fuwen
Well-known
All Contax bodies have mirror slipped problem which is finally solved in Aria. If u do not mind the small size of Aria this should be the Contax body u get.
http://www.fuwen.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=115&Itemid=182
I own both the RTS III and Aria so it is very difficult for me to say I prefer which one as the RTS III has that professional feel of speed. But RTS III has many issues if bought used. And now if I do not own either and going to buy one I will definitely go for Aria.
Actually I like RTS II and 159MM (I like old school red LEDs) but both of them has no spot metering mode.
http://www.fuwen.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=115&Itemid=182
I own both the RTS III and Aria so it is very difficult for me to say I prefer which one as the RTS III has that professional feel of speed. But RTS III has many issues if bought used. And now if I do not own either and going to buy one I will definitely go for Aria.
Actually I like RTS II and 159MM (I like old school red LEDs) but both of them has no spot metering mode.
ReeRay
Well-known
I currently use a Contax G2 with 21, 28, 35, 45 and 90mm. The later 3 I also use on my GF-1 via adaptors
Also shoot an RX with 25 f2.8, 50 f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 and use them on my Canon 5DMK11 via adaptors.
Finally a Conorus Converted Contax N24-85mm on my Canon 5DMK11
Did I say I favour Contax glass!
Also shoot an RX with 25 f2.8, 50 f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 and use them on my Canon 5DMK11 via adaptors.
Finally a Conorus Converted Contax N24-85mm on my Canon 5DMK11
Did I say I favour Contax glass!
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I've had a Leica R7 and R8. And, Contax 159mm, Aria, and RX.
The Leica Rs were 'nice,' but they felt 'unrefined' compared to the two more recent Contaxes. Contax cameras feel and operate as beautiful as they look. They're smooth and elegant. The Leicas... well, i probably only bought them because i wanted to use the glass. The Contaxes i bought because i wanted to use the cameras, and the glass just happened to also be fantastic.
I never became a huge fan of the Leica-R lenses. I had an 80/1.4 Summilux, but sold it early on because it wasn't as good as the Canon 85/1.2L i also had at the time. The 50 Summicron was okay, but from f2 to 5.6, it wasn't better than the Canon 50/1.4 i have. I liked the 35 Summicron, but only because of the bokeh. Sharpness-wise, it wasn't better than the Canon 35/2. Not bad, but not great, especially as both were not as good as the Canon 35/1.4L. The one lens i had that was really a superior R lens was the newest 28/2.8. But, when i compared it to the Contax 28/2.8, it was sort of a wash.
Other than the 28/2.8, i only had the 50/1.4 Planar for the Contax, and it was definitely a great performer.
I only had the small, older Contax 159mm because i wanted something 'tiny' at the time. I didn't find that camera to be 'special,' though. The more recent Contaxes are far smoother and refined. The RX, for example, has such a slick shutter/wind mechanism.... And, the viewfinders on the RX and Aria are excellent. The R8...i would have liked more if it had a built-in winder. It was just a shame to have such a large/heavy body without a motor....
The one thing i preferred in the Leica line is that the lenses seem to have lower contrast than the Zeiss. I probably prefer Leica tonal rendering for B&W, and Zeiss 'punch' for color.
The Leica Rs were 'nice,' but they felt 'unrefined' compared to the two more recent Contaxes. Contax cameras feel and operate as beautiful as they look. They're smooth and elegant. The Leicas... well, i probably only bought them because i wanted to use the glass. The Contaxes i bought because i wanted to use the cameras, and the glass just happened to also be fantastic.
I never became a huge fan of the Leica-R lenses. I had an 80/1.4 Summilux, but sold it early on because it wasn't as good as the Canon 85/1.2L i also had at the time. The 50 Summicron was okay, but from f2 to 5.6, it wasn't better than the Canon 50/1.4 i have. I liked the 35 Summicron, but only because of the bokeh. Sharpness-wise, it wasn't better than the Canon 35/2. Not bad, but not great, especially as both were not as good as the Canon 35/1.4L. The one lens i had that was really a superior R lens was the newest 28/2.8. But, when i compared it to the Contax 28/2.8, it was sort of a wash.
Other than the 28/2.8, i only had the 50/1.4 Planar for the Contax, and it was definitely a great performer.
I only had the small, older Contax 159mm because i wanted something 'tiny' at the time. I didn't find that camera to be 'special,' though. The more recent Contaxes are far smoother and refined. The RX, for example, has such a slick shutter/wind mechanism.... And, the viewfinders on the RX and Aria are excellent. The R8...i would have liked more if it had a built-in winder. It was just a shame to have such a large/heavy body without a motor....
The one thing i preferred in the Leica line is that the lenses seem to have lower contrast than the Zeiss. I probably prefer Leica tonal rendering for B&W, and Zeiss 'punch' for color.
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
I know nothing about Leica SLR, so I cannot offer a comparison.
I have owned a Contax 139Q and do own a Contax 167mt. I only own one Contax T* lens, the 50mm f/1.4. I really liked the 139Q, but it died after about six years. Living through a house fire may have screwed up the electronics. It was a fun camera to use. It was light and had a bright viewfinder. The otf flash was phenomenal! It did quickly begin to shed its outer covering.
I solved that by shoe dye. Not a perfect solution, but it was OK. Indeed, whoever supplied their camera/accessory coverings (even the winder developed the problem), including some Yashica cameras I have seen, should have been sued.
