Contax Zeiss Ikon 1932

Pioneer said:

I think what everybody overlooks is the amazing resiliency of the original Contax II design. The Kiev cameras work quite well and when you understand the admittedly low quality of assembly and the many changes done to simplify and cheapen assembly, I have to believe the Contax design is actually very good. Again, I kind of suspect the Leica publicity machine when the claims are made of all the twists and turns that were required by Zeiss Ikon in order to avoid the Leica patents and to build another quality 35mm camera. I think the truth of the matter is that there are many ways to achieve the same goal, and the first one out the gate does not necessarily patent all the correct ones.

The Contax design is not all that tough to understand. It works and it works very well whether it was built in Germany or in Ukraine. The Contax had many advanced and successful features that Leica worked hard to match with their M3 camera. Zeiss Ikon went out of business in the West for many reasons that had nothing to do with the strength of their designs and the quality build of their cameras.

Of course all of this applies to the Contax. Somehow I'm not all that sure that the Contarex was that reliable, though it was an amazing camera with great glass.

Click to expand...

Well the Conterax did not sell in volume like the Nikon F
Leitz stayed a cottage industry. Canon & Nikon went
large.

ContaxII were well complicated designed with too many parts.

KISS Keep it Simple and Stupid...

Xmas said:

Well the Conterax did not sell in volume like the Nikon F
Leitz stayed a cottage industry. Canon & Nikon went
large.

ContaxII were well complicated designed with too many parts.

KISS Keep it Simple and Stupid...

Click to expand...

The Nikon F was/is a truly amazing engineering feat on its own. I own one but I don't particularly like to shoot it.

What Nikon and Canon did was give the pros exactly what they wanted at a very low price, and then advertise the daylights out of that to the amateur market. The Japanese camera industry won simply by building simple and inexpensive SLR cameras that worked. As a rule Germany's cameras were neither cheap, nor were they particularly reliable. The German camera industry just could not accept that anyone else could build a better camera or a better lens. And they may have been right at the time. But Japan's cameras were good enough. Zeiss Ikon wasted their engineering expertise trying to build the best 35mm SLR of all time. It was inconceivable that anyone might want anything less.

The same exact thing happened to the US car industry. They just could not believe that anyone could beat them. But Japan did it by building reliable, inexpensive cars. They were small, but they were good enough.

But I am still glad that Zeiss built the Contax. It may have been more complex than other rangefinders were, but the Contax II is still a wonderful and reliable camera.

Pioneer said:

But I am still glad that Zeiss built the Contax. It may have been more complex than other rangefinders were, but the Contax II is still a wonderful and reliable camera.

Click to expand...

HiDan

I have three contax II
But you are wrong
The Ja industry built better cameras and autos cheaper.
They listened to the US production people eg

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

A Nikon F was better designed than a Conterax.
A Canon P was better designed than a Leica M2
A Mx-5 (Miata?) was better designed than MGB

Leica were better at marketing...

The Ja camara industry pooled their patents Polariod sued Kodak made the lawyers a fortune...

Noel

Xmas said:

Well the Conterax did not sell in volume like the Nikon F
Leitz stayed a cottage industry. Canon & Nikon went
large.

ContaxII were well complicated designed with too many parts.

KISS Keep it Simple and Stupid...

Click to expand...

You have to bear in mind that when the Contax II was designed, the 35mm RF camera was still emerging technology. Leitz had put enough original design features into their version of the cloth focal plane shutter that they were able to patent it, so that design was out. Zeiss' design has exactly enough parts to make it work, it isn't that complicated either. If you've been trained (as opposed to taught)on the Leitz type shutter, you'll be stymied by the Contax. If however you're an experienced mechanic and understand mechanisms, you'll have no trouble. As I mentioned, I was able to replace a set of ribbons in 1987 or 88 with no service manual, no internet sites like Kiev survival, just a bit of advice via telephone regarding removing the lower shutter curtain and roller. This btw is the correct way to do it, not with the roller installed as recommended by the Kiev survival site. Another point not mentioned is the depthing of the bevel gears, there are shims and an adjustable bushing. Anyone who's set up ring & pinion or bevel gears in an automotive or machinery application will see this immediately; I've never yet seen it mentioned on the internet hence some of these cameras ( both Contax and Kiev) wind like a coffee grinder.

E. von Hoegh said:

You have to bear in mind that when the Contax II was designed, the 35mm RF camera was still emerging technology. Leitz had put enough original design features into their version of the cloth focal plane shutter that they were able to patent it, so that design was out. Zeiss' design has exactly enough parts to make it work, it isn't that complicated either. If you've been trained (as opposed to taught)on the Leitz type shutter, you'll be stymied by the Contax. If however you're an experienced mechanic and understand mechanisms, you'll have no trouble. As I mentioned, I was able to replace a set of ribbons in 1987 or 88 with no service manual, no internet sites like Kiev survival, just a bit of advice via telephone regarding removing the lower shutter curtain and roller. This btw is the correct way to do it, not with the roller installed as recommended by the Kiev survival site. Another point not mentioned is the depthing of the bevel gears, there are shims and an adjustable bushing. Anyone who's set up ring & pinion or bevel gears in an automotive or machinery application will see this immediately; I've never yet seen it mentioned on the internet hence some of these cameras ( both Contax and Kiev) wind like a coffee grinder.

Click to expand...

It is interesting that you put it this way. I have opened up the Contax and poked around. The minute I spotted those bevel gears I was instantly reminded of the spyder gears in a differential. I never really took it to the next step but making those adjustments to ensure those gears mesh properly makes perfect sense. Even to the point of shims and bushings.

It is also interesting to learn that removing the lower shutter and roller is the proper way to attach new shutter ribbons. I'm going to have to pull out my repair manuals and look through them again.

Xmas said:

HiDan

I have three contax II
But you are wrong
The Ja industry built better cameras and autos cheaper.
They listened to the US production people eg

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

A Nikon F was better designed than a Conterax.
A Canon P was better designed than a Leica M2
A Mx-5 (Miata?) was better designed than MGB

Leica were better at marketing...

The Ja camara industry pooled their patents Polariod sued Kodak made the lawyers a fortune...

Noel

Click to expand...

Never fear, I know about Deming and his contribution. Adding Deming's ideas to Japanese efficiency was a perfect fit. The Japanese industry's insistence on quality of assembly really transformed how people looked at cameras.

As for the Nikon being better designed than the Contarex, I don't know. My reasons for preferring my Contarex to my Nikon F has everything to do with how it feels and operates. Very few people have actually worked with a well adjusted, smoothly operating Contarex, so they really don't understand how nice they can be to use.

But in my opinion the Contax II (and III) is a far better design than most other cameras of its time, and even many of those that followed it. With the exception of shutter ribbon wear there is very little to go out of adjustment. The rangefinder is far more robust than even the Leica's vaunted design. The shutters work from 2 seconds to 1/1250, and on a properly adjusted camera even the faster speeds are within 10 to 15% of the marked speed, and stay there over very long periods of time. And unlike a Leica, you won't be burning any holes in the shutter. If you have ever tried to clean out a shard of film that is jamming up a Leica, you will definitely appreciate the ability to remove the entire back from the Contax.

Pioneer said:

It is interesting that you put it this way. I have opened up the Contax and poked around. The minute I spotted those bevel gears I was instantly reminded of the spyder gears in a differential. I never really took it to the next step but making those adjustments to ensure those gears mesh properly makes perfect sense. Even to the point of shims and bushings.

It is also interesting to learn that removing the lower shutter and roller is the proper way to attach new shutter ribbons. I'm going to have to pull out my repair manuals and look through them again.

Click to expand...

The ribbons attach to two short outer rollers each containing a spring, the end caps of these rollers are removable once the assembly is removed from the camera. You sew the loop in that end of the ribbon and simply slip it over the segment of the roller. Far better than winding the spring tight, wedging it with a screwdriver, fishing the ribbon through the slot, then sewing it in situ as the KSS recommends.

E. von Hoegh said:

You have to bear in mind that when the Contax II was designed, the 35mm RF camera was still emerging technology. Leitz had put enough original design features into their version of the cloth focal plane shutter that they were able to patent it, so that design was out. Zeiss' design has exactly enough parts to make it work, it isn't that complicated either. If you've been trained (as opposed to taught)on the Leitz type shutter, you'll be stymied by the Contax. If however you're an experienced mechanic and understand mechanisms, you'll have no trouble. As I mentioned, I was able to replace a set of ribbons in 1987 or 88 with no service manual, no internet sites like Kiev survival, just a bit of advice via telephone regarding removing the lower shutter curtain and roller. This btw is the correct way to do it, not with the roller installed as recommended by the Kiev survival site. Another point not mentioned is the depthing of the bevel gears, there are shims and an adjustable bushing. Anyone who's set up ring & pinion or bevel gears in an automotive or machinery application will see this immediately; I've never yet seen it mentioned on the internet hence some of these cameras ( both Contax and Kiev) wind like a coffee grinder.

Click to expand...

When Nikon and Canon copied Barnacks shutter post WWII Zeiss did the IIa shutter - if anything worse were possible...

The trade press quote

'a masterpiece of misplaced ingenuity'

I've had to fit shims to the take up spool gears on a '65 Kiev... no adjustment for wear.

Xmas said:

When Nikon and Canon copied Barnacks shutter post WWII Zeiss did the IIa shutter - if anything worse were possible...

The trade press quote

'a masterpiece of misplaced ingenuity'

I've had to fit shims to the take up spool gears on a '65 Kiev... no adjustment for wear.

Click to expand...

Yes, good example of Teutonic avidity run amok. One camera that, while I'd be happy if one fell in my lap, I have no desire to seek out and own. IMO the prewar Contax is a better camera in every way.

Pioneer said:

... The shutters work from 2 seconds to 1/1250, ...

Click to expand...

The dial on my II's only goes down to 1/2 sec but if you select B and delayed release some cameras will get close to 1.5 - 2.0 seconds.

You are correct Xmas. Mine is also 1/2 second, not 2 seconds. As for using the timer and B to get one second, I've done it to say that I have, but never used it in real life.