1990s CONTAXes - Too Good, or Not Good Enough?

A fitting final flagship for CONTAX: the breathtaking RTS III of 1990

In this same poetic sense, there are truly creative individuals who can find limitless nuances of light and color within a single blossom. These are true artists even if they've never held a paintbrush in their hand or drawn a single line. These are the souls endowed with the innate gift of being able to see with a Renoir's eyes.
       To those who can sense deep images and great drama behind even the most serene scenes; to those who love to experiment and create images...we dedicate the truest extension of one's eyes that has ever been created, the new photographic standard...the CONTAX RTS III. (Italics ours)

​   Whew!! You've got to hand it to the ad agency for CONTAX in the early-1990s; they came up with some doozies. Now, it's Advertising 101 to hype your product, but not even Leica dared to push it as far in their ads of the time ;-). Nothing like buttering up your potential customers by comparing them to an Impressionist master (eyeroll).

​    By comparison, when they introduced the ST two years later, they were slightly more subdued, if only when referring to the potential users of this "extra" perfect camera:​  

Creativity should be in the hands and eyes of the photographer, and this true masterpiece of precision performance is a breath of fresh air, the quintessential tool to complement and extend one's level of creative achievement...Beneath the stylish body lies a full range of unseen improvements to the many traditional mechanisms which give this 35mm SLR camera that extra level of perfection CONTAX lovers have come to expect. Here is an "orthodox" camera providing the ideal mix of high priority photographic features based on built-in reliability, catering to all forms of photography. (Italics again ours.)

​    What?! No Renoir references? Well, maybe obliquely...after all, the ST itself was a "true masterpiece" (again, evidence of more restraint, they only used "true" once in this advert as opposed to "truly", "true", and "truest" in the RTS III brochure ;-)). But we see a slightly different tack taken with the use of "traditional" and "orthodox". What was that supposed to mean? Well, that gets us into the possibility of "not good enough" and the thought that maybe CONTAX was compensating for something ;-).

  The State of CONTAX by the Late-1980s

    To try and understand where CONTAX (all CONTAXES from 1974-onward were manufactured by Yashica in co-operation with Zeiss) was coming from with their ad copy of the '90s, we need to first look back at the way things went for them in the last half of the 1980s. In three words, "not...so...hot". The decade as a whole had been quite the rollercoaster for the brand, as a matter of fact. From the peak of the SLR boom in 1980-81...to having to be rescued from imminent bankruptcy by Kyoto Ceramics (aka KYOCERA) in the fall of 1983...and then being caught out (as was the rest of the Japanese SLR community) in February of 1985 by the Minolta 7000 Auto Focus bombshell...it had been a tough go, overall. That last one had to sting even more, as the Yashica engineers had actually developed their own AF prototype (based on the CONTAX 137) in 1982 that was eerily close to what Minolta brought out only two and a half years later. Scuttled by the precarious financial position of the company at that point, along with strong resistance (ok, so it was more like complete implacability ;-)) from partner Zeiss when it came to developing AF lenses for the CONTAX SLR system, it had to be heartbreaking for the Yashica AF team to see Minolta absolutely steamroller their competition for a couple of years, whilst seeing their own manual focus lineup rapidly decline along with the rest of the industry. It got bad enough that, from 1987-1990, there was one CONTAX SLR model in production...that's right, ONE: the 167 MT that replaced the 137 MA and 159 MM in one fell swoop. The 159 MM's story in itself was tragic: it was in production for less than two years, having the misfortune to be introduced just prior to the Minolta 7000 in late-1984, with poor initial availability of its namesake MM (Multi-Mode) Carl Zeiss lenses only exacerbating an overnight market contraction, resulting in very poor sales.

