Contax RX not displaying the right aperture

[John Koehrer]

A small dab of contact cement on one surface works pretty well and is reversible unlike the super glue/caulking options.

 

[Todd Adamson]

A small dab of contact cement on one surface works pretty well and is reversible unlike the super glue/caulking options.

Thanks, John. I actually had three or four products lying around here that I was considering, including DAP Contact Cement. I elected not to use that one because it said it was for "wood, rubber, paper, leather, and fabric." The stuff I used specifically mentioned metal and glass. You're right, though, the repair I did, if it holds fast, will not be trivial to reverse. That was one of my worries, but again....the impatience thing....

 

[flatulent1]

Congratulations on the mirror repair. I've acquired three bodies in the last year, but so far haven't found anything amiss.

About your 28-85...

... At 3.3, display reads 2.8, but I can actually turn the ring just a bit clockwise from there, and the display goes to 2.4. It doesn't click in this position, and if I let go, it goes back to 2.8...

Mine doesn't do this. The aperture ring stops at 3.3 and doesn't budge. Interesting...

 

[Todd Adamson]

Thanks for that info. Seems like there's probably something not quite right about my lens. I'll probably send it somewhere, someday, but for now, I'm getting the functionality I need, and I just have to not worry about the precise aperture.

Heh...anyone know of a good instructional resource for dissassembly/repair of a Vario-Sonnar lens? I might be pushing my luck here....

 

[Jeff L]

Thanks for that info. Seems like there's probably something not quite right about my lens. I'll probably send it somewhere, someday, but for now, I'm getting the functionality I need, and I just have to not worry about the precise aperture.

Heh...anyone know of a good instructional resource for dissassembly/repair of a Vario-Sonnar lens? I might be pushing my luck here....

I don't know where to get a repair manual but it may just be a little wear on the lens mount. Might not need a manual for that. I'd check to see if mounts are available from Kyocera or Zeiss. They weren't expensive when I changed a couple of mine.

 

[Todd Adamson]

I don't know where to get a repair manual but it may just be a little wear on the lens mount. Might not need a manual for that. I'd check to see if mounts are available from Kyocera or Zeiss. They weren't expensive when I changed a couple of mine.

I just checked, and the mount itself is totally solid. No play at all between the bayonet and the body mount. But speaking of changing mounts, don't you have to set the ring in the right place relative to the aperture lever when you do that? I have a feeling if I could do everything necessary to change the mount, that might possibly reveal where the problem is. I've never done that before, though...is that pretty straightforward? I think my first fear would be stripping the tiny screwheads...

 

[Jeff L]

It was quite a while ago but IIRC the mount replaced with new one even though it seemed fine, and all read perfectly. That was when Kyocera Contax was still in Canada and parts and help came easily. At the time I think the one for my 25mm might have been $6-$10 CDN. That was 15-20 years ago though. I'd send Sally at Tocad a note asking how much a mount is. When I needed a part for my RTS III she sent the parts/camera schematic and asked which part. Made it easy. If the part is super cheap then it might be worth the gamble to try.

 

[Todd Adamson]

I'd send Sally at Tocad a note asking how much a mount is.

Just heard back from Sally, and they no longer have parts. They send everything to Japan for repair. I'll probably do that eventually, maybe this winter, or whenever I get my hands on another lens. But for now, it works, and I'm having fun with the RX.

 

[Jeff L]

FYI.. I sent my RTS III to Japan for repair through Tocad. They did a great job for less money than I thought it might be with reasonably quick turn around too.

