Replacement for a Contax 167 MT?

[daniel rufer]

<p>Hello everybody<br>

My parents-in-law used a Contax 167MT for probably as long as the camera exists. Unfortunately the camera broke due to a fall and there appear to be broken parts (rattling of loose bits inside the camera) affecting the shutter and winding mechanism. A local camera repair shop expressed little hope of fixing it for less than I would have to spend for a "new" second-hand one.<br>

So, looking to get them a replacement, I realized that the following points are important:</p>

<ul>

<li>as identical as possible in terms of operation! This is crucial. Being well in their seventies, they still enjoy taking pictures, but might have a rather hard time learning how to operate a camera "with far to many buttons" (as they refer to my DSLR :)</li>

<li>Not much heavier than the 167MT </li>

<li>Compatibility with their lenses, flash etc.</li>

</ul>

<p>The obvious choice would be to get them another 167MT. But then I saw that models like the Aria, NX or RTS II / III might be alternatives (based on their weight and that they look similar, I know that's hardly an argument, but I really know nothing about Contax). If there was a body that meets the criteria above, it might facilitate finding a replacement (perhaps even a better one).<br>

So my question goes to people that have experience with the 167MT and other Contax bodies: If I need a body that requires almost no re-learning / adjusting in terms of operation, what are my options?</p>

<p>Thank you all in advance!</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

I suspect a direct replacement is your best bet to satisfy all parties. In fact recommended if possible.

 

The later RTSs are likely (compatively) expensive. I think ?? the Aria is another lens mount altogether as it's newer.

 

You may want to consider a hold-over solution using aYashica body as they are compatible with the lenses.

 

A Yashica FX-3 can be had rather cheaply and may be lighter. The Contax/Yashica mount is the same for both.

 

Other considerations might be the 159 and the 139Q. If you have MM lens they are supported generally using any of these models. The RTS II, RX, ST, and the AX will also, but they haven't dropped so much in cost/value.

 

Meanwhile get them a Yashica FX? ..then hunt down a 167 that fits their pocketbook? Or perhaps they will be satisfied with the Yashica!??

[alex macphee]

<p>The NX is a non-starter for your purposes, if your in-laws intend to use their existing lens collection, as it is a different fit from the CY bayonet of the 167MT, being the autofocus mount of Contax.</p>

<p>I don't have an Aria, though I know it is well regarded by Contaxians, however, I don't think it would pose much of a re-learning problem, considering that the 167MT itself has a relatively unusual design for controlling shutter speed and film speed, by means of that distinctive slider control on the right of the top plate. Some people don't like it, but I do. If your in-laws can work a 167MT, they can work an Aria or any similar SLR in the range.</p>

<p>I've lent my 167MT to my brother, so I can't dig it out and compare it to my RTS (1) or my RX for size or ergonomics, but the RTS and RX bodies are fetching rather more than the 167MT these days. The 159 is small and light, and I like it a lot. It has a fairly traditional layout, and won't pose any problems for getting accustomed to. The 167 has a built-in motor for wind and rewind, the 159 is lever wind and manual rewind. However, there is an autowinder (I think it's the W7), which is good, and unlike some autowinders, makes the camera sit even better in the hands. Some people have reported electronics reliability problems with some 159's, but I've had mine in regular use for many, many years, with no problem whatsoever.</p>

<p>Chuck's suggestion of a Yashica FX-3 is perfectly sensible, and I'd second it, at least as a stop-gap. They are reliable, fully mechanical, with a good reputation for durability. I have two, and always take one of them no matter which of my Contaxes is my 'main' camera for the day. Note that you can't fit a winder to the FX-3 ; it really is a basic camera, with no automation of any kind. I'm not sure what Chuck means with the Aria being "another lens mount altogether", as it's a CY bayonet. I wonder if Chuck is thinking of the AF mount of the N range.</p>

<p>My 167MT developed a fault a couple of years ago. I liked it enough to get it repaired, even though I could have got a 'new' old one for little more. I had the security of knowing it had been properly serviced by a reliable camera repair firm, and the repair was warranted.</p>

[k5083]

Get another 167MT. They are cheap. The controls are not like earlier Contaxes -- this camera was when Contax got sucked into the no-dial trend started by the Maxxum where you change speeds with buttons. It is harder to use than the 159MM but if they're used to it and don't want to relearn, they should just stick with it. Whatever you do, don't go lower than the 159 because the 137s and 139 have no program modes. I can't speak to whether a newer Contax might work because I don't own any newer -- never felt the need to.

[chuck_foreman1]

Thanks for the clarification Alex. I'm just showing my ignorance! The Aria and the N are suffciently modern nenough that I don't know them at all, merely in title only. That was the question marks ??

mumblin' there!

I'm personally patiently waiting for an RX !

