Is a Zeiss Ikon Contessa worth $49?

[warden]

But then you will have a $250 camera.

And a classic one at that. Very cool.

 

[Ariston]

And a classic one at that. Very cool.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with the sentiment. But I can't afford to sink more money into cameras than they are really worth, even though I use them instead of just decorate with them.

Hopefully I can afford to spruce it up down the road. It is still usable as it is, so I WILL use it.

 

[Ste_S]

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with the sentiment. But I can't afford to sink more money into cameras than they are really worth, even though I use them instead of just decorate with them.

Hopefully I can afford to spruce it up down the road. It is still usable as it is, so I WILL use it.

Worth is subjective. If you're planning to sell it on and make your money back, then spending money on repairing it is not worth it.
If however you want to use it as a properly functioning camera, then yes it almost is always worth it

 

[AndyH]

I read that you just loosen a screw on the front element, then it will screw right off. I don't know about the rear one...

The shop is mailing it back to me now. I'll have to look at it. The focus is on the front, so I was also concerned about messing up the rangefinder alignment.

Recalibrating the rangefinder is fairly simple - one screw. But the lens group attachment method varies a lot, depending on the series. Sometimes the screw on assembly is held in place by just a set screw. If you don’t know what you’re doing and there is a set screw, I wouldn’t attempt it.

Andy

 

[AndyH]

But then you will have a $250 camera.

Yep. And it might be worth asking the question- How many of us actually shoot a camera like this below 1/15th?

I have a Rolleiflex 35 that is off a couple of stops below 1/15. But I have never shot it on a tripod and doubt I ever will. Paid zero dollars for it, and it’s perfect for hand held shots. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Andy

 

[pbromaghin]

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with the sentiment. But I can't afford to sink more money into cameras than they are really worth, even though I use them instead of just decorate with them.

Hopefully I can afford to spruce it up down the road. It is still usable as it is, so I WILL use it.

I am not a collector, and any camera that is just a decoration is worth nothing to me, but I have a few that I got for free and they sit on the shelf as decorations. However, I personally would find any of the top-line cameras of the 50s, fully restored and functional, would be worth $250. They are absolutely wonderfully engineered. But like you say, it might take a while to save up for it.

 

[GRHazelton]

You might contact Zack at http://zackscamerarepair.com/ He worked on a Werra I have and did wonders. You'll see my post to his site. If the Contessa you have is in nice condition the cost of a proper CLA would probably be a good "investment," realizing that cameras are rarely a real investment. But to have a lovely camera like the Contessa in proper working order is perhaps preserving some of the art heritage of photography.

 

[Ariston]

You might contact Zack at http://zackscamerarepair.com/ He worked on a Werra I have and did wonders. You'll see my post to his site. If the Contessa you have is in nice condition the cost of a proper CLA would probably be a good "investment," realizing that cameras are rarely a real investment. But to have a lovely camera like the Contessa in proper working order is perhaps preserving some of the art heritage of photography.

Thank you for this referral. I emailed Mr. Zacks and his quote was much more reasonable. I dropped the camera in the mail to him today. I cannot wait to get it back.

 

[pbromaghin]

That's great news. You have to post some results after you shoot the first roll.