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!

Which Contax System suits best to your needs

Gary:

read the above posts if you like. The AF of the N1 has served me fine, it is my default setting 99% of the time. And when you decide to use it in manual, you can simply switch to AF by pushing a button under your right thumb without taking your eyes off the finder, and it will AF focus, or you can manually override the AF if you don't like it with most lenses. So you can have it all with the N1. Play with it and see if you like the lay out - I sure do.
 
I've finished my translation of my site containing motivation for using CONTAX equipment, lots of pictures and my FAQ section, and hereby invite you to visit me. The adress is http://www.atomb.dk/photo

Regards
Ole
 
Hello Dirk and other readers,

I've read a camera review of the N1 - from Black and White Photography (England) of 2001, and there are a few points that make me hesitating in buying one, as buying into this system is expensive. It would be good to get your views(I'm also considering the Nikon F100). My issues are:

1. It's size and weight, particularly together with the 24-85, its like a medium format camera, well, almost.

2. in the article, it states that the AF becomes lost when faced with moderately low contrast - thus the AF is difficult to rely on here.

3. when tested with colour transparency (and 24-85) it overexposed by 1/2 stop, while sharpness was good, contrast and colour saturation was low, even with velvia slides was lacklustre.

4. matrix metering couldn't cope with backlighting.

The reviewer concluded that the N1 felt a bit like a digital camera converted to film, and not really worth the extra cash.

It is naturally not a good idea to base a purchase on one review, and i have done a little more research, but this article did worry me somewhat, as it is quite an investment. I also don't want to go harping on about what camera to buy, and rather enjoy taking pictures. If the F100 (which is cheaper) is good enough for a very prominent artistic landscape phtographer (whom i was fortunate enough to have had a short chat with recently), what am i doing - splitting hairs?
Still, it would be good to get views of others who have had the good fortune of using both cameras, and of the points mentioned above, as i think in do have a soft spot for the N1 (or what i think it is).

thanks,
Marc.
 
Marc jean - maybe I can add some points; I played with the F100 when I thought about upgrading from my N90S (F90S), but then I decided to get the N1 with the 24-84. To folow your points:

1. its big and not light, but I believe the F100 is virtually the same in weight, whereas the N90S with the extra grip is heavier. It is also lighter than the Canon IV. You get a very well-built, sturdy camera which will give added weight and bulk, but it is not THAT heavy. The 24-85 is bigger than any other 24-85 - but guess what, it is also the best with virtullay no vignetting with filters attached. Again, you get the best but size simply has to increase to accomodate the quality standards. And Nikon does not have a 24-85 which comes close.

2. AF of the central sensor (the one I use as my default) is quite good with low contrast objects, the other 4 are less so. This is typical for multi-sensor AF systems. In good light they all work like a charm.

3. matrix overexposes compared to central, which you can simply account for by dialing exposure setting like you would also do for your Nikon or Canon, dependeing on the type of slide film. Contrast and color saturation low?????? What have they been smoking???? I tried out Kodak extra color slide film 100 ASA (forgot the exact name, and decided to go with Provia because the colors were too intense in my view....I can only imagine what velvia looks like...

4. NO camera deals well with backlighting, including Nikon (at least, my N90S couldn't). Totyally bogus argument; when dealing with backlight, you have to fill flash and/or use spot, period.

I recommend buying grey market - saves you a bundle, and it becomes cheaper than the F100!

This is not to say that the F100 is not a great camera, but I do not regret getting my N1. Then again, I don't need the fastest AF either, but I do want the best optics - choice is yours. Good luck with your purchase.
 
And it just so happens Marc that myabsolutely mint N1 and 24-85mm are still for sale. Look in the For Sale section or email me at simon@sclamb.com. I am in the UK.
 
I am trying to make a final decision on which camera body I want to purchase. I have been looking at the Aria, the ST, and the RX and I think I have decided on the RX. My only hesitation is that I have heard some comments about the viewfinder on the RX not being as bright as the ST or the Aria. Is this true and if so, is the difference noticable? Having a VERY bright viewfinder is very important to me and I do not want to sacrifice any brightness. Please let me know soon I have to make my decision quickly! Thanks.

Chris
 
Chris, according to Kyocera, the new RX II released last month has a 20% brighter viewfinder. You should check it out from the store or from Kyocera.
 
Chris, the viewfinder is great on both the Aria & the Rx. It's just a matter of whether you wish to buy the lighter "sports" model which includes "matrix" metering, or the "pro" model which has a very useful date/time st& in-between frames. The Rx feels substantial but costs more. I use both and love each one (I use one for color and one for black & white). My son (an art/architect student) bought the ST on ebay & loves it.
William
 
Hey I sent a message around earlier wondering about the Contax RX's viewfinder and how bright it is compared to the Aria and the ST. I am aware that the RX II has replaced the RX and I am aware that one of the major differences between the two models is that 20% brighter viewfinder in the RX II. What I am really wondering is if the 20% increase occured because the viewfinder in the original RX was ifnerior or just because it is an other advancement? I am going to be buying my camera second hand so the RX II is not an option for me. The reason I am being so persistant and specific about this is that I have never handled an RX before but I have handled an Aria and an ST. I find the Aria's viewfinder very bright and want to find out if I can expect the same brightness from the RX.

Also, I am wondering about the durability of the RX compared to the ST. Somewhere along the line I read that the ST is a "true" professional camera in that it is extremely durable where as the RX is just an Intermediate camera because it is not manufactured to the same level of quality as the ST.

I would really appreciate any other input or advice. This will be my first enterance to the Contax system and I want to make sure that I make the right decision.

Thanks again,

Chris
 
> Marc I sympathize with your situation as I was there myself. I bought the NX w/24-85, 50/1.4 (plan on buying the N1 later and use the NX as an additional body-also liked the pop-up flash) My resons for wanting this system all came down to the Dual focusing mechanism as this is my first autofocus system. I am taking to it quite well. I am relying on the autofocus as I have some eye problems and have not yet figured out wich correction to use, actually I need the 0 correction piece so I can wear contact lenses with the camera- Contax ships there cameras with -1 correction built in I need -.75 this is kind of a pain but I assume they figure by the time we are old enouph to afford their products we all have bad eyes. Ha Ha

Thats all I can add to your situation Kevin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top