Ruvy
Established
Its a good question (in more than one dimension) but strange in a forum where most have so many cameras. For what ever it worth, This is the second time I am finding myself going back from digital to film so I guess there is a great deal of attraction for me in the way image is created in film and how it looks.
BTW - what is "GAS"
Ruvy
Established
Thanks for the fascinating tour. I have looked at all the sites - very exciting but when I visited ebay I realized I should wait for a while if the s2 or sp are the camera to get
W
wlewisiii
Guest
The problem with the S2/S3/SP solution is that Nikon made considerably fewer cameras and thus the survivors go for a greater cost. By way of comparison, the numbers I've seen are 55,000 S2, 22,000 SP, 14,000 S3, & 5,800 S4 for 96,800 camera bodies from Nikon vs. over 150,000 Canon 7 bodies alone - not to mention 88,000 P, 38,000 IVSb and thousands of other Canon RF models. And don't forget that, as with Contax, there are comparatively few lenses available for the mount.
The Nikon's are nice cameras & they made excellent lenses but because they were always playing second fiddle until the F, you'll be paying extra for the rarity so it's best to be certain that one is what you really want.
I made a similar choice in going for Contax rather than LTM/M mount & I don't regret it. But either Contax or Nikon is going to be a more expensive solution and your OP tended to indicate away from that. Cost reasons are why I suggested either a Canon RF or FD mount SLR solution. Either will give you much more to chose from while costing far less.
William
The Nikon's are nice cameras & they made excellent lenses but because they were always playing second fiddle until the F, you'll be paying extra for the rarity so it's best to be certain that one is what you really want.
I made a similar choice in going for Contax rather than LTM/M mount & I don't regret it. But either Contax or Nikon is going to be a more expensive solution and your OP tended to indicate away from that. Cost reasons are why I suggested either a Canon RF or FD mount SLR solution. Either will give you much more to chose from while costing far less.
William
Last edited by a moderator:
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Well, if you value an excellent viewfinder above all else then an Olympus OM1N or OM2N + 50/1.8 + 100/2.8 would fit the bill nicely.
Ruvy
Established
You have mentioned choosing a contax is it the contax II? I have noticed they are not cheap either and lenses are expensive too - some even more expensive than later models G1 and G2. I have noticed also that some owners of this camera are using Russian made lenses. I wonder what makes this very old camera design be sodesirable still today? how does it differ from modern 35mm RFs in terms of size, weight and size+clarity of view finder? Are you familiar by any chance also with the Kiev imitation?
W
wlewisiii
Guest
In it's day, before WWII, the Contax II was THE 35mm camera. It had a broader & better line up than Leica, was technologically far superior (especially with the invention of lens coating in 1935) & had better ergonomics than Leica (single RF/VF window, single speed dial, easy to use with a single hand, etc.). For more detail, you can read the Contax pages at our esteemed head bartender's website http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm
In 1936, the Contax III was the definition of High Tech - the equal both in advanced design & cost to the Canon 1d Mk IV due out next spring.
Now, comparing that camera line to what we have today, 70+ years later, is really not a fair comparison. It's not anywhere near as easy to use as any modern camera. The VF/RF that was so great in the day, utterly s*cks compared to the modern standard, as just one example. But like there are folks here that dearly love shooting with their pre-war Leica I, II & III's, I enjoy shooting that Contax II more than any other camera I own. It's kind of like a chopped Harley-Davidson or a Triumph Bonneville - if you don't "get" it, it's not something that can easily be explained.
I own both a 1937 Contax II & a 1977 Kiev 4a which are the same basic design although the FSU production is somewhat simplified over the decades & had iffier QC. My lenses are half CZJ & half FSU. I'm activly watching for an uncoated 35/2.8 Biogon that I can afford but probably won't replace my Jupiter-3 50/1.5 or Jupiter-11 135/4 lenses because the ones I own are just as good as pre-war CZJ.
There is no more aesthetically pleasing shooting experiance for me than to grab that Contax with a 1937 uncoated collapsible 50/2.8 Tessar mounted and then go waliking the boundaries between rural & urban Wisconsin.
Beyond that, it's up to you. Hope this was of some help,
William
In 1936, the Contax III was the definition of High Tech - the equal both in advanced design & cost to the Canon 1d Mk IV due out next spring.
Now, comparing that camera line to what we have today, 70+ years later, is really not a fair comparison. It's not anywhere near as easy to use as any modern camera. The VF/RF that was so great in the day, utterly s*cks compared to the modern standard, as just one example. But like there are folks here that dearly love shooting with their pre-war Leica I, II & III's, I enjoy shooting that Contax II more than any other camera I own. It's kind of like a chopped Harley-Davidson or a Triumph Bonneville - if you don't "get" it, it's not something that can easily be explained.
I own both a 1937 Contax II & a 1977 Kiev 4a which are the same basic design although the FSU production is somewhat simplified over the decades & had iffier QC. My lenses are half CZJ & half FSU. I'm activly watching for an uncoated 35/2.8 Biogon that I can afford but probably won't replace my Jupiter-3 50/1.5 or Jupiter-11 135/4 lenses because the ones I own are just as good as pre-war CZJ.
There is no more aesthetically pleasing shooting experiance for me than to grab that Contax with a 1937 uncoated collapsible 50/2.8 Tessar mounted and then go waliking the boundaries between rural & urban Wisconsin.
Beyond that, it's up to you. Hope this was of some help,
William
Ruvy
Established
Thanks! it sure is
Baldadash
#2
ray j gun mentioned nikkormats...
i use an FT2 (which run less than $100 USD on the bay). the FT2 are basically an F2 without 1/90 & 1/2000 shutterspeeds... also you can't change the prism, but they are durable & reliable... take LR-44 batteries.
I picked up a Nikkor n-ai 50/2 for $19 on the bay a week ago, no scrathes or cleaning marks, excellent little lens...
or you can get a n-ai 55/1.2 for $250+, which is one of my favorite lenses... 24/2.8 will run $100+... 105/2.5 for $125, 135mm and 200mm are usually under $75
I like the FT2 because it is very similar to my F2 and I already have lots of non-ai lenses...
you could probably get two bodies and three lens for $400 usd...
plus you'll get an upper body workout lugging that heavy bag around.
but I'd rather just find a Yashica Lynx14e and have it CLA'd.
-b
i use an FT2 (which run less than $100 USD on the bay). the FT2 are basically an F2 without 1/90 & 1/2000 shutterspeeds... also you can't change the prism, but they are durable & reliable... take LR-44 batteries.
I picked up a Nikkor n-ai 50/2 for $19 on the bay a week ago, no scrathes or cleaning marks, excellent little lens...
or you can get a n-ai 55/1.2 for $250+, which is one of my favorite lenses... 24/2.8 will run $100+... 105/2.5 for $125, 135mm and 200mm are usually under $75
I like the FT2 because it is very similar to my F2 and I already have lots of non-ai lenses...
you could probably get two bodies and three lens for $400 usd...
plus you'll get an upper body workout lugging that heavy bag around.
but I'd rather just find a Yashica Lynx14e and have it CLA'd.
-b
al1966
Feed Your Head
Id agree with the youll get a lot more for your money with an slr, I think any of the big manufacturers offerings will be good. We have both Nikon and Canon MF in the house. My wife shoots woth an old Canon av1 and loves it. However I got a Bessa R2 for a good price and that is the one I use by far the most, I would guessfor $400 you should be able to get an R with one lens maybe if you can find a good one the jupiter 8 is a quite nice 50 but a lot of them are off if you have the desire for an RF then you wont be satisfied with an slr. I wasnt and found my self using old fixed lens rfs more than my Slrs.