I'm in need of those experienced with shooting Contax II

[mike_doukas]

<p>I'm currently doing a forensic study of Robert Capa's D Day photographs shot with a Contax II. I've exhausted my attempts to find one quickly, or speak to those with actual hands on experience.<br>

If you have a Contax II and have actually shot with it, I'd appreciate your feedback pertaining to the following questions:</p>

<ol>

<li>Do you find the exposed image area is slightly larger than a Nikon F2?</li>

<li>Have you noticed any variation in the location of the image with different rolls in relation to the sprocket area, so much that the image overlaps the sprocket holes?</li>

<li>Have you ever experienced problems with the film pressure plate not holding the film flat?</li>

</ol>

<p>Please forward this to anyone you might know whom has or had this product line of old.<br>

Many thanks!</p>

[Rick_van_Nooij]

<p>1. Don't know, don't own an F2.<br>

<br />2. If the film take-up gear isn't lubricated properly you'll have problem with frame-spacing. One of my Contax II cameras has excessive space between frames. <br />My other Contax II and Contax III both have very consistant frame-spacing<br>

<br />3. No.</p>

[mike_doukas]

<p>Many thanks Rick,<br>

What about image overlap onto the sprocket holes? I've noticed some variation, a drift of the film, but not as much as can be seen in his D Day roll.</p>

<p>I've attached snippets of the top and bottom of a frame. Sorry, I didn't feel comfortable pushing copyright laws beyond this "fair use" with a full image. The writer has no budget for my time or licensing fees from magnum.<br>

<img src="http://s30.postimg.org/e6hbfja0x/Capa_top.jpg" alt="" /> <br>

<img src="http://s15.postimg.org/j8bti40xn/Capa_bottom.jpg" alt="" width="566" height="138" /><br>

Have you ever experienced this type of overlap?</p>

[christopher_junker1]

<p>Same answers as Rick van Nooij. Although the Contax between frame spacing appears a litle wider than from my Leica IIIc, it is consistent and I've never had a spacing or winding problem. I can't speak to image size variation as I only use a Sonnar 50 with mine.</p>

[SCL]

<p>In looking at the picture, I remembered seeing something similar in some shots taken with a Leica screw mount camera which didn't have the leader properly trimmed....the film hadn't properly seated in the gate, but the film wound on and shutter operated anyway, leaving the film askew, but exposed anyway.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Stephen, the image going into the sprocket area is true of all Leicas up to the IIIc when used with any film cassette other than the one made for them. The newer cassettes are 2.2mm shorter. Nothing to do with leader trimming.</p>

[mike_doukas]

<p>Many thanks guys. I checked out a Leica forum on another site which luckily had several photos showing me the range of possible float that the early Leicas suffered with 135 cartridge film. I have to assume that the Contax II is similar enough in design that there could very well be a good possibility that the film might float up and down when 135 cartridges are in use. Even occasionally overlapping the sprocket hole area. This was very helpful.</p>

<p>Considering Capa used either Super-X or Super-XX 135 cartridge film on this shoot, and limited contact sheets are available for me to view, I'll consider float variances normal. It seems even his "Mexican Briefcase" series that used 35mm spool film with a Leica, that film being designed designed for the cameras of the day (Leica & Contax), showed a little float between the sprocket holes. They never overlapped, but they came close to touching the sprocket holes at times.</p>

<p>I can say with relative certainty that based on overlaying matched image frames, the German Contax II image area is slightly larger than the Japanese Nikon F2 series. The F2, designed for 135 cartridges exhibits image float, too.</p>

<p>I'm curious if early Leicas also had a special template for cutting leaders on 135 cartridges the same as I've read in updated Contax II manuals. The spool film had a slightly different leader that was made for the take up spool that would be recycled with that type of film as there was no rewinding needed with the paperbacked film spools in the 1930s. The spool film was comparable to the 120 film of today, only in 35mm format.</p>

<p>If anyone has more to add, I'll continue to monitor this post.<br>

With appreciation,<br>

Mike </p>

[Troll]