     Faced with a continued AF onslaught, as much bigger market players Nikon, Canon, and Pentax scrambled to catch Minolta, KYOCERA faced an existential crossroads. If AF was going to be a no-go for the CONTAX line due to Zeiss' intransigence on the subject, then how were they to survive in the manual focus market, which by 1989 would be reduced to only 10-15% of the overall SLR market (depending on region) and continue to shrink through the next decade? The answer they came up with is revealed in said ad copy of the '90s: they painted (pun intended ;-)) themselves as the brand for "true" creatives that did not rely on fripperies like AF to express their "innate gifts". AF was the enemy of art, and CONTAX & Zeiss were the last bastion of defense against the onslaught of AF heresy (thus the "orthodox" in the ST brochure). Think I'm exaggerating just a touch? Well, check this gem out from the RX (introduced in 1994) brochure:

CONTAX decided early on that Carl Zeiss T* lenses could not be enhanced by adding auto-focus capability. Considerations such as weight and focus accuracy contributed to the decision against auto-focus. As a result, a system was developed that preserves the supreme integrity of the Carl Zeiss T* lenses... (Italics still ours ;-))

​    You have to admire them for their decisiveness at the very least :-). Now, it's important to remember that CONTAX was not all about being anti-technology. They had built their whole re-brand, from 1974-forward, on being at (or at least, near) the forefront of SLR tech...except AF. So when they decided to forgo competing in AF, that meant that they would focus their technological efforts on the more marginal areas that the rest of industry gave less attention to in their efforts to push AF tech forward. And that was borne out in what was basically another relaunch of the brand in 1990 with the flagship RTS III:

• True Film Flatness Purity (that is directly from the RTS III brochure :-)). Over 10% of this document is dedicated to the main feature of the RTS III: a vacuum-backed (in CONTAX-speak: Real Time Vacuum) film pressure plate designed to bring film flatness to less than 10 microns versus the 20-30 microns found in the worst-case scenarios with other-brand top-of-the-line SLRs. KYOCERA even had to develop a new laser-interferometer to be capable of measuring such small tolerances. And it worked. The only problem: it took highly-controlled conditions (including much greater technical discipline than most photographers were either willing to exert or even capable of mustering) and extreme enlargements to show any appreciable difference in actual photographs. In their September 1991 Lab Report on the RTS III, Popular Photography shot thousands of images with the RTS III in comparison with the camera it replaced, the RTS II, and the lowliest CONTAX SLR then available, the 167 MT, both with standard pressure plates that represented the best of CONTAX prior to the RTS III. Their conclusion: 

Unfortunately, after reading thousands of targets, the results were far from conclusive. They do show a slight tendency toward achieving a larger percentage of sharper pictures when using the RTS III. The difference was very small and would probably be hard to see in real-world picture-taking situations, but if you need to skew every possible factor in your favor, it appears the RTS III is a step in the right direction. (Italics remain ours ;-))

    Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but rather more measured, don't you think? But what about the composition of the pressure plate itself? CONTAX had an answer to another previously unasked question:

• "An aluminum alloy could only be precision tooled to within a tolerance of a bit more than 10 microns, and it would be subject to wear, distortion, aging, and environmental conditions." Their solution to this intractable problem? "It was decided to develop a ceramic (no coincidence; we are talking Kyoto Ceramics here) plate as it could be made to a finer tolerance plus have the hardness and rigidity near those of a diamond. A CONTAX first found in no other cameras." Too good? You be the judge ;-).

    This was the world that CONTAX consigned themselves to living in. Trying to wring those last tenths of a percent out of technical areas that had seen decades of development with little to no real-world impact. Or in their words: "...unseen improvements to the many traditional mechanisms...". A classic case of the Law of Diminishing Returns. But it did provide them with bragging rights, and that is more important in marketing than actual substance ;-). 

The "prosumer" ST, released in 1992. An amalgam of RTS II, 167 MT, and RTS III.

  Can Something Be Too Good, but Not Good Enough?

    The ST was released two years after the RTS III and slotted in between it and the 167 MT in price and features. The design was also a combination of those two models (along with a smattering of RTS II :-)), leaning more towards the RTS III. In modern terms, it was "prosumer". Here is a summary of features:

• While it did not have the RTV film back and pressure plate of the RTS III, the ST did get the ceramic pressure plate.
• The shutter topped out at 1/6000 sec. in Aperture-priority and Program modes, right between the 1/8000 sec. of the RTS III and 1/4000 sec. of the 167 MT. Flash sync speed was 1/200 sec.; again, in the middle of 1/250 sec. for the RTS III and 1/125 sec. for the 167 MT.
• Films advance speed identical to the 167 MT at 3 frames per second versus the maximum 5 fps of the RTS III.
• While the RTS III sported a magnesium top plate, aluminum alloy body, and titanium bottom plate, the ST had to make do with aluminum alloy for the body and mere brass alloy for its top and bottom plates, like the 167 MT, but beefier. The strap lugs, film rewind switch, OFF/ON/metering selector switch, and bottom plate layout were also borrowed from the 167 MT, which continued as the entry-level CONTAX until 1998 when it was replaced by the Aria.
• A viewfinder very reminiscent of the RTS II's (95% vs. 97% coverage for the RTS II), with red LEDs that adapted to the brightness of a scene automatically. Not quite at the technical level of the 100%-coverage, blue LCD display of the RTS III, but very simple, bright, reliable, and not susceptible to LCD-bleed like its bigger brother.
  
• The RTS III came in at 1,150 grams (2.53 lbs) without batteries and sold for $3,650 USD (inflation adjusted to 2024 from 1996, with all prices from B&H Photo); the 167 MT was 620 grams (1.37 lbs) and sold for $859 USD; the ST was 800 grams (1.76 lbs) and sold for $2,280 USD. 

The ST film back, featuring the ceramic pressure plate, but lacking the RTV system.

Ok...so maybe it's not magnesium (a la the RTS III), but the brass top & bottom plates of the ST were still a far cry from the polycarbonate hybrid construction of its contemporary AF competitors.

    At that price and size point, what was the ST competing with? Two main types of cameras: 1) older, professional manual focus SLRs such as the Canon F-1 & T90, and the Nikon F3, and 2) then-current, semi-professional to professional AF models such as the Canon EOS 1 and the Nikon N90 (F90). So how did that work out? Well, to go right to the bottom of the barrel and ugly old economics: the ST sold less than 20,000 units from 1992-99, while the EOS-1/1(N) (1989-94; 1994-2000) and N90(s)/F90(X) (1992-2001) sold in the high-hundreds of thousands. Even the aged F3, well into its second decade by 1992, had sold over 751,000 copies by September of that year, and it remained in production until 2000, which actually meant that it outlived the ST, which disappeared from dealer shelves before the end of 1999, production having ended some time before that. Final F3 production totaled north of 790,000 units, meaning that it still handily outsold (by 2 to 1) the ST during the period that they overlapped. So, when it came to the crass category of sales, both the EOS-1 and N90(S)/F90(X) each outsold the entire CONTAX lineup for the whole decade. And the F3, in its twilight years, still managed to outsell any single professional or prosumer CONTAX model during the same time period. 

​    The irony lies in the fact that the CONTAXes completely outclassed the F3 when it came to technology:

• Ceramic RTV pressure plate in the RTS III
• Ceramic pressure plate in the ST
• Vertical-travel shutters anywhere from 1 to 2 steps faster than the horizontal-travel shutter of the F3 (1/8000 sec. in the RTS III, 1/6000 sec. in the ST & AX, and 1/4000 sec. for the rest of the 1990s CONTAX lineup)
• Proper TTL flash metering with sync. speeds from 1/125 sec. (167 MT, RX, Aria), 1/200 sec. (ST & AX), and 1/250 sec. (RTS III) versus the pedestrian 1/80 sec. of the F3
• Digital Focus Indicator (basically an electronic rangefinder with depth-of-field indication) in the RX​

The CONTAX AX. Auto Focus...the CONTAX Way.

  CONTAX Finally Succumbs to AF - Sort Of ;-)

​    In spite of their protestations to the contrary, CONTAX really was feeling the AF heat after the introduction of the ST and RX. But with Zeiss as adamant about lens-based AF as ever, what were the Yashica engineers to do? In the words of Herbert Keppler, long-time editor of Modern Photography and then Popular Photography, "don't raise the bridge, lower the water". Instead of moving the lens elements to focus like everyone else, CONTAX had to resort to building a mechanism that physically moved the film plane forward or backward, while retaining the manual focus functionality of Carl Zeiss C-Y mount lenses. The AX fit entirely with the CONTAX ethos of high-tech precision. We're talking ceramic rod guide-rails, ultrasonic motors, and super lubricants capable of functioning at clearances of 0.002mm (0.00008"). They basically built a camera within a camera to accomplish their objective. And to top it off (literally), a titanium top cover ;-). 

