatsoever on Contax II, IIa, III, IIIa or pre-IIIc LTM bodies or Russian copies.</strong></p>

<p>I have the CZJ 5cm 1.5 in Contax mount and also modified to LTM by Brian Sweeney.<br>

For me, it is the "feel"of a Contax camera that somehow is special for me. I use such cameras in spurges of weeks, to then put them aside for a Leica.<br>

I am not a camera repair person, so I do not much about the mechanics of the Contax. Eddy Smolov always reminds me of the many parts of a Contax and how he knows what each does and where it fits.<br>

I like the IIa a lot.</p>

<p>I can't say I've owned the most well maintained Nikon RF and Contax's, but I felt they were kind of flimsy compared to the Leicas. The Zeiss lenses were always great, and while the viewfinders are a bit small, the later models of both lines focus a little faster for me than my M4s. For me, I guess it comes down to whether I'd be more upset at losing or damaging a Contax or a Leica. I'd choose the Leica because it is probably more replaceable. I also think it is a more solid platform for day to day shooting.</p>

<p>To overcome the issue of an offset tripod bushing on my Leicas (mentioned by an above posting), I use a tripod adapter model AH-3 made by Nikon for some of their SLR's like the N2020. This fits well on any Leica but does add weight and the tripod socket is now dead center for balance on a tripod.</p>

<p>I inherited my Dad's IIIa and sent it in to Henry in the good old days when nobody'd heard about him. He rebuilt the beautiful but no-op camera in 2003 and I've been shooting with it ever since. That shutter hasn't slipped even a tad. Still perfect after 7 years of hard use. I also have an M3 with DR and I love it, but it's bigger and heavier than the Contax. I find the RF patch in the Contax to be contrastier than the M3. Now I love all my old pro cameras, Nikon F with lots of Nikkor glass, Rollei TLRs (my current fav) Contax with Sonnar 1.5 5cm, and Leica M3. I think the Contax is right up there with any of them. Robert Capa seemed to like his. I shoot while traveling mostly. I need to keep it small and simple. I take one camera, one lens and a ton of film. I've used the Contax this way on quite a few trips and it never missed a shot! But neither have any of the rest of my cams.<br>

Vic</p>

<p>Raid, you haven't given us your opinion. And Gus, those silver Contax's make me drool (nicer than saying cream in my jeans).<br>

Before WW2 the "word on the streets" was that Contax was the chosen camera for Professonals, Leica for Amateurs.</p>

<p>Haha, Raid, you just resurrected an over 50 war! Great job should be interesting, and a hearty thank you. When do you think the last time this was debated?</p>

<p>OT-Paul W. I think Leica put the tripod socket where they did to insure mechanical integrity, or the possibility of the bottom plate twisting under a lens load. It's located at the point where it's most securely attached to the camera body. Just a guess as it makes no sense otherwise.</p>

<p>Conatax/M Size-winner Contax. Small and classy, shines like a jewel.<br>

Contax/M Lenses-winner Contax. Why buy a WA 21mm clone Biogon Super Angulon when you can get the original?<br>

Contax/M metering-winner Contax. My IIIa still works thank you. where will the MP meter be in 45+ years?<br>

Contax/M body integrity-winner Contax. The IIa/IIIa locks on two sides of the baseplate.<br>

Contax/M shutter speed-winner Contax. 50 years later and the M still maxes out at 1000 vs. 1250 for the Contax.</p>

<p>Winner and steeeel champeeeeen CONTAX! (Tongue firmly in cheek, I don't want to offend anyone like the bloke who took offense at me calling the British Ruling Class drunks with bad teeth. When I should have said most Brits are drunks with bad teeth. FWIW, I'm a Dego/Bloke mix.)</p>

 

<p>I take my Contax with me when I drive to New Orleans. The French Quarter offers a classic setting for photos,and it fits a classic Contax. My lens selections are very limited for Contax cameras as I have several CZJ 50mm lenses and a J-9 and a 135mm CZJ. It is all I need.<br>

I feel that as a "semi collector semi amateur" photographer, I just had to try out a Contax RF. I would have sold my first Contax, but I kept it and I now have a IIa, III and a III foloowed a Kiev.<br>

I feel that a Contax with a 5cm CZJ lens is a wonderful combo for photography. It slows me down a little since I first take readings with a handheld meter. The "swish" of the shutter is simply awesome. The shiny chrome reminds me of classic cars from the 1950's. The Sonnar 5cm lens is still an awesome lens today. I like it so much that I have quite a few examples of it.<br>

I somehow sense a more robust feel with a Contax as compared with my M3 and M6. This is most likely a personal observation and feel. I love both systems. I am so glad that at one time in history, some people created the Zeiss Contax and the Leica RF cameras. I don't have any passionate preference for either system. They are both superb.<br>

The Contax IIa looks better and classier than any Leica M, in my opinion.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Michael,<br>

