Just before the lock-down was implemented in Georgia, I shot a roll of film with my newly acquired Contax ST, and it took a long time for the film to get processed and the scans to be made available on line (blame the postal service).
So, here we are…
The camera is pleasant to use in the field (large viewfinder, logical commands, convenient exposure memo lock (associated with Spot metering only). It’s heavy, and the Zeiss 28-85 f/3.3-4 Vario Sonnar zoom makes for a very bulky and ponderous combo (more than 1.6 kg/ 3.5 pounds with batteries and strap). You can’t carry it with the strap wrapped around the wrist for too long – you need a backpack for any photo expedition longer than 30 min.
The zoom is sharp, but it’s a one ring design (you rotate the ring to focus, and you pull or push it to zoom in and out), and of course, the front element tends to slide out under its own weight.
Some of the pictures are correctly exposed, but the majority seem over-exposed, by 0.75 EV up to 1.5 EV.
I had not noticed it when I received the camera, but the aperture information displayed in the viewfinder does not correspond to the values on the aperture ring of the lens: at full aperture, the aperture ring shows f/3.3, but the viewfinder LEDs show f/2.8; at F/8 (on the lens), the LEDs show f/4.5; at f/22, the LEDs show f/13. Roughly 1.5 EV off except at full aperture, where the two values are closer. I tried another lens (a Tamron 28mm f/2.5 with the Adaptall II ring) – same issue. When I googled it, I found out that it’s (probably) a rather common problem related to the calibration of the “aperture linkage lever” of the bayonet mount, on the camera’s side (*).
The Contax workshop manuals describe in detail the process to follow to re-calibrate the aperture linkage lever (some people call it the “feeler”) on the body’s lens mount. Unfortunately, the process is different with each model (you need to perform an obscure sequence of key presses to access the maintenance mode of the camera), I have not found a Contax ST workshop manual yet, and it apparently requires a rather expensive Contax Planar 50mm f/1.4 as a benchmark for the calibration.
Until I find a way to fix the issue, I’m simply going to use the exposure correction dial and hope of the best.
(*) I exchanged a few emails with Peter Robinson, who repairs and reconditions a few specific Contax models in the UK, and maintains the Contax139 blog (very nice guy, btw).
According to him, the aperture transmission from the lens to the body is “analog” on models like the RTS III or the RX, but encoded (I translate it by “digital”) on the 167. I suspect the ST, being a derivative of the RTS III, and the predecessor of the RX, also falls into the “analog” category. Peter posted a few workshop manuals on his Website, and the recalibration process is described in detail for each model of camera, unfortunately there are variations in the key presses from model to model, and without the workshop manual corresponding to the exact model you own, fixing the aperture transmission lever is an impossible task.
If like me you’ve used primarily single lens reflex cameras in the time of film, and dSLRs or mirrorless systems after switching to digital, using a rangefinder camera with an optical viewfinder has always been a challenge. I have a Leica CL that I bought second hand a long time ago when I was living a few blocks from an official Leica store (temptation was permanent, I could not resist), but I don’t use it much. Recently, I tried to use a fully restored Canon QL17 (the Canonet GIII, the most sought after model), but in one year I may have taken 20 pictures at the most, and I don’t know how many more months (or years) I’ll need to take the remaining 16 and have the film processed.
On the one hand, I like those cameras – they’re compact, silent, and their direct optical viewfinder is easier on the eyes than the focusing screen of the SLRs. Their field of view is greater than the lens in use, and you also see what is going on outside of the frame: it helps me with the composition of the image, and it will help street photographers better anticipate the action.
But it comes at a cost. You have no idea what the depth of field will be like, and if you forget to adjust the focus (which happens to me frequently in the heat of the action), you’ll find out about your mistake when you download your scans, a few weeks too late. There’s a steep learning curve – I find that with a rangefinder camera it’s much more difficult to anticipate what a photo will look like than with an SLR, and in my opinion, a film rangefinder camera has to be used a lot, if you want your success rate to approach what you get with a single lens reflex camera.
In 2010, Fujifilm tried a new approach – they developed a compact camera, the X100, with an hybrid viewfinder – that could be switched from a rather conventional direct optical mode, to a more contemporaneous electronic mode (an EVF). Since the camera also had a 2.8 inch LCD display at the back, the photographer could use the camera in three totally different ways: like an auto-focus point and shoot of the film era (with the optical viewfinder), like a simple digicam (composing on the LCD) or like a good mirrorless camera (with the EVF).
The camera looked like a rangefinder camera from the seventies, and was graced with an analog interface (aperture ring, shutter speed knob), but it was a modern inside, with a very good 12 Megapixel APS-C sensor, and the four PASM exposure modes a photographer expects on a digital camera.
I had a X100 for a few years. It was a great camera for casual portraits, family reunions, or impromptu landscape. Being small and almost silent, it did not draw attention. But its auto-focus was extremely slow and incapable of detecting where the subject was without human assistance, and I was still missing too many pictures – as soon as the subject was moving or was not centered, in fact.
So I finally upgraded to the third generation of the model, the X100T (the X100S is the Second, the X100T the Third, the X100F the Fourth…it’s easy) and I finally have a optical viewfinder camera that gives me an good success rate (let’s say 90% of the pictures are correctly exposed and in focus, which is a huge improvement over the 30% success rate I get with the Leica CL).
Apart from the autofocus, the other big difference between the first and the third generation is the sensor – the X100 still has a conventional 12 Megapixel sensor (with the so-called Bayer matrix), while the X100T has a 16 Megapixel sensor with Phase Detection pixels (to accelerate the auto-focus process) and Fujifilm’s patented Trans-X matrix. The X100T is also the first the X100 series to offer the ability to connect over WiFi to transfer images to a smartphone, which is extremely convenient when you travel without a laptop. (*)
If you use the X100 with the EVF, a recent version (X100S and better) will be reactive enough and provide an experience very similar to what a very light and very compact mirrorless camera with a 35mm fixed focal lens (full frame equivalent) would bring. But the real fun is to use the optical viewfinder.
Like often with optical viewfinders, the view of the lower right edge of the image is masked by the lens hood, and of course, you never visualize what part of the image will be in focus, and what part will not. But you get the benefit of a clear, un-intermediated view of your subject. Sure, you have to learn – from experience – when you can let the auto-focus and the auto-exposure modes play their magic, and when to take control back from them. There’s a learning curve, but at the end of the curve, lies the reward.
Of course, the X100 can be bought new – the current model (the X100V) sells for approximately $1,400. Brand new copies of older models can be found for approx. $1,000 (X100 F).
Used models are a bit cheaper, in the $800s for the X100F.
The X100S and the X100T are technically very close, and sell for anything between $450 and $700, depending on condition, on the second hand market.