    The result? Sales exceeding those of the ST, but still in the low tens of thousands. While the AX was undoubtedly a technical tour-de-force, it had some limitations. Maximum movement of the film plane was 10mm, which would require touching up with manual focus in some instances where the lens itself had greater focus travel than 10mm. It slotted in between the ST and RTS III in dimensions and weight. As far as overall AF performance, the AX was termed " more than adequate", which did not exactly imply class-leading (by 1996, we're talking Canon EOS 1N and Nikon F5, when it comes to that). Rather than set a new standard of AF performance, the feeling I get from the AX is that it was CONTAX' way of proving they could do AF, too. But on their terms ;-).    

Cross-section of the AF system of the CONTAX AX.

  Are 1990s CONTAXes Really "Not Good Enough"?

    Obviously, sales are not the true measure of any camera's quality, reliability, or just pure enjoyment to use. And here is where '90s CONTAXes can come good. While your average F3 is still more reliable (as befits a much simpler camera ;-)), it is not difficult to find an RTS III, ST, or any other CONTAX of the era (aside from the limited editions, which were only differentiated by cosmetics) in excellent condition, despite their relatively low production numbers. And if you prefer Manual Focus SLRs (or despise AF ;-)), they can be a compelling choice if you don't mind other modern features such as auto-winding, auto-bracketing, and multiple metering modes. The ST, for instance, is a downright steal at current prices (which easily run at one tenth of the last new price at B&H in 1999 for excellent condition copies; adjusted for inflation to 2024). Of course, the trick with Zeiss has always been lenses: you have to be willing to pay anywhere from 100-400% more than comparable optics from the other Japanese manufacturers. While some of that is simply paying for the name, you are unlikely to be disappointed by the optical quality, or tactility of Zeiss C-Y glass. In other words, if you can afford it...go for it. Fortunately, if you can't, there are many aftermarket alternatives and also Yashica ML glass that will provide full functionality in Aperture-priority and Manual exposure modes, with very good to excellent optical quality. As always, with any vintage electronic SLR, you need to be prepared for eventual "brickage". If that's not going to sit well with you, you'd better look elsewhere. As with all late-20th century electronics with LCDs, etc., beware of bleed or fading with these CONTAXes, whether on the top plate or on models with LCDs in their viewfinders.

  Wrap-Up

    No, a '90s CONTAX will not turn you into the 35mm equivalent of Renoir ;-). Nor will it cause you to reach that "extra level of perfection". But if it makes you feel like it does, who am I to argue? I will readily admit that my ST feels great in my hands, the viewfinder is a peach, the shutter is great, the controls are nice and tactile, and I find it fun to use. I currently have a Yashica ML 50/1.7 and a Tamron 200/3.5 Close-Focus on a C-Y adapter that provide very pleasing results (for me personally, YMMV). On the other hand, it is no quieter than my lowly Nikon N2000 from the mid-'80s, and outside of the 1/6000 sec. top shutter speed, auto-bracketing, and multiple metering options, doesn't better the Nikon when it comes to actual photographic results.

    For those who are into mechanical MF SLRs, any CONTAX from 1974-on (besides the S2/S2b) will never be good enough. Likewise, for AF users looking for top performance. But if high-tech manual focus or geeked-out film-plane AF is your gig, maybe a '90s CONTAX will fit the bill. And even if you can't see that last tenth of a percent, who cares? You'll still be getting great results. More importantly, you'll know that, although it's unseen...it's still in there ;-). 

  References:

    Various CONTAX Brochures & User Manuals from www.panchromatique.ch 
    Various CONTAX Brochures & User Manuals from www.pacificrimcamera.com
    Classics to Use: CONTAX - Amateur Photographer Dec. 2005 - by Ivor Matanle
    SLR Column - Popular Photography May 1996 - by Herbert Keppler