Huss
Veteran
I'm looking at some of my old pics I took with my Contax T3 (long sold). A surprising # have missed focus when I look closely. I had it back when I wasn't 'into' photography like I am now.
Does this camera exist?
- Thread starter redimp
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 121
- Views 13K
redimp
Member
Some shots from the T2:
And this is the overexposed shot in question (after taking it I've posted this thread):
And this is the overexposed shot in question (after taking it I've posted this thread):
RObert Budding
D'oh!
P&S Prices
P&S Prices
P&S camera prices are crazy. Yes, the Contax T3 is nice, but I'd hesitate dropping that much $$$ into a camera that likely can't be repaired. I did own a T2 for a while, but there was a light leak around the lens mount when I started up the camera (Ken Ruth was unable to fix it). So I sold it, with full disclosure.
So now I shoot a Nikon SP. It should last a long time, as long as the finder prism doesn't separate. Seems like a fairly rare problem, so I'm good to go.
P&S Prices
P&S camera prices are crazy. Yes, the Contax T3 is nice, but I'd hesitate dropping that much $$$ into a camera that likely can't be repaired. I did own a T2 for a while, but there was a light leak around the lens mount when I started up the camera (Ken Ruth was unable to fix it). So I sold it, with full disclosure.
So now I shoot a Nikon SP. It should last a long time, as long as the finder prism doesn't separate. Seems like a fairly rare problem, so I'm good to go.
jsrockit
Moderator
Some of these look like they could be out of focus due to poor scanning quality... that`s my guess. What do the negatives look like when you look at them with a loupe?
shawn
Veteran
And this is the overexposed shot in question (after taking it I've posted this thread):
Sure, but almost no details is blown out on that shot. Drop exposure about a stop and a quarter digitally and expand contrast a bit and it looks fine. Film handles overexposure much better than underexposure.
Shawn
Attachments
littleearth
Well-known
The only issue I see is poor scanning, mostly inconsistencies in density and color corrections.
Huss
Veteran
P&S prices are crazy only on the tiny subset of hyper trendy cameras.
There are fantastic P&S cameras available for under $100, under $50, under $20.
zenza
Well-known
Extremely surprised by the T2's abysmal focus accuracy. I've owned a lot of P&S and even the cheapest, most basic ones had better accuracy!
RObert Budding
D'oh!
But how many $100 P&S cameras meet the OP's requirements?
Huss
Veteran
None meet his requirements at any price level.
But you blanket mentioned P&S cameras. I agree with u if u mean Contax p&S prices are crazy.
Archiver
Veteran
My local camera pusher has a mint Contax T3 black, in box, for AUD $3500! It's absolutely ridiculous. I bought mine in 2007 for just under AUD $1000 because of the terrible exchange rate, something like USD $500 back then? I'm becoming less comfortable carrying it around because of how much it would cost to replace, ugh.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
We seem to have different definitions of crazy. Cameras that were $25 a few year ago going for $50 is crazy to me. And there has been upward shifts in prices at many price points - it isn't just Contax cameras. Yashica T4 cameras were pretty reasonable once. Now many sell for $400 and more.
Huss
Veteran
Leica M6 were $1000 a few years ago. They are now $2000.
The absolute best buy in 35mm cameras right now is the Nikon F4.
I recently bought a like new one for $200. I prefer it to my F6.
New the F4 was about $2500 in 1992 .
But now we are digressing.
redimp
Member
Actually the scanned negative is more than fine in terms of exposure, I just like the look with a high mid point, so I pushed the scan in davinci resolve to get these more saturated colors, it's just the way I like it. In fact I like some of these shots so much that I think I'm gonna just leave the T2 at +0.5 or +1 exposure comp. for a whole roll and see what comes out of it.
redimp
Member
Color corrections are on me, all of these I did some post processing on.
How do you define poor scanning by the way? And what do you mean by density?
These scans are all from a Noritsu HS-1800. When working with negatives I've noticed a lot of digital noise on some, and some of them had flat top and bottom of the waveform, which means some blacks were blown away and highlights as well.
The lab says they can tune them to my liking, but I'm not sure how to put what I want into words since I know little of how these scanners work. Is it possible to scan with max dynamic range always, like to have low contrast and just always preserve shadow and highlight detail?
jsrockit
Moderator
I remember trading in a F4 straight up for my M6 in a camera store in Dover, NJ in 1993! So yeah... imagine the deal you can consider the F4 to be now!
littleearth
Well-known
Density is the lightness/darkness of the scan. But if you post processed your scans I can't comment on the original images.
The Noritsu allows for Density and Color correction in the same way the Fuji Frontier does, but the Noritsu has a DSA menu which also allows you to adjust Highlights, Whites, Shadows, Contrast... There is also a cool little slider which flattens your image.
So yes, it is possible to get flat scans with all the detail possible.
I've had a couple of T2s, including when they were new, and never had abysmal focus with them. Also a T3...no issues there either. Been a long time since I've used them so can't really provide any tips on this, however...
redimp
Member
EOS 300x arrived a couple hours ago, just finished first roll with it. It came with a kit lens, but I realized I can use all of my glass on it – leicas, m42 soviet stuff, it's great.
Will still order that 40mm pancake for it. The camera is small indeed, if it wasn't for that ugly grip and protruding lens mount, but for the money I can't complain. In manual mode for whatever reason it defaults to very long shutter speeds between frames so I have to scroll the wheel like crazy to get to shorter ones, but that might be a setting, reading the manual right now to learn it all.
Will still order that 40mm pancake for it. The camera is small indeed, if it wasn't for that ugly grip and protruding lens mount, but for the money I can't complain. In manual mode for whatever reason it defaults to very long shutter speeds between frames so I have to scroll the wheel like crazy to get to shorter ones, but that might be a setting, reading the manual right now to learn it all.
redimp
Member
Can anyone please take a look at the scans? https://www.fotovramke.com/download/83246/JE2t6T
Film 2 is a test roll of kodak gold through 300x with various lenses (but mostly 50 summicron R).
Film 1 is Contax 167MT with 28 2.8 Distagon, test roll of kodak ultramax.
I've asked the lab to do a lower contrast scanning not to blow out any information. To me some scans look simply terrible and I'm not sure if it's me or if it's the lab. Some shots have this weird darkening in the left side of the frame. Called the lab, they say it's vignetting but I don't get how vignetting could appear only on one side of the film.
Overall some shots (like the green basketball court with yellow and red details) have terrible color, if you look at the red bar it has this:
To me this looks terrible, but is it my mistake or bad scanning? They've used Noritsu.
Film 2 is a test roll of kodak gold through 300x with various lenses (but mostly 50 summicron R).
Film 1 is Contax 167MT with 28 2.8 Distagon, test roll of kodak ultramax.
I've asked the lab to do a lower contrast scanning not to blow out any information. To me some scans look simply terrible and I'm not sure if it's me or if it's the lab. Some shots have this weird darkening in the left side of the frame. Called the lab, they say it's vignetting but I don't get how vignetting could appear only on one side of the film.
Overall some shots (like the green basketball court with yellow and red details) have terrible color, if you look at the red bar it has this:
To me this looks terrible, but is it my mistake or bad scanning? They've used Noritsu.