About six months or so ago I acquired a Contax 167mt. What a pleasure to use! It fits the hand so well I can't believe it. It also has a bright viewfinder. I'm not crazy about the lcd screen on top, but I have conquered that. It is better than many DSLR and P&S somewhere-find-every-feature-possible-in-the-world-if-you-are-lucky dials and screens. I haven't used a speed over 1/1000, but up to 1/4000 is available. The vertical metal shutters are good.
It is fairly good in low light, with lighted lcd in the viewfinder, has aperture and shutter priority as well as program. You need the later lenses for the last two. It uses AAA batteries. With the built in winder, it is a little heavier but the ergonomics do amazingly well to mask that. The more I use it, the better I like it. The Contax T* lenses are great.
I had never heard of slipped mirrors until this last week. That is a minus for any camera if it is indeed widespread. But I don't think it is, or maybe I just don't get around enough.
I think if you get any Contax, you will be happy. You will definately be glad of any Zeiss T* lenses you get.
oftheherd
Veteran
Not wanting to hijack the thread, but actually it is a concern for the OP. Can you elaborate on the mirror problem. I had not heard of it before a few days ago. I don't recall if it was you that mentioned it in another thread or not. But I am curious.
Rico
Well-known
Two Contax SLRs leaves you vulnerable to Murphy's Law.
My first Contax was a 159MM which locked up on the second roll, and was returned to the shop. Now that I own seven bodies, all of them are behaving properly. For those just starting out, three 139Q bodies should ward off trouble - they're cheap, and you can keep different film types loaded. The Yashica-era Contax seem designed to shed their skins every year or so.
nobbylon
Veteran
Leica R, doesn't matter which as long as it's working. Up to the R7 they are small and smooth, size of an M6. Add 35 and 50 Summicrons.
I had an R8 and the finder was superb. I have an R4 still but never use it as I've converted my R lenses to Nikon mount.
If I was going to buy a film SLR that wasn't Nikon it would be an R7.
I had an R8 and the finder was superb. I have an R4 still but never use it as I've converted my R lenses to Nikon mount.
If I was going to buy a film SLR that wasn't Nikon it would be an R7.
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
Thanks for all of the response guys.
RE: The mirror problem. Am I to assume that the issue was only solved in the Aria? Not the RX, ST, RTSIII etc?
I'm now thinking of either the RX or Aria (or ST).
What are the main functional differences between the RX and ST? I know the ST has the ceramic pressure plate which sounds nice. Also, the ST has the vertical grip (which I think I would like). Are they about the same size/weight? Any other big differences?
RE: The mirror problem. Am I to assume that the issue was only solved in the Aria? Not the RX, ST, RTSIII etc?
I'm now thinking of either the RX or Aria (or ST).
What are the main functional differences between the RX and ST? I know the ST has the ceramic pressure plate which sounds nice. Also, the ST has the vertical grip (which I think I would like). Are they about the same size/weight? Any other big differences?
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
My first Contax was a 137 MA which still is one of my favorite cameras.
But the ST just cemented my preference to Contax bodies. I read that RX is very popular. Some differences: ST has higher max shutter speed (1/6000th vs 1/4000th), a ceramic film pressure, brighter viewfinder, and that ultra useful vertical grip + AA battery holder.
Downside, ST can't do multi-exposures. That I can live with, don't know about you. And ST is rarer, at least the reasonably-priced ones.
But the ST just cemented my preference to Contax bodies. I read that RX is very popular. Some differences: ST has higher max shutter speed (1/6000th vs 1/4000th), a ceramic film pressure, brighter viewfinder, and that ultra useful vertical grip + AA battery holder.
Downside, ST can't do multi-exposures. That I can live with, don't know about you. And ST is rarer, at least the reasonably-priced ones.
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
For whatever reason, I thought that the vertical grip was "built in". But upon inspection of some of the images of the camera, this doesn't look to be the case. Was it an included accessory, or something that had to be purchased later?
mathomas
Well-known
Aside from other differences touched on by others, the RX has focus confirmation. There is an RX II that dumped that feature. I find it to be useful in lower light, perhaps due to my aging eyes.
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
Thanks. I'm wondering if that feature will be useful to me. I've heard it's a bit slow...
mathomas
Well-known
Yes, it's a little slow, but so am I
But seriously, it's not harmful and you have all the usual focusing help of the split/microprism (standard) focusing screen.
Last edited:
fuwen
Well-known
I am not sure but the Hong Kong Contax Club senior members all agreed on that the Aria has no mirror issue. Personally I found out my RTS IIIs and RTS II has issue. But so far they work fine with all lenses except the 28 f2. It is the 28/2 lens that made me realised the mirror problem and before that I thought all my Contax bodies are OK.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
The vertical grip doubles as an AA battery holder.
Without the grip, you have a thinner cover and you have to use AAA batteries to power the camera.
So yes, I'd get the vertical grip with the camera if possible. Not always though. As I said, ST's are more uncommon.
bwcolor
Veteran
These are all old cameras. I've had my Contax cameras a very short time, but two are now in need of repair. My Aria had the electronics go crazy. Probably not worth repairing. So, maybe the mirror issue is fixed, but the camera is a door stop. My RTS III has mirror slip, but I believe that they are still serviced by Kyocera. I'm sure that it isn't cheap. My two Rxs are going strong. The focus aid is great and I think that it is a plus, but it won't work in dim light where you need it most. I like this feature, but it is of limited use. I would buy a newer Nikon, or Canon if I were worried about service issues.