What's new
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!

Where has everyone Gone

As an older user of the RX who does mainly architecture and landscapes and some stained glass, I really valued the focal assist. The RX was my favorite SLR, the G2 my rangefinder. It may depend on your eyesight.
 
RX1 or RX II, both are magnificent cameras. I own the RX and I do use the DFI. It is very accurate. However the RXII has a brighter by 20% viewfinder. Kyocera could not/ would not get the parts for the dfi system and reissued the RX2 in Europe only sans the DFI. I hope you enjoy this wonderful picture taking machine for many years to come.
 
I am not familiar with the RX2 but I had the RX and it is certainly the smoothest, quietest, and best looking SLR I have ever owned. The shutter d&ing (vibration control) is exceptionally good. I did not use the focus-assist feature too as the focussing screen is nice and bright, so there is really no need for it unless maybe in situations where accurate focus is critical.

But I have gone digital and it is just too bad that Contax is so far behind Canon and Nikon. The Canon 10D that I have is nowhere near as handsome as the RX. In fact, none of the Canon cameras is as nice as the RX.
 
>Now the good new news. I have 3 Contax bodies and 5 lenses. Plus a Son >who lives in NY City who likes old cameras and B&W film. One RTS and a >35mm lense will be this year's Christmas gift....Two bodies and 4 lenses to go.
 
WOW!!! what a response. Saras, Paul, Stan, Vincent, Bobby, Thanks to all of you. It is very reassuring getting so much advice from fellow photographers. This information is much more valuable than from someone who is just testing a camera for a couple of hours. I must say it is a beautiful camera in every respect. To extend the interest, I wonder what are your views on zoom lenses compared with prime lenses. Articles I have read suggest that prime lenses give better results than zoom lenses of the same focal length. But does the probable loss in quality outweigh the need to carry three lenses instead of one.What do you think?.
In this part of the world it is time for tea, so I will be off for a time but I look forward to joining you all again soon.
Have a nice day, wherever you are.
Gordon.
 
Hi Gordon, I have and use both zooms and primes. The CZ VS 35-135 zoom is, as far as I am concerned one of the best zooms ever made. It is as sharp as any of my primes and I use it for events such as parades. I also own the 28-70 CZ which is not as sharp as my other zoom but it still gives that Carl Zeiss warm romantic effect. The 35-135 is a very large and heavy lens. For street photography I have been using primes -- namely the CZ 35 2.8 mm and the 50 1.7. both are light weight and superb. People are less intimidated by smaller lenses. On many days, especially when it is hot outside and also now that I am older, I prefer to carry 3 lenses (the 35,50 & 85) over the heavy 35-135. Some of my best photographs have been taken with the 35-135 lens. At 3.3 it is not so slow and its bokeh is out of this world beautiful.
 
See what I started
happy.gif
now lets get on the c//y page and start gabbin again!!
 
Hi Gordon,
There a a few ways of looking at the prime v zoom lens debate.
1. Zeiss primes are better than Zeiss zooms (although some might disagree!)
2. With the zoom you can frame your subject perfectly, ie 42mm, 107mm, 155mm or whatever focal length you need. You waould have to crop your prime's shorter focal length image shot to achieve this and therefore 'lose resolution'. So the zoom might end up with a 'sharper' shot even if it is the lesser quality lens.
Paul
 
I had the VS 100-300mm (which I bought from Dermot Conlan a long time ago) and it was/is a fabulous lens except that it's rather slow. It's supposed to be sharper than most of the CZ prime lenses, losing out only to the 100mm primes (both the f2.0 and f2.8 Makro versions).

I still prefer the Zeiss prime lenses because they are much faster, and if I was shooting film. With digital, sensor on the dust is a real problem and PITA to deal with, so I am happily using Canon zooms now, and the L-series zoom lenses are razor sharp too.
 
Hi Again, I think the primes are leading slightly but I will be looking closely at Vincent's 35-135 zoom. Depending on the shoot it could be less hassle using a zoom and as Paul points out, framing is a major factor. It does seem a waste if you have to crop the negative, much better to fill the frame. Well you have all given me food for thought when the camera is back in it's case. Cheers. Bobby mentioned the 100mm Makro in his posting, maybe that will be the next topic.
wink.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top