michael_p2

Vision Graphics -54 Chandos St St Leonards NSW 2065

02 9902 4000 www.visiongraphics.com.au

I face a similar choice - which camera to take on a trekking

holiday. I have a Leica IIIa and a Contax IIIa. Both take great, but

very different, pictures. The Summar lens on the Leica is softer,

whereas the sharpness and contrast of the Sonnar 1.5 on the

Contax is almost too intense.

 

I've chosen to take the Leica for two reasons:

 

1. It is smaller and just feels more natural to use than the more

bulky Contax.

 

2. I feel the Summar 50mm lens is more suitable for portraits

than the Sonnar. I just prefer the look. (I'm taking a Yashica T4

with a Tessar 35mm lens for

wider angle stuff).

 

 

Yes, the Leica is a pain to cut film leaders for, and the viewfinder

isn't as great. But at the end of the day it is the pictures that count

- and I just prefer the feel of the Summar over the Sonnar.

 

Having said that, the Contax is still a great camera, and cheaper

than a Leica.

This guy took his Leica everywhere. Here's a typical excerpt, from an episode when he was

asked to guide two lost and out-of-fuel Mustangs down through thick cloud that "socked

in" their base at Kunming:

 

"We dived into the soup. I could see the big four blade prop of the P51 on our left. The

fighter was in very tight, literally between the ailerons and the fuselage... I had my trusty

Leica 35mm on my right knee [but] even with my past profession as a newspaper

photographer I completely forgot to take any pictures. It seemed more important to make

the letdown fast because if we screwed up there would be three aircraft lost not just two."

 

He missed the picture but saved two Mustang pilots and their valuable aircraft!

I don't know if anyone has come across this before but I have just come

across a great book of aviation pictures called "Flying the Hump" by Don

Downie. It describes the author's experiences in 1944-45 flying transport

aircraft between India and China, illustrated with colour pictures taken with

his Leica (presumably a III). As well as some great shots of classic aircraft

there are many pictures of everyday like in rural China and Indian cities such

as Calcutta, the Taj Mahal etc. It really is a testament to the quality of the

Leica - and Kodachrome. The pictures are so vivid it is hard to imagine they

were taken 60 years ago.

Don Downie had been a photographer with a Pasadena newspapaer before

the war and his good eye for a picture is evident.

 

Well worth a look for anyone with an interest in Leica photography.

A few days ago I mentioned the possibility of doing a head to head

comparison of several classic cameras/lenses. Well, after a weekend

bushwalking around Sydney Harbour (Manly to Spit), here is the

preliminary report:

 

Overall winner: Kiev 2 with a Sonnar 1.5 50mm lens (off a Contax

IIIa).

 

The results were simply the sharpest, had excellent contrast and the

colours really came out in deep tones. I can now pick out my Sonnar

pictures simply by the look of them.

 

Runner up: Same camera, with Jupiter 8 lens from 1952.

 

There wasn't much in it, the Jupiter was consistently very good but

the Sonnar definitely went the extra mile in clarity. But

considering I picked up another Jupiter 8 for ten bucks, this lens

really does give value for money!

 

In the 35mm category the Olympus XA won the right to go with me on

holiday to Tibet. It's main advantage was that it was so accesible

in my shirt pocket and took reasonably good pictures, with very good

colours. It was also incredibly easy to use in a hurry - unlike the

Rollei 35.

 

The 35mm Biogon clone Jupiter 12 lens understandably gave better

results than the XA, but it had the disadvantage of being part of

the Kiev kit and didn't lend itself to spontaneous pictures. And

fitting it to the camera was a worry because of the risk of

scratching the protuding rear element.

 

Special mention must also go to the Contessa 35, which produced

great results when I managed to guesss the exposure etc correctly.

Very sharp, and a pleasure to use - it fitted neatly into my jacket

pocket. But for some reason I often overexposed pictures with the

Contessa, and the pictures had perhaps too much contrast for my

liking.

 

Another camera that did much beter than expected was my $25 Vito B.

The few pictures that I took had a certain classic look about them,

and the quality was remarkably close to my Leica for such a simple

camera.

 

The big letdown of the day was a Rollei 35 SE with Sonnar lens.

Unlike its big brother from the Contax IIIa, the Rollei produced

indifferent results. Nothing specifically wrong with them, just

undistinguished. Maybe it's the great outdoors - I get great indoor

portraits from the Rollei, especially with the "down under" flash.

 

I also took along a Leica IIIa with a very soft Summar lens. As

expected this flared badly when shooting into the sun, but otherwise

took some of the best pictures of the day - completely different in

tone and character to the ultra sharp Sonnar. Just call it

the "Leica look" - the pictures have an almost 3D quality about them

and are somehow sharp and soft at the same time.

 

Final verdict: I'll be taking the XA and my Contax IIIa with the

Sonnar with me next month to Kham in Eastern Tibet.

 

In the meantime, I'll try and scan in some of the pictures when I

find the software that allows me to run a Canoscan on Windows XP!

 

cheers

 

Mike

I have a varied collection of Zeiss Ikon, Voigtlander and other

classic cameras that I would like to compare in a head to head

test. I?ve always enjoyed comparing the different pictures I?ve got

from each camera, but I?ve always been unsure whether my

preferences for particular pictures have more to do with the

composition /weather/light on the day - or even the developing -

rather than the lens. I?m now agonising over which two cameras

to take with me on an extended overseas trip, and thought I

would put them to the test by taking pictures of the same set

scenes (indoor/outdoor, low light/portraits/landscapes etc) with

the ?short list?. Before I go off and do this, (and use up a lot of

film) has anyone else done this kind of thing? Is there any

website where I can see head to head comparisons of pictures

taken with different lenses? I don?t want to reinvent the wheel.

 

By the way, the short list is:

 

Contax IIIa with Sonnar f1.5/50mm

Kiev 2 with Jupiter 8

Contessa 35

Rollei 35 with Sonnar

Voigtlander Vito B

Olympus XA

 

 

On previous trips I?ve taken the Olympus XA as my pocket

camera and a Leica M with a 50mm Summicron for ?serious?

pics.

I can't read Italian so can someone tell me anything about this black "Contax" III? It looks

like a Kiev to me.

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?

ViewItem&category=48550&item=3833224048&rd=1&tc=photo

MINT on e*ay stands for "Maybe Its Not Trash". Having bought a

"mint" Contax II with rust, a jammed shutter and non-working

rangefinder I would be very wary of anyone using that

description.

I've just realised what's been bothering me about a Contax IIIa I have just

acquired. After having used a Kiev copy for a long time I have discovered that

the focusing wheel on the Contax rotates in the opposite direction to the lens

barrel - counter intuitive you might say.

Is this a feature of all the old Contax cameras or perhaps just the post war

ones? Or do I have a strange camera?

I was pleasantly surprised by the stunning quality of the images I

got with a clunky Kiev 4 and Helios 103 lens that I picked up for

next to nothing on the bay. The crude workmanship on the

camera did not inspire confidence but I was taken aback by the

soft-but sharp quality of the pictures I took. Leica quality for the

price of a Leica lens cap!

Thanks Winifrid. The Second Hand Photo shop was good for a browse, but you can probably get better value on the bay. Classic Camera is no more but just round the corner there was a bike repair shop that had a nice old Voigtlander Prominent and a huge stash of overprived Rollei 35s. Just south of Ernst something Platz U bahn station. The flea markets are a better bet. Lots of old Agfas and folding Zeiss cameras.

 

cheers

Yeah yeah yeah. I read all the rave comments and picked up a Yashica Electro for A$23. The battery cost me more than that! The pictures are occasionally brilliant but the camera is just so clunky and the tiny diamond rangefinder is terrible. Took it on a recent European holiday and found I used my Olympus XA for the best street shots - just so much more accesible. And for family photos the clunky Yashica is blown away by the equally brick-like Kiev 4 with a Helios 1.5 lens. It's the only lens I have ever known to come close to my late great Summicron.

I'm travelling to Berlin next month and was just wondering if there were any camera

dealers there who specialise in used/classic cameras?

Apologies if this has alerady been answered - but is it possible to

use old Conatax lenses on relatively new (1970s) Kiev cameras?

I have a 1978 Kiev 4 and am considering buying a 1.5 Sonnar for it.

Will it fit?

I am now the proud owner of a Zeiss Contessa (folding, Synchro Compur). Is there

anywhere I can find instruction or service manuals for this fine piece of German

craftsmanship? And are there any other hints that users can give me?

 

Thanks

 

Mike