So why did the Contax RF die?

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As someone who has LTM Leicas, film M Leicas, digital M Leicas and film Contaxes, I wonder why Contax has died. I know there is a semi badge engineered Voigtlander RF posing as a Zeiss Ikon still for sale but I wonder when the last of these was actually manufactured.

 

I have my own thoughts about the RF Contax versus the LTM Leica and the M Leica. The Contax was a technically more advanced camera than the LTM Leica. In my own case, I am looking at my father's IIF and my Contax IIA RD. The Contax has a combined RF/VF window and speeds of up to 1/1250 against the 1/500 of my IIF. The RF is more accurate on the Contax but much slower to use due to the very low gearing. I notice this a lot when using the Contax 50mm/f1.5 Opton Sonnar on my M9 with an Amadeo Muscelli lens adapter. The Contax looks "old fashioned" with its octagon end against the rounded ends of the IIF. The IIF looks better made, notwithstanding that the Contax was far more expensive (1954 prices: IIF with 50/2 Summitar $700, Contax IIA with 50/1.5 Sonnar $1,200). The biggest downside of the Contax is the dingy viewfinder, especially when I compare it with my M4. Zeiss just did not update the camera enough from the 1930's model. What was on sale in 1961, was to all intents and purposes, the same camera as 1934 with some very minor improvements.

 

The later G models, with wonderful lenses, got sadly side tracked by a very accurate but slow and fussy AF system. The G3D, which was under development with a 8 to 10 MP APS-C sensor and multi AF sensors, got caught up in the politics of the Kyocera Zeiss debacle. It could have been a very interesting camera

 

Will anyone every be brave enough to ever try and compete with Leica in the RF field. There were rumours about an RF Nikon but all seems to have gone quiet.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[luigi bertolotti]

Will anyone every be brave enough to ever try and compete with Leica in the RF field. There were rumours about an RF Nikon but all seems to have gone quiet.

 

Wilson

 

Sad (or not) it is, for me the answer is NO : shift towards electronics is unstoppable: a "classic" RF (i.e. split image in the VF) does not fit into this trend, simply said.

[AdamNSinger]

Do you think all the development that might have gone on the Contax went to the Contarex, may have been the best made SLR ever, any way thank you a thought provoking piece, how do I find Amedeo Muscelli I have tried hunting on the net and could find no lead,as I would like to acquire one of his Contax to ltm adapters. Thankyou Adam

[luigi bertolotti]

Do you think all the development that might have gone on the Contax went to the Contarex, may have been the best made SLR ever, any way thank you a thought provoking piece, how do I find Amedeo Muscelli I have tried hunting on the net and could find no lead,as I would like to acquire one of his Contax to ltm adapters. Thankyou Adam

 

Amedeo is a Ebay seller, located in Venezuela... try send a message : eBay My World - amedeo.m

[wlaidlaw]

The Amadeo Muscelli adapter is a beautifully made thing - a real work of art. However if you are going to buy one, I would ask Amadeo to recheck the positioning of the coding pits. I cannot get coding to work and on checking them with my Matchtech coder, the pits look a little out of position. The Opton Sonnar 50/1.5, which I use with the adapter, is a lovely lens but can be a little flare prone. to minimise this, I am using a Kobo 40.5mm to 46mm adapter ring and then a Contax GG2 hood + GK54 lens cap. If anyone wants to get nice copies of these without paying the inflated prices for originals, they are available from Virtual Village - US | Accessories to Everything | Quality Products at Low Prices. I have just ordered another set, as I also use the one set I have at the moment, as a hood/cap for my 35 ASPH Chrome Summilux.

 

Wilson

[bill]

Wilson, in answer to your original question, survival of the fittest. Evolution in all it's glory.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[zeitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Nikon SP may have killed the Contax III. Nikon took the best of the Contax (shape, lens mount, etc) and of the Leica (shutter) and made a superior RF camera. My understanding is that the SP only stopped production because Nikon needed the capacity to meet the Nikon F demand. The Nikon F killed the Contrarex at the same time.

[EJohnE]

The Contax R/F cameras were Zeiss's competitors to the Leicas. The Contax had a more complex shutter, possibly because Leitz had patents sewn up for the simpler design. The Contax lenses were considered generally superior optically, but the camera was over-complicated to be confidently taken off the beaten track, whereas the Leica had a simpler, but very robust body design, and any reasonably competent person could get it back into working, if not accurate, order in the field.

 

If a Leica bottom plate was dropped, nothing much happened. The Contax back and base came off in one piece, if I remember correctly. Drop that complex part only, and it could easily be damaged too badly to fit without light leaks.

 

The Contax rangefinder was superior to the Leica's one, and was only slower if that silly little wheel was used to turn the lens. I simply used to turn the lens focus mount for general use, and the wheel for fine tuning.

 

Up to the advent of the 5cm Summicron, all Leica lenses were slightly inferior to the Zeiss ones according to the grain-sniffers of the time. In real use, both were very good.

 

John (from the Dark Ages).

[wlaidlaw]

John,

 

Even if you don't use the silly wheel, with the irritating infinity lock, the focus is slow on Contax lenses. From infinity to close focus is around 300º on the Contax against around 110º for most Leica lenses. The other thing is that the direction of rotation for focus is the other way on a Contax from Leica. my brain must be much more ingrained for focus than it is for driving cars. I can jump from my left hand drive cars, to my wife's right hand drive with no problems. Similarly, I can get straight into a vintage car with the accelerator as the middle pedal or a reverse gear change like a Bugatti without more than a second's thought but my first twist of the lens on the Sonnar, is always the wrong way.

 

Wilson

[giordano]

From infinity to close focus is around 300º on the Contax against around 110º for most Leica lenses.

 

That's a little unfair. The old 50mm and shorter Leica lenses went from infinity to 1m in about 180º, but lenses such as the 9cm Elmar took 300º just like the Contax ones.

 

Once you got to 135mm it was actually the other way round. IIRC a Hektor turned about as far as the 9cm Elmar but only focused to about 1.5m, while a Sonnar on the Contax got to its closest distance in about 180º.

 

The other thing is that the direction of rotation for focus is the other way on a Contax from Leica. my brain must be much more ingrained for focus than it is for driving cars. I can jump from my left hand drive cars, to my wife's right hand drive with no problems. Similarly, I can get straight into a vintage car with the accelerator as the middle pedal or a reverse gear change like a Bugatti without more than a second's thought but my first twist of the lens on the Sonnar, is always the wrong way.

 

My only problem with left- and right-hand drive cars is forgetting which door I need to open to get in, but I have trouble switching between Australian cars and British ones (using the wipers as turn signals and flashing the headlights when the windscreen needs a wash). I think that using a counter-clockwise lens on a Leica is more like the latter than like coping with grossly different layouts: fewer cues so harder to adjust to.

 

(Then there was the time I twisted my ankle alighting from a Forward Control Land-Rover: from the inside, the cab so familar that I quite forgot I was two or three feet higher off the ground than usual.)

[maxspbr]

I shoot a lot with a Contax II, with Sonnar 5cm/f2 and 13,5cm f4. It is a very very beated camera (from 1937), but I still like a lot to use it. I don't think that is possible to say if the Leica or the Contax is better. I like the focusing wheel from Contax, don't think it is so much slow.

 

I think that Zeiss simply didn't cared about the Contax at 60s; from the middle of 50s they discovered the SLR. The same sad thing happened with a lot of interesting cameras, like the Contessa (that is a great shooter to me, ever with - or maybe because - its limitations and a Tessar 45mm).

 

Martin

[wlaidlaw]

John,

 

I was trying to compare as near like for like with focus rotations as I have, an early M Summilux 50 with a 50 Sonnar. I would agree that my 50 LTM Summitar has a focus of around 170º but this is still a lot less than the 300º of the Contax Sonnar.

 

I am surprised that the only thing you injured was an ankle on the 101 Land Rovers; what evil handling things those were. They had one where I used to go shooting in the north of Scotland. There was a race to see who got the Mercedes Unimog, with the losers getting the 101. Their only merit was that they usually broke down before they crashed.

 

Wilson

[giordano]

I am surprised that the only thing you injured was an ankle on the 101 Land Rovers; what evil handling things those were. They had one where I used to go shooting in the north of Scotland. There was a race to see who got the Mercedes Unimog, with the losers getting the 101. Their only merit was that they usually broke down before they crashed.

 

No, this was the original 109 inch forward control, even less stable than the 101 and with only the 2 1/4 litre engine, so one naturally drove it like an undersized 3-tonner rather than an oversized jeep. So far I haven't managed to find a Unimog to drive: it's always good to have something to look forward to!

