mike_elek

OK, comparison time.

 

First, IIa vs. II. IIa on the left and III on the right.<div></div>

When you think of it, they should actually encourage more photography, so if something does happen there would be a greater chance of catching the idiot's image on camera. Instead, they'll have to rely on someone's notoriously poor memory of a fleeting glimpse of some suspicious person.

The story of the Contax IIa is an interesting one. The fact that this camera saw the light of day was quite a feat, considering the fact that a great part of Zeiss Ikon 35mm camera development was destroyed during the WWII bombing of Dresden. Leica, on the other hand, wasn't firebombed, which of course gave it an advantage when hostilities ended.

 

Couple that with the fact that Zeiss Ikon's Jena plant and personnel were packed up and sent to the Ukraine to produce the Kiev.

 

The Contax IIa wasn't introduced until 1951 -- six years after the war. Although it shares the Contax name, it's completely different -- from a mechanical standpoint -- from the Contax II. The two cameras share no parts. That is, you can't take any part from a II and put it into a IIa.

 

In many ways, the Contax IIa (and Zeiss Ikon) could be seen as the underdog, and maybe that explains why I rather like this camera. Also, it just feels right. I like the smaller body, and I've tuned up all of my "a" models so that focusing is silky smooth.

 

It would always be my "deserted island" camera (if you were on an island, and you could only have one camera ... that question).

That looks like a nice leather kit. I guess you're supposed to trim around the Zeiss Ikon logo, if you want to keep it.

<rant-on>"Minty" -- what exactly does that mean? It has a fresh scent? It's mint-like? Although it pre-exists eBay, it's become associated with the site -- much derided here because of its misuse and the fact that it is applied widely by sellers to anything that doesn't have too many dents or visible rust (i.e., "I don't know nuttin' about cameras ...").<rant-off>

 

Leica has been firmly a collectible for some time -- if you ever visit Japan, you can see displays that are simply put obsessive. They're museum pieces that never get used, which is a real shame. Look at the Leica forum here, and there are many discussions about 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation lenses with claimed differences between them that are missed by the average hack like me.

 

The Contax II had many advantages over the screw-mount Leicas (unified viewfinder, better lenses, easier loading, no need to trim the leader, longer rangefinder baselength, no worries about burning holes in the shutter curtain to name a few). However, the Leica is more refined. Sit a Contax II side by side with a Leica IIIf, and you'll be impressed by the fit and finish of the Leica. The small body and its collapsible Elmar or Summitar tucks neatly into the pocket of a jacket, and you can really feel the difference compared with the Contax II, which now feels big and somewhat clunky.

 

The M is a great camera, and if you've ever held one, you can tell that it's quality through and through. It continues the precision of the screw-mount cameras with the tradeoff of a larger body.

 

There's much debate about the Contax IIa -- whether it's an improvement over the II. It's a smaller camera, that's for sure, but you do lose some of the rangefinder baselength, and of course it won't take the prewar Biogon. The rangefinder is said to be less bulletproof than the II, although I haven't found that to be the case. That is, mine has been very reliable through heavy (not hard) use.

 

The IIa chrome certainly is much better than the II, and the use of a nylon cord gives a lot fewer problems than the rayon (?) straps. Classic camera author Ivor Mantanle said the Contax shutter works best with constant use, and I agree with him.

 

The postwar lenses are excellent, improving on the prewar lenses, which if in good condition (not scratched) are still world class. Carl Zeiss hasn't been the type of company to publicize minor changes to lenses. There are several versions of the Sonnar, but by and large we all lump them into four categories: prewar and postwar Jena, Zeiss-Opton and Carl Zeiss. That's about it, and even then there's not been much debate whether the Zeiss-Opton lenses out- or underperform the Carl Zeiss lenses. Some claim the East German Jena lenses are optically superior to the West German lenses.

 

Zeiss Ikon chose not to respond to the M, instead focusing its efforts on the Contarex. Did Zeiss Ikon kill off the Contax because of the M? It probably played a role, but Zeiss Ikon's problems were many.

 

By the way, the value in a Contax is using it and seeing the results of the excellent line of lenses. Really. (Same applies to a Leica ... and others).

> The Camera looks almost new and the owner said he took a maximum of 10 shots.

 

Maybe he meant 10,000 shots.

I bought some leather from cameraleather.com for my user Contax. It's pretty nice stuff, and I've been very pleased with it.

In general, if it's stuttering on the slow speeds, the only thing that will correct this is to clean it or flush it. The other way to use slow speeds is to put the camera on a tripod, use the B speed with a cable release.

It appears that this collar is threaded onto the lens barrel. If that is the case, the you will need to rotate this small collar during the collimation process.

 

When collimating the lens, you'll need to fully tighten each time you check. If it's off, you'll need to unscrew the lens entirely, rotate the collar backward or forward, reassemble and recheck. Then do it over and over again until the lens is correctly collimated.

 

If the collar is simply that (that is, it isn't threaded onto the barrel), then be aware that the prewar Zeiss Sonnar used a series of small foil spacers to set infinity focus. So the big collar would get it close, and then anywhere from one to five or more thin foil spacers were placed on top of the collar for minute adjustments. Then to lock the lens into place, there was a screw inserted into the base of the lens.

 

Perhaps the Soviet lens uses something similar. Or perhaps "in the neighborhood" was good enough.

The chrome is very smooth under your red dot. If possible, rough up the surface a little bit with a tiny piece of sandpaper. It will make the surface better for the crayon.

Santiago -- two ways to "fix" this.

 

1) Red crayon or china marker. Rub it back and forth and wipe off the excess.

 

2) Small bottle of red paint for models and a very thin camel's hair brush.

 

I think I've used both approaches and haven't had any problems when mounting a 35mm Biogon.

Oh, the Werra. Yes, the only 35mm camera to bear the Carl Zeiss name. That, of course, will change in August.

So, how are things going with the Baby Rollei? Have you gotten any film for it yet?

With all of the Ikontas, you need to manually tension the shutter. That small plunger is only for releasing the shutter.

 

The red window is your frame counter. Wind the film until the number appears. Take your photo and wind on to the next frame. You should get 8 frames per roll.

Also include the little Olumpus 35RC, although its f/2.8 is slower. Konica, Canon and Minolta, I believe, also made cameras that might fit the bill.

 

Reaching back a bit further is the Retina IIS with its excellent f/2.8 Xenar, although it's somewhat larger than some of the 1970s Japanese RFs. And then reaching back in further is what many consider one of the greatest 35mm fixed-lens RFs: the Retina IIa.

 

But much depends on what your definition is of inexpensive: less than $25? $35? $50?

Definitely test the camera. And shoot in a variety of lighting conditions. The outdoor shots should be the most telling. If possible, shoot with another camera at the same time so you can make comparisons later.

 

Personally, there are enough of these cameras available that you shouldn't buy one with a scratched lens.

 

I think what you'll see is some image degradation -- either in oversall softness or flare around the central part of the image.

Sometimes you want a specific look to a photo. And the computer comes in very handy in being able to achieve that look. I've also found a computer works very well for older negatives that have been mishandled.

I really like Kodak's Portra series, although I prefer the 160 speed. I haven't worked as much with the 400 series, although I would expect performance to be similar. In general, neutral colors with very nice skin tones -- might not be an issue with the SWC.

 

For b/w, good old Tri-X and HP5 -- both give very predictable results with good versatility. Agfapan APX 400 is a nice film, although I like the look of the 100 film better.

 

Also, there is Kodak's C-41 b/w film -- not sure what they're calling it these days, but it's a nice film though a bit low in contrast, I've felt. I haven't worked with any of Ilford's C-41 films.

Rafal, you're being too kind! Some Rolleiflex prices are ridiculous because they've now entered the "collectible" category. And that's especially true of the so-called white face model, as well as the T, which in use isn't nearly as convenient as an Automat.

 

My favorite 120 camera is an old folder with a Tessar lens. Extremely sharp, very lightweight, very versatile and never fails.

I recall reading that with this camera you aren't supposed to use alkalines or regular manganese cells, so possibly the NiCAD warning referred to using only rechargeables.

 

In some instances (hand tools, for example), NiCADs often worked better becuase they can handle the heavier electrical current requirements under load than NiMH, but possibly that has changed now as well.

 

For a motor driven camera, I would think that the NiMH cells would be an even better alternative than the NiCADs because of the higher MaH ratings. Both AA cells deliver roughly the same voltage (1.25V-1.3V) over the life of the charge.

Lens names meant nothing to Kodak. They threw names around like candy. Ektar was slapped on all kinds of lenses, from rebadged Xenars to simpler camera to plastic point and shoots. I wonder what the Anastar was based on. The on my Pony 35 seems to be a Tessar type.

I haven't had any problems with any RadioShack rechargeables since the early 1980s, beginning with NiCADs and extending to their NiMH cells.

The URL autoformatter is including the ")" in the Web address that I gave. Simply remove the ")" and hit "ENTER"

Is that a coated Tessar? With a red T. With the Rolleiflex Automat, you must select the 500 speed before the shutter is tensioned. And you must turn the wheel extra hard to select it, because it engages a very thick coiled spring.

 

So with the shutter not cocked, try to turn the wheel a bit and see if you can see the edge of 500. A Synchro-Compur should have a top speed of 500.

 

See this page (http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/tlr/index.htm) for more information about dating your Rolleiflex.

Hey Mike, very nice work. I see that you've really become quite proficient and comfortable with te Contax II.