Contax, not all good...

[belgiumreporter]

For some time now, i've been searching for a contax 35mm reflex camera to complete my collection, preferably a early RTS, but prices for these are still out of proportion for what these cameras are worth (to me). Last week however i was able to buy a 139 and a 159MM with 50mm1.7 and a 35mm2.8 zeiss lenses on them. What looked like a good deal at first turned out to be a bit of a nightmare on close inspection. The battery covers from both bodys were missing and because these cameras won't do anything without battery it was impossible to test them. The 139 had the usual cover decay but that turned out to be the least of my problems. I found a battery cover for both the cameras and decided to have the 139 first for a go...put in the battery and the camerea came to life, at least the meter did, the camera itselve seemed jammed solid. On closer inspection i noticed that the motordrive coupling was a bit "loose" so i removed the base plate only to find out that the motor coupling was broken in two halves, part of the coupling is a cam that commands the winding mechanism and in its present state isn't commmanding anything. I doubt very much i'll ever be able to replace that broken piece so the 139 will most likely become just another (expensive) paperweight. The 159 looked to be in a better condition, however even with battery it is as dead as dodo, i haven't got the courage to look further why it isn't working, but i haven't got high hopes for it. The icing on the cake came when i removed the UV filter from the 35mm lens and found out the (lens)filterthread was damaged.
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that "lost battery covers" are just another way to get rid of broken cameras, the seller knows that you most likely won't get hold of the apropriate battery cover soon and by the time you do and find out what is really wrong with the camera he (the seller) will be long gone or you'll find yourselve out of the reasonable time to complain.
For me yet another rather expensive lesson learned, from now on i'll never again buy a "presumably" good camera with only the battery cover missing

[genazzano]

A new year will begin soon. The pain will pass. A few days ago I left negative feedback across the board for perhaps the second time in a decade. Auguri!

David

[philbirch]

You've got a couple of decent lenses there. You could make the loss smaller by selling them. With or without damaged filter threads you'll get a good price for them.

[Deleted]

I had an RTS back in the day. Loved the body shape -- designed by Porsche, I believe. But I could never get comfortable with a camera that was totally battery-dependent (my how things have changed).

[truls]

Contax cameras could be somewhat overrated compared to the Yashicas. Zeiss lenses will shine even on an old FX3, or digital wih adapter.

[philbirch]

I sold these when they first came out, much was said about the Porsche design and Zeiss lenses. Of course it was just another Japanese camera, and made by Yashica too.

Yashica were probably 5th in ranking behind Nikon/Canon, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax. So didnt get much credibility from 35mm users. The Hasselblad users liked them because they used Zeiss glass like the 'blads. Most customers looked at them, marvelled at the electronics, the sexy shape and feel, the price of the f1.5 planar. Then bought an Olympus OM1 for £199. A nicer, smaller more comfortable-in-the-hands and reasonably priced camera.

Now the covering has gone to sticky crud and they are as cheap as chips. The lenses have value though.

[hansz]

1,4 planar...

My suggestion: use a Yashica FR - same electronics and dirt cheap. And, if it is broken, get another one...

Although being a diehard Zeiss fan (the Zeiss C/Y lenses are very good) but IMHO too pricey these days.

[belgiumreporter]

Hey Guys, thanks for your ideas and support, it seems that history has shown us that the yashica made contaxes are more myth than quality, paying for brand names isn't allways a good idea.
Guess i'll have to stick to plan B for the time being :

[Stephen]

One of the problems with the Contax UK revival was the importer of Yashica, Photax, who frankly were a minor importer without the backup of the main camera UK importers, or the makers with their own distributors in Great Britain. They had dealt with Yashica for many years, but gave them little support, compared to say Olympus.

The pricing was also far too high for the product, typical of the UK market generally. They expected the models to sell at premium rates, with little discounting or offers. Also the genuine Zeiss lenses were in extremely short supply. What's the point of buying a Contax and putting a Tamron lens on it? It will behave exactly the same as any other make! To sell extra own brand lenses you have to have the lenses available to show when the camera is sold, Photax never allowed for this. People do not come back to buy lenses of the maker later on, they tend to buy other brands, usually zooms.

The Contax prime lenses produced by Yashica were good, but not that much better than equivalent Yashica models, who already had an excellent reputation. Only special faster F stop lens alternatives were better, and would have been with any maker. They simply were not offering a different camera to the rivals....then came problems with the bodies cosmetic finish, that had also plagued Yashica, turned up as time went on.

A problem to the trade was the implied manufacture of the glass by Zeiss, when in fact all the assembly and grinding was done by Yashica. The sales brochures skated around this point, never actually saying the lenses were made in Germany, but trying to give this impression at every turn.

We had long talks with Photax over the advertising, it was a sore point, and sailed very close to being miss leading. Finally they did firmly admit only prototypes for each Zeiss lens were ground in Germany, and then production was entirely in Japan, using glass made by Minolta, one of the few glass makers in Japan, who supplied most rival makers with raw optical glass blocks. Yashica up-graded the whole optical production line in Japan with new equipment designed by Zeiss to give better collimation of the glass elements. The standard of the grind and MC lens coating was identical for both brands, Yashica simply up grading their own brand product to the better Zeiss specification.

To every Contax camera sold in the shop a dozen OM were sold, they sold better than top Nikon though, and a similar rate to top Canon. It certainly looked good, well laid out controls etc., but the reliance on a battery was a deep problem for many users.

As a test, I took several films, both slide (all Kodachrome)and print, of the same subjects with the Yashica and the Contax, no difference whatsoever due to the lenses. The colour balance was the same. This was at a period when you could easily sort Kodachromes by lens maker! The only makers who confused a bit were Nikon and Canon. From memory the Zeiss designed lenses were a little warmer in tone than most makes. Olympus were different, the contrast usually higher, the colours a bit cooler. Sharpness was irrelevant, they were the same as all top makers.

A worthy attempt to revive the Contax Marque, but in the end a failure.

Stephen.

[truls]

Jan 8, 2015 10:24:42 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Finally they did firmly admit only prototypes for each Zeiss lens were ground in Germany, and then production was entirely in Japan, using glass made by Minolta, one of the few glass makers in Japan, who supplied most rival makers with raw optical glass blocks.
Stephen.

This is interesting, are all of us in fact using glass from Minolta on Our cameras? Or did Nikon/Canon/others their own glass?

[truls]

Jan 8, 2015 5:56:03 GMT -5 belgiumreporter said:

Hey Guys, thanks for your ideas and support, it seems that history has shown us that the yashica made contaxes are more myth than quality, paying for brand names isn't allways a good idea.
Guess i'll have to stick to plan B for the time being :

Plan B seems very good. I have used Contax 139/137 for some time, With both Zeiss and Yashica glass. I did have som serious lights leaks, but they are cured. Ergonomically, Contax Works very well. There are some differences compared to other camera, shutter speed wheel on left side etc. Viewfinder is comfortable and Bright, making focusing and composing easy. When shooting in the Field they are quick cameras in use, the 137 With 3 frames motor winding can capture snapshots fast. The Contax 139 is small, making it very portable when weight is important. Yashica lenses also good, could not spot which image was taken With Zeiss or Yashica.

It could be Contax owners never took care of their cameras, leaving lots of them broken today. The Contax S2 could be found today - a fully mechanical camera. Many of them in good shape. Have anyone here used the Contax S2?

[hansz]

An S2 is still demanding very high prices here in The Netherlands, so, with regret, no experience here:-(

[Stephen]

Jan 9, 2015 4:07:08 GMT -5 truls said:

Jan 8, 2015 10:24:42 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Finally they did firmly admit only prototypes for each Zeiss lens were ground in Germany, and then production was entirely in Japan, using glass made by Minolta, one of the few glass makers in Japan, who supplied most rival makers with raw optical glass blocks.
Stephen.

This is interesting, are all of us in fact using glass from Minolta on Our cameras? Or did Nikon/Canon/others their own glass?

Simple answer, yes, Minolta were a producer, as was Olympus, of raw optical glass. Other makers were very secretive, using mainly German Schott glass. Hoya were and are a major supplier of raw optical glass.
Nikon made glass at one point after the war, but seem to have later bought in the optical grades of glass.
Most Japanese lens only makers, bought in the glass, although Tamron in the early days did cast their own.
Most modern supplies are from the US and Germany, with the Chinese as main customers.