[zeitz]

EJohnE, the Leica patents were voided by the West at the end of World War II. The new Zeiss Ikon in Stuttgart was free to use the Leica shutter for the Contax III/IIIa without patent infringement. The camera was totally redrawn and re-tooled to put it in production. I'm sure corporate pride kept them from using the Leica shutter.

[EJohnE]

Yup. I also used a Nikon F at the same time as M3 and Leicaflex. I found the different directions of shutter control, focus, and diaphram too confusing for any but the most leisurely use, so sold the excellent Nikon. I also had the use of a Contarex for a while. That was a superb camera, possibly the best ever 35mm SLR for sheer quality. I also bought a new Kiev (Contax copy) in 1983 or so , for $(Aust)85. The lens was pretty good, but the camera's film wind and shutter seem to have been made by the gulag blacksmith.

 

It was a pity the Zeiss serious 35 mm cameras were allowed to die out.

 

John.

[christoph_d]

The Contax R/F cameras were Zeiss's competitors to the Leicas. The Contax had a more complex shutter, possibly because Leitz had patents sewn up for the simpler design. The Contax lenses were considered generally superior optically, but the camera was over-complicated to be confidently taken off the beaten track, whereas the Leica had a simpler, but very robust body design, and any reasonably competent person could get it back into working, if not accurate, order in the field.

 

If a Leica bottom plate was dropped, nothing much happened. The Contax back and base came off in one piece, if I remember correctly. Drop that complex part only, and it could easily be damaged too badly to fit without light leaks.

 

The Contax rangefinder was superior to the Leica's one, and was only slower if that silly little wheel was used to turn the lens. I simply used to turn the lens focus mount for general use, and the wheel for fine tuning.

 

Up to the advent of the 5cm Summicron, all Leica lenses were slightly inferior to the Zeiss ones according to the grain-sniffers of the time. In real use, both were very good.

 

John (from the Dark Ages).

 

John,

 

The Zeiss lenses were considered superior before the war, due to the fact that they were constructed with fewer air / glass surfaces, a crucial factor in times before anti-reflection-coatings. Zeiss also provided a larger range of lenses.

 

While the shutter was more complicated compared to Leica, it did run slightly faster (at least for marketing purposes!)

 

Due to the removable back / bottom plate of the Contax it was and is much easier and faster to reload with film.

 

The pre-war Contax had an interesting viewfinder construction that was less prone to mis-alignment than the Leica version.

 

Have a nice weekend,

 

Christoph

[wlaidlaw]

For anyone interested, here is a picture of my 1950's 50/f1.5 Stuttgart build Opton-Sonnar with the Amadeo Muscelli adapter on an M9. It is a very neat little lens for an f1.5. It is actually considerably smaller than my modern 50/f2 Zeiss ZM Planar. For the sake of clarity on the photo, I have taken off the 40.5 to 46 mm adapter and then the Contax GG2 hood, I normally have mounted.

 

Wilson

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[veefortytwo]

As someone who has LTM Leicas, film M Leicas, digital M Leicas and film Contaxes, I wonder why Contax has died. I know there is a semi badge engineered Voigtlander RF posing as a Zeiss Ikon still for sale but I wonder when the last of these was actually manufactured.

 

I have my own thoughts about the RF Contax versus the LTM Leica and the M Leica. The Contax was a technically more advanced camera than the LTM Leica. In my own case, I am looking at my father's IIF and my Contax IIA RD. The Contax has a combined RF/VF window and speeds of up to 1/1250 against the 1/500 of my IIF. The RF is more accurate on the Contax but much slower to use due to the very low gearing. I notice this a lot when using the Contax 50mm/f1.5 Opton Sonnar on my M9 with an Amadeo Muscelli lens adapter. The Contax looks "old fashioned" with its octagon end against the rounded ends of the IIF. The IIF looks better made, notwithstanding that the Contax was far more expensive (1954 prices: IIF with 50/2 Summitar $700, Contax IIA with 50/1.5 Sonnar $1,200). The biggest downside of the Contax is the dingy viewfinder, especially when I compare it with my M4. Zeiss just did not update the camera enough from the 1930's model. What was on sale in 1961, was to all intents and purposes, the same camera as 1934 with some very minor improvements.

 

The later G models, with wonderful lenses, got sadly side tracked by a very accurate but slow and fussy AF system. The G3D, which was under development with a 8 to 10 MP APS-C sensor and multi AF sensors, got caught up in the politics of the Kyocera Zeiss debacle. It could have been a very interesting camera

 

Will anyone every be brave enough to ever try and compete with Leica in the RF field. There were rumours about an RF Nikon but all seems to have gone quiet.

 

Wilson

 

Hi, I think it is unfair to compare the Contax IIa with the Leica IIf just because your father happened to own both.

The real comparison would be the Leica IIIf, with it's 1/1000 shutter speed, instead of the 1/500 of the cheaper model.

Also, the Leica could have been ordered with a Summarit 50mm f/1.5, which is same speed as the Sonnar 50mm 1.5. Zeiss also made a Sonnar f/2.0 of course.

I think the price back then must have been comparable, both cameras and lenses from Leitz and Zeiss were expensive, and most people couldn't afford then.

While the shutter of the Contax is complicated, and a bit noisier than the Leica's, it didn't suffer from the sun burning pinholes, as often happens with cloth shutters on rangefinder cameras.

I have 5 Barnacks, several Japanese/Russian copies, 2 Contaxes, a Kiev, and a Nikon S2, and use all of them regularly.

They were excellent cameras when most people did use Brownies or Billy Records !

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ganzosrevenge]

Do you think all the development that might have gone on the Contax went to the Contarex, may have been the best made SLR ever, any way thank you a thought provoking piece, how do I find Amedeo Muscelli I have tried hunting on the net and could find no lead,as I would like to acquire one of his Contax to ltm adapters. Thankyou Adam

 

From an engineering spectacle perspective, the Contarex is an unbelievable camera... it had so many parts in it and innovated with the "on-camera aperture control", but because it was an engineer's dream, when it broke it brought mechanical complexity to a new level. It is a significant factor in the demise of Zeiss in 1975... sheer expense of producing, as well as having to supply replacement parts for warrantied cameras and users who brought cameras in for repair. Zeiss figured their cameras were so good that they'd never need a repair... horrific thinking if you ask me.

 

 

John,

 

Even if you don't use the silly wheel, with the irritating infinity lock, the focus is slow on Contax lenses. From infinity to close focus is around 300º on the Contax against around 110º for most Leica lenses. The other thing is that the direction of rotation for focus is the other way on a Contax from Leica. my brain must be much more ingrained for focus than it is for driving cars. I can jump from my left hand drive cars, to my wife's right hand drive with no problems. Similarly, I can get straight into a vintage car with the accelerator as the middle pedal or a reverse gear change like a Bugatti without more than a second's thought but my first twist of the lens on the Sonnar, is always the wrong way.

 

Wilson

 

I have to disagree... perhaps it's an "R" thing, but my mk1 50mm 'cron has a focal throw of about 270 degrees (infinity to closest focusable distance)

 

Yup. I also used a Nikon F at the same time as M3 and Leicaflex. I found the different directions of shutter control, focus, and diaphram too confusing for any but the most leisurely use, so sold the excellent Nikon. I also had the use of a Contarex for a while. That was a superb camera, possibly the best ever 35mm SLR for sheer quality. I also bought a new Kiev (Contax copy) in 1983 or so , for $(Aust)85. The lens was pretty good, but the camera's film wind and shutter seem to have been made by the gulag blacksmith.

 

It was a pity the Zeiss serious 35 mm cameras were allowed to die out.

 

John.

 

Yes, but see the first part of my post. Zeiss made such complex cameras and considered them mechanically perfect. The repairs and the constant need to update, combined with the cost of manufacturing the contarex in particular is what did them in. Shame too because the lenses are PHENOMENAL. The Japanese with the Nikon F only sped up the process by providing 80% of the overall performance at 20% of the cost, and for working professionals (the L-Flex / Nikon F's / Contarex's clientele in the 60s), being able to buy a camera for $200 instead of $600 is going to help either the news corporation or the photographer's bank balance in the short and long run. A news photographer needs the shot to be detailed enough to convey the story, if the lens's MTF is a little worse than its German counterpart, but the reader can't discern it, then sorry to say but the lens is good enough for that particular application.

 

Jason

[wlaidlaw]

The Contarex was very heavy, although beautifully made. The family bought my father a new bulls-eye Contarex with f1.4/55mm Sonnar for his 60th birthday in 1962 (I actually bought it duty free in Montreux, Switzerland). He found it very heavy and as sadly his health deteriorated soon after that, he rarely used it. My mother gave it away, I think to to a jumble sale, when he died in the 1970's, not realising it was worth anything.

 

The later Contax SLR's were also very well made (by Kyocera). I had a 139Q, an RTS II and an RX.

 

Wilson