Contax RTS ii vs 139Q

[Don_ih]

outside of the cheaper lenses how does the glass stack up to Nikon and Contax

All I can really say about Pentax lenses is I have never been disappointed by any of them - and that even includes a short zoom lens (no noticeable loss of contrast).

 

[Huss]

Thanks for all the amazing input everyone! Thinking more about it a Pentax LX could be a good option — smaller and lighter than Nikon F’s, more “professional” than a Contax 139, and I like that it has a mostly mechanical shutter (my Leica is an iif so I’m used to not having slow speeds if the electronics did fail).

I’ve never shot anything Pentax, outside of the cheaper lenses how does the glass stack up to Nikon and Contax? And other than the sticky mirror issue (which I think is easy enough to fix?) are there any other issues with the LX?

I imagine the build would be a step above the Contax and OM2, but not quite a Nikon F2 or my barnack Leica

I sold my LX last year while it was still working. It's not just the sticky mirror issue, the electronics themselves start to age out due to micro-cracks in the circuit board. This results in sudden death and the camera is done. It is a very nice camera but at this point in time one that I decided to sell before it happened to mine. The leds in the viewfinder are quite difficult to see in daylight, which is a bummer.
One of the fanmous Pentax 'experts' now refuses to service the LX.

Once you are dealing with cameras of that age, it seems there are only a few which still stand the test of time. Nikon F series. Canon F1. And interestingly the Minolta XK/XM/X1. I use the Minolta and the Nikons (F2, F3) and the Nikons are definitely more ergonomic/more pleasant to handle. All these cameras are big heavy things.

p.s. Pentaxes like the ME, Super A etc are all very nice and tiny options. I really liked those (sold only because I had too much stuff). Much less to worry about as they are much cheaper than the LX!

 

[Paul Howell]

Thinking about Pentax, what about Fuji M42 bodies, the ST801, top shutter speed of 1/2000, or the 701 which had silicon meter, but lower top shutter speed of 1/1000, the last Fuji M42 901 with a electronic shutter, down side to the 901 is that it used a modified M42 lens and need to hearing aid batteries. When using Pentax and other M42 lens had to use stop down metering. Fuji M42 EBC were some of the best of all the M42 lens.

 

[Jordanpereira1]

I have both devices, and I much prefer the contax RTS

 

[flavio81]

An OM-2n is more likely to be serviceable than a Pentax LX, and I would say it is of similar build quality.

How can it be of similar build quality when the LX is thoroughly weatherproofed? Even more weatherproofed than the Canon New F-1, which is full of o-rings/rubber thingies, and the service manual tells you to apply sealant in many many places.

 

[MattKing]

How can it be of similar build quality when the LX is thoroughly weatherproofed? Even more weatherproofed than the Canon New F-1, which is full of o-rings/rubber thingies, and the service manual tells you to apply sealant in many many places.

Build quality and weather-proofing are separate things.
If you need water and wind resistance, then that is a design feature, not a measurement of quality.

 

[flavio81]

I’ve never shot anything Pentax, outside of the cheaper lenses how does the glass stack up to Nikon and Contax?

Asahi Optical was one of the most respected optical companies in japan. The first to produce a japanese wideangle lens, the first japanese company to release a 50/1.4 lens (Nikon only had a 58/1.4 then), the first company to release a 50/1.4 lens.

Their lens system, in this case the K-mount lenses, might not have the wild variety of choices that Nikon has, or the extremely-fast, extremely-long choices Canon gives, but they surely can create normal, bread-and-butter lenses (i.e.24/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, etc) of top build quality and imaging quality.

 

[flavio81]

Build quality and weather-proofing are separate things.
If you need water and wind resistance, then that is a design feature, not a measurement of quality.

Alright. But getting to the original point: I don't agree with the OM-2N and Pentax LX having "similar build quality", based on my own assessment, i've handled a LX, and i've used a borrowed OM-2n for about a couple of months (nice camera though and more useful than the OM-1).

 

[Paul Howell]

As I wrote before the Air Force, LA Times and AP field tested the OM-1, it did not hold up as well the Nikon F2. The Air Force did not test the Canon, the Navy did and selected the F1 to replace the Topcon SuperD. The OM-1 had a few features I liked such as the shutter speeds on the lens mount, I could change either the F stop or the shutter speed with my left hand keeping my right hand ready to trip the shutter. The meter was pretty good, and it was built in, the F and F2 with Photomic finder was clunky and not all that well balanced. I only used the OM-1 a few times before I was transferred, my friends who did test the OM-1 over the next 6 months found that the film advance and mirror were prone to sticking. I know that there were many professional photogpghers used the OM system with great results, the lens are outstanding.

If I going to buy an Olympus it would be a OM 4. Uses modern batteries, the Ti model was made until 2002, has a rep for being reliable.

 

[Alan Gales]

The 139 came out between the RTS and the RTS ll. It feels like a baby RTS ll. The original RTS was Porsche designed. The ergonomics are fantastic at least to my hands. All other brands including Nikon felt clumsy in my hands by comparison. I eventually held a Leica R series and if felt good too.

The 139 lacks the mirror lock up of the RTS ll. There was an auto winder available but no full motor drive like the RTS ll. The 139 was considered an amateur camera and the RTS ll a professional camera. Just like a Nikon FE ll was considered an amateur camera and the F3 a professional camera.

I loved the material used on the outside of my 139 until it started disintegrating a few years after I bought it new. You could get it replaced with the same stuff for a price. I didn't bother. Today there are other better lasting materials available so replacement is cheap and easy.

The camera came out in 1978. Mine was an 1984 or 1985. I can't remember. I absolutely loved my 139 Q and shot it for many years. The Zeiss lenses are quite nice too.

Personally, I would avoid any old camera from the 1970's or 1980's reliant upon a battery today. If a meter in a camera fails you can use another meter. If the camera fails you are out a camera. Just my opinion.

 

[Huss]

The 137mt also was super nice. A 139 w a built in winder I think.

 

[Paul Howell]

The 137 MT was aperture preferred only, motor drive was really more like a winder, 2FPS. The follow up MA had manual and aperture preferred exposure and a faster integrated motor drive 3PFS. Much better build quality than the Konica FS.