A curious Contax II

Dear SteveA,

I think that the most logical answer on your question is that it is the early pre-series Contax Jena. It is hard to believe that after 1947 it was possible to manufacture the camera on such a high level. It is definitely original design and not something like black-market Contax assembled from spare parts.

In the article "Die Ur-Kiev kam aus Jena" (Photo Deal, IV 2005, p.56-59) Bernd K. Otto writes the following (sorry for my bad translation)

"The Russians insisted to show them prototypes. They wanted to see the results of camera development not written in the reports but to hold the prototypes in their hands. To this end the engineers needed to improvise. Already in April 1946 was asked Jena factory to assemble the zero-series of 100 cameras for tests by hand using the partly ready tools or with manualcraftmanship. "

"12 December 1946 started the program for testing the prototypes"

"Following the sequence and methodology of testing of new Kiev (Contax) cameras it was checked the work of the shutter on all speeds including the work of self-timer with and without film. It was also required to check the work of frame counter, the film transport during winding the shutter and rewinding of film (10-15 times). The rangefinder was checked if it shows the distance correctly and if the bayonet shows the distance correctly. Then cameras were tested on durability by transporting them in the carriage without springs in order to shake them, by testing the shutter in low temperatures (up to -40 grad C). The proof of the shutter under the low temperatures has shown that cameras could be used later in winter time on the territory of Soviet Union... "

So it seems that this particular camera has failed some tests, since I am not sure that the Leica rangefinder with such a huge rangefinder base could preserve its precision after the violent shaking. All in all sliding wedge mechanism is able to minimize the error due to slight misalignment much better than the mirror-based one. It can be that Russians have insisted to abandon this FED-Leica solution.

I need to measure somehow the thread pitch of screws of Ur-Contax. This can probably help to date the camera. I need to find the microscope or something like that.

with best regards
altix

altix,

that is close to that what I have posted some times ago, that it could be one of those 100 prototype cameras that were partly made from handcrafted parts.

How much of them may exist today? Congrats to Jacques for that find.

Ulrich

http://fotos.cconin.de

Hi Altix.
Regarding the different position of the 5, 2 and 'B' speed markings on the shutter bezel, did you find the reason for that during your dismantling?

Many thanks,
Steve

Dear Ulrich,

sorry not to refer to your comment above. The previous thread discussions were quite a long time ago I needed to reread and recollect some information.

I am puzzled with this camera since I cannot understand some modifications in shutter design. If Zeiss engineers were under the huge stress of Soviets then why the camera shows new design solutions? Did Zeiss engineers really have enough time to assemble this Contax? On the other hand I noticed the tendency in increase of details size (bolts, gears, levers) that one can connect with Russian requirements on high durability. At the same time I cannot see that the shutter of this Contax has significant simplifications in its construction. It has slight differences but the main operational principles and mechanics is inherited after Dresden Contax. So why engineers did not assembled simply the Dresden Contax replica? If somebody ordered to modify some mechanisms I need to understand why these attempts to change basic design were quickly abandoned.

On weekends I will try to analyse the shutter peculiarities in detail and post the results here.

with regards,
altix

Thanks for your congrats, Ulrich! But it's Altix who does the job now!

Of course you are right, Altix. I don't understand myself why there are so numerous modifications. Normally, only one parameter is studied in a prototype. Except at the beginning of a new series, which is not the case. As if there was nothing behind the engineers who conceived that camera...

So, perhaps we are we wrong? Is this camera a prototype of Contax II, in spite of the normalized speeds? (If yes, you would be right for the second time, Ulrich!)That would match with the lens, a Tessar 2,8/5cm s/n 1365933 which belongs to a batch of 1000 lenses delivered the 4/03/32, by the Thiele. But this lens is coated...

So....

Amitiйs. Jacques.

quote:

---

So, perhaps we are we wrong? Is this camera a prototype of Contax II, in spite of the normalized speeds?

---

Dear Jacques, this is a reason why I need to measure the camera screw pitch Here is one trick that I will explain if I manage to measure it.

I believe that it is the post war Contax. One cannot exclude also the possibility that it was assembled in Oberkochen. But why then there are so many Contax-Jena features?

And a further observation, take a look at http://cschu.redirectme.net/mirrored/cameraquest/www.cameraquest.com/zconrfKiev.htm
Observe the spacing of the letters for CONTAX on the 1947 Jena Contax, pictured slightly down the page. On our mystery camera they match the spacing for the Jena Contax, other than that the 'C' appears to be a slightly different shape. I checked all my Zeiss Ikon Contaxes and the lettering is much more closely spaced on them all.

