Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Robert,
I don't quite remember for sure, but that 50/1.8 Fujinon (great lens) might be the other one I had whose pin will foul one of the adapters. Worst case scenario, if that is the case, a small application of Dremel to the adapter inner ring and no problem. Maybe that lens never has an adapter fouling issue, don't remember as I no longer have mine.
Yes, the Fujinons lenses have a little tab on the aperture ring that can conflict with some adapters.
oftheherd
Veteran
I haven't done any switches for a long time. I can't recall if I used my Contax lenses on my Fuji cameras, or vice versa. But for some reason I want to think I used Vivitar TX adapters. If someone knows that is wrong and please correct me. As I said, it has been a while.
I do recall almost locking a Fujinon lens in one adapter I used. As you no doubt have noted, the Fuji lenses have a tab on the rim of the lens to activate the auto exposure. That tried to make the lens and adapter one permanent, non-removable feature. :bang:
oftheherd
Veteran
I haven't done any switches of lenses and bodies for a long time. I can't recall if I used my Contax lenses on my Fuji cameras, or vice versa. But for some reason I want to think I used Vivitar TX adapters. If someone knows that is wrong and please correct me. As I said, it has been a while.
I do recall almost locking a Fujinon lens in one adapter I used. As you no doubt have noted, the Fuji lenses have a tab on the rim of the lens to activate the auto exposure. That tried to make the lens and adapter one permanent, non-removable feature. :bang:
redimp
Member
I have another question that might be somewhat offtopic, but this thread has derailed a while ago, so here it goes:
Do contax bodies overall have a more compact mirror assembly design then EOS cameras? I was looking closer at the 45 2.8 Tessar and it seems some people shave mirrors on their EOS cameras in order to use it. I can't wrap my head around it.
Eos is a bayonet with shorter flange, so I reckon things inside it should be more compact, and yet the tessar works with no problems on contax bodies, but not EOS bodies?
I am asking because right now it seems I can get myself an Aria and use it with contax glass and m42 glass, but I also have some cine lenses that I tried to adapt to EOS and they are just a couple mm too deep for the mirror on eos 300x. If Aria will work with them then it's a no brainer and it's going to be my next purchase.
I am grateful for the explanation about the metering of non-native lenses. I am very familiar with majority of the technical aspects, but for some reason can't wrap my head around this one. Need to think about why stopped down metering would work.
Do contax bodies overall have a more compact mirror assembly design then EOS cameras? I was looking closer at the 45 2.8 Tessar and it seems some people shave mirrors on their EOS cameras in order to use it. I can't wrap my head around it.
Eos is a bayonet with shorter flange, so I reckon things inside it should be more compact, and yet the tessar works with no problems on contax bodies, but not EOS bodies?
I am asking because right now it seems I can get myself an Aria and use it with contax glass and m42 glass, but I also have some cine lenses that I tried to adapt to EOS and they are just a couple mm too deep for the mirror on eos 300x. If Aria will work with them then it's a no brainer and it's going to be my next purchase.
I am grateful for the explanation about the metering of non-native lenses. I am very familiar with majority of the technical aspects, but for some reason can't wrap my head around this one. Need to think about why stopped down metering would work.
Freakscene
Obscure member
The mirror design is not a fixed part of the mount and flange focal distance consideration. Individual camera manufacturers design the mirror assemblies around their own lens specifications - so some Contax lenses protrude further back into the mount than Canon used as a design parameter for their EOS lenses. This makes sense, because Canon didn’t think about the Contax-Yashica mount and its Zeiss lenses when they designed their cameras, so incompatibilities inevitably occur. The mirror is not necessarily smaller, it is just mounted further back in the throat of the mount. This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance shows how flange focal distance and mirror assemblies are arranged.
Marty
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
No slipping mirror for RTSIII
No slipping mirror for RTSIII
It seems that the Contax RTS III is immune of the slipping mirror as one can see from the photo (an apology for the IQ, I used my phone).
I feel relieved because I am very fond of this camera. Recently I have used the 2CR5 battery and it works well (a few grams saved!)
As to the 10 minutes fix for the S2, that's, I think, is for an expert repair man, not for me. I might end up with 10 minutes and a broken mirror.
Besides, in Italy, this is believed to bring misfortune, and frankly I have had enough of that, especially in terms of health.
No slipping mirror for RTSIII
It seems that the Contax RTS III is immune of the slipping mirror as one can see from the photo (an apology for the IQ, I used my phone).
I feel relieved because I am very fond of this camera. Recently I have used the 2CR5 battery and it works well (a few grams saved!)
As to the 10 minutes fix for the S2, that's, I think, is for an expert repair man, not for me. I might end up with 10 minutes and a broken mirror.
Besides, in Italy, this is believed to bring misfortune, and frankly I have had enough of that, especially in terms of health.
Attachments
Freakscene
Obscure member
The RTS III mirror most certainly is susceptible to sliding. I had two of them and they both locked up because the mirror slipped. Your photo does not show a cradle around the mirror margin like the Aria has. If your mirror has not slipped, well, great, but it most definitely can happen in this camera.
They are, however, great cameras, particularly for the larger C-Y lenses.
As for a broken mirror, well, that’s widely regarded as bad luck, and may release a camera poltergeist on you that can only be removed with incantations and special Zeiss lens cleaning fluids. That’s a joke. But more seriously, getting a new mirror and someone to fit it could be hard.
Marty
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
My photo is admittedly horrible!
But I do see a cradle!
Maybe the camera has been improved before I bought it!
But I do see a cradle!
Maybe the camera has been improved before I bought it!
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
I am not good with smiles.
I had to change browser because when I tried to insert one I got a blank screen and kiss and goodbye to my post.
I switched to Chrome a rewrote it all from scratch
But one smile was ill positioned!
I had to change browser because when I tried to insert one I got a blank screen and kiss and goodbye to my post.
I switched to Chrome a rewrote it all from scratch
But one smile was ill positioned!
Freakscene
Obscure member
My photo is admittedly horrible!
But I do see a cradle!
Maybe the camera has been improved before I bought it!
In the RTSIII the mirror sits on the mirror assembly (held there by glue!) - the mirror is not surrounded at the edges by the mirror housing like it is in the Aria.
Marty
valdas
Veteran
Agree. Same as RTS II which I had to fix because even the slip was minor (a millimeter or two) it started to "hang" too often. The fix is indeed 10 min. Hot air from the hairdryer softens the old glue and then I just applied new glue with the mirror put in place. I have no repair skills whatsoever.
Orthogonal
Established
To add to what Freakscene said, EOS bodies also vary from model to model with susceptibility to mirror strike. The CY 50mm 1.4 for example often doesn't work out on the 5DII at infinity, but is fine on my film EOS 650 and 5DIII. There's also the matter of which EOS bodies actually have manual focussing screens. IMO some EOS bodies make good alternatives to C/Y cameras, literally for spare change.
Freakscene
Obscure member
The N series was too little too late for Contax in a business sense but the Ns are fantastic cameras. They are a great option for a user film SLR, with everything that Kyocera did well - awesome viewfinders, simple direct controls and near perfect ergonomics, but there were very few lenses. An N1 with a 50/1.4 is still as sleek and nearly perfect an AF SLR as an ST and 50/1.4 is an MF SLR.
Marty
I'd disagree with the ergonomic comment with regard to the NX, ergonomics are somewhat challenged on that model. With prices the way they are now, no reason to get an NX anyway, go for the N1.
My only complaint with the N1 is that it's large, and the lenses are large and heavy, much heavier than equivalent AF Nikkors. The only one that isn't an anchor is the slow-focusing 28-80. Optics are fantastic, love the 100 Makro.
My only complaint with the N1 is that it's large, and the lenses are large and heavy, much heavier than equivalent AF Nikkors. The only one that isn't an anchor is the slow-focusing 28-80. Optics are fantastic, love the 100 Makro.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
That's a rare one! Now you're just showing off
I wish people would quit talking nice about the only (film) Contax body I've never owned, and the Contax 50/1.4 that's better than the one I have
Kidding, as I have learned something here. Hoping not to act on it.
Anybody used an N1 with the 645 lenses?
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Yes, there are not many lenses for the N series cameras. But, having once owned at the same time 12 or 14 different 50mm lenses for my Bessa R, I'm pretty happy with that.
As of now, I still have just the 24-85. And have only rarely missed having anything else. And, there are really only two more I want to add, eventually, the 17-35 and the 50/1.4.
An FX-3 screen--if I can find one--and the D-10 data back are also on my list of stuff I want for this camera.
Rob
As of now, I still have just the 24-85. And have only rarely missed having anything else. And, there are really only two more I want to add, eventually, the 17-35 and the 50/1.4.
An FX-3 screen--if I can find one--and the D-10 data back are also on my list of stuff I want for this camera.
Rob
I wish they had made some wide primes, but c'est la vie.
Often I'd skip grabbing the 100 due to the weight, and just use the 50.
I used the 28-80, 24-85, 50, 100, and 70-200. All are superb but you knew that.
Often I'd skip grabbing the 100 due to the weight, and just use the 50.
I used the 28-80, 24-85, 50, 100, and 70-200. All are superb but you knew that.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
I wish they had made some wide primes, but c'est la vie.
Often I'd skip grabbing the 100 due to the weight, and just use the 50.
I used the 28-80, 24-85, 50, 100, and 70-200. All are superb but you knew that.
Robert,
Outside of the primes, what is your favorite? And, since I think you had at least one of the regular C/Y mount 50 Planars, are you also one who thinks that the N mount version was noticeably superior to those?
Am wondering where the N mount 50/1.4 might fall; in between the C/Y 50/1.4 and the, say, ZF etc 50/1.4, or somewhere else. Too close to call maybe, maybe not, which is why I ask. Just curious if you have an opinion. TIA.
In addition to the 50/1.4 N, I have had the 45/2 Planar for the G, the 50/1.7 C/Y Planar, and the 50/2 Makro Planar ZF. Well, also the C/Y 60/2.8 Makro Planar C, guess that counts too.
Never owned all these at the same time, so it's difficult to compare from memory, and probably inaccurate.
One thing to note, is the C/Y (non-MM) 50/1.4 has the ninja blade aperture, and only 6 blades. MM got rid of the ninja, but still has 6; the N has 7, ZF has 9.
Never owned all these at the same time, so it's difficult to compare from memory, and probably inaccurate.
One thing to note, is the C/Y (non-MM) 50/1.4 has the ninja blade aperture, and only 6 blades. MM got rid of the ninja, but still has 6; the N has 7, ZF has 9.