Contax S2 - New Mechanical/Manual 35mm SLR
Jay Ts
After reading a New Product announcement on the Contax S2 in Camera
& Darkroom magazine, I called up Contax and asked for information.
I was interested because I am "one of those" photographers who have
a great disdain for auto-everything cameras, and the article said the
S2 is fully mechanical and manual.
The brochure that they sent me left me both surprised and impressed.
A month or so ago, there was a thread about mechanical/manual cameras,
and a few people (including myself) were discussing how an improved
Nikon FM2 would be really great, and why doesn't Nikon make it and
maybe call it the "FM3"?
That seems to be approximately what Contax has done. The S2 is very,
very similar to the Nikon FM2, with the addition of:
- spot metering
- better meter display in finder
- titanium covers
- weatherproofing
(Aside: Now, are Zeiss lenses better than Nikkors?)
However, there are a few things that the FM2 has, but the S2 doesn't: :-(
- Center Weighted metering
- aperture display in finder
(Aside from these, the differences aren't really much worth talking about.)
Well, I remember that there were a few other features that the usenet
posters wanted for the "FM3", but I think that it is more important
that Contax has definitely put a foot forward in releasing this camera.
The S2 brochure reads like a corporate report, explaining the company's
direction and intent in camera design. Here is a small snippet:
Upon these principles [of precision, reliability and
durability], much the same ones that made the Contax S
[of 1949] revolutionary, the CONTAX S2 has been born.
Kyocera engineers were determined that total control
should remain with human hands, eyes and brain, rather
than through electronic automation. Simplicity and manual
controls thus deliver continuous, proven precision even
against adverse environmental conditions, plus afford an
extra degree of intellectual and artistic freedom over
that found in conventional automated cameras which tend
to limit the photographer's control options.
I know, this is "just" sales talk, but they seem very sincere.
If I didn't know better, I would think they were planning to
discontinue the Contax RTS III! :-) :-)
(Maybe they will bring back the Zeiss Super Ikonta, too! Now there
was a great camera -- I have one. It's 50 years old and still works
like a charm. Takes 120 roll film and folds up to fit in my back pocket!)
Personally, I think this is quite refreshing compared to what has
been coming out of Nikon, Canon, et. al. My favorite (current)
Nikon is the FM2, but with Nikon being on the "digital fanaticism"
(feeping creaturism?) bandwagon, I wonder if it is a good long-term
choice. I'm afraid that as soon as Nikon fills out their line of
AF lenses, the FM2 and AIS lenses will be discontinued. (No, I do
*not* want to use AF lenses on the FM2!)
OK, what do you think? Will this work, or will the S2 bomb, forcing
Contax to give up on it?
Also, (if you don't mind :-) I'd like to reopen the discussion on the
design of the "ultimate" mechanical/manual camera. Some of you had some
really good ideas, which I've forgotten! How would you like to send me
your opinions by email, and maybe I'll summarize them and send them off
to Contax. Maybe they are interested!
"The Disclaimer": I have nothing to do with Contax (other than owning
a 50-year old Ikonta :-). I have nothing to gain from their success,
other than have a wider choice of cameras to purchase. (So I'm not
really unbiased, am I? :-)
Jay Ts
uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
Kevin Larson
>very similar to the Nikon FM2, with the addition of:
> - spot metering
... excellent addition ...
>
>Also, (if you don't mind :-) I'd like to reopen the discussion on the
>design of the "ultimate" mechanical/manual camera.
I tried to mail but it came back, so I apologize for
the post( twice, because I also missed the earlier
thread on the ultimate mechanical ), but here's my $.02...
I'd like to see a continual shutter speed dial.
( Because I'd like to take a light/cheap 500mm mirror
lens with me when I backpack and unless I'm missing
something, there's no way to get a proper exposure
with a fixed aperture lens ( unless it just happens
to fall at 1/125 etc. ).
--
KevinLarson( void ) { while( @chevron )
{ org ( CPTC/IT/WorksystemsSupport );
email( hk...@usho94.hou281.chevron.com );
voice( 713.596.2563 ); } }
Dave Bernard
Contax is sort of following in the footsteps of Leica, who introduced a
manual shutter camera a short time back- the R6 (and now R6-2).