The first X100 is a sort of classic and sells for approximately $300.00. It’s slow, but it still makes great pictures – if your subject is not too mobile.
(*) – there is another a difference between the X100S and the X100T – the so-called “electronic rangefinder” of the latter.
a clarification first – simple cameras (such as a Kodak Instamatic or the Rollei 35) have a direct optical viewfinder. Its most refined implementation, “the bright-line viewfinder, is essentially an inverted Galilean telescope system with an optically projected rectangle outlining the frame area”. (Encyclopaedia Britannica); they are NOT rangefinder cameras, because they’re missing … the rangefinder.
the Leica M is the perfect example of a rangefinder camera. Its direct optical viewfinder is supplemented by a coupled optical telemeter, the rangefinder, which assists with focusing.
technically, the X100 and the X100S are NOT rangefinder cameras: they’re cameras with a direct optical viewfinder, supplemented with an electronic auto-focus system (contrast detection for the X100, contrast and phase detection for the X100S).
With the X100T (and all following models), the photographer can enable an “electronic rangefinder” if working with the optical viewfinder in manual focus mode – it’s a very small EVF display projected in the bottom right corner of the optical image, that shows an enlarged view of the section of the image that the photographer will focus on. As per Fujifilm, “this makes manual focusing while using the optical viewfinder much easier, and more like a mechanical rangefinder”.
In my opinion, on a Fujifilm X100, it’s more a marketing gimmick than anything else; if you really want to focus manually, switch to the EVF. Interestingly, the “rangefinder emulation” is also available on other Fujifilm X cameras, (the ones with interchangeable lenses), even those with an EVF and no optical viewfinder.
In the series …. shooting pictures in Atlanta in times of social distancing…. All those places are generally magnets for residents and tourists alike, and would have been packed in normal circumstances.
Nikon and Canon had already tried the formula with the Nikon F-601/N6006 and the Canon EF-M: take an autofocus camera and derive a flash-less and autofocus-less version of it. The goal was at the same time to please conservative clients adverse to auto-focus and to offer a cheaper entry to their line of modern cameras by removing the hardware associated to the autofocus system and the built-in flash.
Pentax had different motives. Their two entry-level manual focus SLRs had been on the market for a very long time (20 years for the K1000 and 12 years for the P3/P30) and were badly in need of a replacement. Technically, they had nothing in common with the Pentax autofocus cameras of the time, and even though they were now made in China, those very conventional all-metal, all glass cameras were probably more expensive to manufacture than modern entry level auto-focus cameras made out of plastic and relying heavily on electronics.
The ZX-M was the response to Pentax’s problem. Derived from the middle of the range auto-focus ZX-5 (*), the camera was not a stripper – in fact, it supported the usual PASM exposure modes and it offered all the functions needed by a photographer (exposure compensation dial, depth of field preview and exposure lock). Of course, it was motorized, but it was still incredibly compact, and at 305g, it will be remembered as the lightest 35mm film SLR ever, autofocus or not.
Its low weight was the result of the extended use of plastics (only the shutter blades are in metal), and of the adoption of a penta-mirror instead of the more conventional (but heavier) all glass pentaprism. Penta-mirrors are shunned by enthusiasts, because they make for less luminous viewfinders. In the case of the Pentax, the viewfinder is not only darker, but also narrower than its predecessor in the P3 – but it’s still usable.
As a true manual focus camera, the ZX-M also benefited from a relatively coarse grain focusing screen, with a ring of micro-prisms around a small split screen telemeter – which is more than the K1000 ever offered. A small greenish LCD display at the top right of the viewfinder showed the exposure parameters chosen by the automatism, and a bar graph to help determine the right exposure in semi-auto mode.
Ideally, it should be paired with Pentax’s KA manual focus lenses (the first evolution of the K lens mount, with electrical contacts to control the aperture), but it nonetheless offered the Aperture preferred automatic and semi-automatic exposure modes with older K lenses. It also works with more recent Pentax F and FA lenses, as long as they’re designed to cover the “full-frame”, and not the cropped sensor of most dSLRs.
In the field…
Paired with a lens like the Pentax-A 50mm f/2 or the Pentax-A 35-70 f/3.5-4.5, it forms an extremely light and compact combo, that the photographer can carry all day without any risk of back or neck pain.
The camera is small but all the commands are logically placed. The logic of the command is reminiscent of cameras of the early eighties – there is no PASM selector (for the auto-exposure mode) and the interface remains analog – the shutter speed knob and the aperture ring are fully functional, each with a green “A” position to set the camera in Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, Program or Semi-Auto modes.
Metering did not convince me: it’s an area where the ZX-M is not aligned with the ZX-5, and where in my opinion de-contenting went too far: with KA, F and FA lenses the ZX-M relies on a very simplified matrix system with 2 zones only (there are 6 on the ZX-5), and with the original K lenses, it reverts to central weighted average metering. There is no way for the photographer to select the average metering mode, other than using a lens with the Pentax K original mount.
In my experience with other cameras (Nikon and Minolta in particular), matrix metering is extremely reliable, in part because it’s based on at least five metering zones. In the case of the ZX-M, I’m not sure that 2 zones are enough, and will provide anything different from a more conventional average center metering (some of the pictures I took with it were saved in post-processing by the exposure latitude of the Fujifilm 400 stock I was using, and a Nikon or a Minolta SLR of the same vintage would probably have done much better).
Now let’s talk about what really hurts: the viewfinder. It’s narrow and not as luminous as the competition’s. If we compare it to the viewfinder of cameras of a similar size, like an Olympus OM-2, a Canon AT-1, or even its predecessor the Pentax P3/P30, it’s clearly not in the same category (**). At the top of that, if your eye is not positioned correctly, you will be distracted by unpleasant reflections or aberrations. Very disappointing.
Plastic construction, lithium battery, so-so reputation – logic says it’s going to be cheap. And it is… It’s one of those cameras you can still get for less than $20.00.
Interestingly, the cameras for sale seem invariably to be in a very good condition – my bet is that having been bought at the very end of the film era, they were only used for a very short time before being replaced by digicams in the bags of photographers, and saw little use, or abuse.
As a conclusion
Its two predecessors – the K1000 and the P3, had been sales successes, with more than 3 million copies sold for each, over up to two decades. I could not find any figure for the ZX-M, but my guess is that it was not that successful.
On paper, the ZX-M has most of what an aspiring photographer needs. And contrarily to the previous generation of “learners cameras” (like its predecessor the K1000), it will let new photographers play with multiple auto-exposure modes and with a well implemented exposure lock. In the field, it’s not a bad camera – it’s super compact and super light, easy to use (because film loading and rewinding are taken care of by the camera’s motor), and will take good pictures with the right lens – provided you pay a little attention to the exposure.
