K
kimd
Whoops, I just realized that Bob mentioned the pressure plate already...
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
H
hsballon
>re service in canada ... previous acredited service tecks no longer >function as such.
contax new jersey refers you to nortown photo service in mississauga,ont who assess problem and then forward ,if nrcrssary, to contax usa ,in n.j. i'm in this process at present. hope this helps. henry
contax new jersey refers you to nortown photo service in mississauga,ont who assess problem and then forward ,if nrcrssary, to contax usa ,in n.j. i'm in this process at present. hope this helps. henry
Kim,
You sound like a good candidate for Contax C/Y, and for reasons of weight and features I you should consider three bodies: RTSIII, RX, and Aria. Your lens choice is in the CZ sweet spot.
Some responses to your initial posting:
- Camera repair and parts are legally required to remain available for a decade after product discontinuation. RTSIII is a current product, and so is the Aria, while RX(I) may have been just discontinued. Expect plety of life from C/Y, whatever Kyocera does.
- DOF locks exposure setting.
- I hate the traditional Contax display of shutter speed, with overlay of speed as set and speed as metered: a blinking, confusing mess. My solution is Av and AEL. Only when I can shoot (and think) slowly do I use M. In contrast (pun intended), Aria is much better.
- One of my vacuum backs is probably broken, and came to me that way. No effect observed, and none expected. I have no concerns for RTSIII reliability.
I agree with your opinion about EOS non-L primes (I have four). The build quality is middling, and the tactile feedback is HORRIBLE. Blame the AF mechanism, since Canon FD was fine. I love C/Y for beautiful optics, manual control of focus, and full-metal build for most of the lenses in the line.
Finally, to consolidate your flash questions, I mix and match the TLA280 (3 pins), RTSIII (3 pins), TLA360 (5 pins), and Aria (5 pins). There is no difference in behavior for TTL use. I believe the 5-pin connector gives some automation with auto (non-TTL) mode and with N system cameras (perhaps auto-zooming). RTSIII preflash metering works with anything it can fire, including studio strobes.
You sound like a good candidate for Contax C/Y, and for reasons of weight and features I you should consider three bodies: RTSIII, RX, and Aria. Your lens choice is in the CZ sweet spot.
Some responses to your initial posting:
- Camera repair and parts are legally required to remain available for a decade after product discontinuation. RTSIII is a current product, and so is the Aria, while RX(I) may have been just discontinued. Expect plety of life from C/Y, whatever Kyocera does.
- DOF locks exposure setting.
- I hate the traditional Contax display of shutter speed, with overlay of speed as set and speed as metered: a blinking, confusing mess. My solution is Av and AEL. Only when I can shoot (and think) slowly do I use M. In contrast (pun intended), Aria is much better.
- One of my vacuum backs is probably broken, and came to me that way. No effect observed, and none expected. I have no concerns for RTSIII reliability.
I agree with your opinion about EOS non-L primes (I have four). The build quality is middling, and the tactile feedback is HORRIBLE. Blame the AF mechanism, since Canon FD was fine. I love C/Y for beautiful optics, manual control of focus, and full-metal build for most of the lenses in the line.
Finally, to consolidate your flash questions, I mix and match the TLA280 (3 pins), RTSIII (3 pins), TLA360 (5 pins), and Aria (5 pins). There is no difference in behavior for TTL use. I believe the 5-pin connector gives some automation with auto (non-TTL) mode and with N system cameras (perhaps auto-zooming). RTSIII preflash metering works with anything it can fire, including studio strobes.
M
mikel
Kim,
> Mike:
>
> I'm not sure if you'd heard, the RRS ownership
> changed a while back. Apparently, people are
> finding them much more friendly and
> accommodating nowadays.
That's nice to hear that things have changed there, but considering the fact that there are no plates available for RTS-III, I believe that's of little help to you
(It also looks like they don't make ballheads anymore).
But you can get plate from Kirk, so that's not a problem. The question actually should be which ballhead to use - Kirk's BH-1 or BH-3, or the real Arca-Swiss or maybe even Acratech. Once you got this out of the way, you can technically get a simple custom-made QR plate from any machinist in your area (that is, if for some reason you don't want to deal with Kirk).
Mike.
> Mike:
>
> I'm not sure if you'd heard, the RRS ownership
> changed a while back. Apparently, people are
> finding them much more friendly and
> accommodating nowadays.
That's nice to hear that things have changed there, but considering the fact that there are no plates available for RTS-III, I believe that's of little help to you
But you can get plate from Kirk, so that's not a problem. The question actually should be which ballhead to use - Kirk's BH-1 or BH-3, or the real Arca-Swiss or maybe even Acratech. Once you got this out of the way, you can technically get a simple custom-made QR plate from any machinist in your area (that is, if for some reason you don't want to deal with Kirk).
Mike.
K
kimd
Rico, I agree about the RTS III display. I found it a bit confusing to see blinking shutter speeds etc. when playing with the camera in the local store.
Anyone disagree about the RTS III viewfinder being confusing? Does it get easier (and faster to use) over time - especially in Manual mode?
Do you think the RX has a better display layout (with DFI turned off) than the RTS III? By looking at the RX brochure on this site - it seems as though it has a miniature match needle graph. Is the graph difficult to read in practice? Does it show half stops? What is the maximum number of stops (over and under) that the RX can display?
Boy, would I kill for the Canon 1v's (highly visible) match needle in a Contax C/Y camera...
Kim.
Anyone disagree about the RTS III viewfinder being confusing? Does it get easier (and faster to use) over time - especially in Manual mode?
Do you think the RX has a better display layout (with DFI turned off) than the RTS III? By looking at the RX brochure on this site - it seems as though it has a miniature match needle graph. Is the graph difficult to read in practice? Does it show half stops? What is the maximum number of stops (over and under) that the RX can display?
Boy, would I kill for the Canon 1v's (highly visible) match needle in a Contax C/Y camera...
Kim.
>Hi Bjorn,
The only cost effective way i could think of comparing the two bodies was to use velvia film in each camera, record the same scene using the same lens on the different bodies and then scan via my Minolta 5400 and check at 100% magnification. I suppose by introducing an extra element into the test it would effect the results but surely the effect would be the same for both images.Any difference between the results would therefore be the result of the vacuum back RTS111 via the Aria. Perhaps someone out there has done this very comparison but on a more scientfic basis. Kyocera says the vacuum back works. It would be nice to see some evidence.Certainly when i have scanned non CZ lens and compared at magnification wih a CZ lens after scanning the differecne is clear. I see no reason why if there is a difference in sharpness in the image when using the two bodies why it wouldn't show up using the simple test mentioned.I thought the whole point of the vacuum back was to keep the film flat at exposure making the most of the CZ optics and increasing image quality through sharpness.
Regards
David
type your text here!
The only cost effective way i could think of comparing the two bodies was to use velvia film in each camera, record the same scene using the same lens on the different bodies and then scan via my Minolta 5400 and check at 100% magnification. I suppose by introducing an extra element into the test it would effect the results but surely the effect would be the same for both images.Any difference between the results would therefore be the result of the vacuum back RTS111 via the Aria. Perhaps someone out there has done this very comparison but on a more scientfic basis. Kyocera says the vacuum back works. It would be nice to see some evidence.Certainly when i have scanned non CZ lens and compared at magnification wih a CZ lens after scanning the differecne is clear. I see no reason why if there is a difference in sharpness in the image when using the two bodies why it wouldn't show up using the simple test mentioned.I thought the whole point of the vacuum back was to keep the film flat at exposure making the most of the CZ optics and increasing image quality through sharpness.
Regards
David
type your text here!
<Anyone disagree about the RTS III viewfinder being confusing? Does it
get easier (and faster to use) over time - especially in Manual mode?>
I find is not very clear because the numbers are white in a blue background. Maybe confusing too because shows all the information you need to shoot in every mode (AV -TV or M), and is a lot of information.
Personally, my "big problem" is the 100% viewfinder coverage. Frame mounted slides and lab prints don't cover 100% film impressed surface, and sometimes have obtained "cutted" photos when the subject fill the viewfinder.
But is much more "my" problem than camera problem or misfunction.
get easier (and faster to use) over time - especially in Manual mode?>
I find is not very clear because the numbers are white in a blue background. Maybe confusing too because shows all the information you need to shoot in every mode (AV -TV or M), and is a lot of information.
Personally, my "big problem" is the 100% viewfinder coverage. Frame mounted slides and lab prints don't cover 100% film impressed surface, and sometimes have obtained "cutted" photos when the subject fill the viewfinder.
But is much more "my" problem than camera problem or misfunction.