RE: Desirable features in a mechanical camera:
* Bright viewfinder
* Self timer
* Mirror lock up
* Spotmeter
* TTL flash capability (SCA OK)
* Meter display- well, I prefer needles, but I think LEDs are more robust
* High shutter speed
* High flash sync
* Compact size (removable winder)
* metal construction
* Shutter speeds down to 8 sec (a la the Nikon F2, which used the self-timer mechanism)
* Integral ISO hot shoe
* Shutter dial on the upper deck (unlike Olympus or Nikkormats)
* Shutter lock
* Two-staged camera back opening
What else?
Dave
Morgan Conrad
list for a mechanical camera. I agree with most it. However,
since I recently converted from an OM-1 and OM-2s to a Nikon FM2,
I've thought a lot about this problem. Therefore, it's o.k. to
inflict my opinion on rec.photo, right? :-) (but wait - there's
more - this post takes no position on the Kodak Photo CD patents!)
Areas where I differ from Dave are marked with a '#'
In order of priority:
High:
1 (#) Accepts a good lens and accessory line (Canon or Nikon preferred)
2 Compact size (removable winder)
3 Spotmeter
4 Bright viewfinder
5 High flash sync
6 Mirror lock up
Low:
7 TTL flash capability (SCA OK)
8 metal construction
9 (#) Shutter dial on the lens mount, not the upper deck (like Olympus)
10 (#) Integral ISO hot shoe (sure it's nice, but a PC cord is ok)
11 (#) LED meter
Could Care Less:
12 (#) Shutter speeds down to 8 sec (just say 1 Mississippi...)
13 (#) Shutter lock (these just get in my way)
14 (#) Two-staged camera back opening (what is this????)
The FM2 would meet the top 5 if they just added spot metering, and
mirror lockup would make it "near perfect".
RE: Shutter dial on the lens mount, not the upper deck
It makes so much sense to me to have shutter speed around
the lens mount, near to and parallel with the aperature ring.
One hand can move both, and you know, without thinking, what
direction to turn to keep them in synch. "Hmm, I turned the
f-stop 1 click clockwise to get the depth of field I want, now
I need to turn the shutter 1 click clockwise to keep the exposure
right." With the shutter speed on the upper deck, it requires two
hands, and they do not turn the same direction.
Morgan Conrad Cthulu for President!
Applied Biosystems
m...@apldbio.com Why settle for
415-570-6667 the lesser evil?
David L Anderson
>
>After reading a New Product announcement on the Contax S2 in Camera
>& Darkroom magazine, I called up Contax and asked for information.
>
>was a great camera -- I have one. It's 50 years old and still works
>like a charm. Takes 120 roll film and folds up to fit in my back pocket!)
Well, how about resurrecting the Contax I? Then I wouldn't have to
get mine repaired! Besides, what's more mechanical/manual than
a range finder? Builds character, too. (Strong bones, healthy
skin, etc.)
SLRs? Only the weakest photographers use SLRs! ;-)
David Anderson
Dave Bernard
BTW, the original poster said he phoned Contax for a copy of the S2 brochure...
do you happen to hav the phone # for Contax/Yashica/Kyocera?
Dave
Martin W Kuhn
>Well, how about resurrecting the Contax I? Then I wouldn't have to
>get mine repaired! Besides, what's more mechanical/manual than
>a range finder? Builds character, too. (Strong bones, healthy
>skin, etc.)
Except that is was resurected by the Russian Kiev factory, and it was
the Contax II and III models, not the I. After swiping the toolings
from the Zeiss factory during WWII, the Russians just packed it all
up and sent it back home and started producing exact (well, nearly exact)
copies under the Kiev name! (the Kiev 4 and 4A to be exact)
As far as I know, they might even still be making them! (I know you
could still buy brand new ones as recently as the mid 80's...) As
for buying one, well, they appear to be reasonably well made, though
I don't know how much you can trust Soviet quality control...
