milescl
Well-known
Who here has first-hand experience with the 543/7 viewfinder on a Contax II? Do you prefer it over a cold-shoe mounted viewfinder?
stephen_lumsden
Well-known
Thought about one of these also, but I went with the shoe mounted one as one can use the parallax adjustment. Would like to hear from those who have one though
S.H.
Picture taker
I have one : it is only a mask of course, but it is clearer than the Leica VIOOH (no optics). An optical VF on the cold shoe would be much more accurate for framing. Looking through the 543/7 is like looking through a very small peephole (and the Contax VF is already cramped). I would have been great with some magnification inside, like the googled Leitz lenses.
Only useful if you don't want anything on top of the camera, it is less vulnerable: can't really knock it off.
Only useful if you don't want anything on top of the camera, it is less vulnerable: can't really knock it off.
dexdog
Mentor
i agree with S.H. that an optical viewfinder on cold shoe would offer better framing than finders using masks. Also, i think that the 543/7 is just plain awkward and makes the camera a bit harder to hold (searching my vocabulary for a better word than "dorky", but failing...)
S.H.
Picture taker
"ZeissIkonian" would be a good synonym for dorky maybe
? If only they managed to design some easy to use camera at some point... they were pretty to look at though.(well, I exaggerate; some SuperIkontas in 6x6 are easy to use, they just eat 1/12 of your rolls to make up for it. Still love them though)
dexdog
Mentor
i have long been of the opinion that the old contax system was designed more like a series of scientific instruments rather a commercial/consumer products.
S.H.
Picture taker
By engineers, for engineers... Makes sense indeed.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I own one of these from my brief foray into the Contax world. For 135mm, it's completely useless:
Yes, these ponies were supposed to be in the centre of the frame! I suspect that they couldn't push the 135mm frame far enough to one side to accommodate for the parallax as they were somewhat hampered by the position of the RF patch. But for 85mm, it works really bloody well:
I actually quite like it for 85mm - it makes it much easier to focus and frame quickly, and the view through it really isn't bad at all by 1930s standards. I'd never use it for 135mm, though; not only is it wildly inaccurate, but the tiny box you get look through is even worse than a VIOOH stopped all the way down. The edges aren't so well-delineated, and the RF patch takes up 1/3rd of the view. It's just not a good time.
The only other thing I'll say is that while the 543/7 doesn't really affect the (already bad) ergonomics of the camera, taking the damn thing on and off can be bit tough. Don't take it off with an 85mm lens mounted or there's a good chance you'll gouge the barrel of the lens as it slides out (that's a mistake you only make once), and be careful how you push from the back as the Contax's accessory shoe can be vicious if your thumb knuckle hits it with some force (damn thing cost me some blood first time I tried to use it).
Needless to say, I agree with @dexdog on this one: Zeiss made some great lenses, but the people designing the cameras definitely didn't think about the end user!
Yes, these ponies were supposed to be in the centre of the frame! I suspect that they couldn't push the 135mm frame far enough to one side to accommodate for the parallax as they were somewhat hampered by the position of the RF patch. But for 85mm, it works really bloody well:
I actually quite like it for 85mm - it makes it much easier to focus and frame quickly, and the view through it really isn't bad at all by 1930s standards. I'd never use it for 135mm, though; not only is it wildly inaccurate, but the tiny box you get look through is even worse than a VIOOH stopped all the way down. The edges aren't so well-delineated, and the RF patch takes up 1/3rd of the view. It's just not a good time.
The only other thing I'll say is that while the 543/7 doesn't really affect the (already bad) ergonomics of the camera, taking the damn thing on and off can be bit tough. Don't take it off with an 85mm lens mounted or there's a good chance you'll gouge the barrel of the lens as it slides out (that's a mistake you only make once), and be careful how you push from the back as the Contax's accessory shoe can be vicious if your thumb knuckle hits it with some force (damn thing cost me some blood first time I tried to use it).
Needless to say, I agree with @dexdog on this one: Zeiss made some great lenses, but the people designing the cameras definitely didn't think about the end user!
TenEleven
Well-known
I personally use it quite frequently on my Contax II - usually with the Opton 85/2 Sonnar and not the period-appropriate Jena Sonnar.
I like it because I found that it offers sufficient framing accuracy for snapshots and with a fast 85mm lens I feel it's quite important to be able to compose and focus in one go. The narrow depth-of-field of a 85mm lens even set to f/8 does not leave much margin for error, especially with moving subjects.
In fact I liked it enough that I bribed Rick Oleson into selling me his DIY contraption which does a similar thing for the IIa. The IIa finder is however smaller than the II so I usually prefer the Contax II for longer lenses.
I rarely, if ever, used it for the 135mm lens as far as I can recall. In my experience everything over 100mm or so gets rather awkward on any rangefinder.
I like it because I found that it offers sufficient framing accuracy for snapshots and with a fast 85mm lens I feel it's quite important to be able to compose and focus in one go. The narrow depth-of-field of a 85mm lens even set to f/8 does not leave much margin for error, especially with moving subjects.
In fact I liked it enough that I bribed Rick Oleson into selling me his DIY contraption which does a similar thing for the IIa. The IIa finder is however smaller than the II so I usually prefer the Contax II for longer lenses.
I rarely, if ever, used it for the 135mm lens as far as I can recall. In my experience everything over 100mm or so gets rather awkward on any rangefinder.
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Honestly, I've always found these accessories as useful, either on the Contax-II or the III. I have the "evolution" of this one, for the Contax-IIa/IIIa too (this, with parallax correction!).
After all, they're in that spirit all "Contaxians" love...
After all, they're in that spirit all "Contaxians" love...
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Maybe you can answer a question that's been nagging me for a while now: the post-war version for the Contax IIa... doesn't that necessitate the removal of the camera strap every time you want to mount it?
TenEleven
Well-known
Not if you use a half-case. Which, I guess was the intended use scenario.
However I don't think there's going to be any debate that the Contax IIa version of this particular accessory is worse. Yes, they added a parallax feature, but it's easily knocked and feels pointless on top of making an already small VF even smaller.
milescl
Well-known
Thanks for everyone's thoughts thus far. I think I'm convinced enough to give it a try -- now time to source one!
S.H.
Picture taker
Some phone pictures of what you can expect in the VF
For some reason the RF patch is not centered. How it looks with a 85 (opton in this case) :
For some reason the RF patch is not centered. How it looks with a 85 (opton in this case) :
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
That's because if they centred the clip-on cropping mask around the RF patch, the parallax error would render the thing totally useless. Even as it stands, with the RF patch offset in the cropping mask, the viewfinder is still too far away from the lens to really be useable with a 135mm lens (see my earlier post).
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
135? I just used the RF patch itself on my Contax/Kiev cameras. "Close enough" as the saying goes.