✅ NEW EBOOK - mrleica.com/ebook-model-photography-handbook/ ✅ PRESETS - mrleica.com/presets/ 📷 LIGHT LENS LAB discount code - bit.ly/3Xieazn 📷 CAMERA BAG: bit.ly/3Uiva6w 📷 SEE MY GEAR: mrleica.com/kitlist/ 7 ways I can help you with your photography: ------- 1. Newsletter - bit.ly/3OLE37t 2. eBooks - bit.ly/3ziRkQ9 3. Presets - bit.ly/4erCB4t 4. Welcome Pack for Leica owners - bit.ly/3MTuPUY 5. Join our Patreon community - bit.ly/4ewAhcd 6. Jump on a Call - bit.ly/3lBkdgq 7. Request a Workshop - bit.ly/47ISKjG ------- Leica M rewind crank - bit.ly/3VHnk7t EBL blog post - mrleica.com/effective-base-length/ ✅ CHECK EBAY - (US) ebay.to/2F0HoxY (UK) ebay.to/3ijzle2 ✅ SUBSCRIBED?: Don't miss another video! bit.ly/3qET0ZO ✅ NEED FILM?: mrleica.com/do-you-need-film/ ✅ COFFEE: Thank Matt with a coffee - www.paypal.com/paypalme/MrLeica
Another excellent video Matt. During the 1960's I was fortunate to own a Leica IIIa & Summar 50mm (collapsible ) F/2 lens & have use of my father's Contax IIa with Zeiss 50mm (collapsible) F/2 lens. The Zeiss lens was much better, but the opposite was true of the ergonomics. Later, my father changed to the Leica M2 + MRC light meter, with which I could not afford to keep up. However, an excellent solution was at hand when I changed to a Canon 7 range finder with a set of older Canon Serenar lenses (the 85mm F/2 absolutely brilliant). This camera with its built in & coupled (& fairly accurate) light meter, excellent range finder & bright line viewfinder, showing fields of view for 35/50/85/135mm, performed superior than either the Contax or the IIIa. In addition it was quick to load & operate with its modern lever wind. Only downside, was at the time the Leica ltm/m39 mount was out of fashion & good lenses hard to come by. PS. If you're looking for a real oddity but with a fantastic Zeiss lens, but don't mind carrying the weight of effectively 3 Contaxes & Leica, try a Zeiss Contarex (bull nose) SLR (circa 1955), with a partial auto return mirror, coupled exposure meter and fast lever wind. The viewfinder is a revelation for its age. I'm never going to get rid of mine. Back in the day it cost the equivalent of 2x M2's & a Summicron! Can be bought today for the cost of a good s/h IIIf body.
Thanks John, yes Zeiss was way ahead with optics in the early days. I love my Leica iii model F black paint. I have it with me now in Vegas. I hear good thinks about the Contarex. Thanks for the reminder! Those Canon are nice too. I like my L3, the see the video.
Thanks Matt. You covered one of my favorite combinations. Leica M with Amadeo adapter and the 50/1.5 Zeiss lens. Shooting this combo for years and still happy with it. Greetings from Germany.
I have 2 contax IIa as well as a Leica M4-P. I enjoy them both. In some ways the contax IIa is better but the M4-P is really ergonomically better. Both fun and take wonderful photos.
Again, well done. Fist class as always. I have recently been coveting Contax II's. I'll be satisfied with looking at them and avoiding film. They sure are gorgeous.
I have my contax ii for some years and I'm pretty happy about it, I wanted to try more leica experience and I found a really great deal on a french foca. Let's see how it works
Another great video and a timely one for me. About two weeks ago I was using my Contax iia that I purchased in July and the wrist cord snapped. The camera did not appear to be damaged until I looked in the viewfinder and all I could see was something obstructing it from inside. In any case, I sent along with my Leica iiic (which needs a cleaning) to be serviced. I own a Kiev 4 and must admit that I do not see any difference between the Contax iia. The lens for the Contax are great. However, they are extremely limited. On the other hand, the Leica M1 which I own is much smoother to operate, easier to load and I am able to use both M mount and LTM (with an adapter) as well as many others, but not able to adjust the viewfinder focus accordingly. The Contax feels antiquated and quite frankly outdated and over engineered. However, it is one of my favorite cameras next to the Leica M1. When compared to the old Leica iiia-c, I prefer the Contax iia. The loading of film on the earlier Leica models takes time to perfect. I just received my replacement Contax iia and have loaded film which was relatively simple unlike the Leica iii models.
Great Video! Nowadays I go for Leica because of the huge selection of lenses. But I agree, the Contax RF lenses are awesome! Thanks to the Amedeo adapter, which opens the door to use the lenses on M cameras.
I regularly shoot my M3 and 1972 Kiev 4a. I agree that the M3 advance is sublime, and build is a step up, but the contax clone and it lenses are very pleasing to use. Nothing beats a cheap set of a Kiev body and a 4 lens (35/50/85/135) set up
I have a IIIF and M3 both of which I absolutely love, but always wanted to get a a Contax II just to have the camera that Robert Capa used on D-Day. Good to know all these bits of info about them so if and when I do get one, I'm not expecting something of the same caliber.
A good working Contax II is superior to a Leica IIIf, and I say that having a IIIf I serviced and adjusted myself which I absolutely adore. Problem is they are a challenge to make really right these days, there are very few good techs now who will do them. A significant percentage of that minority of vintage rangefinder enthusiasts who are still actively photographing with a pre-war Contax have had to jump in the deep end, and learn to repair them themselves (as I did). This obviously dictates a significant commitment in time and effort (and a degree of mechanical aptitude), but it does also open the door to a world of still affordable vintage cameras, when you have acquired the skills to rescue desirable kit that's reasonably priced, because of repairable issues.
I have a couple of these. My experience: The pre-war Contaxes are actually more refined cameras than their Leica counterparts of the same period -- but but they don't age as well! A 50s Contax is mechanically just as fine a camera as a Leica M3. But they feel quite different in operation, it's a bit like apples and oranges. My biggest gripes with the last Contax vs the Leica M2/3: the still primitive viewfinder (Nikon S is so much better!), and the necessity to practice the awkward "Contax grip" (because of the position of the rangefinder window). And, yes, you are right: pre-war Contax = Kiev (
Yes I’m sure when they were new they felt more Leica-like. The Nikon S is nice, see that video but I find the early Contax (or Kiev) much easier to focus.
Gracias por el video Matt. He trabajado con Contax, Leicas y Nikon Rangefinder! Mi leica M3 no la cambio por ninguna, en cuanto a las Contax , mi preferida sin duda es la *Contarex bulle eye* es una máquina fantástica, con la mejor optica de Zeiss....
There weren't any pre-war Kiev cameras. The early Kievs were the continuation cameras of the pre-war Contax. The camera and lens machinery and some parts were moved from eastern Germany to Kyiv as war reparations. The post-war Contax branded cameras and Zeiss Opton lenses were re-engineered by the Western branch of Zeiss Ikon. It took Zeiss Ikon around 10 years to come up with a camera that was comparable with the Leica but without infringing their patents, but they succeeded. The Contax shutter is theoretically more robust than cloth blinds, but the early Contaxes had the reputation of not being as reliable, as other comments suggest here. I don't think it is as easy to find a Contax to Leica adaptor as you suggest. Amadeo are rare and expensive. I did get one for Sony that was part Kiev and part cheap Leica LTM to Sony adaptor slightly modified, which was bad news for the Kiev unless it had been beyond repair, and such adaptors are only going to work nicely for mirrorless digital cameras, and most I have seen advertised were only for internal bayonet..
Thanks, yes sorry I realised after my simple wording "pre-war Kiev" was incorrect, I meant their version of the pre-war Contax. You used to be able to buy the adapters new on CameraQuest unless he's stopped production. Yes they are not cheap for sure.
Matt, i have the Leica M3, Leica iiif and the Contax iia (Contax has been cla'd). Bad thing about Contax, it's hard to find someone that can do a cla on them. Lets talk about the rangefinder on the Contax iia. Once they go out of alignment it's very hard to get them back aligned properly. It's much easier to align a Leica M3 and the IIIF. The Contax's you have to take them apart to align them. I just wanted to share that..
I did a complete strip down/rebuild on my IIa a few years ago and it was a delight to work on. While not quite up to Leica build quality - still very well made, and a great design. The realignment of the rangefinder is more work for sure, but not that much as all you need to do is remove the top cover. Not recommended for diy unless you have plenty of practice on cheaper cameras though! The Contax rangefinders don't seem to go out of alignment the way the Leicas do. The IIs and IIs, and Kievs though are a different proposition altogether, from a maintenance perspective - the older shutter design is much harder to work on.
I have the Contax iia red dial with four lenses. Agood friend of mine rebuilds and cla's Contax. He has my four lenses and the 22mm Biogon, too. .I also have a Nikon rsngefinder system. I would love to own a Leica M3 etc. but t is out of my price range. But I do have a leica Leicaflex Sl with a Sumacron 50. I'll have to be satisfied with these,,,and I am.
One further point Matt… the Nikkor S lenses fit the Contax cameras. The helicoids vary between Nikon camera and Contax slightly, but only is an issue on lenses longer than 50 mm. Nikon made longer ( 85mm and 135 mm) lenses in the 1950s marked “C” on the barrel, denoting the same helicoid ratio as Contax, that were fully compatible with Contax bodies. The Nikon rangefinders were very close and well executed copies of the Contax Ila.
I used 2 Contax 139's with winders heavily in the late 80's for weddings - those Zeiss primes are unbeatable - what let the brand down most of all was a tacky tie in with Yashica - the Kyocera group was conflicted at the time and the let the brand down with a final swansong of the Contax 645 - one of the best MF cameras ever made - it had AF on zoom lenses - good times - the 139 should take particular mention for the leatherette - which melted into dust in every pair of hands that held one leaving the grey backing behind!!!! However if you do put one in your hands with a naturally curved winder and a button for vertical shots you too will know why this camera itself was special to use and hold but not special enough to be better than a Leica - just those lenses
I have Contax IIa and Leica M3. The Contax is a beautiful camera - almost jewel like, and the lenses are superb too. But, the Leica feels like it comes from a different era, even though the IIa was released in 1950 and the M3 in 1954 - they feel 20 years apart. Everything on the Leica feels modern, at least for a 35mm film camera perspective, whereas the Contax feels like a lovely vintage camera - which is exactly what it is. As a glasses wearer the killer difference is the viewfinder - it is painful to use on the Contax and superb on the Leica. I use the Leica all the time, while the Contax sits on the shelf - though I do try to bring it out, I can never really get on with it as a user camera. I do use the Contax a bit with a turret accessory finder for longer lenses, which is OK if a bit clunky. Definitely considering the Amedeo - so expensive though - more than I paid for each Contax lens by some margin. Thanks for the video - enjoyed it as always.
Thanks, yes I’ve not even shot film in my Contax iia and I’ve had it for some years. If I want that mount I use Kiev and if I want smooth I use Leica! Definitely feel years apart.
I have used Leica, Contax, Canon, Fuji, Argus, and Minolta rangefinders. However, Leica rangefinders are best for me because they are still in production and still supported by their manufacturer.
What people really forget is that a Leica was the camera to get if you didn't have the money for a Contax back in 30s. The Contax II camera and it's lenses were way more expensive than Leica's counterparts in Germany and owning a Contax II was something that normal working class people wouldn't even dream of, especially considering the overall situation before WW2.
I have a Contax III, a 50s Kiev and a 60s Kiev. The Contax doesn't work, the 50s Kiev had a dodgy shutter curtain at first (but now seems ok) and the 60s Kiev works flawlessly, and is the only one that I've trusted to actually use. I understand the point about the older ones supposedly being better (less worn tooling, original workforce), but there's a lot to be said for having a newer camera that has been used less (probably less likely that pros used the Kievs compared to the Contax).
It's not really a rangefinder camera, it's an optical viewfinder camera with autofocus. I had both a G1 and a G2 and there were a lot of things I liked about them, but why I finally gave up on them is that you could never be SURE your intended subject was in focus. The focus brackets in the viewfinder don't quite line up the the actual position of the focus area, and there's no way to confirm whether the AF hit the aim point or not; the manual distance scale was only approximately accurate as well. Still fun to use if you mostly shoot in bright light and can stop down a lot, but I had too many near-misses.
@@jlwilliams True. I guess the analogous true rangefinder would be the Zeiss Ikon. I have a Minolta CLE that I like quite a bit. Lighter and more compact than most M-mount cameras. Currently the only M-mount camera body I own.
True. Yes I should have mentioned but then there is Nikon, Canon, Soviet LTM and the video becomes an hour long. The Nikon are nicely made but less easy to focus.
This is why I shoot with Nikon rangefinders. The lens mount of the Contax with a Leica style shutter. Best of both worlds plus incredibly affordable in today's market. As much as I love Contaxes, I know that shutter is a ticking time bomb. When it fails, no one will fix it. My Nikon S2 with the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 is a winning package, usable and beautiful.
OK, have to weigh in here. I'm 78 and have been a photographer for 50 years. Leica was considered an armature photographer's choice. The Contax was the pro choice for a number of reasons that I won't detail here. I own a number of Leicas, from Barnacks to an M8u and I love them but my IIa and IIIa are better in every way. BTW the FSU's are not even close to the German Contax rigs IMO.
Thanks for writing. I know they were deemed the best in the past but do you not think Leica are just so much more refined, smooth, more modern feeling (even my 1930s Barnacks that I use as my daily carries are much nicer than the later Contax and then the M3 ticks all the boxes for my portraits.
Its hard to find a really well done Contax today. I have two done by Henrey Scherer and they are smooth as silk. Also when Leica went to lever advance in the M3, the world went nuts lol. Contax cameras are more complicated and somewhat over engineered, so they are harder to sort out. When I was younger (and the cameras could be had new) the issue of refinement and smoothness was nonexistent.
I would not recommend the Leica rewind lever. I had one on my MP which made the rewind really fast but I ended up scratching the MP body with the winder. Aaargh!!
I just could not live with that Leica’s gummy rag shutter. Some decades ago, I had a Kiev for a while, but Nikon SLR was and still is superior to any rangefinder cameras. But who am I to argue with rangefinder fan boys.
@@ofeykalakar1 That Nikon SLR is a history now, my SL2-S is whisper quiet or absolutely silent using electronic shutter whilst your M2 is generating ‘muted and soft shutter sound’ that will scare a life of that little critter or you would be taken out of theatre photo shoot, just saying.
Thanks, sorry if it wasn’t clear. I had to make the video and edit it all in one day ahead of my US trip as I knew I’d be offline (unable to make videos for an extended period while teaching in the US). Normally each video takes 2 full days to make.
Fitting new ribbons to a Contax II or III, whilst not a job for a beginner in camera repair, is not actually a complex procedure. Intricate, perhaps, and calls for some good manual dexterity. But not *complicated*, per se. The problem is that by now most shutters are getting worn. Claws on the spring latch worn down. The leather strips aligning the curtain slats will be disintegrating, permitting the slats to slide side to side and catch on the mechanism or shutter crate. And if the original leathers are holding together before you fit new ribbons, by the time they've been manipulated-even gently, during installation of the ribbons-the leathers will be breaking apart, and will need to be done. This isn't impossible, either. I kept one of my old leather wallets specifically to raid for this purpose-successfully as it turned out. But it needs a deft touch to painstakingly tease up the folded edges of each slat and lay a new leather strip along them all. And the material thickness is gossamer thin, so, even my supple kid leather wallet pieces had to be patiently hand scraped to size, so that they would fit inside the folded ends of the brass slats without bulging. There's other minutiae involved, of course. But you no doubt get the picture by now. It's a challenging, time-consuming labour of love, to make a pre-war Contax really right (without resorting to using Kiev parts anyway). You wouldn't do it for the money, few will pay a remotely reasonable hourly rate for the work involved. (Which is why I only repair pre war models for myself, these days).
✅ NEW EBOOK - mrleica.com/ebook-model-photography-handbook/
✅ PRESETS - mrleica.com/presets/
📷 LIGHT LENS LAB discount code - bit.ly/3Xieazn
📷 CAMERA BAG: bit.ly/3Uiva6w
📷 SEE MY GEAR: mrleica.com/kitlist/
7 ways I can help you with your photography:
-------
1. Newsletter - bit.ly/3OLE37t
2. eBooks - bit.ly/3ziRkQ9
3. Presets - bit.ly/4erCB4t
4. Welcome Pack for Leica owners - bit.ly/3MTuPUY
5. Join our Patreon community - bit.ly/4ewAhcd
6. Jump on a Call - bit.ly/3lBkdgq
7. Request a Workshop - bit.ly/47ISKjG
-------
Leica M rewind crank - bit.ly/3VHnk7t
EBL blog post - mrleica.com/effective-base-length/
✅ CHECK EBAY - (US) ebay.to/2F0HoxY (UK) ebay.to/3ijzle2
✅ SUBSCRIBED?: Don't miss another video! bit.ly/3qET0ZO
✅ NEED FILM?: mrleica.com/do-you-need-film/
✅ COFFEE: Thank Matt with a coffee - www.paypal.com/paypalme/MrLeica
Another excellent video Matt.
During the 1960's I was fortunate to own a Leica IIIa & Summar 50mm (collapsible ) F/2 lens & have use of my father's Contax IIa with Zeiss 50mm (collapsible) F/2 lens. The Zeiss lens was much better, but the opposite was true of the ergonomics.
Later, my father changed to the Leica M2 + MRC light meter, with which I could not afford to keep up. However, an excellent solution was at hand when I changed to a Canon 7 range finder with a set of older Canon Serenar lenses (the 85mm F/2 absolutely brilliant). This camera with its built in & coupled (& fairly accurate) light meter, excellent range finder & bright line viewfinder, showing fields of view for 35/50/85/135mm, performed superior than either the Contax or the IIIa. In addition it was quick to load & operate with its modern lever wind. Only downside, was at the time the Leica ltm/m39 mount was out of fashion & good lenses hard to come by.
PS. If you're looking for a real oddity but with a fantastic Zeiss lens, but don't mind carrying the weight of effectively 3 Contaxes & Leica, try a Zeiss Contarex (bull nose) SLR (circa 1955), with a partial auto return mirror, coupled exposure meter and fast lever wind. The viewfinder is a revelation for its age. I'm never going to get rid of mine.
Back in the day it cost the equivalent of 2x M2's & a Summicron! Can be bought today for the cost of a good s/h IIIf body.
Thanks John, yes Zeiss was way ahead with optics in the early days. I love my Leica iii model F black paint. I have it with me now in Vegas. I hear good thinks about the Contarex. Thanks for the reminder! Those Canon are nice too. I like my L3, the see the video.
Thanks Matt. You covered one of my favorite combinations. Leica M with Amadeo adapter and the 50/1.5 Zeiss lens. Shooting this combo for years and still happy with it. Greetings from Germany.
Great stuff and yes a strong combination!
I have 2 contax IIa as well as a Leica M4-P. I enjoy them both. In some ways the contax IIa is better but the M4-P is really ergonomically better. Both fun and take wonderful photos.
Great, yes Leica ergonomics much better
Again, well done. Fist class as always. I have recently been coveting Contax II's. I'll be satisfied with looking at them and avoiding film. They sure are gorgeous.
Thanks Sandy, yes I like these older contax too but Leica still feel so much better!
I have my contax ii for some years and I'm pretty happy about it, I wanted to try more leica experience and I found a really great deal on a french foca. Let's see how it works
Great! I love nicely made vintage RF cameras
Another great video and a timely one for me. About two weeks ago I was using my Contax iia that I purchased in July and the wrist cord snapped. The camera did not appear to be damaged until I looked in the viewfinder and all I could see was something obstructing it from inside. In any case, I sent along with my Leica iiic (which needs a cleaning) to be serviced. I own a Kiev 4 and must admit that I do not see any difference between the Contax iia. The lens for the Contax are great. However, they are extremely limited. On the other hand, the Leica M1 which I own is much smoother to operate, easier to load and I am able to use both M mount and LTM (with an adapter) as well as many others, but not able to adjust the viewfinder focus accordingly. The Contax feels antiquated and quite frankly outdated and over engineered. However, it is one of my favorite cameras next to the Leica M1. When compared to the old Leica iiia-c, I prefer the Contax iia. The loading of film on the earlier Leica models takes time to perfect. I just received my replacement Contax iia and have loaded film which was relatively simple unlike the Leica iii models.
Great I love these old cameras too, especially Leica but the Zeiss glass is great!
Great Video! Nowadays I go for Leica because of the huge selection of lenses. But I agree, the Contax RF lenses are awesome! Thanks to the Amedeo adapter, which opens the door to use the lenses on M cameras.
Thanks Tobi! Yes love the AA adapters for this stuff.
I regularly shoot my M3 and 1972 Kiev 4a. I agree that the M3 advance is sublime, and build is a step up, but the contax clone and it lenses are very pleasing to use. Nothing beats a cheap set of a Kiev body and a 4 lens (35/50/85/135) set up
Yes 100%, the Kievs can take just as great pictures for a lot less money.
I have a IIIF and M3 both of which I absolutely love, but always wanted to get a a Contax II just to have the camera that Robert Capa used on D-Day. Good to know all these bits of info about them so if and when I do get one, I'm not expecting something of the same caliber.
Strong combo! Love the M3 and the Barnacks.
A good working Contax II is superior to a Leica IIIf, and I say that having a IIIf I serviced and adjusted myself which I absolutely adore. Problem is they are a challenge to make really right these days, there are very few good techs now who will do them. A significant percentage of that minority of vintage rangefinder enthusiasts who are still actively photographing with a pre-war Contax have had to jump in the deep end, and learn to repair them themselves (as I did). This obviously dictates a significant commitment in time and effort (and a degree of mechanical aptitude), but it does also open the door to a world of still affordable vintage cameras, when you have acquired the skills to rescue desirable kit that's reasonably priced, because of repairable issues.
I have a couple of these. My experience: The pre-war Contaxes are actually more refined cameras than their Leica counterparts of the same period -- but but they don't age as well! A 50s Contax is mechanically just as fine a camera as a Leica M3. But they feel quite different in operation, it's a bit like apples and oranges. My biggest gripes with the last Contax vs the Leica M2/3: the still primitive viewfinder (Nikon S is so much better!), and the necessity to practice the awkward "Contax grip" (because of the position of the rangefinder window). And, yes, you are right: pre-war Contax = Kiev (
Yes I’m sure when they were new they felt more Leica-like. The Nikon S is nice, see that video but I find the early Contax (or Kiev) much easier to focus.
Gracias por el video Matt.
He trabajado con Contax, Leicas y Nikon Rangefinder!
Mi leica M3 no la cambio por ninguna, en cuanto a las Contax , mi preferida sin duda es la *Contarex bulle eye* es una máquina fantástica, con la mejor optica de Zeiss....
Thanks, yes M3 is king!
The M5 was the first M-Leica, that had a built in lightmeter, but I would never dare to mention it....;-)
Haha sorry that’s true. The M5 is somehow always out of my mind. Thanks for the correction!
Awesome, thanks. cold and rainy weather tomorrow will be camping at camera stores
Enjoy! There are normally lots of nice cameras/ lenses!
Zeiss Ikon Contax I + II + III are very nice Cameras !
Nice, thanks!
There weren't any pre-war Kiev cameras. The early Kievs were the continuation cameras of the pre-war Contax. The camera and lens machinery and some parts were moved from eastern Germany to Kyiv as war reparations. The post-war Contax branded cameras and Zeiss Opton lenses were re-engineered by the Western branch of Zeiss Ikon. It took Zeiss Ikon around 10 years to come up with a camera that was comparable with the Leica but without infringing their patents, but they succeeded. The Contax shutter is theoretically more robust than cloth blinds, but the early Contaxes had the reputation of not being as reliable, as other comments suggest here. I don't think it is as easy to find a Contax to Leica adaptor as you suggest. Amadeo are rare and expensive. I did get one for Sony that was part Kiev and part cheap Leica LTM to Sony adaptor slightly modified, which was bad news for the Kiev unless it had been beyond repair, and such adaptors are only going to work nicely for mirrorless digital cameras, and most I have seen advertised were only for internal bayonet..
Thanks, yes sorry I realised after my simple wording "pre-war Kiev" was incorrect, I meant their version of the pre-war Contax. You used to be able to buy the adapters new on CameraQuest unless he's stopped production. Yes they are not cheap for sure.
Matt, i have the Leica M3, Leica iiif and the Contax iia (Contax has been cla'd). Bad thing about Contax, it's hard to find someone that can do a cla on them. Lets talk about the rangefinder on the Contax iia. Once they go out of alignment it's very hard to get them back aligned properly. It's much easier to align a Leica M3 and the IIIF. The Contax's you have to take them apart to align them. I just wanted to share that..
Thanks Dan, great point
I did a complete strip down/rebuild on my IIa a few years ago and it was a delight to work on. While not quite up to Leica build quality - still very well made, and a great design.
The realignment of the rangefinder is more work for sure, but not that much as all you need to do is remove the top cover. Not recommended for diy unless you have plenty of practice on cheaper cameras though!
The Contax rangefinders don't seem to go out of alignment the way the Leicas do.
The IIs and IIs, and Kievs though are a different proposition altogether, from a maintenance perspective - the older shutter design is much harder to work on.
Thanks Dan, great point. Leica seem to be easier to fix/ get fixed
I have the Contax iia red dial with four lenses. Agood friend of mine rebuilds and cla's Contax. He has my four lenses and the 22mm Biogon, too. .I also have a Nikon rsngefinder system.
I would love to own a Leica M3 etc. but t is out of my price range. But I do have a leica Leicaflex Sl with a Sumacron 50. I'll have to be satisfied with these,,,and I am.
One further point Matt… the Nikkor S lenses fit the Contax cameras. The helicoids vary between Nikon camera and Contax slightly, but only is an issue on lenses longer than 50 mm. Nikon made longer ( 85mm and 135 mm) lenses in the 1950s marked “C” on the barrel, denoting the same helicoid ratio as Contax, that were fully compatible with Contax bodies. The Nikon rangefinders were very close and well executed copies of the Contax Ila.
Yes great point. Sorry Zurichs think I covered this in the Kiev 4 video as I use Nikkor S glass too
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom I should have known!
I used 2 Contax 139's with winders heavily in the late 80's for weddings - those Zeiss primes are unbeatable - what let the brand down most of all was a tacky tie in with Yashica - the Kyocera group was conflicted at the time and the let the brand down with a final swansong of the Contax 645 - one of the best MF cameras ever made - it had AF on zoom lenses - good times - the 139 should take particular mention for the leatherette - which melted into dust in every pair of hands that held one leaving the grey backing behind!!!! However if you do put one in your hands with a naturally curved winder and a button for vertical shots you too will know why this camera itself was special to use and hold but not special enough to be better than a Leica - just those lenses
Great! I used to shoot weddings with the Contax 645. Sadly I sold it before the prices went to the moon!
Where in Prague did you go shopping ? I’m here now and would love to go have a look. BTW, great videos, keep ‘em coming, cheers
Foto Skoda (and another just down the street. You’ll see it)
i love my Contax G2 more than my Leica at the moment :)
I just met a G2 owner in the US 5mins ago at the airport!!
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom you should definitely make a review I think you might enjoy that camera
I have Contax IIa and Leica M3. The Contax is a beautiful camera - almost jewel like, and the lenses are superb too.
But, the Leica feels like it comes from a different era, even though the IIa was released in 1950 and the M3 in 1954 - they feel 20 years apart. Everything on the Leica feels modern, at least for a 35mm film camera perspective, whereas the Contax feels like a lovely vintage camera - which is exactly what it is.
As a glasses wearer the killer difference is the viewfinder - it is painful to use on the Contax and superb on the Leica. I use the Leica all the time, while the Contax sits on the shelf - though I do try to bring it out, I can never really get on with it as a user camera. I do use the Contax a bit with a turret accessory finder for longer lenses, which is OK if a bit clunky.
Definitely considering the Amedeo - so expensive though - more than I paid for each Contax lens by some margin.
Thanks for the video - enjoyed it as always.
Thanks, yes I’ve not even shot film in my Contax iia and I’ve had it for some years. If I want that mount I use Kiev and if I want smooth I use Leica! Definitely feel years apart.
I have used Leica, Contax, Canon, Fuji, Argus, and Minolta rangefinders. However, Leica rangefinders are best for me because they are still in production and still supported by their manufacturer.
Yes that’s also a big plus as all these mentioned cameras get older and older.
What people really forget is that a Leica was the camera to get if you didn't have the money for a Contax back in 30s. The Contax II camera and it's lenses were way more expensive than Leica's counterparts in Germany and owning a Contax II was something that normal working class people wouldn't even dream of, especially considering the overall situation before WW2.
Yes! Contax for the pros, I understand this from my reading. Thanks
Guys, if you buying a Kievs - buy Kiev made in 50s -early 60s -they are much nicer
Yes or just avoid the 4M and later models which are really poor.
I have a Contax III, a 50s Kiev and a 60s Kiev. The Contax doesn't work, the 50s Kiev had a dodgy shutter curtain at first (but now seems ok) and the 60s Kiev works flawlessly, and is the only one that I've trusted to actually use. I understand the point about the older ones supposedly being better (less worn tooling, original workforce), but there's a lot to be said for having a newer camera that has been used less (probably less likely that pros used the Kievs compared to the Contax).
Matt, Where can I find the adapter for my Leica M camera so I can use my Ziess 50 mm 1.5 F lens ? Can you give me a link?
EBay or cameraquest
Only a cosmetic issue but the Contax cameras often have unsightly 'lumps' beneath the leatherette covering
Thanks! Ah yes I read about this being an issue from the metal corrosion.
Contax G2 is ahead of these by a generation or 2. Truly the pinacle of film rangefinders.
Yes they came much later. Great if people want AFocus
It's not really a rangefinder camera, it's an optical viewfinder camera with autofocus. I had both a G1 and a G2 and there were a lot of things I liked about them, but why I finally gave up on them is that you could never be SURE your intended subject was in focus. The focus brackets in the viewfinder don't quite line up the the actual position of the focus area, and there's no way to confirm whether the AF hit the aim point or not; the manual distance scale was only approximately accurate as well. Still fun to use if you mostly shoot in bright light and can stop down a lot, but I had too many near-misses.
@@jlwilliams True. I guess the analogous true rangefinder would be the Zeiss Ikon.
I have a Minolta CLE that I like quite a bit. Lighter and more compact than most M-mount cameras. Currently the only M-mount camera body I own.
What about Nikon rangefinders? I know you have some :)
True. Yes I should have mentioned but then there is Nikon, Canon, Soviet LTM and the video becomes an hour long. The Nikon are nicely made but less easy to focus.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom no worries I could probs fit an hour sometime this weekend to watch it thx 🤪
This is why I shoot with Nikon rangefinders. The lens mount of the Contax with a Leica style shutter. Best of both worlds plus incredibly affordable in today's market. As much as I love Contaxes, I know that shutter is a ticking time bomb. When it fails, no one will fix it. My Nikon S2 with the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 is a winning package, usable and beautiful.
Yes the Nikon S are lovely but harder to focus than these old Contax II / Kiev. See my Nikon S video.
OK, have to weigh in here. I'm 78 and have been a photographer for 50 years. Leica was considered an armature photographer's choice. The Contax was the pro choice for a number of reasons that I won't detail here. I own a number of Leicas, from Barnacks to an M8u and I love them but my IIa and IIIa are better in every way. BTW the FSU's are not even close to the German Contax rigs IMO.
Thanks for writing. I know they were deemed the best in the past but do you not think Leica are just so much more refined, smooth, more modern feeling (even my 1930s Barnacks that I use as my daily carries are much nicer than the later Contax and then the M3 ticks all the boxes for my portraits.
Its hard to find a really well done Contax today. I have two done by Henrey Scherer and they are smooth as silk. Also when Leica went to lever advance in the M3, the world went nuts lol. Contax cameras are more complicated and somewhat over engineered, so they are harder to sort out. When I was younger (and the cameras could be had new) the issue of refinement and smoothness was nonexistent.
I would not recommend the Leica rewind lever. I had one on my MP which made the rewind really fast but I ended up scratching the MP body with the winder. Aaargh!!
Oh no, as long as there is clearance it’s ok to use.
And the winner is … the Canon P !!!
Nope.. Ugly camera
Haha there are so many RF cameras. I’ve done videos on quite a few but not the P yet. Yes Canon offer good value and more refined than these Contax.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom honestly I find it more pleasant to use than a Leica iii ( I know it’s difficult to read for you… sorry for that …:))
@@eugene8524 eye check required
as entry level no frills camera its fantastic. loved my p
Nikon SP
See my Nikon SP video for that one ;). Nice camera for sure but I wish the RF patch was as clear as many other brands.
Leicas are for zone focus - street photo, Contax are not - portrait, nature, etc. My choice is Leica
Thanks, I love my Leica iii the most for travel and the M3 for portraits (as it goes to 0.7m) but the Kiev offers the best value for sure.
I just could not live with that Leica’s gummy rag shutter. Some decades ago, I had a Kiev for a while, but Nikon SLR was and still is superior to any rangefinder cameras. But who am I to argue with rangefinder fan boys.
Nikon are great too ofc, RF or SLR. You know I use both. RF focusing just works much better for my eyes for fast glass. (Still need to do FM3a video).
The noise and clack of the SLR shutter will wake the dead when comparing with the muted and soft shutter sound of an M2.
@@ofeykalakar1 That Nikon SLR is a history now, my SL2-S is whisper quiet or absolutely silent using electronic shutter whilst your M2 is generating ‘muted and soft shutter sound’ that will scare a life of that little critter or you would be taken out of theatre photo shoot, just saying.
Matt
I love your effort
But your tripping over yourself
Thanks, sorry if it wasn’t clear. I had to make the video and edit it all in one day ahead of my US trip as I knew I’d be offline (unable to make videos for an extended period while teaching in the US). Normally each video takes 2 full days to make.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom
I live near Boston. Come by I would love to meet
You make beautiful images
@@danieleppelsheimer9273 thanks for your warm welcome! Maybe next time (now in Vegas then London after)
Fitting new ribbons to a Contax II or III, whilst not a job for a beginner in camera repair, is not actually a complex procedure. Intricate, perhaps, and calls for some good manual dexterity. But not *complicated*, per se.
The problem is that by now most shutters are getting worn. Claws on the spring latch worn down. The leather strips aligning the curtain slats will be disintegrating, permitting the slats to slide side to side and catch on the mechanism or shutter crate. And if the original leathers are holding together before you fit new ribbons, by the time they've been manipulated-even gently, during installation of the ribbons-the leathers will be breaking apart, and will need to be done.
This isn't impossible, either. I kept one of my old leather wallets specifically to raid for this purpose-successfully as it turned out. But it needs a deft touch to painstakingly tease up the folded edges of each slat and lay a new leather strip along them all. And the material thickness is gossamer thin, so, even my supple kid leather wallet pieces had to be patiently hand scraped to size, so that they would fit inside the folded ends of the brass slats without bulging.
There's other minutiae involved, of course. But you no doubt get the picture by now. It's a challenging, time-consuming labour of love, to make a pre-war Contax really right (without resorting to using Kiev parts anyway). You wouldn't do it for the money, few will pay a remotely reasonable hourly rate for the work involved. (Which is why I only repair pre war models for myself, these days).
Yes makes sense. Agree when they are well restored I bet they are great. My restored 1930s Leica is a dream to use. My smoothest film camera by far.