Oh, and as for the resurection of the Super Ikonta, that's happened too--
look at the Seagull 203... :-) (BTW, I don't recomend you buy this
camera, however; I've seen them and they appear to be rather poorly
assembled and finished; even worse than many other Chinese cameras;
your mileage may vary, of course...)
So, next time you joke about resurecting old camera designs; don't
laugh-- it might have actually happened! :-)
--Marty
"Let's resurrect the Triad Fotron!" :-) :-) :-)
(I think I'm pretty safe in thinking *that* hasn't happened!)
Jay Ts
:
: Contax is sort of following in the footsteps of Leica, who introduced a
Just to fill in some details, the S2 has a self timer, spotmeter, LED
meter display, 1/4000 sec shutter speed, 1/250 sec sync speed, is almost
exactly the same size and weight as a Nikon FM2, metal/titanium body parts,
has shutter speeds only to 1 sec (also like the FM2), has the hot shoe
and shutter dial on the top, and apparently has a shutter lock.
The brochure's description of the meter display is brisk, but it seems to
be a "match LED" system, with the shutter speeds along the right side of
the finder.
Jay Ts
uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
Jay Ts
:
: this post takes no position on the Kodak Photo CD patents!)
Good. One of the reasons I started this thread was to have an
intelligent alternative to that.
: 1 (#) Accepts a good lens and accessory line (Canon or Nikon preferred)
With me, that is an assumed requirement. Contax has good lenses, but
I'm not sure about other accessories. Anyone want to compare?
: The FM2 would meet the top 5 if they just added spot metering, and
: mirror lockup would make it "near perfect".
What about *replacing* with spot metering? The Contax S2 has spot,
but no center-weighted metering. What do you think of this? I can
easily get along without center-weighted metering if I have a good
spot meter. Ultimately, I would prefer to have spot, center/average
and matrix, as in the Nikon 8008s. Unfortunately, matrix metering
requires a CPU, which would violate the "Simpler is Better" design
principle.
: RE: Shutter dial on the lens mount, not the upper deck
:
: It makes so much sense to me to have shutter speed around
: the lens mount, near to and parallel with the aperature ring.
: One hand can move both, and you know, without thinking, what
: direction to turn to keep them in synch.
This is a feature of the Olympus cameras that I thought was a great
idea before I owned one (I have two now). I still like the idea,
but I find Olympus's implementation lacking in two ways. First,
the OM-1's shutter speed ring is knurled at only two spots. This
makes it hard to turn, especially when you have to find those two
places to hold onto first (they keep moving around every time I
change shutter speeds!) Second, when the camera is mounted on a
tripod, those two raised/knurled sections catch on the tripod head,
unless the camera is mounted with the shutter speed ring hanging off
the edge.
If the camera is on a tripod, the dial on the camera top
is much easier to use. In fact, I have always been able to turn the
top-mounted shutter speed dials on the cameras I have used with the
thumb and index finger of my right hand while looking through the
viewfinder. Even with a Nikon F2 with Photomic Finder, one gets
used to this. I would like to know if this doesn't work for you.
Jay Ts
uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
Jay Ts
: >
: >After reading a New Product announcement on the Contax S2 in Camera
: >& Darkroom magazine, I called up Contax and asked for information.
: >
: >(Maybe they will bring back the Zeiss Super Ikonta, too! Now there
: >was a great camera -- I have one. It's 50 years old and still works
: >like a charm. Takes 120 roll film and folds up to fit in my back pocket!)
:
: Well, how about resurrecting the Contax I? Then I wouldn't have to
: get mine repaired! Besides, what's more mechanical/manual than
: a range finder? Builds character, too.
The Super Ikonta *is* a rangefinder. A rather odd one, if you consider
a Leica to be normal. Actually, I think they are more likely to bring
back the Contax II or III. Again quoting the S2 brochure:
These cameras were certainly technologically advanced for their
time, especially the latter, as a built-in exposure meter was
rare even as late as 1950.
(The Contax I and II were introduced in 1936.) I would certainly agree
that putting a more modern, thru-the-lens exposure meter in the III, along
with a few other details, would make it a very nifty camera. They are
certainly capable -- take the Contax T2 as an example! That, I think,
is halfway there already.