 

[Todd Adamson]

Good info, thanks, Jeff. I'm sure I'll do that, and maybe sooner than winter. As soon as I can make up my mind and figure out what rangefinder to buy, that will consume my spare time for a while so I won't miss shooting with the Contax.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Todd- simple solution to the rangefinder issue- get a Contax G2. Best optics available for a 35mm system, period. That's reason enough to use it. If you shoot wide-angle, splurge and treat yourself to the 21mm. It's amazing. The only lenses to skip in that lineup are the 16 (how often are you going to use one?), the 35 (out of context, it's a great lens, but in the G-series lineup, it's the weak link), and the zoom (again- why would you want a slow zoom on a rangefinder, when the primes in the range it covers are so much better?). The 21, 28, 45, and 90 are all you'll ever want or need, and they're easily the equal of Leica's best.

 

[Todd Adamson]

Todd- simple solution to the rangefinder issue- get a Contax G2.

That's pretty much the decision I had arrived at, and I thank you for reinforcing it. I've been all over th place, looking at Bessas, and the Konica Hexar, the Minolta CLE, etc. But I'm pretty sure my first RF will be a G2 with the 45. Watching several auctions now and waiting on a few bits of gear to sell. The only uncertainty that remains at this point is whether I might skimp and get a G1. That argument goes like this:

For the forseeable future I'm only going to have one lens, and it's the 45 I want. So maybe the difference in the AF systems won't matter for me in that focal length. I'd be saving myself $300 - $400, and if I totally fell in love with the system, I could one day get the G2.

I do like the back button of the G2 for AF activation, though....

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The G2's focusing is noticeably superior. And the manual focusing (if you want to do that) is easier I think with the front wheel instead of the top dial. It's easier to use without taking your eye off the viewfinder. The motor winder is also faster, should you ever attempt any kind of sports/action photography, and the top shutter speed is 1/6000, which is a big help when you want to shoot wide open in bright daylight. And it's a bigger camera, which I find helpful as I have large-ish hands. That extra $300 buys you a lot.

The Puerto Rico images on this page - (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and my Barcelona images -

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

were all taken with the G2 outfit.

 

[Todd Adamson]

The G2's focusing is noticeably superior. And the manual focusing (if you want to do that) is easier I think with the front wheel instead of the top dial. It's easier to use without taking your eye off the viewfinder. The motor winder is also faster, should you ever attempt any kind of sports/action photography, and the top shutter speed is 1/6000, which is a big help when you want to shoot wide open in bright daylight. And it's a bigger camera, which I find helpful as I have large-ish hands. That extra $300 buys you a lot.

Thank you, Scott. You're making a pretty strong argument.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

This is of course not to say that you'll be disappointed/frustrated with a G1 if you don't have the budget for a G2 the G2 is just a superior tool, and worth the extra money. In the end though, the camera is just a light-tight box to hold the film, and it's the lens that makes the image. I still have my G1, which I keep as a backup/second-shooter.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

G2 with the 45 Planar is the kit I'd keep if I had only one body and lens to choose. The 28 and 90 are amazing as is the 21. I've never used the G1 but as well outlined above the extra $ for the G2 is worth it on a few levels.

Some of my favs with this kit:


G2 1600 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr


churchladyzurichweb120072_[1] by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr


fisherman's wharf at night SF ContaxG2 Portra400UC 02-2004 001 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr


Water Tank, Treasure Island, San Francisco by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

 

[Todd Adamson]

Thanks, Rich, I think you guys have helped my decision a lot. Just a matter of pulling the funds together right now. BTW, was the that the G2 metering on those shots, or you?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Thanks, Rich, I think you guys have helped my decision a lot. Just a matter of pulling the funds together right now. BTW, was the that the G2 metering on those shots, or you?

Mostly the G2. I've never worked with a more accurate meter in my life even for slides. Now that said I've been shooting for 30+ years so I'll often almost unconsciously meter a scene based on some minor adjustment to "fool" the meter slightly one way or the other, flip the AE lock on the G2, recompose and shoot. But not often.

 

[Todd Adamson]

Nice. That pretty much cinches it. I want that G2, badly.

Might be a couple of weeks, but one way or the other...

