Contax SLR buying advice wanted

[goros]

If I remember correctly, Nikon cameras register distance is the shortest amongst the major modern SLR cameras (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus), so it is very difficult that any F mount lens could be adapted to other mount.

 

[blockend]

It boils down to what extent you think a vacuum film plane is the last piece in the optical puzzle. If you're convinced it'll make your pictures sharper, the financial and other costs may be worthwhile. If extraordinary film flatness is not a killer, I'd say there are more interesting cameras out there for the money.

Were any comparative sharpness tests made between the RTS III and equivalent professional cameras of the time?

 

[Neal]

Dear RattyMouse,

As you were only looking at RTS III cameras, I didn't respond earlier. I have an original RTS that has been used continuously since the late '70s. It's heavily worn and has needed at least one repair about 15 years ago. At that time, the light seals were replaced and the advance mechanism needed service (it worked smoothly but didn't always advance the film when a new roll was loaded). The meter and shutter were still correct per the technician. Since then it has worked flawlessly. A few years ago I picked up a backup body for $40 but I rarely use it. The III has many more features and can be quite powerful (auto depth of field bracketing and the like).

I have an adapter for my Canon 7ne and it works with my 50mm f/1.4 very well. My 135mm f/2.8 will not clear the mirror.

With luck the above has not further muddied the waters.

Neal Wydra

 

[ronnies]

If I remember correctly, Nikon cameras register distance is the shortest amongst the major modern SLR cameras (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus), so it is very difficult that any F mount lens could be adapted to other mount.

It's the opposite way round.

Ronnie

 

[RobC]

If I remember correctly, Nikon cameras register distance is the shortest amongst the major modern SLR cameras (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus), so it is very difficult that any F mount lens could be adapted to other mount.

But Zeiss put mounts onto the lens to fit a nikon or canon etc. If you change the mount already on the lens to a canon mount then it should work fine. i.e. we're not thinking of adding an adapter, or at least I'm not.

I credit the lens manufacturers as being smart enough to design the lens with a long enough back focus to be able to use the exact same lens with different factory fitted mounts to fit the major camera mounts. They don't redesign the lens for each camera make as far as I'm aware, they just design a mount for each camera. The lens to film distance remains constant for all makes of camera for that particular lens. There may be exceptions to the rule but as a manufacturer you are going to save yourself a lot of money by doing it that way.

So it becomes a conversion job to change from nikon to canon mount or visa versa and not an adapter job.

 

[GarageBoy]

The S2 isn't worth the cash - it's an FM2/T without the Nikon durability
Save your $ and get an FX-3 instead

Sounds like nothing will satisfy your RTS III lust - just grab one and sell if you don't like/get tired of it
For me, a body is just a box to hold film

 

[GarageBoy]

But Zeiss put mounts onto the lens to fit a nikon or canon etc. If you change the mount already on the lens to a canon mount then it should work fine. i.e. we're not thinking of adding an adapter, or at least I'm not.

I credit the lens manufacturers as being smart enough to design the lens with a long enough back focus to be able to use the exact same lens with different factory fitted mounts to fit the major camera mounts. They don't redesign the lens for each camera make as far as I'm aware, they just design a mount for each camera. The lens to film distance remains constant for all makes of camera for that particular lens. There may be exceptions to the rule but as a manufacturer you are going to save yourself a lot of money by doing it that way.

So it becomes a conversion job to change from nikon to canon mount or visa versa and not an adapter job.

Except they won't convert the lenses (they will for the Cine Compact Primes only, but that's different)- the barrels aren't exactly the same on the ZE and ZF (for one, the ZE doesn't have an aperture ring)- easier to buy and sell if you change systems

 

[RobC]

Except they won't convert the lenses (they will for the Cine Compact Primes only, but that's different)- the barrels aren't exactly the same on the ZE and ZF (for one, the ZE doesn't have an aperture ring)- easier to buy and sell if you change systems

My mistake, I assumed you would be able to get them converted. That's blown my and the OPs theory then.