Jay Ts
Jay Ts
:
:BTW, the original poster said he phoned Contax for a copy of the S2 brochure...
:do you happen to hav the phone # for Contax/Yashica/Kyocera?
If they tell you they don't have the S2 brochure yet, tell them to send
it anyway ;-) Well, it worked for me.
The mail address is
Yashica Inc.
100 Randolph Road
Somerset NJ 08875
Jay Ts
John M. Bozeman
>I'm sure you meant this as a joke, but you're almost right!
>Except that is was resurected by the Russian Kiev factory, and it was
>the Contax II and III models, not the I. After swiping the toolings
>from the Zeiss factory during WWII, the Russians just packed it all
>up and sent it back home and started producing exact (well, nearly exact)
>copies under the Kiev name! (the Kiev 4 and 4A to be exact)
>As far as I know, they might even still be making them! (I know you
>could still buy brand new ones as recently as the mid 80's...) As
>for buying one, well, they appear to be reasonably well made, though
>I don't know how much you can trust Soviet quality control...
>
>
I thought that the Russian "Fed-5" was a copy of the Contax II. Is this
true? (Does anybody out there have one? is it any good?)
John
.
Jack Campin
> I thought that the Russian "Fed-5" was a copy of the Contax II. Is this
> true? (Does anybody out there have one? is it any good?)
The Fed-5 is an evolved screw-mount Leica, sort of. It uses the same mount
thread as a Leica I/II/III but the rangefinder calibration is different;
this means that, particularly for longer-than-50mm lenses, the rangefinder
will give you incorrect answers if you put a Leica lens on a Fed body or
vice versa. I would be surprised if this were alterable. The Feds also
have a combined rangefinder/viewfinder (like the Canon rangefinders, but
unlike any screwmount Leica) and the later Feds have a built-in meter (like
the later Canons, but also unlike any screwmount Leica). Their quality
control is not that great but a good one is fine; if it weren't for the
rangefinder-compatibility problem (I have several Leica-type lenses) I'd
have one. The viewfinder is nice and bright. I believe some of the longer
Fed lenses, like the 85mm, are very good, though I can't remember where I
heard that.
--
-- Jack Campin room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp
Paul Frankenstein
>
>Contax is sort of following in the footsteps of Leica, who introduced a
>manual shutter camera a short time back- the R6 (and now R6-2).
>
>RE: Desirable features in a mechanical camera:
>
>* Bright viewfinder
>* Self timer
>* Mirror lock up
>* Spotmeter
>* TTL flash capability (SCA OK)
>* Meter display- well, I prefer needles, but I think LEDs are more robust
>* High shutter speed
>* High flash sync
>* Compact size (removable winder)
Is it safe to assume you mean removable motor drive here?
>* metal construction
>* Shutter speeds down to 8 sec (a la the Nikon F2, which used the
> self-timer mechanism)
>* Integral ISO hot shoe
>* Shutter dial on the upper deck (unlike Olympus or Nikkormats)
>* Shutter lock
>* Two-staged camera back opening
>
>What else?
> Dave
Don't forget DOF preview...
paul
--
fran...@gas.uug.arizona.edu
pa...@hacks.arizona.edu
"Bagels are great for backpacking."
-- Mike Cottingham
Dave Bernard
What do Contax lenses look like... are they plasticy auto-focus type,
or are the barrels metal? Are depth of field marks etched on the barrel,
or painted on? Is there a scale for IR film?
Dave
Chuck Liang
>
> These cameras were certainly technologically advanced for their
> time, especially the latter, as a built-in exposure meter was
> rare even as late as 1950.
>
>(The Contax I and II were introduced in 1936.) I would certainly agree
>that putting a more modern, thru-the-lens exposure meter in the III, along
>with a few other details, would make it a very nifty camera. They are
>certainly capable -- take the Contax T2 as an example! That, I think,
>is halfway there already.