[analog contax-zeiss enthus]

<p>Just get them another 167MT through eBay or something. They know the camera inside-out, so no learning curve. I once did this with a Minolta SRT101b for my dad (me thinks, not exactly sure 'bout the type): he was absolutely estatic to get his trusted camera back after his original got nicked. Just bide your time, it should be relatively cheap (<$200? Hang out @ ebay's for a while, a pattern will emerge). If you can't get it, or can't wait, I'd second the Yashica suggestions already made. If you want to move forward in time, the Aria (same mount, btw, so no worries here) would give them lots of pleasure as well, also no heavy learning curve, but you can probably get two very good 167MT's for the price of one Aria (if not better) so why bother. All other options are either incompatible (N, NX different mout), or too heavy/complicated (RTS, AX etcetera), or too expensive (or all of the above). Whatever you do, DON'T settle for anything other than a replacement C/Y!<br>

Good luck!<br>

P.S. @Chuck: owning two RX's: keep up that patience, it's worth it ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>From the same period, or about, are the Contax 159 and 137. The latter is a great camera. Simple and efective. Manual exposure cameras, like the 139 Quartz are nice, but not what they need.</p>

[donnie_strickland]

<p>I have traveled this road several times for friends and family, and in my opinion it is by far simplest and easiest to do a straight replacement. By and large, they don't want to learn to use something even slightly unfamiliar; they don't want something better; all they want is what they <strong>know</strong>.</p>

<p>Watch eBay for one in good condition, with a guarantee, from a reliable seller. Or, <a href="http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=CX020000045000&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=searchproducts&item=0&ActivateTOC2=false&ID=&BC=CX&BCC=1&CC=2&CCC=1&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=">click here</a> to see a 167MT at KEH.com in excellent condition for $109, guaranteed (KEH's "excellent" is really like new).</p>

[alex macphee]

<p>I'm certainly one of those who'd support the idea of getting another 167, for idiosyncratic as it may be, it's still a fine camera. In fact, get another one is exactly what I did. My first was damaged beyond repair by battery leakage ; the battery company honoured its guarantee to replace items damaged by its batteries, and with the cheque I bought another 167.</p>

<p>Chuck, the RX is well worth seeking out. Go for it! It is the best camera I have ever used, bar none, and though I haven't used every SLR in the world, I've handled many, and nothing comes close. I know there are other cameras just as well made, rightly held in high regard, but none has fitted my hands better than the RX. There is an RX2, which is identical with the exception that it doesn't have the electronic focus confimation in the viewfinder. I think that model was just Kyocera using up existing production line stock without the chip to control the focus confirmation, stocks of which had dried up and were no longer being made.</p>

[george_daneliya]

<p>I want to give another vote for RX or RX2. A wonderful camera with a VERY quiet shutter and motor rewind, just excellent viefinder with built in diopter correction, custom functions, long live battery. And it is not so expensive - just look keh. </p>

[daniel rufer]

<p>Wow! Thanks a lot for all the great answers!<br>

I do agree that a straight replacement is probably the best solution. I can always look on eBay for a 167MT, but we have a couple of photography fairs / second-hand markets / yard sales coming up in the next 2 months here in Switzerland, and I wanted to know about some alternatives in case I trip over something on one of these.<br>

Donnie: Thanks for the link, I have not yet looked on the US market, but that offer sure looks good. If I don't find anything locally (hands-on purchase), I guess that might be the way to go.<br>

So I will also keep an eye out for (cheap) Arias or 159s as well as look at Yashica FX-3s (I will take along the defective 167MT to compare the "handling").<br>

These infos really help me widen the search, and having more alternatives increases the chance of finding something for a fair price (this kind of equipment is rather expensive over here in Europe).</p>

<p>Again, thank you all for the swift and excellent responses!<br>

Daniel</p>

[steven_moseley1]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I am a Contax user still. I have used all the Contax 35mm SLR's. The answer is easy. Either another 167MT...they are dirt cheap now, or my favourite Contax of all, the Aria...however the Aria will cost about double the 167MT price.</p>

<p>Do not buy the RX, RX2 or ST, they are lovely, BUT they are far heavier AND much bulkier than both the 167 & Aria....they also have worse viewfinders, with a lower magnification and a tunnel like effect compared to the better viewfinders in both the 167MT and the Aria.</p>

<p>cheers Steve.M.</p>

[marbing]

I still have my 167MT and I am sorry to say that it doesn't get a workout as often as it should. This is not that it is broken but because I did get an RX body and find it to be an excellent replacement. Hoever, your posting has inspired me to get the 167 out of mothballs and see what the developing spring weather has to offer.. In response to your uestion, I would second the suggestions of others in encouraging you to look for a replacement 167MT or consider the RX.

[don_riley]

<p>This may be too late for your needs, but I have<br>

two identical Contax 167 MT SLR cameras that I purchased I believe<br /> around 1990. I have receipts for the two Tamron lenses dated July<br /> 1990, but no receipts for the cameras - which were purchased about<br /> the same time or earlier. I have the serial numbers for the cameras which<br /> should help identify.<br /> <br /> 2 - Contax 167 MT Ser. Nos. 023443 & 030269<br /> Lenses:<br /> 2 - Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 lens Ser. Nos. 6850080 & 6850068<br /> 1 - Tamron f:4-5.6 70-210mm Zoom lens Ser. No. 58A0001740<br /> 1 - Tamron f:3.5-4.5 28-70mm Zoom lens Ser. No. 59A0013143<br /> 2 - Tamron Adaptall 2 Y/C mounting adapters for Contax (MT Contax MM)<br /> <br /> They were lightly used. I had bought them for a research project on<br /> stereo imaging that required two matched cameras. They have not been<br /> used since about 1996; I've kept them protected. So they're in very<br /> pristine condition.<br /></p>

 

[daniel rufer]

<p>Hello Don<br>

I did indeed find a replacement 167MT for them last summer, and they are happy with it. It was a second-hand body from KEH in EX+ condition for a really acceptable price.<br>

But thanks a lot anyway for thinking about my post and letting me know! I wish you good luck selling them; shouldn't be too hard if they are in such a good condition.</p>

<p>Best wishes and all the best for 2010,<br>

Daniel</p>