You have obviously made up your mind which camera system the winner is!<br>

I am glad that we have both systems.</p>

<p>Hi Raid, the 35/2,8 Biogon is an incredible lens. I was going to post a few older photos from 2 years ago on the Classic Forum taken with the 1,5 and another with the 35/2,8. Instead I'll blasphemy the 35/1,4 Lux ASPH and say the old 35 while not having the saturation (or speed) of the new Leica, it's just as sharp.</p>

<p>Sadly there will soon come a time when kids will look at the Nikon D90 and proclaim, "man that is so old school". We have the fortune to see the beginning of modern photography, appreciate it's passing, and view a generation of equipment that hints of what's to come when we're gone.</p>

<p>I promise, this will be the last time I proclaim to be the worlds' greatest action photographer with a IIIa and post this photo, again. But wow, sharp? Incredible. Metered with the original Selenium meter, no idea of the stop or shutter speed (I did my best to guess a decent compromise between slowing down the action without freezing it) on Fuji Reala, processed at a One Hour lab in a super market in Natal, Brazil.</p><div></div>

<p>Michael, love the image shot at the rodeo, but put any of the "Henry serviced" Contax's that we're speaking of on a professional 3 sensor shutter tester, and you won't even get near 1,250th. (My IIa tops out at 1.4ms in the middle, which is a 715th of a second) Good luck in trying to achieve even a 1,000th and still keep the two curtains balanced. It's <strong>one spring tensioning adjustment point;</strong> this design tries to achieve all three goals <strong>! </strong>(1st & 2nd curtain tensions along with highest speed)</p>

<p>It's really kind of a joke compared to the Leicas, technically speaking...</p>

<p>Some of you know that I own plenty of both camera brands; if I need to shoot something important, I don't take the Contax units.</p>

<p>BTW, I also own a <strong>Contax to Leica M</strong> mount adapter (Had to tune it up to make it work correctly) if I wish to use the Zeiss glass on the much better Leica bodies.</p><div></div>

<p>I also have a Contax to Leica M adapter for those times when I take along a Leica and a Zeiss lens. I use ASA100 film most of the time, so I rarely go over 1/500.</p>

<p>I have a Contax IIIA with turret and 28 F8, 50 F1.4, 85 F2, 135 F4, and a recently acquired 180 F6.3 (CZJ). I currently use a D300 and recently tried to show my 20 something daughter how I took photographs 40 years ago with the Contax IIIA. Compared to a modern digital DSLR, taking photographs in the old days was a lot of work and apparently I've become quite lazy. It's fun to play with, though. My Contax collection was really quite inexpensive compared to Leica equipment but I think I'll stick to modern DSLR's for my everyday photography.</p>

<p>Hi Gus, the 1250 speed probably is useless, but it makes a great talking point, some 50 years later.</p>

<p>This is an example of what my 1250 looks like the last time I tried it. A dull photo to be sure, taken from a a roof top of the Ministry of Light and Water across the street in downtown Luanda, Angola. A city with very little light or water, but the people in charge do have a nice building, and backup generators.</p>

<p>Half of the fun with my IIIa is just getting a good image. But I really would rather have bought a LTM, seduced by the pretty face of the Contax!</p><div></div>

<p>Michael, why suffer? Unscrew the cover screw which exposes another hidden screw that you're going to <strong>click counter clockwise,</strong> one at a time until your banding goes away. This will also help the other less critical high speeds by balancing them out too. </p><div></div>

<p>I use them both! I got my IIa to use the 50mm f/1.5 Sonar. Have a Nikor 85mm f/.2 for it as well.<br>

I use it with my Nikon SP 2005.</p>

<p>For Leica I use an M3, M4-P, IIIF, and IF. All are great cameras!</p>

<p>As already said, they are ergonomicallly opposite, if you have become comfortable with one, the other may feel just wrong. But as I'm used to cross-bred soviet design, i can't stand the Leica's diaphragm scale direction and Contax/Kiev's focussing direction.<br>

I hate how the long shutter speeds are generated on Kiev: at 1/2 second shutter speed it takes half a second for the first curtain to open and then half a second for the second curtain to close the film gate. Total time of exposure 1 second. No definite clicks to mark the beginning and the end of exposure. If you use flash with long speeds, you get always a delay equal to your shutter speed... Should I call it "middle curtain sync"?<br>

I like the offset tripod screw of the Leica more: I can place the tripod head directly under the shutter button and use it without cable release, even with flimsier tripods. </p>

<p>It was a matter of chance that, in the early 1960s when I began to learn the game, I found myself hitched to the local Leica Man. The local Contax Man was every bit as good a photographer, and I'd have been neither better nor worse if I'd been his disciple. I have used only Leicas (among RFDR cameras) but I respect Contaxes equally.</p>

<p>Great thread, thanks Raid. And Gus, thank you for the tech tip. I'll give it a try.</p>