The problem starts if you compare it with the P3n or the P3t, or in fact with any good “enthusiast oriented” SLR of the late seventies/early eighties. Those cameras are not motorized, they’re most probably missing the shutter preferred and the program auto exposure modes of the ZX-M, they’re slightly heavier, and they may be a few dollars more expensive on the second hand market. But they have a real pentaprism viewfinder, they’re still built primarily out of metal, they use very easy to find batteries, and the pictures they take will be at least as good. All in all, they’re more pleasant to use. In the Pentax family, the P30n or the Super-Program (Super-A) would be my choice. Sorry, ZX-M.
(*) in those days Pentax, like its three big competitors, was selling the same camera under different model names – depending on the geography. The ZX-M (US model) was known as the MZ-M in the rest of the world. Similarly, the P3 was the US name of the P30, ZX-5 the american name of the MZ-5. The cameras were otherwise identical.
One can assume it was being done to protect the local importers by making grey imports more visible.
(**) If I rank the viewfinders of manual SLRs from worst to best, the Fuji STX-2 ranks at the bottom, by far, followed by cameras of the sixties or early seventies. The ZX-M is much better than those ancient SLRs, but not as pleasant as the viewfinder of some cameras sold in the late seventies-mid eighties. If you exclude from the comparison the High Eyepoint viewfinder of the very large and very heavy “pro” cameras from Nikon, Canon or Contax ( F3, T90 and ST respectively), the Olympus OM-1 and OM-2 sit at the top of the list. The Canon A series (AT-1) and the Pentax P3 fare particularly well considering their size and their price when new. The focusing screen of the Nikon FE2 (and similarly spec’d Nikon cameras like the FA or the FM2) is finer and more luminous than what Canon and Pentax were proposing, but it’s narrower and more difficult to use for bespectacled photographers.
The stay at home and lock down orders in Georgia have not been very stringent. Public parks were closed, but people could still walk freely on the streets, or play golf on greens like Bobby Jones’, which is located right in the middle of mid-town.
Having film processed took longer than usual (3 weeks), primarily because the US Postal service is slower than normal. But the film rolls did not get lost and were processed with the usual care by my go-to lab, the Old School Photo Lab.
I’ve a sort of on and off relationship with Pentax – a MX was my first serious camera a long time ago, and a *ist DS was my first dSLR in 2005, but they were replaced by non-Pentax cameras after a few years of service. I’ve bought a few Spotmatic cameras during the last decade, and I’ve not had much luck with them except for a late Spotmatic F. Recently, I gave it a go again, and I’ve just added no less than four Pentax manual focus SLRs to my collection: a P3, two ZX-Ms (an accident – two very low bids on eBay and both went through), and a Super-Program. So far, so good. They work and they’re pleasant to use. An opportunity to look at the last of the manual focus Pentax SLRs.
The K, the M and the A – a new line of lenses for each generation of camera
The 1975-1977 years were pivotal for Pentax. In 1975, they finally removed the m42 screw mount from life support, retired the 12 year old Spotmatic product line, and started fighting back.
Their first generation of bayonet mount cameras (the KM, KX and K2) was simply a refresh of their screw mount predecessors. The KM was a very close derivative of the Spotmatic F, and the K2 a limited upgrade of the ES2. Only the KX (an enthusiast oriented semi-auto camera) had no direct screw mount predecessor. The three models only stayed under the spotlights for one year, and as a consequence, did not reach large production numbers (approximately 750,000 cameras for the KM-KX-K2 trilogy – the only really successful model of this generation is the K1000, but it came to the market a bit later).
The K lenses were for the most part bayonet mount adaptations of the most recent SMC Takumars. They were simply known as Pentax SMC lenses: the “Takumar” name had been dropped (*)
The real innovation came one year later, with two genuinely new models, the MX and the ME, launched with a new generation of downsized M lenses known as the Pentax SMC M lenses. Very light and compact, with an up to date metering system and LED indicators in the viewfinder, they could both be fitted with a winder.
the semi-auto camera with a mechanical shutter, the MX, came when this type of camera was beginning to be a thing of the past for the amateur photographers, and it had to face the competition of the brand new Nikon FM (whose specs sheet looked pretty similar, and benefited from Nikon’s professional aura and build quality). Impressively Pentax still managed to sell more than one million of them.
the auto-exposure camera, the ME, was attacking the heart of the amateur market. Deprived of a conventional shutter speed knob and of a depth of field visualization lever, it was not an enthusiast oriented camera. Pentax rapidly started deriving even simpler models (the MV and MG) as well as a more elaborate variant (the ME-Super) to broaden its appeal on the market. It also provided the base over which the Super-Program and Program-Plus of 1983 were developed.
The ME and its derivatives were a sales success (approximately 6 million sold – to be compared with 10 millions of Canon AE-1 and AE-1 Program) between 1976 and 1987, but they were Pentax’s swan song.
The Super Program and Program Plus cameras that replaced them were technically competitive, but they were launched in a period when SLR sales were at their lowest, and they sold in much smaller numbers (approximately 1 million units total).
The Super Program and Program Plus (known in the rest of the world as the Super-A and the Program-A) offered programmed auto exposure with a new line of Pentax SMC A lenses, equipped with a new KA variant of the K mount with electrical contacts.
They were the last technically advanced manual focus SLRs from Pentax. Following Minolta’ successful introduction of the Maxxum series, Pentax made the transition to auto-focus cameras, and only kept on selling two manual focus cameras for learners and cost conscious amateurs, the K1000 (a stripped down version of the KM of 1975, with its roots in the Spotmatic of 1964), and the P30 (known as the P3 on the US market) a simple program-mode-only entry level SLR.
Both cameras were successful (more than 3 million copies sold for each of the two models), and had a long commercial life: the K1000 and the P30 were both retired from the market in 1997, to make room for the ZX-M.
Pentax’s last manual focus SLR, the ZX-M (on the US market, MZ-X in the rest of the world) was a manual focus version of the middle of the range ZX-50 autofocus camera of the time, with a so-so pentamirror viewfinder, and without a built-in flash. It was sold until 2004 and is one of the very last manual focus SLRs ever manufactured (**)
(*) The Takumar name did not stay unused for long – at least on the US market – it was given to a line of entry level non-SMC lenses – generally kit lenses, sold as Takumar-A lenses. Obviously they don’t benefit from the multi-layer lens coating of their SMC siblings.
(**) The Nikon FM3A was manufactured until 2006, and is definitely the last manual focus SLR from a major vendor. The Nikon F6, the Leica M-P and a few Lomo models are still in production, but the F6 is an autofocus SLR, the Leica M is a rangefinder camera, and Lomo camera are…Lomo cameras.
It’s a bit early to write Pentax’s obituary. But there’s no denying that the company (now a subsidiary of Ricoh) is a mere shadow of its former self.
From the mid fifties to the early seventies, the Asahi Optical Corporation was an innovator. They scored an impressive number of “first” :
First Japanese single lens reflex camera to enter production (Asahiflex – 1952)
First reflex camera with instant return mirror (Asahiflex II b – 1954)
First modern single lens reflex (SLR) camera, with a pentaprism at the center of the top plate, a winder arm and shutter speed knob on the right side, and a folding rewind crank to the left (the “original” Pentax of 1957). This was to be the model for all other reflex cameras for the next 20 years. The camera was so important for Asahi that the whole corporation became later known as “Pentax Corp”.
First SLR with Through the Lens (TTL) metering on the market (Pentax Spotmatic – 1964)
First automatic exposure SLR with an electronic shutter (Pentax Electro Spotmatic – 1971)
As a result, Asahi Pentax was a sales leader in the sixties and early seventies: for example, it was the first Japanese camera company to sell over one million SLRs.
Pentax lost its supremacy during the first half of the seventies
they stuck to the Spotmatic form factor until 1975
they stuck with stopped down metering on their line of bread and butter Spotmatic cameras until the launch of the Spotmatic F in 1973, and to the m42 screw mount until far too late. Because they had adopted a proprietary bayonet early on, Minolta and Nikon had been able to offer full aperture metering (a major comfort improvement for the photographer) since 1966, with Canon and Olympus following in 1971.
As a result, Pentax was out-innovated by new entrants: Olympus OM-1 (the first ultra-compact SLR and camera system); Fujica ST-801 and ST-901 (first use of Silicon metering cells and of LED displays in the viewfinder); Olympus OM-2 (first implementation of On The Film (OTF) real time flash metering).
The second half of the seventies was not better: Pentax was in reactive mode and started progressively being pushed to the bottom of the market :
Changes to their lens mount are always very risky for camera manufacturers. It may not bother the beginner or the amateur who are only going to shoot with the kit lens they bought with the camera, but it’s an invitation for enthusiasts and pros to reconsider their aleigence to the brand. Between 1971 and 1976, Pentax changed the lens mount of its cameras twice.
Pentax could not compete with Canon and Nikon in the “pro” market because they did not have a modular camera to offer until they launched the LX in 1980, and after they did, they lacked some of the specialized lenses and the support network that the pros required,
they were out-innovated in the heart of the enthusiast market: Canon with cheaper to manufacture and feature rich micro-processor driven cameras such as the AE-1 and the A-1, Minolta with multi-mode SLRs.
they had to face new competitors in the “amateur” segment of the market with Nikon and Olympus successfully entering the broader consumer market with cameras such as the EM and the OM-10 in 1979.
By the end of the eighties, Pentax had been relegated to the 4th position on the photo-equipment market, behind Canon, Minolta and Nikon. They had completed the transition to auto-focus SLRs, but were primarily known for their two remaining manual focus SLRs (the K1000 and the P3) and their water-resistant point and shoot cameras.
They survived until the advent of digital photography. Konica-Minolta’s deep troubles gave them one last chance of resurgence in 2003-2004. They recovered the #3 position on the market for a while. But after early successes – their first dSLRs, the *ist D and *ist DS were good cameras, technically on par with contemporary Canon and Nikon offerings – they did not (or could not) keep up with the pace of their competitors, and let their market share decline to the point where their presence is hardly noticeable today.
More about Pentax’s last manual focus cameras in a few weeks with reviews of the Super-Program (Super-A), P3 (P30) and ZX-M.
I don’t know what percentage of film cameras collectors actually use them. But the value of a camera is at least in part related to its capacity to be used … as a camera, and help the photographer shoot good, beautiful, interesting pictures. Without film, film cameras are little more than paper weights.
So if film was to become unavailable, the value of film cameras would change. I don’t believe it’s going to happen anytime soon – Kodak (Altaris) and Ilford (Harman) are still committed to film because it’s their core business, and Fujifilm will keep one or two film plants running, if only for sentimental reasons. The rebirth of the Polaroid instant film packs (the Impossible Project) and the success of Lomography are also showing that when the big players disengage, boutique producers step in and fill in the void.
So, let’s assume that film remains available and affordable, and that 35mm film cameras keep a certain usage value. And let’s forget about those commemorative editions, cameras with remarkable serial numbers or other gold plated models, that Leica (and to a lesser extent Nikon), release from time to time for avid collectors. They are destined to be kept forever in their original packaging and in a safe, with no concern for their potential usage value.
In the realm of cameras that actual photographers use to take pictures, Leica cameras hold a special place. They’re “classics“.
On eBay, the price of Leica’s rangefinders has been remarkably stable over the years, with the M5 and the M4 at the bottom of the ladder (around $800), followed by the M2 and M3 a bit above $1,000 (depending on condition, of course). The more modern Leica M (M6, M6 TTL, M7) are selling for two or three times more, reflecting their comparatively higher usage value.
Manual focus SLRs designed for enthusiasts or pros, and known to be at the same time simple to use and reliable have seen their value rise spectacularly (Nikon FM2, FE2, FM3a or F3, Canon AE-1, Pentax Super Program or LX), while more complex or less reliable models don’t attract the same high prices (Nikon FA, Canon T90). Those new classicswere launched between 1975 and 1985, a decade which is increasingly being seen as the golden age of film SLRs.
At the other end of the price scale, cameras that did not do very well on the second hand market a few years ago are doing even worse now. The list includes any entry level model from any manufacturer if it was launched after 1980, and almost any autofocus SLR except for the very last enthusiast and pro models, probably because of their good compatibility with the current digital offerings of their respective manufacturer (Nikon F100 and F6, Minolta Maxxum 9 and 7, Canon EOS-3).
Photographs don’t like that those cameras were built out of plastics, with a bizarre feature set (often deprived of useful functions – reserved for the “pro” models – and at the same time loaded with useless gimmicks and encumbered by unconventional controls). And many of them require expensive and hard to find single use Lithium batteries. They have little appeal for today’s would-be film shooters, and can be had for a few dollars, even from specialized stores.
“La Mode, c’est ce qui se démode”*
What’s hot? Any luxury compact (point and shoot) camera, with a titanium body and a lens with a famous name: the top of the top is occupied by Contax with the T2 and T3: the craze started with a few actors and celebrities in Hollywood posting pictures of themselves shooting with their T2 on Instagram), but similarly positioned models such as the Leica CM and Minilux or the Nikon 35ti also command big bucks (they’re all in Leica M territory).
Cameras like the Olympus XA, and even the Cosina CX-2**, which were far cheaper than the luxury cameras from Contax or Leica in the eighties, have also been contaminated – with sellers asking for hundreds if not thousands of dollars for a somehow basic camera.
As a conclusion:
Old classics hold their value, new classics are on the rise: if you buy one of those, you may not win big, but you won’t lose money if you decide to resell it after a few years.
Contax luxury compacts are reaching insane values. They’re nice cameras, with a great little Zeiss lens, and demand currently outstrips supply. But those luxury compact cameras (Contax’s and the others) rely heavily on electronics and generally can’t be repaired if a component goes bad. If you don’t have one already, you missed the boat, and I would not spend thousands of dollars trying to get one. You can also wonder how long will celebrities be seen playing with their T2, pushing demand and prices to the sky? Prices could very well go back to more normal levels in a few years.
There are still bargains to be found if you’re not obsessed with shooting with a “classic” : the Canon AT-1 has not reached the “new classic” level of the AE-1 and AE-1 Program, and sells for half the price. But in my view, it’s a better camera for an enthusiast photographer. Early Canon EOS cameras (650, 620) are solid, very pleasant to use (a T90 with matrix metering and without the bugs), and dirt cheap. An entry level camera from the mid eighties, the Pentax P3n, is at least as competent as its more expensive Super Program predecessor, but can still be had for next to nothing. Nikon’s partially motorized N2000/F301 (the manual focus version of the N2020/F501) is also a great buy. So is the Olympus OM-2. Future classics? I don’t think so. But great everyday cameras at a great price, for sure.
(*) “La Mode, c’est ce qui se démode” (Literally, “Fashion, that’s what going out of fashion” or “Fashion is made to become unfashionable”) – the aphorism is generally attributed to Jean Cocteau and Coco Chanel. Coco Chanel famously added that “Fashion fades, only style remains the same”.
(**) Cosina CX-1 and CX-2 – those cute and very small point and shoot cameras sold reasonably well in the early eighties. With their tiny wide-angle lens they were subject to severe vignetting but they offered more controls to the photographers than the other ultra-compact P&S cameras. A few years later, an almost identical camera was launched as the Lomo LC-A by the LOMO PLC in Saint Petersburg (Russia). The little Lomos were adopted enthusiastically by a group of photographers in Austria, and it started the Lomography movement. But that’s a whole other story.
The Olympus OM-2n – a “new classic” – in my opinion the best camera of the Olympus OM single digit series (OM-1,OM-2, OM-3, OM-4, OM-4ti) for everyday use. Photos shot a few years ago at the Universal Studios in Burbank, CA.
With film (digital is different in that regard) the photographer is working with a medium of fixed sensitivity (a 100 ISO film roll will have the same sensitivity from the first frame to the last one). Therefore, there are only two parameters that can be adjusted when trying to bring the right amount of light to the film: the shutter speed (how long will the film be exposed), and the aperture (how large of a hole is the iris forming to let the light go through the lens).
For a given scene, there will be more than one combination of shutter speed and aperture that will bring the same light energy to the film: for instance, a very short shutter speed and a very wide aperture (1/1000 sec and f/4.0) will be equivalent to a slow speed and a narrow aperture (1/60 and f/16). The photographer will have to pick the combination that suits the scene (short shutter speed/wide aperture for action scenes, longer shutter speed/narrower aperture for landscapes, for instance).
Most modern cameras pick the right shutter speed/aperture combination automatically in Program Mode.
In Shutter Preferred mode, the photographer has to pick the shutter speed, and the camera will set the aperture to a value that brings the right light energy to the film; in Aperture Preferred mode, the photographer picks the aperture, and the camera will select the shutter speed bringing the right amount of light to the film.
In semi-automatic exposure control mode, the photographer will pick the shutter speed and the aperture, and the camera will only indicate whether the camera is receiving the right amount of light, or not. Up to the photographer to adjust the aperture or the shutter speed until the camera is happy.
In older cameras, the camera communicates its recommendations with the needle of a galvanometer. When the needle is aligned with a target in the viewfinder, exposure is correct. It’s the match needle system.
In the mid seventies, manufacturers started replacing the relatively fragile needle mechanism with a bank of LEDs (sometimes color coded) or bar graphs. But the idea is the same. The camera simply indicates whether the image will be over, under or correctly exposed.
The beauty of this system is that it gives the photographer a lot of freedom – he/she can easily change the shutter speed/aperture combination, or set the exposure for a specific area of the scene and reframe the picture, or decide to override the exposure system of the camera and deliberately over or under expose. That’s why semi-auto cameras are great as learner cameras.
Automatic cameras can often operate in semi-auto mode, and some of them are better at that than genuine semi-auto cameras.
Lastly, the Manual mode. The word is often used as a substitute to “semi-auto”. But those are different things. In a semi-auto camera, the exposure meter (the CdS or Silicon cell) is connected to sensors on the aperture ring and on shutter speed knob. Therefore the camera can predict whether the film is going to receive enough light, and signal to the photographer (with the match needle or the LED) that the image will be over, under or correctly exposed.
On a fully manual camera, there is either no exposure meter at all (cameras of the fifties and earlier), or if it exists, it is not linked with the aperture ring and the shutter speed knob.
Modern cameras often have a PASM selector for the exposure mode (PASM stands for Program, Aperture Preferred, Shutter Preferred, Manual). In most of the cases, “M” really means semi-auto (think: meter assisted operation). But in a few cases, M really means manual – you’re on you own.
Not totally happy with the pictures you get from a smartphone? Do you want more reach, do you want to capture fast moving action, or on the other hand, are you looking for more control over the depth of field, over the exposure? Do you want the images to be really yours, instead of leaving software developers in Cupertino or Mountain View decide for you how the pictures you’re taking should look like? You need a “real camera” and you have to learn how to use it.
Obviously, nowadays, your first “learner” camera will be digital – digital accelerates the learning process – you can see immediately the result of changes in the settings, you can re-take the shot until the results corresponds to the scene you’ve seen with the eyes in your mind: remember, your eyes capture the information, but the processing is done in your brain.
But at some point, you may get tired of modern digital cameras as well. While not as automated as a smartphone, they still decide a lot of things behind the scenes (they set the focus, the exposure, they enhance the dynamic of the image, they sharpen) and it’s not always easy (or even possible) to take control back from them. Maybe you’re ready for something more demanding, but also more gratifying: film photography.
There are so many ways to shoot with film. If you don’t have the time (or the space) to deal with film processing, you can buy color film and have it processed and scanned by a lab – not exactly cheap (at least $0.50 per picture) but not too difficult.
If you want the ultimate silver halide experience, you can set you own dark room, and process film yourself (Black and White, let’s keep it simple). The difficulty will be to scan it – unless you go completely analog, buy an enlarger and make your own prints like they used to do in the old days.
But in any case, you’ll need one (or a few) cameras.
Almost nobody makes new film cameras anymore. So your camera will be an “old” one, bought on eBay, at Shopgoodwill, or from the stores specializing in analog cameras.
If you ask Google about learners film cameras, most of the articles they reference will suggest a manual focus camera from the mid seventies to early eighties – like the Canon AE-1, the Minolta X-700, the Nikon FM, or the Pentax K1000.
For a reason. Older cameras (let’s say pre-1975) are generally bulkier, have a more primitive exposure metering system (when they do have one at all) and require batteries which are impossible to find today. They often use textile (silk) in their shutter mechanisms, and tend to be fragile. On the other hand, most of the cameras sold after 1990 are not that different from the autofocus, motorized monsters we use today in the digital world.
why manual focus? The assumption is that if you shoot film, it’s because you’re not in a hurry and therefore can take the time to set the focus on your own. Personally I like to focus manually, it leaves me more time and opportunities to look at the image and consider the composition, the depth of field and the exposure.
Focusing manually lets you determine what part of the picture will be 100% in focus, and with the help of the aperture ring and of a depth of field lever, determine what will be out of focus and pleasantly blurred.
Using a camera with an easy to use semi-automatic exposure system (matching needle or LEDs), you can take all the time you need to determine the perfect settings, or in doubt, take multiple shots at different settings. You can also more easily compensate for the limitations of the metering system (average weighted metering can be easily fooled by a bright sky – but it’s also easy to understand how it’s being fooled and take countermeasures).
Interestingly, you don’t necessarily need a semi-auto camera – some automatic cameras like the Nikon FE are absolutely great when used in semi-auto mode (better than most native semi-auto SLRs).
one camera or more? considering you can get film cameras for a few dollars, why buy only one? Just remember that experience and muscle memory play a role – the more you shoot with a particular camera (or with cameras of the same generation and from the same manufacturer), the higher your chances of catching the “decisive moment” and get the picture of your life.
Lenses – not as cheap as cameras (at least, the good ones). You can buy prime lenses, you can buy zoom lenses (if they were released in the late eighties or later and come from one of the great camera manufacturers, they’re generally good enough). Canon, Minolta, Olympus have all abandoned their old FD, MD or OM mounts when they introduced their autofocus cameras, but Nikon and Pentax have been using the same family of bayonet mounts since 1959 (Nikon) and 1976 (Pentax). You have more options with those two brands even if the compatibility between different generations of camera bodies and lenses is somehow limited.
Film – I know it’s fashionable to use bad film (expired stock, film engineered to look like stock from the 60s, not to mention monstrosities like pre-scatched film …). I believe my images deserve better than that and I buy the best film I can find. The choice is up to you.
So, what camera?
This list is about cameras I know – for having burned at least a few rolls of film with them, and which meet my definition of a learners camera. There are other good manual focus cameras that make great learning tools (the Minolta X series for instance) but I never tested them, and interesting cameras (Nikon F3, Canon A-1 or T90, the rangefinder Leicas, the Contax ST) that are a bit too complex and expensive to make it to this list.
I did not include any Fujica, Contax or Mamiya SLR in this list, a learner will need a set of lenses (a couple of wide angle lenses, a short tele, maybe a zoom) and they tend to be difficult to find (and expensive) if you leave the usual gang (Canon-Minolta-Nikon-Olympus-Pentax).
if you love Canon, you can go with the AT-1 (instead of the AE-1 or the AE-1 Program): it’s half the price, and easier to use in manual (semi-auto) mode. All right, it needs an easy to find battery to operate. But it has a good viewfinder and you can’t beat its simplicity.
if you love Nikon (and in particular if you’re using a full frame Nikon dSLR), go with the FM or the FE, or for a little more money, for the FM2 or the FE2. Avoid the EM, FG or FA – they’re too automatic, and don’t leave you enough control on your images. You can also pick an early autofocus camera like the N2020 (F501) and use it with manual focus lenses. It works very well.
If you love Pentax, don’t follow the crowd and don’t buy a K1000. Far too primitive (it’s a derivative of the Spotmatic F of 1973, itself derived from the original Pentax camera of 1957). Similarly, be prudent with Pentax cameras of the late seventies/early eighties: in my experience, they tend to be a bit fragile.
The P3 from 1985 was not really designed as a learners camera (more as an affordable and easy to use manual focus camera) but it’s not artificially spec’d down and that would be my choice in the Pentax family. When the K1000 and the P3 needed a replacement, Pentax created a camera designed specifically for learners, the XZ-M and sold it until 2004. It’s a modern autofocus motorized camera with 4 exposure modes (PASM) – but without the autofocus system and the built-in flash. It’s built out of plastic therefore feather light, but Pentax also saved weight and money on the viewfinder which is narrower than the norm.
The ZX-M is an interesting camera, but the P3 (P30 in the rest of the world) is probably a better choice. By default it operates in program mode, but the semi-auto mode works very well, the viewfinder is large, and the build quality is good (the camera were still made of metal at that time).
Olympus – don’t go for the OM-1 – it needs 1.35v batteries which are a pain to find and use. Go for the OM-2 – it’s automatic, but you can use it as a semi-auto camera. Smooth as a peach, great viewfinder, ideal if you shoot in places where you can’t use a tripod or a flash. The best of both words. Later models are either plagued by battery management problems (OM-2sp, OM-4), or extremely expensive (OM-4ti).
The Canon T60, Nikon FM10, Olympus OM-2000, Yashica FX-3 2000 and a few other Vivitar cameras were designed and manufactured by Cosina in the nineties to be sold as gateway and learners cameras under the label of the big brands – they’re not identical – but they’re built on the same technical platform. They all work OK as learner cameras, but the genuine Canon, Nikon or Olympus cameras are much nicer objects, much better built, and will provide more satisfaction (even if the results should be more or less equivalent).
Autofocus SLRs are cheap, and the early ones are dirt cheap. But if you use an autofocus SLR in full auto mode to shoot color print film and download the scans after the Noritsu and Fujifilm processing machines have played their magic on your negatives, how different is the experience going to be from shooting with a digital SLR? Admittedly, some early autofocus SLRs are still relatively simple and easy to use and will increase your success rate, but you won’t learn as much as with an older manual focus camera.
Come on. Shoot with film. It’s not that hard. In fact, it’s a lot of fun.
Who created the first 35mm camera, or the first 35mm single lens reflex camera?
Difficult questions. First, you would have to agree on what constitutes exactly a “real” 35mm camera, or a “real” 35mm SLR, and then, you would have to determine what really counts: is it presenting a prototype at a trade show, applying for a patent, launching a limited series production, or inundating the world with tens of thousands copies of a “game changing” camera?
It is generally recognized that with the Leica, Leitz created the first commercially successful 35mm camera in the early twenties, and but it was not until 1932 when they launched the Leica II that the rangefinder camera with interchangeable lens had found its “real” final form.
The Contax S
1932 is also the year when Zeiss launched Leica’s most serious pre-war competitor, the Contax.
Zeiss was at that time the largest manufacturer of cameras in the world. They had a long tradition of innovation and a great team of engineers; conscious of the limitations of the rangefinder formula, they kept on working on a better solution until, after the war, they finally presented the Contax S, one of (if not the first) modern 35mm single reflex lens camera.
With its pentaprism, its horizontal curtain shutter and its 42mm screw lens mount, the Contax S was very close to the typical 35mm SLR design, and should have been commercially successful.
But at that time, the Zeiss factories were in the Russian occupation zone (soon to become the German Democratic Republic) and all sorts of issues slowed down the roll-out to production: the Contax S only started to be mass produced at the very end of 1949. The launch of the Contax S also coincided with the start the Cold War – products from communist countries were not always welcome on the more affluent markets of the West – and to make the matters worse, the East German entity of Zeiss lost the rights to the Contax name in 1956. After considering multiple options (including apparently the “Pentax” name), the East Germans rebranded their cameras “Pentacon” (a portmanteau for Pentaprism and Contax) and the Contax S line of SLRs was abandonned.
Why is a pentaprism so important, that Zeiss and (later) Asahi changed the name of their cameras to include “Penta”?
Composing a picture on a piece of ground glass located behind the lens is nothing new (plate cameras have been following that model forever), but the image is reversed top-bottom and left-right, which makes the composing process very slow and totally unsuitable to candid photography.
If a mirror inclined at 45 degrees is placed behind the lens, and the image projected on a piece of ground glass, it is not reversed top/bottom anymore, but is still reversed left/right. The photographers has to shoot from waist level, after having used a magnifying glass for focusing. It’s workable, but not the best formula for action shots, journalism or simply spontaneous family photographs.
Nikon F3 with its HP Viewfinder
Nikon F3 with the viewfinder removed
the (huge) prism of the Nikon F3’s viewfinder
The pentaprism addresses all those issues – and as we all know from experience with SLRs, the image is fully redressed, focusing is easy, and eye-level composition makes action photography intuitive even for beginners.
Asahi Optical Co
Asahi started manufacturing lenses in Japan in 1919, and launched the first Japanese 35mm single lens reflex camera – the Asahiflex – in 1952. It was inspired by the pre-war German Praktiflex, but brought some improvements: it had two finders: a waist level through the lens viewfinder (for focusing) and a smaller eye level optical viewfinder to be used when taking candid snapshots.
In two critical areas, the Asahiflex was not as advanced as the Contax S: it did not have a pentaprism viewfinder, and it used a narrower 37mm screw mount.
Asahi’s first major innovation came two years later with the introduction of the instant return mirror on the Asahiflex IIb (1954). The IIb was without equivalent for a while, but the step forward it represented was nothing compared to Asahi’s next giant leap, with the “Pentax” of 1957. The first (mass produced) Japanese camera with a pentaprism, it combined for the first time in a compact, elegant and well made camera the instant return mirror, the film advance lever, easy film loading with a hinged back, and the 42mm screw mount.
The Pentax line of cameras sold by the millions and became the model that all other manufacturers would copy in the subsequent years. The Pentax name became so well known that the Asahi Optical Co. decided to sell all its products (including its line of medical equipment) under the name Pentax, before it finally changed its own name to Pentax Corporation in 2002.
It is widely assumed that “Pentax” is also a portmanteau for Pentaprism and Contax. According to Wikipedia, the name was purchased by Asahi from the East German Zeiss company just before the launch of the original Pentax SLR in 1957.
Today, the single lens reflex formula is on its last breath – superseded by mirrorless cameras where the pentaprism has been replaced with a high resolution LCD – the Contax brand is dormant, and Pentax, as a subsidiary of Ricoh, is in life support with a line of three rather old dSLRs and no plan to launch a mirrorless system.
By far the most comprehensive source about Pentax cameras, as well as early SLRs of all makes: Pentax-slr.com
A compact point of shoot camera from the late eighties, the Contax T2, is currently red hot, selling for obscene amounts of money (well above $1,000). We’re observing here the manifestation of a new trend – a few film cameras have suddenly reached stardom – and make you pay dearly for them – while the mass of the point and shoot and SLRs from the nineties still languish in the $5.00 bargain bin.
In the world of manual focus SLRs, Contax bodies and Contax Carl Zeiss lenses, while not exactly cheap, can still be had for a small fraction of the cost of this T2.
Zeiss and its sub brand Contax have a very long history – Carl Zeiss founded the company that bears his name in 1846 in Jena (Germany) and Zeiss launched their first Contax camera in 1932.
In the seventies, Zeiss signed a licensing agreement with Yashica (the Japanese company subsequently became part of the Kyocera group). Contax and Yashica never said much about the role split in their joint venture, and most of what we know is an educated guess. High level, the “Contax” branded cameras of the Yashica/Kyocera era were designed and manufactured in Japan with some input from Zeiss. The F.A. Porsche studio (*) was in charge of the industrial design of some models. Yashica and Contax SLRs shared the same bayonet lens mount, and Contax cameras could be paired with Contax as well as cheaper Yashica branded lenses.
The “Contax Carl Zeiss” lenses were named after famous Zeiss lens designs (Distagon, Planar, Sonnar, ..) and benefited from Zeiss’ excellent multi-layer coating. Some of them were made in Germany, but the majority were manufactured in Yashica’s Japanese plants.
Because of their Zeiss and Porsche lineage, their beautiful industrial design and their advanced technical content, the Contax cameras of the Yashica era could be sold as premium products, for much more than what Yashica could have extracted from their own line of SLRs.
In Contax’s product range, the top of the line was always occupied by a camera of the RTS family, and the bottom by derivatives and successors of their original entry level camera, the Contax 139Q (137 MA, 137 MD, 159MM, 167 MT). There was room in between for what we would now call a line of “prosumer” cameras.
Contax’s middle of the range cameras were a motley crew of SLRs addressing the needs of different niches – the S2 and S2b were semi-auto mechanical cameras, the RX had “a focus assist” system, the AX was an autofocus SLR designed for manual focus lenses (the lens had to be set to the infinite, and the film chamber was moving to adjust the focus).
Among them, my pick, the Contax ST, was launched in 1992. It’s a somehow simplified and less bulky derivative of the RTS III, a full featured, motorized, manual focus camera with a large viewfinder, a bit like the Canon T90 from 1986. Its unique selling proposition was that the film pressure plate was made of ceramics rather than steel or aluminum (hint: the CERA in KYOCERA stands for Ceramics). I’m not sure that this ceramics pressure plate brought any real benefit to the photographer, but it spoke to the imagination.
Of course, at the time the camera was launched, all major manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax) had followed Minolta’s example and converted their whole SLR range to autofocus, so the manual focus ST is a bit of the odd man out.(**)
Very first impressions
It’s a beautiful, very traditional SLR which exudes quality, with no autofocus, no modal interface, no menus, no control wheel, no matrix metering, no lithium battery, and a limited use of plastics.
The ST feels dense (heavy, but not too much) and falls very well in the hands. The commands are conventional, with an aperture ring on the lens, and a large shutter speed knob and an exposure compensation dial on the top plate. Almost all controls (except for the shutter speed and exposure compensation knobs) are secured by locks (like they are on a Nikon F4). There is only a tiny LCD (view counter and ISO display) at the right on the top plate.
For the anecdote, the body of today’s Fujifilm X-T3 looks very much like a small Contax ST, at the 2/3 scale, that is. Even the location and logic of the commands is strikingly similar – with the emphasis given on exposure compensation over any other control – you don’t need to search any longer where the designers of Fujifilm got their inspiration from.
The viewfinder is exceptional. Combining a high enlargement (0.8) and a long eye point (I don’t have the figure, but by comparison with other cameras, it’s really long), it offers a cinematic view of the scene. But at the same time, it’s old school – it’s graced with red LEDs, and the focusing screen does not seem to be one of those ultra fine and ultra luminous Acutemate or BriteMate laser etched screens – as a result the image is a bit darker than what you would see on a Nikon FE2, for instance (not by much, maybe 1/2 stop). The ST is also one of the few manual focus cameras with a continuously adjustable dioptric correction – all in all one of the best viewfinders of its time.
Lesser Contax SLRs have a rubberized skin. that degrades over time – it’s not the case for the STs – they still look pristine 28 years after leaving the assembly shop.
The lens mounts and lens mount adapters
Contax and Yashica had abandoned the 42mm screw mount in 1975 with the introduction of the Contax/Yashica (C/Y) mount on the Yashica FX-1 and Contax RTS.
The original Contax Carl Zeiss lenses belong to the AE series. The design of the lenses was modified in 1985 to support the Program mode and the Shutter priority modes introduced on the 159MM – therefore the modified lenses are part of the MM series (for Multi-Mode). The two versions of the lenses are inter-compatible – you just don’t get the Program mode or the Shutter priority mode if you mount an AE lens on a body like the ST.
Other lens options
Contax Carl Zeiss Lenses in C/Y mount are rather expensive, even now. There are three alternatives if you don’t want to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for a lens:
Yashica lenses: Some models have a very good reputation (the prime lenses in the ML series, generally) – they were manufactured in the same plants as the Carl Zeiss series, but were not built to Zeiss specs and did not benefit from Zeiss lens treatment. People who have tested them next to Contax lenses say the color rendering and the micro contrast are different (which makes sense – each lens manufacturer has its “signature”). Other series of Yashica lenses (DSB, YUS) are not necessarily that good – do you research.
Third party lenses: very few independents offered lenses in the C/Y mount. Tamron and Vivitar had C/Y adapters for their respective universal mount systems. But does it really make sense to mount a Tamron or a Vivitar lens on a Contax camera?
Last but not least, you can also mount older 42mm screw mount lenses (from Yashica, Contax or other defenders of the Universal mount such as Pentax) thanks to an adapter proposed by Yashica. You can still find those adapter rings on eBay.
The elephant in the room – made in Japan or in Germany?
There is no doubt where the bodies were manufactured – my ST proudly bears its “Kyocera-Japan” signature. The Contax Carl Zeiss zoom (the 28-85 f/3.3-4.0) that came with the camera was also made in Japan (no mention of Kyocera, though).
In the early years of the Zeiss / Yashica collaboration, a lens could originate from the German workshops of Zeiss or from the Japanese factories of Yashica (even for a given model – some were produced simultaneously in Europe and in Asia). Over the years, the manufacturing activities were increasingly concentrated in Japan. I did not find any evidence that lenses made in Asia were better or worse than the lenses made in Europe – and I don’t think it matters: they were all designed and manufactured to Zeiss’s specs with Zeiss’s T* multi-layer coating.
Buying Contax cameras and lenses today
In the nineties, Contax cameras were positioned and priced as premium products, a big notch under Leica, but in the same ballpark as Nikon’s or Canon’s Pro cameras.
Today, their high-end bodies hold their value very well even if Leica R products remain more expensive.
The Contax magic percolates to Yashica ML lenses and to certain Yashica bodies (like the FX-3 Super 2000), which are also sold at a premium, for products of a second tier brand, that is. The 21mm and 28mm wide-angle lenses are particularly sought for, selling for at least $350.00.
The least expensive Contax SLRs are the entry level models (139, 137, 167) at less than $100.00 for a nice copy. Really sought after models like the RTS III, the S2 (the semi-auto camera) or the Aria (a compact SLR, the last camera in the Contax manual focus line and the only one with matrix metering) typically sell in a $350.00 to $600.00 bracket. The rest of the products (ST, RX, RTS I or RTS II) sell for approximately $150.00.
But be cognizant that in order to enjoy the full Contax experience, you’ll need Contax Carl Zeiss lenses. It’s very difficult to find anything (even a very common Planar 50mm f/1.7) at less than $150.00, and really interesting lenses (the 21mm wide-angle for instance) can cost well over $1,000.
More about the Contax ST and the Vario-Sonnar 28-85mm f/3.3-4.0 in a few weeks, after a few rolls of film.
The Contax brand has been dormant since 2005, and there is relatively little information about their products on the Web.
(*) Porsche used to be a family business. And everybody in that family seemed to be named “Ferdinand”. Because it was a family business, the eight grand-sons of Ferdinand Porsche, (the engineer who had founded the company and designed the original Beetle) ended up working at the Porsche car company under the direction of Ferdinand “Ferry” Porsche, who had taken over the business from his father Ferdinand after WW2. When the conflicts between the most talented of the cousins reached dangerous levels, Ferry asked them to leave. Ferdinand Piech, who had designed the engine of the 911, left to start a new career at Audi, and ended his professional life as the chairman of the Volkswagen Group. The other cousin, Ferdinand Alexander Porsche, who had designed the body of the original 911, started his own design studio. And one of the first clients of the studio was… Contax.
(**) – Contax launched its first autofocus film SLRs (the N1 and the NX) in 2000 with a new lens mount and a new series of lenses – roughly 15 years after anybody else. And followed up with the first full-frame dSLR in 2002, the Contax N Digital. The products did not sell well and were rapidly withdrawn from the market, and Kyocera left the photography market for good in 2005. The Contax brand has been kept dormant ever since.
The lens mount of the Contax N, N1 and Nx of the early 2000s was totally different from the C/Y mount of this ST. From an engineering point of view, the new lens mount was so close to Canon’s EOS that conversion jobs were possible. You can read a test of a converted lenses in Optical limits