Pro camera or point and shoot?

[baachitraka]

Why spend so much on T2 and why not XA to test the waters?

I would like to have best of both worlds. SLR with three or four primes from 24mm to 135mm and a nice point-and-shoot (Olympus XA will do a great job, even hand-holding 1/2 of a second)

 

[Pieter12]

Thankyou. I was a bit concerned about finding a lense on a Slr that may be sharp like the Zeiss. I’ll have a look around. I am looking at Nikon f4.

You can get Zeiss primes for Nikon.

 

[MNM]

For me, the only reason to use a P&S is maximum portability. My hands are a bit shaky and the mass of a larger camera helps avoid motion blur. That usually outweighs (no pun intended) considerations of convenience. I also like the directness of a SLR - it just works for me with minimum effort. They "get out of the way" and let me do my thing.

35mm SLRs are really cheap in the US, not sure about AUS. Here, I'd just say spend $30 on some 90s SLR and lens and see if you like it before spending $$$ on one of the better P&S/Compact cameras. It will be the least of your expenses.

 

[dylan77]

The Contax T2 has very good lens so if you use an SLR with a lens of same focal length there won't be significant different in quality because of the lens. However main difference to me are.
1. A good P&S like the T2 is easier to carry around.
2. An SLR is easier to use and because of that you may end up with better pictures. Many would disagree with me on this but a camera with full manual controls is easier to use than one that doesn't have those controls.

Yes that makes sense, full manual does make a difference

 

[dylan77]

For me, the only reason to use a P&S is maximum portability. My hands are a bit shaky and the mass of a larger camera helps avoid motion blur. That usually outweighs (no pun intended) considerations of convenience. I also like the directness of a SLR - it just works for me with minimum effort. They "get out of the way" and let me do my thing.

35mm SLRs are really cheap in the US, not sure about AUS. Here, I'd just say spend $30 on some 90s SLR and lens and see if you like it before spending $$$ on one of the better P&S/Compact cameras. It will be the least of your expenses.

Yes good advice, i think that may be the way to go

 

[Pieter12]

Thankyou. I was a bit concerned about finding a lense on a Slr that may be sharp like the Zeiss. I’ll have a look around. I am looking at Nikon f4.

Also, the F4 is almost at the opposite end of the size spectrum from a compact P&S. The F4 is a (to my eye) wonderful piece of industrial design, but in the F4S version and with a lens, probably 2-1/2 to 3 times the size and 4 times the weight of the T2.

 

[dylan77]

Also, the F4 is almost at the opposite end of the size spectrum from a compact P&S. The F4 is a (to my eye) wonderful piece of industrial design, but in the F4S version and with a lens, probably 2-1/2 to 3 times the size and 4 times the weight of the T2.

Yes for a pro camera the f4 is at the top of my list

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I am looking to move into film photography, and are currently deciding between a Slr and a contax T2.

From looking at YouTube videos, the main benefit of an Slr is that you can change lenses, where as the point-and-shoot has a fixed 38 mm I think. The actual quality of the photos seem to be very good on the contax Zeiss lense.

Would there be any other reason for me to buy a Slr first, If I’m happy to shoot it 35 mm? For a photo shoot or candid shots, I’m thinking I would get similar results

Thanks

I have both types. The point and shoot is a handy snap shooter that fits in a pocket. I have a number of smallish Canon SLR Rebel bodies that I've mated with both the 40mm STM pancake prime and the 50mm STM prime. It's not pocketable, but for walking around and doing a photo walk, or for doing street photography type stuff, a little rebel body and the "shorty forty" lens is shockingly difficult to beat. It's amazingly light, and that little prime is pretty sharp and opens up to f/2.8. My local photo store usually has at least one or two used Canon rebel film bodies available for less than $100 each, and a new copy of the 40mm prime is less than $200. It's amazingly inexpensive to get into a very useful setup. If you want to go the 50mm prime route, a new copy of that is also generally less than $200 and even though it opens up to f/1.8, it's most useable from f/2.8 and up. At f/4 it's crazy level sharp in the middle, and only gets better as you close the aperture down. Bang for the buck, it's a total sleeper of a lens.

 

[Paul Howell]

In terms of lens sharpness, if a lens can resolve Tmax 100 at 200 lmm then it is sharp enough. A Zeiss lens may have better contrast, the T2 ought to have good build quality But once it's done working its done working, don't know of anyone who has a stash of parts. I have Minolta, Konica, Petri, Kowa, Pentax M42 and K, with a wide selection of prime lens, looking at the prints no one can tell one from the other. As the printer what I do notice is the older lens like the Petri and Kowa and even single coated M42 lens have less contrast then newer lens, which I can fiddle with by increasing development time or printing at a higher contrast. On the cheap, look for a first generation point and shoot, Minolta, Nikon, Viviar with a 35 to 38, lens, most were 5 elements, 2.8, most of these cameras will take filters and the light meter while not TTL are small enough that a filter will cover. Most were pre DX coded so you can to some extent compensate the exposure by setting the ISO to a lower number for +1 exposure, or higher ISO for a -1 exposure.

 

[mshchem]

Find one of these 55 year old "Planar Killer" Super Takumar 8 element 50mm 1.4 lenses. My copy is immaculate, I bought it for my equally immaculate Pentax SP 500. I paid 10 bucks for the camera and 25 dollars for the lens. The lens is heavy, feels awesome. Supposedly this was the best 50mm lens in 1964-66 .

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Super-Takumar-50mm-F1.4-Early.html

 

[bernard_L]

Here is the link to my Samsung, no status, zoom, film P&S taken on my way to, from work and on busy weekends.
Loaded with sh_ty film made by one dude in Moscow.
http://rangefinder.ru/glr/showphoto.php/photo/123710/cat/top

+1
This is about producing images, not about proud ownership of "pro" equipment. And don't get me wrong, Strong images despite their technical "defects", but nothing like the gimmicks of lomography kids, with built-in light leaks, color shifts, and what not.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Strictly speaking about sharpness and resolving the tiniest details, every lens I have ever used has never been the weakest link. By far, the weakest link in the sharpness chain is how steady is the user - tripod, have fast enough shutter speed, focus aid and image stabilization all help. Second weakest link is how the detail captured on the film is extracted (scanner/optical print) and how it is viewed (on-screen/print). A distant third is the type of film used. And the last factor that can hinder sharpness is the lens - provided it is in good working order.

Between film and lens as a factor affecting sharpness I suppose there are inherently poor performing no-name brand plastic lenses out there that can move it straight to the top as a weakest link. And of course there are some super high resolving film out there that can actually outresolve a high quality lens too so position 3 & 4 can be interchangeable.

also worth mentioning is the chosen aperture. I see too many folks using high f/stops to gain DOF and ignoring that most 35mm lenses have a sweet spot at f/8-11 where they perform best.

 

[guangong]

I bought Contax T3 when it first appeared on the market. Great camera, but I wouldn’t buy a used one now. I accept the fact that the electronics will eventually fail.
I don’t understand the choice being between a T2 and an SLR. Considering the OP’s intended use, why not consider one of the rangefinder cameras, such as Canon, Leica, Nikon or Zeiss for interchangeable lenses, or even rf non interchangeable lens camera.
While I enjoy using my T3, generally speaking, the less automated battery dependency the better.
Also, accessories such as filter adapters are hard to find at this point of time.

 

[jtk]

If you want to be taken seriously, or take yourself seriously, learn to make your own prints. Camera choice is secondary at best. When you get famous use a lab. A real lab, not a mini lab.

 

[baachitraka]

If you want to be taken seriously, or take yourself seriously, learn to make your own prints. Camera choice is secondary at best. When you get famous use a lab. A real lab, not a mini lab.

Yes. But a reliable/comfortable camera is always good to make a negative.

@OP: You may start with Holga or Diana mini and move forward.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

One my favorite point and shoot with a very nice lens is my Olympus XA. I love traveling with it. It's compact and the lens is sharp with a slight vignette.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/xa.htm

 

[jtk]

If somehow your camera produces a negative, who processed that negative and who will print it?

What's the point of shooting film if you don't care how it's processed?

 

[jtk]

One my favorite point and shoot with a very nice lens is my Olympus XA. I love traveling with it. It's compact and the lens is sharp with a slight vignette.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/xa.htm

Note that Rockwell's article was written in ancient times, waaaaaaaay back when you could find someone to process slide film, back when Kodak pretended to survive, back in the last days of Kodachrome and Velvia. And back when minilabs were everywhere and their customers didn't care about quality. .

 

[Chan Tran]

One my favorite point and shoot with a very nice lens is my Olympus XA. I love traveling with it. It's compact and the lens is sharp with a slight vignette.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/xa.htm

I like the XA as well but I wouldn't call it point and shoot.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I like the XA as well but I wouldn't call it point and shoot.

Oh yeah. I forget the manual focus part of it. But it's easy to use. Do you find it easy too?

 

[Chan Tran]

Oh yeah. I forget the manual focus part of it. But it's easy to use. Do you find it easy too?

The manual focus helps in the ease of use. For me a camera with full manual controls is the easiest to use. P&S's are so damn difficult to use for me.

 

[Dali]

I don't see the point of buying a Contax T2.

For 25-30% of the price, you can get a decent SLR + 35mm lens to see if you are comfortable with such combination. If something breaks (camera or lens), you keep at least 50% of your investiment. With a Contax T2, you end up with a doorstop.

Don't be fool by pro this, pro that. Tons of photographers used (and still use) affordable cameras and don't complain. Unless you are ready to burn 500 rolls per year, keep it simple, no need to break the bank to enjoy.

 

[Wallendo]

I am looking to move into film photography, and are currently deciding between a Slr and a contax T2.

...

You can pick up a good SLR body and 50mm lens for about $100. Hopefully about that range in Australia. The major manufacturers all made solid cameras and good 50mm lenses. Interchangeable lenses are great, but on many of my cameras, I never remove the 50mm lens (some are actually 55mm or 58mm). I would recommend buying or borrowing one of these first. Even if doesn't become your full-time camera, there are still times when it is the right camera to use, and it allows you to play with depth of field, try filters, and so on. My basic sets included Minolta SRT-201's and Nikkormats (both work well without batteries). You can add wide angle and telephoto lenses as needed.

You can also pick up a much cheaper automated compact camera. A Zeiss lens sounds great, but I personally find lightweight cameras harder to steady than heavier cameras. In fact, my less than sharp images are generally due to operator error than lens quality. You can probably pick up a cheap camera that is about the same size as the Contax for very little money. IF you enjoy the camera, but lens sharpness becomes an issue for you, than you can easily pick up a Contax later.

I personally carry around an Olympus 35RC, which I have with me most of the time, and a too large selection of 35mm SLR's and rangefinders when I plan ahead to take photographs.

 

[TheRook]

Get both - SLR camera and a point and shoot camera. But not the Contax T2... instead, an inexpensive point and shoot camera that costs next to nothing. You can always get a Contax later on if you decide you small, compact cameras with minimal controls is your thing.

 

[removed account4]

hi dylan77
while i am a huge fan of point and shoot cameras and that contax is something lovely
do you have a repairman ( or repairwoman) you trust ? how about calling them and asking
if they ever see those cameras in for repair and what usually goes on them ( and if they can fix them ). i had a yaschia t4 with
a zeiss lens absolutely beautiful but what goes on them after a few hundred rolls of film is sometimes the focus
so, there isn't a way to NOT "to macro" and the only way to fix it is to .. buy another or hope the repair guy ( or gal ) you send it to
has one that something else whent wrong with that they can swap out parts and make yours whole again. maybe the camera you are looking for
has had a similar issues.. otherwise a thing to remember is to take whatever camera you buy to a repair person to have them do a CLA ( clean lubricate and adjust )
to bring it back up to factory specs so 1/30thS is actually 1/30thS...
if it is portability you want, look into a pentax me super, a great camera small profile and pentax lenses are really nice and not as pricy as
other lenses .. full on automatic or manual or app/shutter priority slr you might not be able to complain about ( i don't complain about mine ! ).
they are rugged and worth the $$ you might spend on them ..
good luck ! and welcome to the trio
john

(Added later)
You might also think about a fully manual huuuugly fun Olympus pen ft it’s a half frame camera. So you get 48 on a 24 and 72 on a 36 roll and small easy to use and did I say fun .. only lenses for this are inexpensive and sharp as nails when they need to be and wide open have an unmatched bokeh ( Eugene smith was in their ads ).. stayAway from some of the other pens the EE on the other hand the D is a reliable Copland shutter... something to think about at least...