DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is 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. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Why Contax and/or Zeiss at all?

I think we could all sit here for days discussing why one camera is technically "better" than another. But let's talk about photographers. I know Pentax K1000 users taking better photographs than Nikon or Leica users. It's the mind behind the camera. It's what you do with it and not necessarily what it is. If a camera "fits" you and your style, then it is better than any other. I use a Contax G for a reason, it suits me best of all the cameras I have used. Do I find it better than Leica? Obviously, yes, or else I would have never sold my Leica equipment for Contax. Let's not get overly involved in the technicalities, if you can't do photography then a Leica, a Contax or anything else is not going to pick up where your photographic skills end.
Rico, I'm quite aware that mechanical devices with alignment adjustments may require adjustment.My original comment was that I am not aware that this is or was an inherent problem with Leicas.My car's doors have alignment capabilities, though I have never found it necessary to realign them.It's reassuring to know, though, that should they or my Leica ever need such correction, it is available and as the website states"Once aligned, seldom needs re-alignment." I still don't see it as an inherent issue and my 40 years of Leica owning/using,(not wrapping them in cotton wool) bears that out.
Tom, Leica's ability to accurately focus the f1 is due to the long base length of the r/f.Though not as long as the original Contax r/fs. Leica does not produce f1 or f1.2 "R"lenses due to the short base r/f in the reflex system. Leica do say in their literature(since 1965) that from 90mm up, reflex focussing is more accurate
"No viewfinder display, no shutter release. Nothing. Still had readout as to "Single Shot", "DX code" etc but no other function. Oh, the battery icon was flashing, so I thought--batteries dead."

Computer may not have had time to reset completely. When low voltage conditions occur the processor can get into a very odd state, and until the capacitance voltage in the system was fully discharged that state may have been unrecoverable.

Consider it like having a lack of O2 to the brain...

Dana Curtis Kincaid Pinnacle Systems Technical Support Indy
I too had a similar problem with the focusing on a single stroke M3 about 10 years ago.
o Neither Contax nor Leica are perfect.
o The optics are excellent for both systems
o The extra you pay for Lieca may be for longevity, (certainly for resale value)
o ContaxG may well be as sturdy, but it's too early to tell.
o I've enjoyed using both systems
I suggest that any Contax generated slide when scanned at 2900 d.p.i. or better will ultimated yield a print superior to the product of digital cameras costing less than a small automobile and the slide is easier to store.
> My pesonal experience has shown me that I can produce an image with a scanned negative at 3600 dpi that is equal or better than my shots with my Contax ND. However; there are several shortcomings:

The process of scanning is burdensome, and you have to deal w/ dust and scratches.

The time it takes to handle/scan 100 slides would be approximately 25 hours at 15 minutes a slide. Whereas, 100 digital images would take about 3 hours at 3 minutes per digital images. (Review, modify conrast, save, print proof).

The workflow of handling negatives (or slides) is much slower.

Your comment that slides take less storage space is true, but remember, slides fade ... a digital file will never fade.

And isn't it amazing that we are discussing that Digital cameras can equal a film camera? Just several years ago, nobody would have been suggesting that there was any parity between digital and film!


You comment that digital file will never fade. That is true, but what are you going to store these digital files in. CDR disc only had a life cycle of about Five years if you take care of it. So slides fade over times you still able to see somethings with it, but with digital files store in CDR, once any problems occur fading of dye you lost not only one shot but almost all of it, expect you known how to recover as much as you can!


Hard drives typically last 5 years. My experience with CD-ROMS is that they are suppose to last 20 to 100 years! I have a cd-rom I used recently that was at least 6 years old w/ no problems. And magnetic tape last about 20 years.

So ... I would feel much, much more secure w/ a digital file then a slide if I had good backups in place.

Michael. B.S.C.S.
Tonight I had an opportunity to photograph Jeddah at night. I chose negative film over slide film with my RTSII or my non Contax digital camera because I knew that a tripod would attract police attention and that wider sensitivity range of negative film would guarantee more usable frames. I would love to have an n digital but doubt that it would be useful at hand held night photography. BTW you all might benefit from Neat Image Pro, it removes noise from your digital files. Good shooting to all.