Contax SLR buying advice wanted

[RattyMouse]

If you're stuck on buying Contax lenses for their reputation, you have little option but to purchase a Contax body. If you just want a high quality SLR with fine lenses to fulfil a practical photographic role, there are many to choose from. Being tempted by the ZI rangefinder suggests you have some money burning a hole in your pocket you need to get rid of, fast! In those situations I wait until the feeling goes away and assess my actual photographic needs. Just remember, there is no photographic decision that doesn't have a downside.

The ZI temptation is pretty easy to explain. I love good quality cameras and lenses. Holding something like the ZI with a Zeiss lens mounted on it is extremely impressive. The gear is so damn gorgeous. However, upon reflection, going with the ZI offers me very little. I have a Fuji GF670 which buy any measure, blows the doors off the ZI with a 50mm mounted on it. The *only* benefit I can see is the f/1.5 vs f/3.5 lens. Low light shooting gets a tad easier. That's about it. The GF670 is easily one of THE most portable cameras I've ever owned. The ZI can't improve much on that. Buying the ZI scratches my Zeiss itch, but does little else.

The Contax SLR on the other hand, moves me up a notch in the SLR world. Right now when I want to shoot an SLR (which I sometimes do), I pull out my Nikon FM2n. Whenever I shoot the Nikon, I want something better. It seems to me that a Contax SLR would get me one or more notches higher on the quality scale.

But dang....that ZI is purtty.........

 

[RattyMouse]

Contax is all about the lenses

This is incorrect. The RTS III is a very impressive camera in its own right. That it uses Zeiss lenses makes it all the more better.

 

[blockend]

The Contax SLR on the other hand, moves me up a notch in the SLR world.

It's worth remembering that all SLRs are old technology. Some will disagree and say while film is available the technology is extant, but the reality is the few film SLRs still being made do so in frozen time with no competition for development. Toward the end of their technological progress, the priority of professional SLR cameras had shifted in the face of digital technology - the F6 is a different beast from the F5 for example. If film was still the dominant medium would SLRs be like the Contax RTSIII? Almost certainly not. Factor in the orphan nature of parts, and you have to love Contax lenses sufficiently to tolerate diminishing returns from the camera body.

These facts will either give someone cause for concern, or they'll plough on regardless because they want that indefinable Contax SLR thing. However if you're considering a 35mm rangefinder, even in the abstract, it might be worth reassessing whether you really want the advantages only an SLR provides, or you really just want to buy "a nice camera". Just a few thoughts.

 

[RattyMouse]

It's worth remembering that all SLRs are old technology. Some will disagree and say while film is available the technology is extant, but the reality is the few film SLRs still being made do so in frozen time with no competition for development. Toward the end of their technological progress, the priority of professional SLR cameras had shifted in the face of digital technology - the F6 is a different beast from the F5 for example. If film was still the dominant medium would SLRs be like the Contax RTSIII? Almost certainly not. Factor in the orphan nature of parts, and you have to love Contax lenses sufficiently to tolerate diminishing returns from the camera body.

These facts will either give someone cause for concern, or they'll plough on regardless because they want that indefinable Contax SLR thing. However if you're considering a 35mm rangefinder, even in the abstract, it might be worth reassessing whether you really want the advantages only an SLR provides, or you really just want to buy "a nice camera". Just a few thoughts.

I have not one, but TWO Fujifilm rangefinders. I have 44mm-ish and 27mm focal lengths covered in the 6 x 7 format. I carry these cameras around all the time, traveling several times to Japan in the past few years as well as all over China. Buying a Zeiss Ikon would get me a 50mm f/1.4 lens and probably a 28 or 35mm lens. Exactly what have I gained with this 3 thousand dollar purchase? Not a whole lot.

I *do* want what an SLR can give me in that very often when I shoot my rangefinders, I *want* to see what the image will look like when I take the photo. A rangefinder gives me no indication at all what my depth of field looks like. An SLR gives me a perfect understanding of what the depth of field will be. I like shooting both styles so want a good quality rangefinder (or two!) as well as a good quality SLR.

From this discussion, I think the RTS III is the way to go over the ZI.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

OK, good to know. The trick now is finding out if the inside of the RTS III is as good as the outside.

You're still unsure about that??

 

[RobC]

From this discussion, I think the RTS III is the way to go over the ZI.

From this discussion it is clear that your mind was already made up so if the dealer gives you a warranty or return period then whats actually stopping you from buying one? The shop has them at various prices, you can fondle them and drool over them. Nothing anyone here says is going to change your mind. So just do it.

 

[RattyMouse]

From this discussion it is clear that your mind was already made up so if the dealer gives you a warranty or return period then whats actually stopping you from buying one? The shop has them at various prices, you can fondle them and drool over them. Nothing anyone here says is going to change your mind. So just do it.

You are incorrect. My mind still is not 100% made up, however last night when I wrote my last post spelling each point out, helped clarify what is truly best for my personal situation. You'll note to the left that my location is Shanghai, China. Purchases here are made with cash only and consumer protection laws are iffy at best. Once I buy something, it's mine with very little chance of ever returning it, hence my need for careful deliberation.

 

[RattyMouse]

You're still unsure about that??

I mean the specific RTS that I might buy. It may look mint from the outside, but inside parts might be broken! My comment was not about the design.

 

[blumesan]

Just one man's opinion; one who also loves Zeiss glass.
The RTS-II has all the capability of the III with fewer bells and whistles (especially electronic) which can malfunction. I think it is the most reliable of the Contax SLR lineup, with the exception of the lovely, small and light 139Q.
So I own a RTS-II and a 139Q for backup. Have used both for about 20 years. I'll bet that you can purchase both for less than the price of an RTS-III.

 

[dynachrome]

I saw my camera repairman yesterday and picked up my second overhauled Yashica FX-3 with a 50/2 Yashica ML lens. It turns out that of the three pieces of new "skin" two are Contax type and one Yashica type. I don't mind the slight mismatch of the two front pieces. To round things out I also recently got a 50/2 Yashica lens marked DX as well as a 50/1.9 Yashica DSB. The DSB lens is now attached to a nice set of Kenko Auto extension tubes (12/20/36). Together with a nice FX-3 Super 2000 with its 50/1.9 ML c and a not yet overhauled FX-3 Super these give me enough Y/C mount bodies for now. I am still considering a 50/1.7 or 50/1.4 Zeiss lens just to have one of these. I have always thought that the Zeiss lenses were more interesting than the Contax SLR cameras. When a Nikon N90S can be bought for so little and with plenty of nice Nikkors around you really have to like the Contax cameras and Zeiss lenses to spend so much more for them.