 

[benjiboy]

There are loads of working Contax SLR bodies and Yashica bodies out there, very cheap.

I'm aware of that Richard but "cheap" isn't the only criteria it doesn't address the point of service availability, and replacing one faulty body with another of unknown history is just kicking the can down the road if you need a reliable camera that you can come back from trips with pictures with, not excuses .

 

[RobC]

I'm aware of that Richard but "cheap" isn't the only criteria it doesn't address the point of service availability, and replacing one faulty body with another of unknown history is just kicking the can down the road if you need a reliable camera that you can come back from trips with pictures with, not excuses .

So you putting forward the argument that no one should buy an old camera which parts aren't readily available for. And that is even if you can buy a spare body or two.

The manufacturers will love you for that.

 

[benjiboy]

So you putting forward the argument that no one should buy an old camera which parts aren't readily available for. And that is even if you can buy a spare body or two.

The manufacturers will love you for that.

People can do what they like with their own money , but I personally wouldn't.

 

[ph]

As to mount flange distance from the film plane, apart from Alpa, the Canon EF is the shortest. Nikon is longer. Contax\Yashica optics can be mounted on the Canon digitals with the proper adapter. No need to modify the lens mount. They work perfectly well as long as you are happy to set the aperture and distance yourself.

In order to get critical focus on Canon rather than snapshots relying on hyperfocal distance, you will need to use a manual focus screen or "live view". I use the Zeiss 25mm, 60mm and a short Zeiss zoom with entirely acceptable results.

When, on the very rare occasions I wish to use film, I use an ST. Works fine and a ceramic rather than a vacuum pressure plate does not worry me. But then again, I just take snapshots.

p.

 

[RattyMouse]

Nikon F mount lenses are easily used on the EOS mount.

 

[blockend]

Most lenses will mount on EOS cameras via glass-less adaptors, notable exceptions being Minolta MD and Canon's own FD.

 

[ContaxRTSFundus]

As has been said, the ST is a superb and much less costly alternative to the RTSIII and uses the same ceramic plate but without the vacuum. I continue to own and use every Contax and Yashica camera with the C/Y mount and have been using them with Zeiss and some Yashica, Tamron SP and Tokina AT-X lenses ever since first buying an RTS back in the 1970s. The Zeiss lenses, with a few exceptions, are about the best in their class as are some of the Yashica ML bits of glass. I have three RTSIII bodies and one had a shutter replaced about 7 years ago by Sendean in London but apart from the one shutter failure after some 140,000+ shots, the cameras perform effortlessly. However, for me Contax/Kyocera made a huge mistake with the RTSIII; it was aimed squarely at professionals and as a sports photographer, I liked the fast motor drive BUT it is useless for such purposes as it can't take a 250 back. At 5fps, every 7 seconds you have to change the film - useless. I still use my Contax RTS or RTSII with the W-6 Motor Drive (5-6fps) and the 250 back for work that requires sustained shooting (thank goodness bulk film still exists!).

The vacuum back plate on the RTSIII is a great gimmick but when I compare images shot with my RTSIII, ST and S2b - even my 40-year old RTS - I am hard pushed to spot much difference. I used my 55 and 85 1.2 Planars as they have such a shallow depth of field and only when I blow up an image to about 4'x6' can I see a slight benefit in edge definition from the RTSIII. Although I love the feel of the RTSIII - and its reliability after years of heavy shooting - for maximum versatility, I still prefer the RTS/RTSII though spares for them are very, very hard to come buy - basically you need to buy donor bodies. Shutter assemblies for the RTSIII can still be found.

If you don't need the capacity of a bulk back, then the RTSIII should not let you down. However, the beautiful ST - largely under-appreciated - would be a very acceptable and much less costly alternative; whether you choose to use the P-7 Battery Holder is a matter of ergonomics; I feel handling is improved with it but my girlfriend finds it too cumbersome. One little appreciated opportunity you get with the ST is to use the D-7 Data Back (from the 167MT) which not only offers a good array of imprinting options but also allows the ST to be programmed for remote operation - this can be a big bonus for wildlife/surveillance photography.

The RTSIII was described as the Rolls Royce of 35mm SLRs when it was released and it still feels and handles like that - but if it dies on you, you are left with a very expensive paper-weight as repair becomes ever more difficult. Buying the ST would probably enable you to buy 2 bodies for the price of one RTSIII - always a good idea if you use old cameras for shooting - and you won't go far wrong with the 50 1.4 or 1.7 Planars (get the later MM versions to maximise your metering options). For me, the Zeiss glass has always been the king of the Contax system - the only lenses I don't own are the 60 C-Planar (why bother when the S-Planar exists?), the 1000 5.6 Mirotar and the 210mm N-Mirotar.

If it was my choice for camera bodies to work with the glass, I'd go for the ST and back it up with the superb S2b with its fast, beautiful mechanical shutter, average metering and graphite-coloured titanium body. The benefit of having the S2b is that unlike the ST it is not entirely battery dependent and, unlike the delightful Yashica FX-3 Super, can hit 1:4000 which can be useful if you use the fastest Zeiss lenses as it can help avoid the need for ND filters (variable 77mm ND filters are not cheap!). The only problem with all that is that once you've handled the RTSIII, well, you never want to put it down again....

 

[RattyMouse]

Wow.....what a great post. Thanks! Now you have me thinking more about an S2 or S2b! I need to go and do some shopping at the used stores and see these cameras in person again!

Again, thanks a lot for your reply. I really enjoyed reading your comments on Contax cameras.

 

[Les Sarile]

I continue to own and use every Contax and Yashica camera with the C/Y mount and have been using them with Zeiss and some Yashica, Tamron SP and Tokina AT-X lenses ever since first buying an RTS back in the 1970s.

I hope you can clarify the characteristic of the RTS shutter as compared to the Yashica FR that I have. The shutter is just an electronic on/off switch. There is no resistance - no "half press" to meter. TIA.

 

[dynachrome]

I have started with the Y/C mount the other way around. I have two FX-3s, an FX-3 Super and an FX-3 Super 2000. One FX-3 has been overhauled and one is being overhauled. The FX-3 Super could at least use seals and the Super 2000 looks perfect. I have a number of Yashica and third party lenses. At this late date the more valuable part of the Contax system must be the lenses. An FX-3 is inexpensive, easy to get serviced and a surprisingly pleasant camera to use. Why not get some of the Zeiss lenses and try them out on a Yashica? If you like the results you can then look for a Contax body, knowing that if is dies, you still have a camera that will work with the lenses. The FR series cameras are physically heavier but much more cheaply made than the FX-3 and similar models. The cheap plastic materials used in the winding mechanism are the problem. I recently got a 50/2.8 Sigma macro lens in Y/C mount and have the adapter to use my 90/2.5 Tamron SP (52BB). I can also use Vivitar TX lenses and, with stop-down metering, most M42 lenses. At some point I might still like to get a 50/1.7 Zeiss lens for my Yashicas but for now the 50/2 ML and various 50/1.9 Yashica lenses seem to be working well.

 

[Les Sarile]

The FR series cameras are physically heavier but much more cheaply made than the FX-3 and similar models. The cheap plastic materials used in the winding mechanism are the problem.

I cannot believe this to be true since the review in Sept '77 Pop Photo stripped the FR down to the component parts and they indicated that materials used (external and internal) were good. They further state, "The shutter/mirror box module would read like a carbon copy of the RTS, as would descriptions of the self-timer, viewfinder system and wind mechanism." I don't have the stripdown reviews of either the FX-2 and FX-3 but it would be interesting to know if they also stripped them down to component parts and identify the changes if anyone has them. Specs indicate that the FX-2 was reduced in size to practically that of the Pentax MX but lighter.

1. FR 142.5 X 87 X 50, 690g
2. FX-2 144.5 X 94 X 51, 690g
3. FX-3 135 X 84.5 X 50, 445g
4. MX 135.5 X 82.5 X 49.5, 495g

 

[blockend]

I cannot believe this to be true since the review in Sept '77 Pop Photo stripped the FR down to the component parts and they indicated that materials used (external and internal) were good. They further state, "The shutter/mirror box module would read like a carbon copy of the RTS, as would descriptions of the self-timer, viewfinder system and wind mechanism." I don't have the stripdown reviews of either the FX-2 and FX-3 but it would be interesting to know if they also stripped them down to component parts and identify the changes if anyone has them. Specs indicate that the FX-2 was reduced in size to practically that of the Pentax MX but lighter.
[/LIST]

It seems strange to me, too. I have an FR and the only endemic problem I'm aware of is frame counter failure. A contemporary report suggested the FR would be at least as reliable as the original RTS if not more so. My FR does have a loud, somewhat resonant shutter but I like the camera, especially the meter slide switch which stays on while ever the film advance lever is off set. Solid, it certainly is.

 

[Les Sarile]

Specs indicate that the FX-2 was reduced in size to practically that of the Pentax MX but lighter.

1. FR 142.5 X 87 X 50, 690g
2. FX-2 144.5 X 94 X 51, 690g
3. FX-3 135 X 84.5 X 50, 445g
4. MX 135.5 X 82.5 X 49.5, 495g

I meant to say that the FX-3 was reduced was reduced in size to practically that of the Pentax MX but lighter and not the FX-2.

 

[Les Sarile]

It seems strange to me, too. I have an FR and the only endemic problem I'm aware of is frame counter failure. A contemporary report suggested the FR would be at least as reliable as the original RTS if not more so. My FR does have a loud, somewhat resonant shutter but I like the camera, especially the meter slide switch which stays on while ever the film advance lever is off set. Solid, it certainly is.

That's why I like the reviews back when they used to disassemble the cameras and the FR does feel robust just like the review stated. I am trying to get used to the feather-touch shutter release on my FR - just an on/off switch, that was used to help avoid camera shake as there is no resistance to it. The other is that although it is an electronic shutter camera it has no aperture priority autoexpose which I believe was added to the next model. Which is why I am trying to get confirmation that the RTS also has the electronic shutter switch.

 

[RattyMouse]

One thing I see missing in the Contax system is a lens equal to my Nikon 24mm f/2.0. That's my go to lens for low light. I guess if I went with a Contax camera the 35mm f/1.4 lens would have to be my choice in that case. That's a much larger lens as well as very expensive; not really equivalent. F/2.8 often doesn't cut it for me.

 

[dynachrome]

I can't compare the FR cameras to the RTS cameras. I have two FR2s with bad winding mechanisms and my repairman had told me he has seen many FR cameras with winding mechanism problems. I know the Cosina-made models like the FX-3 don't look like much but I have experience with many of the similar models Cosina made. These include cameras with names like Phoenix, Vivitar, Olympus (OM2000), Promaster, Ricoh and Konica (TC-X). The fact that a camera is physically heavy does not mean that its internal parts are adequately strong. It just means the camera is heavy. What about reviews and strip down reports done years ago in magazines? I find the current state of these models a more reliable indicator of what to expect. If you have an FR model which is working well and you enjoy using it then you should keep doing so. I would rather not attempt to get another FR model. I don't see any advantage in doing so. I have an overhauled Pentax MX and it is indeed a nice and small camera to use. It is in a different league from the Cosina-made cameras I mentioned and also has interchangeable focusing screens but that doesn't make the Yashica FX-3 and similar models any less worthwhile. Also, Y/C mount lenses do not fit the Pentax MX.

 

[RobC]

That's a much larger lens as well as very expensive; not really equivalent. F/2.8 often doesn't cut it for me.

It's no good targetting some of the best quality lenses on the market in their day and then claiming they are expensive. You get what you pay for. If you want the best then you have to pay for it. If you want cheap then buy the tokina or other equivalents which ain't so bad but just don't have the branding you are looking for.