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

Mark,
I didn't say the older lenses were inferior. In fact some of the older lenses are the most famous glass ever produced by anyone, ever.
But some of those legendary lenses are more expensive than an entire N system. The 28/2 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2 and 70-200/3.5 German made Zeiss lenses are to die for. If I could own those I wouldn't care if I had to duct tape them to a shoe box. The difference between the N lenses and less lofty Contax manual lenses have to be evaluated lens to lens. I don't think a N zoom should be compared to
a prime. They should be compared to zoom offerings from other camera companies. Since I own or have owned comparable zooms from Canon and Nikon I can say the Contax N zooms are some of the best, only rivaled by a few Leica R zooms ( and only bested by the Leica 21-35/3.5 ).
There well may be a difference between older glass and the newer, but for all practical purposes I can't see it. My recommendation is based on future use. Fitting 645 lenses on a N camera means less glass to carry around when doing as wedding. Then there's digital, which I didn't dream of doing less than 2 years ago, and now it constitutes 80% of my commercial work including weddings.
 
Hello All,
I am surprised by some claims that the new N zoom
lenses are optically better than the old manual CZ prime lenses. Am I interpretating their statements correctly? I think even the Carl Zeiss engineers would disagree with that subjective judgement! It is possible that the new N zoom lenses are slightly better than the old manual zoom lenses, but without objective comparisions, one should never make such claim. I could write to Dr Hubert Nasse from Carl Zeiss camera division to verify this myth if any one feel strongly about the issue of old vs new Zeiss.
Note that the old manual CZ prime lenses are legendary for their optical performance and I doubt Carl Zeiss engineers would modify the design a great deal for the N counterparts.
optical.
 
Lots of people have problems with autofocus on the G2. Even on SAF mode it is easily fooled. Remember this is a rangefinder, the lens doesn't see what you see (it attempts to though)so you can't tell it's out of focus until you see the prints. It also doesn't focus on what you hoped it might. (I learned the hard way). There is no focus confirmation, and the centre bracket can not be used for focus locking with 100% confidence. My advice is to keep an SLR until you are convinced, or confident enough to use it with 100% success. Otherwise wide aperture work (esp. with flash) can be a total lottery!

Contax have a long history of superb optics and high quality cameras.

They are <font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">• electronics. They have never been in the technology race (both good & bad).

That's why they are together with Yashica and Kyocera, and still not up there with Canon, Nikon etc.

Hence, autofocus just ain't there forte! Flash neither. Even zoom lenses are a problem.

Best to use Contax MF cameras and lenses. You know where you stand, it does exactly what it says on the tin !! Superbly !!

Have you seen the size of the Contax that uses the film back to focus? Ridiculous !!

They have some fantastic ideas (inc. G2) but can not get them to "bring home the bacon" if they rely on electronics.
 
Here's my questions/concerns:

I do outdoor photography almost exclusively - particularly mountain climbing. However, these are action-oriented sports photography.

Consequently, weight is important. Also, ruggedness as well.

What camera system would you recommend? I am considering either the RX or the N1. I assume the RX would be lighter, but I would rely on the older style of Zeiss lenses. I assume this precludes me from using the newer N1 series or any combo in conjunction with the 645 body via the NAM-1 adapter.

However, I do not foresee that as a problem. It just limits my future selection.

Also, I've been told by various camera stores that I should get fixed lenses & ignore the zooms. The reasoning being that the fixed lenses are superior to the zooms. Is this correct?

Also, I'd prefer a SLR as opposed to a range finder.

I go places that very few humans trek (well, at least I hope so). Consequently, I am willing to carry more weight to capture the pictures that I take. So, I guess the trade-offs involve the N1 (maybe Nx) versus the older styles (Rx) or even the compact cameras ( Aria or ?)

Thank you for your advice and consideration !!

Best wishes,
skw4154
 
...the choice between the manual Contax system and the N-sytem is not easy.

The general "rule" that FFL are better then zooms is not valid for all FFL-Zeiss lenses anymore. The reason is the older design of the FFL with C/Y mount and the new designed N-Zooms with the lastest knowledge and production know-how in it. The manual focus FFL designs are sometimes still from the 70s i.e. 25/2.8 so this is not a fair comparison. See for this the test shootings I made in the other threads.

The Rx weights the same as the N1 by the way. If you want to have a light weight packkage, you need to get an Aria or an S2 with the 25, 45 and 85/2.8 on it.

dirk
 
An interesting question is posed above: G vs. N systems.

For what it's worth, I have both the G and N systems (film only) and can conclude that shooting similar subjects (landscapes and portraits primarily) using print film (Fuji Reala film, for ex&le), the N system is superior for its:

+ color rendition
+ sharpness
+ flash system (TLA 200 vs. 360)
+ accurate focusing
+ framing.

but weaker on these fronts:

- battery consumption
- weight.

As with all things, there is a trade-off. I believe that the superior lenses of the N System trumps the no-mirror advantage of the G cameras. Long-term? I believe the G system will last longer due to its build quality and lack of electronic circuitry.

The G system might be better for amateurs on vacation; however, for me, resolution and final print quality is more important that carrying less weight.

I picked up a NX (not as a back-up) but as a compromise recently and I think this is the camera I will use on holidays.

JHS
(still unconvinced on the N digital but would gladly jump at a new N2 or even G2 digital).

n.b.: The T3 is a nice conversation piece but its inability to focus fast is a downside.
 
G vs. N systems

Hi Jack Su,

you rated that the N lenses over the G lenses.
This sounds strange since prevailing opinion is that the G lenses outperform even Contax SLR lenses.

Could you specify for what lenses you did a side-by-side comparison?

Can anybody else agree or disagree to your opinion?
 
Yes, I would like to know the source of this lens data, too. And a recent post suggests that the G2 is fancy junk, over gadgetted and unreliable as to focus, etc. Does anyone say anything positive about this camera? Also, can the Zeiss lenses for G2 be used on other bodies w/o modification?

TIA for the forum's wisdom here. Mike Gregory
 
"And a recent post suggests that the G2 is fancy junk"

This person was deleted from the board, because he was trying a couple of times to misuse the board by using profanities all the time. Therefore I doubt that his statements are reliable. I have never had problems with my G2 and the AF.

dirk
 
I bought a G2 a couple of years ago and had a really difficult time focusing under less than optimum light conditions. Was that the cameras fault or mine? I don't know for sure, but I do strongly prefer SLR cameras. Jack C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top