Contax T3 is sharpest. What's next? Olympus XA or Contax TVS III?

A

Asim

Well-known
Local time
3:35 PM
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
235
Based on sharpness:

Gold Medal: Contax T3
Silver Medal: ????
Bronze Medal: ????

I wonder if the TVS III zoom lens is closer to the sharpness of the Olympus XA or the Contax T3?

I have a choice of any of these three cameras. I am hesitant about spending $700 for a Contax T3 and was thinking of getting the next sharpest alternative for much less... hence the Olympus XA or the Contax TVS III.
 
Slighlty OT: Have you looked at the Leica Minilux? As sharp as the T3, but costs way less (and has a few drawbacks, but also advantages, compared to the T3 - I own both).
 
did you mean sharpest among P&S? then what is exactly P&S definition? e.g. is Hexar AF inferior to T3? scientific evidence please...
 
I had two XA's. They are very very distant in sharpness from T3 I have now. The latter has astonishing lens also at full aperture. XA also vignette too much. If you can, buy a T3. Alternative is Minilux 40mm (cheaper; viewfinder small, greater dimensions but excellent lens). TVS III is also good but lens is too slow.
 
If you prefer a pocketable compact Contax T2 is easily silver behind T3.
My choice is Hexar AF however.... having owned all three at one point. The AF stays :)

Cheers
 
The tvs 3 is awesome, but it has a motorized flap that covers the lens, motorized zoom and buttons to set aperture...and this is annoying and extremely slow.

Also if you go in the streets the flap is alwoys getting in the middle.

I haven´t found much difference in terms of IQ tween the tvs 1 and tvs 3.

But the tvs 1 and 2 have an incredible zoom that not only extends manually the lens but powers the camera, all in one simple and intuitive movement. Even setting aperture is wise!

at 28mm, infinite and small apertures it´s ok.
at the same setup but larger apertures corners are soft.

The camera is intended for using during daytime and with smallest apertures possible, in this regard it´s extremely good!
 
Hi,

The main point I would make about the XA is that there are still people about who are happy to check and repair them.

I have a series of tests shots somewhere taken with a Leica M2 and an Olympus XA, same film (same batch) in each and same exposure (out of curiosity). In the real world of hand held shots etc there's not much between them, not enough to justify the difference in price. More noticeable was the fact that the XA over exposed a fraction and so the M2's pictures were slightly better looking as the colours were more saturated.

If any one's that interested I've some 2 mega pixels scans from the neg's I use for cataloguing and could easily post a few samples.

Regards, David
 
I find that the Contax T3 also has advantage of being small and so very portable (in addition to its lens quality, build etc.). Silver is less expensive than black version. For second place, I'd say the Contax T2. It is slightly larger than the T3 (different focal length also) but the ergonomics are very nice for some. Some might think the T3 slightly too small for handling -- but I suspect this might be a taste issue? Both T2 and T3 have lenses retracting into the body. If buying the T3, perhaps look for the 2-teeth film spool version, or make sure the teeth on the take-up spool are not worn excessively. I kept my T3 and sold the T2 ultimately, but both are excellent...
 
David Hughes said:
Hi, The main point I would make about the XA is that there are still people about who are happy to check and repair them. I have a series of tests shots somewhere taken with a Leica M2 and an Olympus XA, same film (same batch) in each and same exposure (out of curiosity). In the real world of hand held shots etc there's not much between them, not enough to justify the difference in price. More noticeable was the fact that the XA over exposed a fraction and so the M2's pictures were slightly better looking as the colours were more saturated. If any one's that interested I've some 2 mega pixels scans from the neg's I use for cataloguing and could easily post a few samples. Regards, David
Click to expand...

Disagree. Had two XA. Lens is not good. Definition poor at full aperture and a lot of vignetting. Now I have a T3. Astonishing lens!
 
shortstop said:
Disagree. Had two XA. Lens is not good. Definition poor at full aperture and a lot of vignetting. Now I have a T3. Astonishing lens!
Click to expand...

Hi,

Well I won't/can't disagree about the T3 as I've not owned one but I will say that I've scrapped modern Contax cameras as no one would repair them or even look at them. Very expensive to write them off IMO.

Hence my vote for the XA, which is what the question was about. And repairs are important with film cameras as few of them are brand new these days and second-hand can be very dodgy. So buy cheaply and spend the savings on checking and adjusting is my advice.

As for vignetting, I always assume wide open means a little darkness in the corners and have noticed it with most lenses. Usually I open them wide to do test shots and little else.

The other point I made was about hand held shots, use a tripod and the better lenses come into their own and justify every penny spent on them but when did you last see someone using a tripod? And since 5" x 7" seems to be "large" for prints, that's according to my local lab, I doubt if any one will notice the lens's qualities.

Regards, David
 
Of the compact cameras I had a Contax T that was very sharp.
The sharpest for me was a Contax G2 with the 28mm biogon lens.
 
Comparing $60, $300 and $600 cameras? Nuts :)

My $65 XA.

f5.6 with vignetting added in PP.


f2.8


I don't care if it is repairable, because it costs twice less to by another working one for another $65.
My XA went from +40C to - 30C temperatures with me. And still working.
 
David Hughes said:
Hi, Well I won't/can't disagree about the T3 as I've not owned one but I will say that I've scrapped modern Contax cameras as no one would repair them or even look at them. Very expensive to write them off IMO. Hence my vote for the XA, which is what the question was about. And repairs are important with film cameras as few of them are brand new these days and second-hand can be very dodgy. So buy cheaply and spend the savings on checking and adjusting is my advice. As for vignetting, I always assume wide open means a little darkness in the corners and have noticed it with most lenses. Usually I open them wide to do test shots and little else. The other point I made was about hand held shots, use a tripod and the better lenses come into their own and justify every penny spent on them but when did you last see someone using a tripod? And since 5" x 7" seems to be "large" for prints, that's according to my local lab, I doubt if any one will notice the lens's qualities. Regards, David
Click to expand...
I noticed difference from 10x15 cm. This is my experience. T3 lens gives negatives almost indistinguisgable from those obtained by, for example, nikkor AI lenses. I don't like automatic cameras, but T3 results make me forget that it is electronic and not mechanic.
 
chipgreenberg said:
David:

There are a few places that fix these...KEH and ToCad

Chip
Click to expand...

Thanks. Alas I've only one modern Contax left and that's a Tix and when the fridge is emptied of APS film it will cease to be usable. All the others have gone to the great ebay in the sky.

When the problem arose I spoke to almost every repairer I could think of and the normal answer was that they wouldn't strip it down and then re-assemble it knowing that parts were unobtainable. "Who would pay to have that done and then get back a still U/S camera?" was what it boiled down to.

So I decided never to get the Minolta CLE I'd like to play with... Luckily there are still specialists about that will work on some cameras and those are what I favour.

My experience of electronics is that old fashioned mechanical failures are most of the problem, but I've not the knowledge of camera repairs to risk it.

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom