From RF to P&S? Contax T3 on the way...

David_Manning

David_Manning

Well-known
Local time
6:31 AM
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
1,590
I love shooting with my M6, but recently I was in Mexico City and felt awkward using it the way I would in other North American cities. I don't honestly know if was it's size, or having to carry a bag over my shoulder, security concerns, sticking out by looking different, or my lack of Spanish language capability. There is a lot of security in Mexico City, and maybe I felt watched continuously.

I ended up shooting mostly with my iPhone. Okay, I got some pictures, but nothing I'm going to hang on the wall.

Since I'll be doing more international travel soon, to several continents (for just a few days at a time each), and photography is not my main purpose for traveling, I decided a premium point & shoot camera might be the answer. It's small, discreet, and easy to carry...and doesn't shout (or even state) photographer.

I have an Olympus Stylus Epic, but I'd like more control and less vignetting. So I bought a Contax T3, which will arrive next week.

I'm excited for a new piece of camera gear, but am I crazy or what? I have to say, the only lens I have for my M6 is a Zeiss Biogon 35/2, which is terrific. So, I just slimmed down my gear tremendously for the same field of view and similar quality, I think.

Any opinions? I'm thinking that less concentrating on gear with a p&s is maybe the thing I need to get out of the creative rut I've been in lately, too. I'm sure it's all attitude-dependant, anyway. I'm just wondering if anyone else has done the same thing, or come to the same conclusions.

By the way, none of the current lineup of digital p&s seem to have the combo of sharp glass and full-frame DoF ability. I thought the X100 would be compelling, but it's still big-enough to require a neck strap or bag of some kind.

----David.:bang:
 
I have both a M6 and a T3, I bought the T3 for some of the same reasons as you have. Honestly, the T3 makes the M6 redundant in terms of form and function. But I do keep & use both because they each have different shooting styles thus different resulting photos. I try to balance their usage though the T3 is just so convenient slipping into the back pocket and I have certainly come to appreciate the in-built flash more and more over time.

It also does feel a lot more casual using p&s's and I'm sure it will do well for you on your travels. Don't forget about batteries though :)
 
I know what you mean. I think 20 or 30 years ago the Leica would have felt like a smaller camera. Today it is massive compared to P&S's and iPhones. I'm currently trying out some P&S's as an alternative to my M6 and to be honest, I'm quite impressed. For detailed portraits or really high end work the P&S will not work of course but for B&W street work... It's not so bad! I'm using Canon P&S's.
 
Neare...your T3 photos on your photo stream are indistinguishable from the M stuff. That's good news for you AND me!

Thanks for your input. I'll be carrying extra batteries.
 
Pachuco...I have a Powershot G10, and it seems to get me about 85% of the way there. But that feeling of infinite DoF is just a killer for me. it's fine for family school snaps, but when I travel to make keepers (whether with family or not), I just don't like the digicam look.

I must be crazy to commit myself to even more developing and scanning just for portable, shallow DoF!
 
David, I am looking for a camera for pretty much the same purpose which dictates the camera to be small. However as much as I love film a realize more and more that for this kind of travel (business in my case) a digital camera could be a better alternative. So I am just wondering - did you consider something like the Sigma DP2, Fuji X100, Panasonic GF-2 + 20/1.7 or Leica X1? I do realize that the T3 is smaller than any of those above, but one needs the time to have the film developed and scanned.

Just wondering what is your opinion.
 
Matus,

Yes...I considered all those cameras. Here is what I came up with (my own opinions):

Sigma DP1/2...low megapixels, generally slow operation.

Panasonic GF2...more depth-of-field than even the APS-C sensor cameras, general digicam feel. I have a G10, operates nicely but similar in overall feel-operation.

Leica X1...way too expensive for a compact-ish digital camera, no optical finder.

Fuji X100...very compelling, but large-enough to rival carrying my M6, and DoF not shallow-enough, pricey.

The new Sony NEX-5 was on my short list...tiny, wide lens, APS-C sensor was ok, good video. At the end of the day, I want an optical finder more than video. And, the lens (16mm pancake) wasn't really sharp and introduced lots of CA which looks really digital, if you know what I mean.