<p>Makes me wonder if he was using a Leica that day.<br>

One other unlikely but possible explanation was that in those days, some 35mm film came precut with Leica's long leaders, which in a hurry could have been loaded crooked in his Contax.<br>

Thanks for asking the question.</p>

[mike_doukas]

<p>Bill,</p>

<p>Capa was definitely using a Contax II for the actual landing shots. There's enough documentation in existence--including hand written film roll notes--to prove that. He was actually carrying 2 Contax II's and a Rollei TLR at the time.</p>

<p>His time with Leicas preceded WWII, the famous "Mexican Suitcase" shots from the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s best defining his time with Leicas. There's a documentary by that name available on Netflix if you're interested. I'm watching it while I compile my research. It's pretty neat.</p>

<p>Assuming Contax and Leica designs were interchangeable as my research on the Contax II camera and film of the day is showing, there does seem to be a need to recut the leader for the take-up spools that were designed specifically for the cameras. That's what I'm hoping a lead, pardon the pun, to an online copy of a Leica owners manual circa 1930-40 would show. It would tie in what I've now seen with Leica's to Capa's Contax II.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Mukul - thanks for the clarification.</p>

<p>Steve</p>

[Troll]

<p>IIIf and IIIg Leicas have a little tab on the bottom plate to push the film more firmly into place, just to make sure it doesn't happen.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>There was no need to cut the leaders on factory loaded film in that era. The current short leader didn't happen until the early 1980's. The only time one used the leader trimmer then was when bulk loading from long rolls.</p>

 

[mukul_dube]

<p>When I bought factory packed rolls in England in the mid 1970s, I would be asked if I wanted a long leader or a short one.</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>I haven't researched the Magnum Photography site recently to see if all of the top 2.000 or so of Cartier-Bresson's photos are still posted; probably they are not, but you're the researcher, and if they're not there, they may be available elsewhere for inspection, even on-line as they (formerly) were for me.</p>

<p>It was not common, but it happened that occasionally Cartier-Bresson in using his Leica III (?) would misload his film and have the image overlap the sprocket holes. His remedy was 'no remedy at all'. He absolutely insisted any image that showed sprocket holes being reproduced be reproduced showing full or partial sprocket holes and all.</p>

<p>Now, he didn't absolutely adhere to his famous 'no crop' dictum. In the '40s, when he shot for a fashion magazine in the U.S., his insistence on 'no crop' apparently was the subject of heated arguments he sometimes lost,, and his famous 'Life Magazine' cover showing his trip into Russia, showing street life in Russia (Moscow from memory) was overprinted with the magazine's logo right on the photo, as was the magazine's tradition, and appeared also to violate his ''no crop' dictum. <br /> On the other hand 'Cover of Life' for such an important story and issue may have justified some flexibility in that dictum.<br /> I suggest you look in Cartier-Bresson's earlier captures for good examples of image/sprocket overlap.<br /> However, don't confine your search to early captures when he surely used only a Leica III; look at later captures too.<br /> My recollection from reading his unauthorized (but 'told to') biography and other sources is that prior to the outbreak of hostilities in France in WWII, he took scissors and cut the clear area from around each capture he sought to keep, then buried images only with no clear frame (making printing those photos a horror later) or put them in a safe deposit box depending on your source, discarding the rest of the captures and the surplus film cuttings, apparently -- a story he told many times prior to his death not so long ago.</p>

<p>However, any Cartier-Bresson story should be taken with a grain of salt . . . . some of the things he repeated as 'truth' can be shown to be apocrypha, perhaps his ultimate 'jest' on those who took him and his work too seriously . . . . such as the claim he couldn't see the famous railroad yard shot with the man jumping from a ladder over a puddle. He had been there the day before when the scene was repeated, waited the following day, and although he could NOT see through the viewfinder which was blocked, he could look OVER the camera, jammed in the fence, to see everything without using the viewfinder, but he often insisted to neophytes and others who took him far too seriously that that famous photo somehow mysteriously found him and he couldn't even see what he was taking.<br>

