Pictures with old cameras (5): the Contax 139

[heqm]

<p>I admit there is some doubt as to whether this is a "Classic Manual Camera" in the strictest sense. It's the most sophisticated one I've ever owned; has coupled through-the-lens aperture-priority metering; and indeed, like my <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00dKa1">Mamiya 645,</a> its shutter is electronic: without a battery it doesn't work. On the other hand it has no autofocus, program mode, plastic body or LCD display, so there's at least another generation of film cameras between it and the digital revolution. I also consider it a representative of the classic, ubiquitous 35mm SLR, which reigned supreme for the last third of the 20th century.<br>

<br />Among that genus it is on the small and quiet end, giving an impression of precision rather than the war-correspondent ruggedness of (say) the Nikon F2. That said, I have taken it to some inhospitable places (the bilge of a patrol boat in a Bahrain summer) without requiring any significant repair. (The leatherette has been replaced twice and is showing its age again, but that's cosmetic.)</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>The top panel has controls in a rational an usable arrangement: rewind crank/shutter speed dial (with a button to get it off "automatic"); hot shoe, exposure compensation; ASA setting dial; film advance lever next to the frame counter (which resets automatically when the back is opened, and counts <em>up</em>). At least, it all seems rational to me, having used it for over thirty years. (You do have to remember to remove the exposure compensation when you're done, or your contact sheets will show a distinct two-tone effect.)</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>By the time I'd been using the M645 for a couple of years I had realized the main drawback: it's big. The brick and its accessories would go a long way toward filling up a carry-on bag, an important point if you're moving overseas and back, as I did several times. And it's heavy. Also, there were some emulsions made in 35mm but not in 120. So I went looking for a 35mm camera.<br>

I wound up talking to Bill Landon, a semi-pro working mostly in large format panoramas. (His small camera negative was a foot wide and four feet long.) He suggested the Contax at once, because of its Zeiss lenses: unsurpassed, in his opinion. I can't claim I've ever tested them critically, but any limitations on sharpness have always been the grain of the film, subject motion, focus error or (most often) camera shake.</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>I bought the camera with the standard 50mm and soon added the 135. Then, because at sea you are always either far away from your subject (if it's not on your ship) or close to it (if it is), I added the 200 and the 25. The 200 is about as long a lens as I can manage hand-held, and the 25 is as wide as you can get before you get a fisheye effect I don't care for. In those days, you didn't get a zoom if you wanted the best in lens quality (which was the point in buying the Contax/Zeiss in the first place). It does get inconvenient to be always changing lenses, however, and the leather pouches these came in are just not made for carrying around at the ready. (They seem more suited to holding florins or guilders at the belt of a Medieval merchant.) I keep them in the knapsack and generally just shoot with one at a time, adjusting my eye to the to focal length in use.</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>The flash unit mates with the hot shoe and, using a though-the-lens sensor, adjusts the output as necessary, a bit of magic I very much appreciate (anyone remember guide numbers?). It has a diffuser attachment, though I generally just mount a handkerchief over the whole thing with a rubber band. That said, I rarely take flash pictures, and a studio photographer might cringe at my ideas.<br>

<br />This is by far the easiest camera to use among my dozen or so, and most reliable at turning in good results. Here are a couple of recent shots, wandering around Alexandria on a bright day, using the telephotos.</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>There's a lot of architecture tucked away overhead, where most people don't see it, and sometimes it takes telephotos to bring it out. </p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>And, just to show that I sometimes actually shoot color, something from last spring.</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>Clearly, I need to work on my tabletop product photography and negative scanning. But the Contax is great.<br>

Next up: my two favorite cameras, both of which are certainly classics. When I get around to posting again.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Definitely a CMC, <strong>Alan</strong>; over the years there have been many articles on the forum featuring cameras that need batteries to function, so that's no big deal and, as you've pointed out, you have full manual options for operating the Contax 139. Great camera, from any point of view, and the lenses are certainly up with the best. I use an RTS every now and then with the 50/1.7 Planar and it really is an exceptional lens, while your f/1.4 version is rumoured to be slightly better. Thanks for a really interesting write-up and some fine images both of and from the camera. I'm looking forward to your mysterious "next up"...</p>

[Mike Gammill]

Great work. I have a 137, but the shutter has "curtain bounce" and the covering is peeling. A number of years back I

bought a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 body so the 50mm CZ Planar would have a home.

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Classic enough for me Alan! Never have owned a Japanese Contax, but have often admired them, and I guess I was too tied up with Nikon and Canon lenses to worry about a new system.<br>

Like your shots, with really nice tones in the B&W. I actually have the 50mm 1.4 Planar in Rollei QBM mount, the 200mm Tele Tessar too...both wonderful things.<br>

Thanks for showing us this camera, and we look forward to the next installment!</p>

[bgussin]

<p>I know it's not important to the quality of the photos as to how the camera looks, but this camera and kit just look "right" to me. The kit and your photos have goosed my CMC gland, so it counts as a Classic Manual Camera in my book.</p>

[allen_gross]

Mike:What is "curtain bounce?" I also have a 137, and have stopped using it because too many shots on a roll are out of

focus for no reason. If this is due to curtain bounce is there anything to rcorrect this?

I use my Yashica FX-D quartz instead but miss the wonderfully bright 137 viewfinder.