Steve

Apologiesm URL for the above post should be http://cschu.redirectme.net/mirrored/cameraquest/www.cameraquest.com/zconrfKiev.htm

Hi Steve!

I cannot open your links. Don't know why?
Generally speaking, there are slight variations in the spacing and the shapes, even inside the Jena-Contax series which is however quite "close". For example, the opening of the "C", the flatness of the "o" are well visible.

On this camera, the stroke of the "t" is higher than on any other Contax, Dresden or Jena. But you are right: the general look is more Jena than Dresden.

Jacques.

Hi Jacques, something odd happens when I paste the URL in. If you copy and paste the bit from 'cschu' through to 'zconrfkiev.htm' it links to Peter Hennig's pages. I'll have another go at pasting in in here: "cschu.redirectme.net/mirrored/cameraquest/www.cameraquest.com/zconrfKiev.htm"

Looking at my Contaxes again, the B serial number ones have the stroke of the t level with the top of the n, whilst the F serial number has it slightly lower. I believe from memory that there was more than one toolset producing components for Contaxes so the dies for body components had slight variations.

Steve

concerning the link I tried everything yesterday in a new post to keep it together, but in vain. I gave up and deleted the post. jacques, just copy everything within " " from cshu.. to kiev.htm (crtl+c) and paste it into the address bar of a new browser window. you are right, steve, the page is really interesting.

I think you mean this site, the content can be found here:

http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/zconrfKiev.htm

Ulrich

http://fotos.cconin.de

Yes, the article of Peter Hennig. Interesting and with beautiful photos. Note that Hahn's camera is in fact a Dresden Contax, mounted in Kiev, without selftimer. Problems with that part or was it unavailable?

About the stroke on the "t" of Contax, there are at least three positions:
- at the level of the other letters, on the first series of Contax, and too on the Jena-Contaxes,
- really under the level, up to the last wartime series (O series),
- really higher than this level on my prototype.

And there are other modifications too, in the spacing, the shape of the letters, the paint (or not on my "Z" preseries), etc. A monography would be necessary! And I think too that, on the prototype, the name "Contax" is rather on the Jena side.

Amitiйs. Jacques.

Dear all,

I will post some my remarks on shutter of the Contax. Actually, the closer look showed that the shutter is almost identical to the standard one. There are some minor variations in shape of some details but the operational principle is the same.

I observed that Contax has small deviation in shutter curtain construction. The following diagram shows these differences


http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/26102015_gr1.jpg

So one sees that in the standard construction (Kiev 1948) one part of the lower curtains (orange) has multiple functions, whereas in Contax all these functions are distributed among several slabs of the lower curtain.

The different position of shutter speed selector engravings have nothing to do with the shutter mechanism. It is rather connected with the difference in catcher position on winding knob relative to the black dot mark.


http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/26102015_WKnob.jpg

Here are some shots of shutter winding mechanism.


http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/26102015_Shutters.jpg

I also have found that the rangefinder prism was connected with the hollow tube on the factory. I just wonder why this tube is too short.

http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/26102015_SAM_0971.JPG

The comparison of some details of Kiev no-number, Contax and Kiev 1948


http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/26102015_details.jpg

I would say that this Contax has 90% differences in comparison to standard model and is most probably the early prototype camera of Contax Jena. The main feature of this Contax is the Leica-type rangefinder with corresponding slight modifications of focusing system and bayonet. Other modifications are rather cosmetic ones.

altix

Hi Altix, I have 1948 Kiev number 481100, chassis engraved 1100. I did some work a number of years ago with Zeiss Historica, and Minoru Sasaki (who published 'Contax to Kiev - a report on the mutation). This involved stripping my 481100 Kiev and a 1941 Contax to compare details.
My Kiev has:
Dresden type blinds with leather heal,
Dresden focus mount and focus wheel,
Dresden type top chrome cover,
Jena type front chrome cover,
Dresden shutter chassis,
Dresden cut gears with the distinct bevelling which Jena tooling could not match,
Jena style film rewind knob.

The pencil prism looks to be Dresden, but has been badly ground/shaped to fit what is a Jena type front shell. This was done at the factory, not by someone later.

The shutter mechanism itself is very smooth, though the camera looks very worn (chrome rubbed off) - maybe this is a reflection of the poor availability of quality chrome after the war.

Cheers,

Steve

Dear Steve

thank you for information. I think that Kiev from 1948 are extremely interesting cameras. For me is hard to understand where and when was assembled any Kiev camera from this period. Say in 1948 the Kiev production in Jena was stopped but I also do not believe that all Kiev 1948 were assembled in Kiev. Say Kiev 481504 I showed here (this camera belong to Jacques) is very homogeneous camera. I have found only one Contax Dresden detail (one detail of rewind knob). So I can say it has Jena-like details.

The most complex detail of the camera is the shutter. I can imagine Kievs assembled in Arsenal in 1948 from semi-manufactured parts and such cameras should have Dresden Contax shutter. In the view of information I have I doubt that Arsenal workers were able to assemble Contax-like shutters in 1948. Probably only few such shutters were ever assembled in Arsenal that year. So why there exist cameras with Jena-type shutters and with very homogeneous Jena Kiev look? My answer (that can be wrong) is that these cameras were probably assembled in 1947. This assumption supports indirectly the information from Bernd Otto article (table here http://fotos.cconin.de/ussrphoto/conkie_7.pdf) and recollections of mister Widder (see J. Kuc book).

I noted that Kiev 1947-49 have different engravings of serial numbers: "Jena-like" and "Soviet-like" (look at the font of numbers "4"). I would be very happy if you could say which type of number do you observe on your Kiev. Jacques' camera has typical Jena font.

Concerning your observation of bad shaped prism it can mean that the prism was adopted in Arsenal from Dresden part. Jena workers produced optical elements for Contax very long time and were able to modify prism properly.

Funny enough I observed that the beam splitter in the curious Contax (in the part that is connected with the hollow tube) is of very bad quality. Two parts of the glass were glued with Canadian balsam without great care. This causes low contrast and flare. The reason could be the bad quality of balm that decayed with the time or it is just because the people who assembled it did it with the intention. If one accept the version that this is a prototype camera made on request of Russians, one can admit that Zeiss workers glued the prism in this way just to show for Soviet commission that Leica-type rangefinder is not so good as the Contax one. This is highly possible since Germans were (and are) very careful with everything connected with patent rights.

And what about the chrome on your camera? Is the front plate also shows thin places? No wonder for that since the very early Kievs were shipped to scientific institutions, photojournalists, geologists so they should be worn out cosmetically. The early Kievs that one can find in "like a new" conditions were most probably presented to high military and political authorities and were kept in wardrobes all their lifetime. Anyway I consider the brassing and patina on Contax/ Kiev cameras to give them noble look Usually they have very smooth shutters (defect cameras usually are in perfect cosmetic condition since were not under intensive exploitation).

with best regards
altix

My special thanks to Altix who worked a long time on these two cameras, and who shared what he found on the forum...
I don't see how it could be possible to doubt now that this camera is a prototype, and very probably a pre-Jena Contax prototype. The important new feature -the rangefinder- is in itself enough as a justification...

That said, I am always puzzled by the camera.
When we have a close look at Altix's photos (and at mine too, at the beginning of the thread), it is evident that there are numerous modifications, compared with a Dresden Contax or a Kiev. The functionalities are the same, but details are very often different. And not only the details: the body itself and the back are not interchangeable with Contax or Kiev ones. That means other moulds, for example.

Why not having used a Dresden Contax to test the rangefinder? They certainly had tens of them at Jena. Or perhaps the Soviets had ordered to prepare immediately a small pre-production series without waiting for the reconstitution of the original Dresden plans and drawings? That would fit Otto's articles. If it's the case, what a loss of energy... We know now that the Jena-Contaxes and the Kievs (made at Arsenal's) don't take anything from this camera. An orphan prototype, as it seems. But certainly a good training for the technicians and workers...

That was not a conclusion, just an idea.

Amitiйs. Jacques.

Hi Altix.
The 4 is Jena-like, with the slight curve to the diagonal part of the '4'. My suspicion is that the entire shutter assembly is probably Dresden. Doubtless the priority would have been to have used as many complete Dresden assemblies as possible to get production moving and make it as simple as possible. The Jena Contaxes I believe then were the prototypes for new tooling to make up parts that were missing from Dresden, then ultimately enable full production of the Jena Contax as Kiev.
The front cover chrome is pretty good; its the top cover which is not so good, and to me it looks like insufficient chrome was plated to the brass.

Cheers,

Steve