 

[mtjade2007]

I tried the pushing it back into place thing, but I could watch it rebound a little bit, so I kept going until the adhesive was soft enough to remove the mirror. Then I cleaned the mirror and reglued it with some window caulk. LOL, I am impatient, and that's all I could find. I'm going to make a blog post about the repair later today (I hope), and when I do, I'll come back and link it for anyone interested.

Tod, how does the RX work now? I really wondered if it actually works fine after your mirror fix to the camera. I had a Contax 159MM in like new condition. I bought it new and hardly used it. Then one day I noticed the mirror sliding forward like your RX. I managed to repair it by myself. The mirror looks just right in its place but it is really not. I eventually realized that it is no longer at the exact 45 degree angle any more. The upper and lower part of the frame are not in focus at the same time any more. Besides, the focus at the infinite distance is out wrong now.

I realized that whenever the mirror is re-glued it will need adjustment of the tilt of the mirror and fine adjustment for focus. Every SLR was adjusted at the factory. If the mirror is replaced all these adjustment needs to be redone.

Now my 159MM is a spare parts carmera only. I had to buy another body to replace it. I like its 1/4000th shutter speed and vertical travel shutter. Sadly Contax seems to be poor in reliability.

 

[Jeff L]

Sadly Contax seems to be poor in reliability.

That's too bad. My 137MA has been extremely reliable. I bought it new in the mid eighties and it's had nothing ever go wrong and has never been serviced. ( Hope this didn't jinx it). My other Contaxes have been no less reliable than my Olympus or Rollei.

 

[brucemuir]

I had a Contax 159MM in like new condition. I bought it new and hardly used it. Then one day I noticed the mirror sliding forward like your RX. I managed to repair it by myself. The mirror looks just right in its place but it is really not. I eventually realized that it is no longer at the exact 45 degree angle any more. The upper and lower part of the frame are not in focus at the same time any more. Besides, the focus at the infinite distance is out wrong now.


Now my 159MM is a spare parts carmera only. I had to buy another body to replace it. I like its 1/4000th shutter speed and vertical travel shutter. Sadly Contax seems to be poor in reliability.

Oh lord, I have a 159mm. Mine looks okay so far but how do you tell? Is it noticable or all of a sudden the mirror come loose?




btw Rich, beautiful light on those 1st 2 there.

 

[Todd Adamson]

Tod, how does the RX work now?

Everything seems to be fine so far...I'll be developing my fifth roll later today. I posted a bunch of frames from the third roll here:

http://no-exif.com/2012/04/22/contax-rx-kodak-200/

I've done some hyperfocal shooting, some focused at infinity (the VF image and the infinity stop on the lens seem in sync to my eye), and some portraits wide open, where I used the matte screen to achieve focus on the eyes. I'm very picky about critical sharpness, so I believe I'd notice a problem right away. I can post 100% crops later, when I'm at my computer.

The upper and lower part of the frame are not in focus at the same time any more.

Are you talking about in the VF, or on the negative/print? If the latter, that wouldn't have anything to do with the mirror being out of whack, right?

 

[Todd Adamson]

Oh lord, I have a 159mm. Mine looks okay so far but how do you tell? Is it noticable or all of a sudden the mirror come loose?

Hi Bruce.

Did you see my post about the repair? I'm not sure how different the mirror and carrier arrangement would be in the 159, but if you hold the shutter button down so the mirror is up, you can see if the edge of the mirror is flush with the carrier frame. I would suspect that it should be. Hopefully it doesn't look like this:

http://no-exif.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/slipped.jpg

 

[Todd Adamson]

Bruce, also see the last two pics in that blog post:

http://no-exif.com/2012/04/18/new-contax-rx-repair/

They are from a different angle, showing the spacing of the mirror's bottom edge relative to the mirror box floor. From your pics, your mirror seems to intermediare in distance between my before and after pics, but the 159 is obviously a totally different machine, so yours could be exactly where it's supposed to be.