I really like full-frame 35mm DoF, but an M9 is not an option, and the M form factor is too big sometimes (already have an M6). Since I already have a hybrid film workflow available (develop/scan, print digitally), the film wasn't a huge leap. It DOES require the downtime to handle, though.

At the end of the day, if I feel I need to send a quick snapshot home, my cellphone will do that. I just like the Sonnar 35/2.8 on the T3 and full-frame look. And I'm a b&w junkie.

Hope this helps. I think, if I HAD to commit to another digital camera, it would be the Sony NEX-5 and 16mm pancake lens.
 
Contax T3 is a great P&S, and the Sonnar 35/2.8 is a modern design of extremely high performance. I often pair it (ASA 800) with my M4 (ASA 100) as a walkabout kit. The M4 wins easily for low shutter lag and the VF; T3 wins for discrete size and inbuilt flash. I also have a Lumix FX150, but it's not the same thing. :)
 
David, if you are BW film junkie that it would really be hard to replace it with film. For me, among the film candidates, the T3 is on the fist place too. Just too good and so small to ignore :)

I would shortly comment on the DOF on different formats as you mentioned this. Every time one changes the sensor size by a factor about 1.4 (square-root of 2, to be exact), the DOF changes by one stop. So a full frame 35mm film camera with 35/2.8 lens has DOF comparable to APS-C camera with 24/2.0 (equivalent to 35mm) or m4/3 camera with a lens of 20/1.4 (again, equivalent to 35mm). So some of the digital options mentioned actually do give you similar DOF.

Should you get the T3 eventually then let us know how does it work for you.
 
Thanks Matus. I didn't see any 24/f2 or 20/f1.4 offerings in the digicam market. Plus, I like the 35mm field of view. So an equivalent 35mm lens fov in a cropped sensor that fast is going to be tough to come by. Regardless, I've convinced myself that the 35/2.8 Sonnar on the T3 will yield professional results...in fact, should be essentially identical to an M body with any 35/2.8 on it (though I've read it's sharper than most M-mount lenses, even).

And that's what I'm looking for...a compact replacement for my M6 that is less noticable out-and-about :)
 
David, the X100 has 23/2.0 lens and the GF-2 has 20/1.7 - so both would give a very comparable DOF compared to Contax T3 which has 35/2.8.

In terms of full frame film camera (like the T3), the X100 has 35mm - like field of view and GF-2 with 20/1.7 40mm - like.

Based on what I have seen (mostly on flickr) I have no doubts either about the performance of the T3 Sonnar lens. It really has its own character too.
 
+1 on the T3 being the best P&S with a 35mm lens. Love it, and it is great for B&W:

5749-25.jpg
 
I sold my T3, which was great, in favor of a CLE with Rollei Sonnar 40/2.8...so the lens rendering was retained but flexibility was gained (along with additional focus accuracy.) Got the lens from sepiareverb. :)
 
The pocketable size and full-frame image quality are what drove me to the T3. The X100 looks really nice...but again, too big, and I could get two lenses for my M6 for that money.

I'm hoping to be able to blend images made with my M6 and the T3 transparently, since I work with a 35mm lens most.

By the way, Chris Anderson's book CAPITOLIO is out as an iPad edition now. It was shot with Leica M's and a Contax T3. So I guess it worked for him :)
 
The T3 is a superb little camera that will give you awesome results in colour and black and white. The lens is very contrasty and sharp, and the bokeh is quite something. I find it a great substitute for a rangefinder when I want something much smaller, even more discreet and with similar image quality.


T3 - Brothers by Archiver, on Flickr


T3 - The Lighthouse Rocks by Archiver, on Flickr


T3 - No Standing by Archiver, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Neare said:
Honestly, the T3 makes the M6 redundant in terms of form and function. But I do keep & use both because they each have different shooting styles thus different resulting photos.
Click to expand...

So wait, how are they redundant then? :D
 
jsrockit said:
So wait, how are they redundant then? :D
Click to expand...

:D Well in the sense that the T3 can do everything the M6 with the 35mm attached to it can... and more. Redundant by the fact that if suddenly the M6 disappeared, the photos I would be taking with the T3 would hardly be discernible.

But process is important, not just results. That is why I keep both. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom