Nowadays you can pick up Contaxes quite cheaply, so I've added three more to the 167 MT I've used for some years. I have to say that the least favourite of the bunch is the 167, even though two of my other Contaxes are cheaper models.
So, of the Contax/Yashica/Kyocera years (RTS on), which do you reckon was the worst model tthey brought out?
The RTS, actually. I've got RTS, 137, 139, 167 and RX, and it's the RTS I like least - it's just too heavy for my taste. That said, I don't like using the 167 in manual, as it suffers severely from "1980s crazy control syndrome". The 137 and 139 I like very much indeed despite their bargain status, and the RX is so smooth and silky, if a little over-complicated at times.
I've only one Contax, and it's a 167MT - bought so that I could get my hands on a "Zeiss" lens. Unfortunately, although it most often gets the correct exposure, it frequently over-exposes quite seriously - in a way which suggests malfunction rather than a metering fault. (Several times per film.) I haven't yet worked out whether it's a lens problem, sticky shutter or other cause - so I'm a bit biased against it.
Malcolm Stewart
Jaguar Mk VII
Never handled one myself, although it was an object of desire for me in the 70's/80's. I ended up with Yashicas - FR, FR1, FXD, and the FX103P - which showed you can have a programme mode with a Contax mount without sticking a lump on your lens and a microswitch on the body ...The RTS, actually ... it's just too heavy for my taste.
Yes - it's the controls that put me off the 167 too. I'd like to get my hands on a 159 sometime - preferably before we run out of film ...
That said, I don't like using the 167 in manual, as it suffers severely from "1980s crazy control syndrome". The 137 and 139 I like very much indeed despite their bargain status, and the RX is so smooth and silky, if a little over-complicated at times.
I always prefer to use a hand-held meter and set the camera manually where possible. Are the shutter speeds consistant when you cycle through them on manual?I've only one Contax, and it's a 167MT - bought so that I could get my hands on a "Zeiss" lens. Unfortunately, although it most often gets the correct exposure, it frequently over-exposes quite seriously - in a way which suggests malfunction rather than a metering fault.
Hi,
I've got the RTS, 137ma and 139. The 159 and 167 were/are on my want list. I've not handled either of them but the 159 strikes me as a really nice lump. Interesting about the 167, I think I better find one to have a play with before I eventually part with cash.
Of the 3 I have I find I'm currently using the 139 the most, the nicest to use though is the 137, my long standing camera that I can pick up and use and not even think about it.
Darran
I think I read somewhere recently that 167's have a built-in lithium backup battery which would require replacement by .... Contax! If true, this would be a good camera to sell wjile you can, IMO!Interesting about the 167, I think I better find one to have a play with before I eventually part with cash
The Yashica FXD I used for years is very similar to the 139 - I stuck a 50mm Planar on it, and probably got results just as good as if I'd had the Contax body.
Of the 3 I have I find I'm currently using the 139 the most, the nicest to use though is the 137, my long standing camera that I can pick up and use and not even think about it.
Darran
He heI have two FXD's coming from Ebay
If that's true about the 167 battery thats outrageous. Perhaps I'll give it a complete miss then.
This review index covers users experiences with lots of cameras, including the 167MT.
Malcolm Stewart
Jaguar Mk VII
After some digging, I think it's a capacitor - not a battery.If that's true about the 167 battery thats outrageous. Perhaps I'll give it a complete miss then.
Ah, I knew the RTS was massively outside my league back then. I did like the FR and FR 1 - the latter being top of my list for quite some time. It's a bit of a shock I've nver owned one!
The 159 looks great, and is on my list - the only one I've handled was faulty, sadly. So's an Aria, actually, but they're still too dear. Ditto the S2...
I've always loved the feel of Contaxes, but more important to me are those lovely lenses.
Thanks for that.
I found a site with Contax manuals the other day in PDF format, so downloaded all the ones I wanted, and then forgot the address. I'll find it again and post it later ...
My FR1 is out on loan. I bought it s/h and later found out it was corroded internally due to water damage. AFAIK it still works. Maybe I'll buy another sometime if I see one at the right price - a fiver or so!Ah, I knew the RTS was massively outside my league back then. I did like the FR and FR 1 - the latter being top of my list for quite some time. It's a bit of a shock I've nver owned one!
I use 167MTs in the air, alongside a Pentax 67II and am very happy to claim that it is the best 35mm air photographic camera ever built. It's light, the exposure system is good, the glass is second to none, the internal motor drive is fast and there is less shutter/mirror shock than virtually any other SLR I have ever used. However, I never use it on the ground because of the almighty din it makes and would also agree that the control set-up makes manual exposure a bit of a pain. So yes, this is the best and worst Contax for me depending on where it is.
David.
An excellent summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the camera. I often wonder if the reason why it's the first camera to have autobracketing was because they knew it was a pig to control manually...
The 159mm is apparently the least reliable of the Contax line, although a nice working example would be tempting. The 167 is certainly an oddity in handling and setting compared with the rest of the range, but is not really difficult to learn, it is certainly a lot simpler than even the simplest digital slr. The Aria is a lightweight camera, but the body and a couple of lenses makes a nice easy on the shoulder combination, when gear has to be carried any distance.
Some Contax Manuals here.
Shame about the 159, maybe a couple of broken ones can be cobbled into one good one!
Not really bad if you use it all the time, not so good if you use it with an ST, 137MA or 139 to do a wedding or other function though - you can forget whether to turn or flick ...The 167 is certainly an oddity in handling and setting compared with the rest of the range, but is not really difficult to learn,
Not that I've done a wedding on film for a couple of years though ...
That sums it up for me as well, there is no other make that feels so nice in the hand. They are tactile, quality cameras. Though sadly I've never been able to afford the T* lenses other than the 50mm 1.7. Though I am watching the prices tumble, if it wasn't for those pesky digital Canon owners......... [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
I've always loved the feel of Contaxes, but more important to me are those lovely lenses.
I'm also on the lookout for some prime Minolta AF lenses to work on my Dynax 7. So far, I have the 50 f1.7 and 28 f2.8 and that's it.That sums it up for me as well, there is no other make that feels so nice in the hand. They are tactile, quality cameras. Though sadly I've never been able to afford the T* lenses other than the 50mm 1.7. Though I am watching the prices tumble, if it wasn't for those pesky digital Canon owners......... [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
I've always loved the feel of Contaxes, but more important to me are those lovely lenses.
Malcolm Stewart
Jaguar Mk VII
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote