ACullen
Well-known
The Aria is superb but decades of familiarity has me reaching for my 139Q. If you want full manual/ mechanical set up then the Yashica FX3 Super 2000 is very good. The thing feels flimsier than 139 or Aria but it’s utterly reliable.
aizan
Veteran
I like all three of your choices, with the slight edge going to the S2b for the manual wind and center-weighted meter.
But I'm more risk-averse these days, and if I had to actually buy a C/Y mount camera, I would buy two Yashica FX-3 / FX-3 Super / FX-3 Super 2000 bodies.
One of my new rules is buy two of whatever is going to be my main camera. A single nice camera is not enough anymore, IMO.
But I'm more risk-averse these days, and if I had to actually buy a C/Y mount camera, I would buy two Yashica FX-3 / FX-3 Super / FX-3 Super 2000 bodies.
One of my new rules is buy two of whatever is going to be my main camera. A single nice camera is not enough anymore, IMO.
Orthogonal
Established
100% agree about the 50s vs. the 45. In particular the 50 1.7 isn't much bigger or heavier than the 45 but is probably one of the best film-era 50mm primes.
Curious about your comment on the 85 choices - why do you you recommend the 2.8 over the 1.4? I'm wondering since the 1.4s have been dropping in price quite a lot recently (up until a couple of years ago they were selling for almost twice the price) and have been thinking of getting one at some point.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
I do prefer the 85/2.8 Sonnar to the 85/1.4 Planar, but that is definitely a personal choice having to do with rendering and the way I like my photos to look. I had the 85/1.4 Planar for a long time, and I had one for years before I owned the 85/2.8 Sonnar. It was only after I went back and looked at a lot of photos and decided that I actually liked the ones from the Sonnar more.
I am not the only one, Ming Thein feels the same way, but, again, this is not a judgment on technical specs, LOCA, resolution or anything else, just rendering which I personally have found that I prefer. So, not making a judgment that will hold true for everyone.
Similar in a way to the difference between the 28/2.8 and the 28/2 "Hollywood" lens. The 28/2 has obvious distortion, but the results are found to be more pleasing to some. YMMV.
And I had noticed the price dropping on the 85/1.4 a while back. I owned two of these over time, paid over $800 for each one. The price drop is curious and somewhat unusual.
You can do Flickr searches for both lenses, there are thousands of results for both. It's not perfect, but if you look at enough of the photos, it's helpful in deciding in which one attracts you the most. There is a significant difference apart from speed.
Huss
Veteran
Lazzari says:
"The R6.2 is an overpriced Minolta"
While Minolta and Leica shared development, that pretty much ended with the Minolta XE-7 and Leica R3. (I had that Minolta). By the time Leica got to the R5/E and later the cameras are very different from any Minolta. From the obvious - body shell, style, to things that "matter" like meter box, mirror box, shutter assembly, meter assembly and meter modes as well as meter patterns.
All you have to do is hold or even use them side by side! I've got a bunch of Minoltas and after the XE/R3 they are nothing like Leicas.
The R6.2 is an overpriced Minolta? Which Minolta would that be? Which one has a mechanical shutter and three separate meter patterns as well as multiple meter modes?
As for his light build Contax S2 statement - yeah peeps with film transport faults can attest to that.
"overpriced" really depends on individual viewpoint, but there is no doubt the later R series were pretty much Minoltas:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/leica-r6-or-minolta-xd-11.456531/
ACullen
Well-known
Interesting comments about the 45/2.8 vs 50/1.7. I’ve only recently acquired the former having had the 50/1.7 for three decades. I’ve been really impressed by the look of the images from both . The 45/2.8 is pretty fabulous for such a dinky lens. Having said that I’d not want to be without the Planar 50/1.7
Trask
Established
I started with a 167MT w/1.4 lens that I bought in Hong Kong in the 1980’s. While later models put it in the shade, the 167MT always made great exposures (I used it normally in AE mode), and with the TLA-20 flash made excellent fill-flash photos. I will admit that I prefer dials and knobs to slider switches as used on the 167MT to change shutter speeds, but as I was usually in AE mode, not a problem. I then got two RTS II models, one for parts, and really like two things in particular: by pressing the button on the front of the camera (instead of the shutter release) the meter is turned on for 16 second, and the readout is in bright red LEDs. Shutter speed here, aperture there, both outside the image, all I need to know and easily seen. I then got an Aria at a crazy price, and it is a smaller, dense, reliable camera. It uses at LCD display to the right of the image, which admittedly is less easy to see than the LEDs (I’m 68) but does have excellent over/under indications, etec. The Aria kind of combines the best points of the 167MT with traditional knobs and a quieter motor drive. It has an interesting mirror/shutter sound, as I understand that the Aria has motors that both lift and return the mirror, so no springs or slapping or mirror bounce. Happily, I just acquired a D-9 Databack for the Aria which allows for exposure information to be printed between the frames or memorized and automatically printed on the first two frames of the roll (which the camera knows to skip when you load a roll with the databack attached). This facility allows me to look at the negatives and better understand how exposure and exposure variations, and different metering patterns, affect the final image. I guess my favorite so far is the Aria, with a soft spot for the RTS II — and my Canon T90, which is also an amazing camera in can memorize the instruction book!
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
That's probably my fault with the original recommendation for the OP to not go with the 45 Tessar if he had a chance to get and use one of the 50 Planars.
The 45 is pretty great for such a dinky lens, and it hardly weighs more than a small bag of potato chips. It is really sharp, and I'd challenge people to compare photos taken with it with photos taken with the latest model of Elmar-M which is also a Tessar, and see any difference. So, I do realize that.
I'm not smitten with the Elmar-M either, it's just a personal preference of mine as to rendering, and the 45/2.8 is superb if that's the look you want day in and day out. Nothing wrong with that, perfect if that's your thing. So, please accept my apology if I gave the impression that I thought it was a poor lens. It isn't. But, it doesn't provide photos like either of the 50 Planars, and vice versa. Pick the lens you want depending on your individual wants and needs. As ever.
I should have been more clear. Sorry.
Huss
Veteran
Did you actually look closely at the pics? While there are obvious similarities at a cursory level due to design sharing (or DNA as Lazzari put it), the closer you look the more you can see is different.
The electronics on the left side are completely different, and while the shapes are similar on the right side, looking closely shows different materials, construction and parts.
Even Lazzari confessed to:
Don't get me wrong, the DNA sharing Minolta XD & XE units along with the Leica incarnations, are fine cameras. In fact, Leicas having among other things the superior viewfinders, a wonderful spot meter choice, and of course the R mount. Just remember that the R5 & R7 does everything the R6 can do, but with even more capability!
Sure, there are minor differences, but it's not incorrect to state that co-development continued after the R3. How else would they have 'shared DNA?' 
Huss
Veteran
Sure, there are minor differences, but it's not incorrect to state that co-development continued after the R3. How else would they have 'shared DNA?'
Kim Kardashian and Kendall Jenner share DNA too.
From a distance they are both brunette women with the similar parts, but when you look closer..
Not sure what point you're trying to make.
Clearly later models of Leica R were based on Minoltas, these photos from Lazzari confirm that fact. Shared development clearly did not stop with the R3.
Clearly later models of Leica R were based on Minoltas, these photos from Lazzari confirm that fact. Shared development clearly did not stop with the R3.
ACullen
Well-known
No apologies necessary. It’s great having choices of lens that offer something different.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
I have the Contax RTSIII and S2.
Have had the Yashica FX3, and the Contax RX (I regret I sold it), but not the Aria.
All Contax srl I have used are for me excellent cameras!
I have many Contax Zeiss lens and they are all fantastic!
The only problem for me is the sliding mirror! It happened with the S2. It looks incredible to me that such a design mistake could have been made!
The RTSIII is a superb camera although heavy and the viewfinder info is difficult to see in bright light. The Yashica had too a dim viewfinder for me.
My suggestion?
Forget which is better for learning.
Instead, if it is true that the Aria has not the the sliding mirror problem (I still don't know for sure: some people say yes others say no) I would go for the Aria.
Otherwise I would forget Contaxes altogheter.
There are so many good non-Contax srl out there!
Have had the Yashica FX3, and the Contax RX (I regret I sold it), but not the Aria.
All Contax srl I have used are for me excellent cameras!
I have many Contax Zeiss lens and they are all fantastic!
The only problem for me is the sliding mirror! It happened with the S2. It looks incredible to me that such a design mistake could have been made!
The RTSIII is a superb camera although heavy and the viewfinder info is difficult to see in bright light. The Yashica had too a dim viewfinder for me.
My suggestion?
Forget which is better for learning.
Instead, if it is true that the Aria has not the the sliding mirror problem (I still don't know for sure: some people say yes others say no) I would go for the Aria.
Otherwise I would forget Contaxes altogheter.
There are so many good non-Contax srl out there!
santino
FSU gear head
The 167MT does not suffer from the sliding mirror due to a different design. I don‘t think the Aria isn‘t affected by this problem.
msarkki
Member
I can confirm that Aria’s mirror cannot slip due to tabs in corners, see below
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
If your heart is set to the S2(b) then go for it. Even if you don't like it you will still be able to sell it for good money as these cameras seems to be holding their value.
A friend has the Aria and despite having moved to digital he will still take it out every now and then to shoot a roll. He likes it a lot and he doesn't seem to want to part with it.
The FX3 super 2000 seems to be mentioned a lot. I had it and didn't like it. Fully mechanical: yes, C/Y mount:yes but felt like cheaply made. People say it is reliable, it probably is. Roughly same size as my OM1n but much lighter. Louder than my OM too.
A friend has the Aria and despite having moved to digital he will still take it out every now and then to shoot a roll. He likes it a lot and he doesn't seem to want to part with it.
The FX3 super 2000 seems to be mentioned a lot. I had it and didn't like it. Fully mechanical: yes, C/Y mount:yes but felt like cheaply made. People say it is reliable, it probably is. Roughly same size as my OM1n but much lighter. Louder than my OM too.
redimp
Member
Yeah, I've realized that I might have been limiting my choices by only looking at contaxes.
The issue is, when the choice is between three cameras (like in my original post) it's a simpler choice, then if it's between all cameras out there
People pointed out that if I want a small classic SLR with a 40-45mm lens (which is my favorite focal length) I should look at the Olympus om-3 ti or some of the nikon Fs.
If it wasn't for the comment about the S2 build quality I must admit I would have already bought the S2 or the S2b depending on available options.
The issue is, when the choice is between three cameras (like in my original post) it's a simpler choice, then if it's between all cameras out there
People pointed out that if I want a small classic SLR with a 40-45mm lens (which is my favorite focal length) I should look at the Olympus om-3 ti or some of the nikon Fs.
If it wasn't for the comment about the S2 build quality I must admit I would have already bought the S2 or the S2b depending on available options.
The heart wants what it wants...there are always more practical choices, but buying what you really want saves time in the end. You will not forget these cameras. Go for it.