One crucial drawback for (original) Contax rangefinders was that they
didn't have automatic parallax correction as opposed to Leica-M's, Nikon
and later Canon rangefinders. They also lacked built-in finder frames
for lenses of different focal lengths.
My favorite camera is my near-mint Contax II. I would like it to
have automatic parallax correction, plus a bright, zoom viewfinder - a lot
of current point-and-shoots have this type of finder. There would be a
switch which would give me the choice of a 1:1 magnification finder
for 50mm lenses.
Another feature I'd like to have is interchangable film backs. The
Contax's removable back system can be easily altered to accomadate
this feature. In fact, late model Contaflex SLR's with similar types
of backs DID actually have this feature.
As to metering, I've gotten used to using a hand-held sekonic with
my old cameras. You can only have reflected-light meters built
into cameras, and I would prefer to use a more powerful hand-held
meter. I would also like my camera to be COMPLETELY independent of
batteries. It wouldn't hurt to much to have one though.
Another possibility for some real innovation on this classic is it's
metal blind shutter, long thought to be the weakest point of this
camera. But if its problems can be solved, this type of shutter will
have potentials. One of the first things I noticed was how thick and
strong the metal blind shutter was. You can poke it all you want.
There is no comparasion between this shutter and other,
fragile-as-hell focal plane shutters. It's an iron gate. Therefore,
if one wants to, one can put some interesting stuff on the shutter
itself. It would be easy adding a Leica M-6 style TTL meter. But we
can do more. We could put electronic sensors inside or on the
surface of the shutter. How about a tiny little mirror that alows reflex
viewing and fine spot metering, or even matrix metering by placing
sensors on different parts of the shutter plane. You like OTF (off
the film plane) flash metering? How about ON the film plane flash
pre-metering.
Finally, I would like to have two of these babies, one to use and
one to admire.
If I had the skill and the money, I would start Zeiss-Ikon West Phily.
P.S., don't forget to vote.
Republicans use point-and-shoots :-)
Deng
>
>Contax is sort of following in the footsteps of Leica, who introduced a
>manual shutter camera a short time back- the R6 (and now R6-2).
>
>RE: Desirable features in a mechanical camera:
>
>* Bright viewfinder
>* Self timer
>* Mirror lock up
>* Spotmeter
>* TTL flash capability (SCA OK)
>* Meter display- well, I prefer needles, but I think LEDs are more robust
>* High shutter speed
>* High flash sync
>* Compact size (removable winder)
>* Shutter speeds down to 8 sec (a la the Nikon F2, which used the self-timer mechanism)
>* Integral ISO hot shoe
>* Shutter dial on the upper deck (unlike Olympus or Nikkormats)
>* Shutter lock
>* Two-staged camera back opening
>
>What else?
>
> Dave
*depth-in-field preview button
*"T" -shutter as well as "B"(Bulb")---(2sec/4sec in low speed setting will be
adequate for a mechanical shutter)
*Multiple exposure with indicator
CONTAX S2:
Good News For CONTAX/ZEISS Users! It is the camera I dreamed for many years.
AT LAST!?
--Youbai
David Jacobson
In article <2...@metran.UUCP> j...@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
>:
>: this post takes no position on the Kodak Photo CD patents!)
>
>Good. One of the reasons I started this thread was to have an
>intelligent alternative to that.
I just got back to rec.photo after a week away and discovred 578
messages! I just about hit "c" (catch up), but then decided to see
what was there. When I got the the first Photo-CD one I hit "k" (kill
all the rest about the same topic, and at first I wondered if rn had
gotten into an infinite loop!
>What about *replacing* with spot metering? The Contax S2 has spot,
>but no center-weighted metering. What do you think of this? I can
>easily get along without center-weighted metering if I have a good
>spot meter. Ultimately, I would prefer to have spot, center/average
>and matrix, as in the Nikon 8008s. Unfortunately, matrix metering
>requires a CPU, which would violate the "Simpler is Better" design
>principle.
Now let's not get too closed minded. Just how low-powered could a
processor be if it just had to implement matrix metering and run an
LCD display? Could you do it in C-MOS on just 4 button cells? The
hard part would be to restain the designers, who, knowing there was a
CPU in there would be tempted beyond their ability to bear it. The
number one rule would be: The CPU only runs the display. Under no
circumstances does it actually control the camera.
-- David Jacobson
Jochen Fuehrer
In <1992Oct29.0...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jm...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU writes:
> >>skin, etc.)
> >I'm sure you meant this as a joke, but you're almost right!
> >Except that is was resurected by the Russian Kiev factory, and it was
> >the Contax II and III models, not the I. After swiping the toolings
> >from the Zeiss factory during WWII, the Russians just packed it all
> >up and sent it back home and started producing exact (well, nearly exact)
> >copies under the Kiev name! (the Kiev 4 and 4A to be exact)
> >As far as I know, they might even still be making them! (I know you
> >could still buy brand new ones as recently as the mid 80's...) As
>
> I thought that the Russian "Fed-5" was a copy of the Contax II. Is this
> true? (Does anybody out there have one? is it any good?)
>
> John
The Russian Contax-copies are called Kiev. There are different models, some
with exposure meter. I do not know if they are still in production but
they were about ten years ago. I have one and it works well. I can't
compare it to the original contax since I never had one. The mechanical
precision of the kiev is not very high, the COntax probably was better.
But for the 100DM (60$) I paid for it (used), the Kiev is a nice camera.
The rangefinder is bright and clear, much better than that of a Fed
(Leica III replica) I also have. ANd it looks like a contax, for 20% of
the price.
Jochen
Jay Ts
:
: I (Jay Ts) wrote:
: >What about *replacing* with spot metering? The Contax S2 has spot,
: >but no center-weighted metering.
: > ...
: >Unfortunately, matrix metering requires a CPU, which would violate
: >the "Simpler is Better" design principle.
:
: Now let's not get too closed minded.
I hope I'm not. The "Simpler is Better" thing is just me referring to
the Contax S2 brochure. Obviously, the idea can be taken too far!
(Yes, it's the new gold-plated titanium Contax Brownie 2 -- with a
recrystalized sapphire shutter release! :-) :-)
: Just how low-powered could a processor be if it just had to
: implement matrix metering and run an LCD display?
This may surprise you, but I was not thinking about battery consumption
when I wrote the above. Rather, I was thinking about the *mechanical*
complexity of switching back and forth between metering modes. In some
implementations, this is done by swinging a lens in front of the photocell.
And there's the electronic complexity, too. Where there is a CPU there
is software (ok, firmware). As far as I understand it (and I really
don't!) matrix metering requires a significant amount of programming,
and the field is wide open for improvement *and* overcomplication.
: Could you do it in C-MOS on just 4 button cells?
Yes, but I could also do it in CMOS with just *2* button cells :-), or
maybe even 1! (I do happen to have some experience in CMOS VLSI design,
BTW.)
Think about it; how many batteries does a digital watch use? I have a
digital clock with a 3/4" high LCD display. The last time I changed the
battery was 31 May 1990. It has been running continuously since then on
just one little 1.5 volt button cell. If this battery lasts as long as
the first one did, it will go for another year or two before I have to
replace it again! A digital clock may be simpler than an 8-bit CPU,
but the camera meter doesn't have to be on continuously, either...
... Now, just to make sure you don't get the totally wrong idea, let me
specify that I, personally, would very much like to have center-weighted
*and* matrix metering along with my spot meter. One of my very few
complaints about the Contax S2 is that the spot meter only works down
to EV +4 (with ISO 100 film and f/1.4 lens). This would leave me out
in the cold on a number of occasions. They could have done better, and
yes, it would have made the camera a little less simple.
: The hard part would be to restain the designers, who, knowing there was a
: CPU in there would be tempted beyond their ability to bear it.
I think you've hit upon the key issue.
: The number one rule would be: The CPU only runs the display. Under no
: circumstances does it actually control the camera.
How about:
1. The electronics only run the meter/display.
2. The display will be LCDs only.
3. The firmware will be thoroughly tested and debugged
*before* the product is released.
Now, how about some ideas on simple and effective matrix metering
algorithms?
Jay Ts
uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay