-
Quick access all forums:Photography and Techniques Nature & Wildlife Landscape & Travel City, Street & Transportation People, Portrait & Wedding Black & White Macro & Still Life Sport & Action Everything else Editing / Hardware & Software
Assignments & Critique Images I took this week Photo Critique Challenges Challenge Discussions
Gear-Talk General Gear Talk Canon Nikon Sony & Minolta Fujifilm X System & DSLRs L-Mount Alliance MicroFourThirds (MFT) Pentax & Ricoh Medium Format Leica M, Leica R, Leica Q Other brands Contax MTF Charts, Broschures etc Information Contax & Zeiss Sigma SA/ DP/DPMerrill/Quattro Others Smartphones, P&S and Drones Adapted Lens Talk Classifieds
General stuff Announcements Forum-Help/ "Have you seen...?" Introduce yourself DPRF Cafe Suggestions regarding this forum
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Review Contax Aria
- Thread starter dirk
- Start date
Dave,
As you say, the ST and RX are roughly equivalent to the Aria, feature-wise. I wanted a travel camera with three primes and settled on the Aria. So, a big difference to consider is weight which, of course, ties into build quality and size.
The Aria has a plastic shell which makes it even lighter than the 139Q, and is small in hand. With slower primes, this is a pleasant package to have around one's neck all day. I find the size perfectly workable.
The ST and RX weigh 800g vs Aria's 460g. Those bigger bodies and all-metal build gives a nice heft and tactile experience, and a better balance for the big glass. I have an 800g body, and find it's borderline for all-day haulage.
My second issue is noise. The ranking is RTS III as loudest, then Aria, then RX. Not heard the ST, but others say it's louder than Aria.
I still crave the RX: it seems to make the right tradeoffs for a general-purpose cam. However, the Aria is a lightweight wonder. Thank Contax for giving us the luxury of such indecision!
As you say, the ST and RX are roughly equivalent to the Aria, feature-wise. I wanted a travel camera with three primes and settled on the Aria. So, a big difference to consider is weight which, of course, ties into build quality and size.
The Aria has a plastic shell which makes it even lighter than the 139Q, and is small in hand. With slower primes, this is a pleasant package to have around one's neck all day. I find the size perfectly workable.
The ST and RX weigh 800g vs Aria's 460g. Those bigger bodies and all-metal build gives a nice heft and tactile experience, and a better balance for the big glass. I have an 800g body, and find it's borderline for all-day haulage.
My second issue is noise. The ranking is RTS III as loudest, then Aria, then RX. Not heard the ST, but others say it's louder than Aria.
I still crave the RX: it seems to make the right tradeoffs for a general-purpose cam. However, the Aria is a lightweight wonder. Thank Contax for giving us the luxury of such indecision!
> For close to the cost of a new Aria, I can also get a nice condition > ST or RX. Why would I choose one of these over the others?
I believe there are some features the Aria has that those do not (and possibly vice-versa like focus indicator in RX). The Aria can take an absolutely awesome databack, those cameras only have a datE back available. Not near as useful, IMO. The Aria also has three metering modes, spot, average and matrix. I don't believe either ST of RX have all three. The Aria has exposure lock when you press the shutter button half way down...and I'm not sure about the ST or RX in this situation...and there may be more programmable functions with the Aria.
I have an Aria, and find it a great camera. If it was just built a little bit better...like an RTS-III, but that's really a top end camera as far as build goes. I have no complaints about the Aria. I have a lot of 35mm cameras, and I find it the one (with the data back) I'll take if I want something easy and full featured.
All three are good choices though.
Regards,
Austin
I believe there are some features the Aria has that those do not (and possibly vice-versa like focus indicator in RX). The Aria can take an absolutely awesome databack, those cameras only have a datE back available. Not near as useful, IMO. The Aria also has three metering modes, spot, average and matrix. I don't believe either ST of RX have all three. The Aria has exposure lock when you press the shutter button half way down...and I'm not sure about the ST or RX in this situation...and there may be more programmable functions with the Aria.
I have an Aria, and find it a great camera. If it was just built a little bit better...like an RTS-III, but that's really a top end camera as far as build goes. I have no complaints about the Aria. I have a lot of 35mm cameras, and I find it the one (with the data back) I'll take if I want something easy and full featured.
All three are good choices though.
Regards,
Austin
V
vdipiet
Hi Dave, I own both the Aria and the RX and I love both of these cameras. While both exhude quality the RX is larger, sturdier and heavier. It balances well with larger lenses such as the 35-135CZVS and it's shutter is the quietest I've ever heard. The body of the RX seems to be sculpted perfectly for my hand -- I'm an average sized American male. At nearly 29oz (body alone) the RX's weight becomes a factor when 1) you walk around for a few hours with a large lens attached and the 360flash, that's nearly 5lbs we are talking about.; 2) when the weather becomes extremely hot and humid as it can in NYC. In this instance it's time to use the Aria. The Aria is so fine too. It is a little more modernized than the RX but not by much. The rewind mechanism is more automatic in the Aria than in the RX. The shutter is not as quiet as the RX but pretty darn close. The Aria is great for street photography since it is so small and mobile. However I feel it does not balance well with larger lenses. by the way I don't think the Aria is all plastic -- I think the polycarbon is used carefully and I've even read that the shell is metal. I can't tell. All that I do know is I think both cameras are great & it depends on what type of photography you do. As for as the ST, I've never seen one close up but I hear that it is also a fine camera and falls somewhere between the RX and Aria in size. By the way, as small as the Aria is it doesn't get lost in my hand. For some reason, like the RX, the Aria too handles well in my mitts. In any event have a good time deciding on which camera to get and have a great time photographing with them. Vincent
Let's settle this "plastic Aria" business. From the official Contax USA FAQ section:
Q: I'm not certain that the Aria will perform up to the Carl Zeiss lens standard. Too much plastic, I'm afraid.
A: The Aria is a hybrid. This means that plastic is combined with metal construction. Plastic is used to encompass the film handling and electronic package areas of the camera. Aluminum alloy material is used to rigidly set the film plane, mirror assembly, focusing screen, pentaprism and lens mount precisely in location just as in any of the other SLR cameras. In short, the construction of the Aria conforms to optical requirements set out by Carl Zeiss for high performance.
Q: I'm not certain that the Aria will perform up to the Carl Zeiss lens standard. Too much plastic, I'm afraid.
A: The Aria is a hybrid. This means that plastic is combined with metal construction. Plastic is used to encompass the film handling and electronic package areas of the camera. Aluminum alloy material is used to rigidly set the film plane, mirror assembly, focusing screen, pentaprism and lens mount precisely in location just as in any of the other SLR cameras. In short, the construction of the Aria conforms to optical requirements set out by Carl Zeiss for high performance.
R
rickd
I was prepared to be a no-plastic-Contax snob before relenting and buying an Aria anyway.
Wouldn't you know it, mine hit the pavement from a height of about three feet a couple months after I bought it. Aside from a couple of small nicks in the prism housing, there's no other mark to be seen. Based on my earlier experiences, any metal-skinned camera, Contax or not, would have sustained scrapes to the finish and would probably have dented as well. The Aria shrugged off my carelessness quite well.
--Rick
Wouldn't you know it, mine hit the pavement from a height of about three feet a couple months after I bought it. Aside from a couple of small nicks in the prism housing, there's no other mark to be seen. Based on my earlier experiences, any metal-skinned camera, Contax or not, would have sustained scrapes to the finish and would probably have dented as well. The Aria shrugged off my carelessness quite well.
--Rick
C
craignorris
James,
I have the Aria and often use it with the VS 80-200 f4. It's a good combination. It is comfortable and efficient to handle.
I think the Aria's problem is not to do with the length of the lens, but rather the diameter of the lens. The Aria's body height is quite low. Large diameter lenses like the 35-135 and even the 28-85 are not really a good fit on such a small body. I used to have the 28-85 on a 167MT. I traded the 167MT for an Aria, because the 167MT had developed a fault. I used the 28-85 for about a year on the Aria, and eventually traded the 28-85 for the 35-70 f3.4 because of what was to me a bad ergonomic match. I do miss the extended focal lengths, but the macro function on the 35-70 f3.4 more than compensates for that.
In conclusion, VS 80-200 f4 goes well with the Aria. 28-85 does not. 35-135 does not. I have no experience with longer primes, except that I tried the 135 2.8 on the Aria in a shop once, and it seemed like a nice combination during the brief trial I had.
Regards,
Craig
I have the Aria and often use it with the VS 80-200 f4. It's a good combination. It is comfortable and efficient to handle.
I think the Aria's problem is not to do with the length of the lens, but rather the diameter of the lens. The Aria's body height is quite low. Large diameter lenses like the 35-135 and even the 28-85 are not really a good fit on such a small body. I used to have the 28-85 on a 167MT. I traded the 167MT for an Aria, because the 167MT had developed a fault. I used the 28-85 for about a year on the Aria, and eventually traded the 28-85 for the 35-70 f3.4 because of what was to me a bad ergonomic match. I do miss the extended focal lengths, but the macro function on the 35-70 f3.4 more than compensates for that.
In conclusion, VS 80-200 f4 goes well with the Aria. 28-85 does not. 35-135 does not. I have no experience with longer primes, except that I tried the 135 2.8 on the Aria in a shop once, and it seemed like a nice combination during the brief trial I had.
Regards,
Craig