<br /> Ha!</p>

<p>My vague recollection from going through every Cartier-Bresson capture that was shown at the time on the Magnum photography agency web site before his death was twofold: <br /> <br /> (1) I was fascinated by how many utterly lousy photos he actually took among the superb ones that made his career, and <br>

(2) Surprised at the number of sprocket/frame overlap photos, even though the absolute number was not large. My now-infirm recollection is that some of these sprocket/frame overlap photos were in groups or had other indicia of being surrounded by film rather than being images 'cut' as he allegedly did with his pre WWII entire body of work. <br>

Depending on when HCB switched from a Leica III series camera (he is on record as having at least as many as three Leicas around his neck at one time, trekking in Asia for Magnum after the War), one might be able to find evidence that Cartier-Bresson also had at one time or another an image/sprocket overlap problem not only following the war, but possibly on a post-III Leica which might add another flavor to your study.<br>

I have owned more than one III series Leica, and some photos from them are on display in my portfolio, and occasionally I would suffer image/sprocket overlap problems through my own lack of care, and to find those frames was disheartening (I hadn't met or heard of Cartier[-Bresson then, and didn't learn of the image/sprocket overlap issue until HCB was into his '90s.<br>

I don't know absolutely the answers to your questions or others I suggest, but share my knowledge with you since you are researching a very particular subject, and the answers to what happened in Cartier-Bresson's camera(s) [who after a certain date in the '30s is believed to have shot solely with Leicas] may shed light on your issue with Capa and his Contax.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

[Troll]

<p>I just had a look at my Leica A instruction booklet, and don't see anything that might help you.</p>

[ray .]

Mike, search on netflix for 'The Mexican Suitcase' brings up 'The Suitcase' and 'The Mexican'. No

'Mexican Suitcase'. Also nothing listed for Robert Capa.

[Rick_van_Nooij]

<p>Go on Amazon.com and do the same search Ray. ;)<br /><br />"The Mexican Suitcase" is a great set of books with work from Capa, Taro and ..euh...Douglas(?) work during the Spanish Civil War.</p>

[mike_doukas]

<p>Ray, I just double checked Netflix and remember I had to type in the entire title for it to show up. I got those titles at first myself. Trisha Ziff is the director.</p>

<p>@all, thanks, I've pretty much proven what I needed regarding image float into the sprocket area. I'm assuming Contax II's will exhibit the same drift into the image area as Leicas if modifications aren't made to the take up area. Appreciate the input!</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>With Leicas -- a IIIc and a IIIa -- I found the best solution to be one suggested by another member of RFF: a weak spring between the film cassette and the bottom plate of the camera.</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>I have used the domed head of an upholstery nail (sans nail), dome first to the centre of the cassette just before putting the base back on, with IIIA. I don't recall having a problem with later cameras. </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>The IIIf was the first Leica which did not have this problem.<br />http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-23427.html</p>

[furcafe]

<p>1. Never noticed a difference. A Nikon F is probably a better comparison camera as it loads just like the Nikon rangefinders, which loads almost identically to the Contax (only difference is 1 locking key rather than 2).</p>

<p>2. Unlike the screw mount Leicas like my IIIc, I've never had the cartridge sit low enough that the image area goes into the sprockets using a 50mm lens. It is possible to overlap adjoining frames accidentally, e.g., when the shutter is wound just enough to fire, but not quite fully wound (I would think this would be more likely w/slow speeds which require more winding), if there's a problem w/the transport mechanism, or if the film was improperly loaded & jams up.</p>

<p>3. Not that I know of.</p>

 

<blockquote><ol>

<li>Do you find the exposed image area is slightly larger than a Nikon F2?</li>

<li>Have you noticed any variation in the location of the image with different rolls in relation to the sprocket area, so much that the image overlaps the sprocket holes?</li>

<li>Have you ever experienced problems with the film pressure plate not holding the film flat?</li>

</ol></blockquote>