Trying to make the decision between Contax t2 and t3

[Neare]

I'm trying to decide this damn thing...
The main reason for a new fancy p&s is to get something for the pocket.

I prefer the lens on the t2 as well as the ergonomics but I am not sure if it is going to fit in a jeans pocket, can someone confirm if it will or wont?

As for other features, I do agree that the t3 wins in most regards. But my main priority is pocketableness followed by the lens' rendering. Would someone give me a yes or no as to if the t2 will fit in ones pocket easily.

Hopefully that will make my mind up.

 

[Jaans]

I've owned both at one stage of my photographic journey. I still own my T2 but sold my T3 to fund a Leica CM.

Here are some impressions that I got if memory serves me correctly.

The T2 is a 38mm, while the T3 is 35mm.

The T2 employs a dial of sorts so you can lock in scale focus. The T3 uses a button interface which I found extremely annoying. The T2 seemed faster and more seamless in this regard. This was one of the main reasons for selling my T3.

My T2 was faster and selecting focus while I lost a number of shots with the T3. Others may tell you different stories on this point. Another reason that I got rid of my T3.

The T2 has noticeable light fall off in the corners at 2.8. I much preferred the T3 lens its ability to maintain across the plane.

The T2 is rather chunky and WILL stand out in your jeans pocket, especially if dressed lightly for summer. The T3 is definetely MORE pocketable and quite handy for its size. Girlfriends may ask you if that is a T2 in your pocket or if you are just happy to see them. Lame joke I know.

The T2 is easier to keep steady than the T3 - my hands were big for the T3 and here I come back to the original point where I didn't like the interface of the T3.

In my opinion the Sonnar lens from both models can produce very contrasty images under full sun if you don't control your processing. Hence, their lens seem to be inherently higher contrast than Leica's equivalents, the Minilux and the CM. I simply adore the rendition produced by the Minilux and the CM. I still have my Minilux and sold my CM due to financial reasons. The CM has more coatings than the Minilux.

The Leica Minilux is even bulkier than the T2, with the CM about the same size as the T2. The T3 wins in size ratio compared to the other 3.

Also, you may compare the Ricoh GR series as this camera has a popular following with the 28mm lens and is also pocketable.

So, back to your original question, go for the T3 due to its pocketable nature. If you are a Contax man/lady then you will like the Sonnar rendering. I personally prefer the Summarit on the Leica equivalents.

Good luck.

 

[bolohead]

I picked up a T3 about a month ago for a steal on Ebay. I got lucky and found a buy it now listing shortly after it had started and picked it up for less than the T2's go for. Aside from when I've been shooting, the T3 has not left my pocket. I have big hands (I'm 6'4"/193cm) and I like the interface. Focus is fast and I haven't missed any shots so far (knocks on wood).

 

[snausages]

Sold a Minilux and kept the T3 because the T3 fits in a pocket more easily than the Leica. The T3 is a marvel.

 

[shyoon]

The T2 is really big. Definitely won't fit in my pockets. However, the results are definitely worth the extra bulk.

 

[splitimageview]

There are differences/compromises with both, but I enjoyed using each of them. I have a T3 now and really like it. The Zeiss lenses can't be beat.

 

[muf]

I've owned both and the T3 is 'jeans pocketable', the T2 really is not. I prefer the T2 over the T3 for useability plus the results from the sonnar lens can be stunning. I don't really want to take you off topic but really, if it's a jeans pocketable high quality compact you are looking for then may I point you towards the Ricoh GR1v. Overall, smaller than the T3 and in my experience it's as good as the T2 for performance and useability.

GR1v --117 (W) x 61 (H) x 26.5 (D) mm 178g
T2 -----119 (W) x 66 (H) x 33 (D) mm 295g
T3 -----105 (W) x 63 (H) x 30.5(D) mm 230g
T--------98 (W) x 66.5(H) x 32.5(D) mm 270g

Paul

 

[jsrockit]

The T2 is the nicer looking, more stylish camera, but its got too much AF lag... the T3 has it beat there (you have to select the right mode for it to be fast). The T3 is smaller too...

Both are great if you can live with thier limitations...

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I've had both. I couldn't fit either (comfortably) in the pocket of any jeans i own. The T2 is definitely the larger of the two. T3 is a great size, but i also prefer the handling of the T2 with the aperture around the lens, etc.

 

[Rico]

...
GR1v - 117 (W) x 61 (H) x 26.5 (D) mm 178g
T3 - 119 (W) x 66 (H) x 33 (D) mm 295g

....... T3 - 105 (W) x 63 (H)x30.5(D) mm 230g

Measurements are from the instruction manual; weight excludes battery and film. I find the T3 remarkably small: fits comfortably into a shirt pocket.

 

[muf]

....... T3 - 105 (W) x 63 (H)x30.5(D) mm 230g

Measurements are from the instruction manual; weight excludes battery and film. I find the T3 remarkably small: fits comfortably into a shirt pocket.

Sorry, My bad. It was supposed to say T2 to show the difference in size. Although it still shows the GR1v is better for 'jeans pocketability' due to it's very impressive slim size, even compared to the T3.

Paul

 

[oktyone]

How about a T1... cheaper, same lens as the T2, smaller, and manual rangefinder focus.. It's the most stylish of the whole T series

 

[f16sunshine]

I like the T2 for some reasons others do and some reasons others do not. For one the vignetting at f2.8 to me is a feature I can make use of. I like fall off at wide open in my lenses. The Aperture ring on the lens is more organic for RF shooters. If the AF is slow it is still faster than manual focus. It is accurate and that is a what counts most. These sonnar lenses in either camera are simply beautiful. I don't think you can miss with either camera. If you will use at as more of a true P&S go for the smaller T3. If you want the more hybrid control go for the T2. Good luck.

 

[morback]

But my main priority is pocketableness followed by the lens' rendering.

That right there means you want the T3.

m.

 

[Rico]

How about a T1... cheaper, same lens as the T2, smaller, and manual rangefinder focus.. It's the most stylish of the whole T series

The original is 98(W) x 66.5(H) x 32.5(D) mm^3, 270g unladen, as given by the instruction booklet. Users tend to be fanatics - I have three. 🙂 While being a nice package, the Contax T is not amenable to shirt pockets (too big, too heavy).