Pro camera or point and shoot?

[dylan77]

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

 

[Pieter12]

Pro: Nice lens, compact size. Cons: Expensive, no interchangeable lens, no manual exposure control, if it goes bad, you probably won't be able to get it fixed. An SLR will let you frame more accurately with a larger viewfinder. The contax viewfinder will be more useable in low-light situations. Look at more cameras--there are too of SLRs and point-and shoot 35s out there.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't think what Contax T2 is something which will lasts these days under regular use.
Canon EOS300 with 40 2.8 pancake will. But it is no Kardashian status kit, Contax T2 is.
https://kosmofoto.com/2018/07/premium-film-compacts-contax-t2-jenner-hemsworth/
Photography or status. It is your choice.

 

[dylan77]

Pro: Nice lens, compact size. Cons: Expensive, no interchangeable lens, no manual exposure control, if it goes bad, you probably won't be able to get it fixed. An SLR will let you frame more accurately with a larger viewfinder. The contax viewfinder will be more useable in low-light situations. Look at more cameras--there are too of SLRs and point-and shoot 35s out there.

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.

 

[George Mann]

Thankyou. I was a bit concerned about finding a lense on a Slr that may be sharp like the Zeiss.

I had a Contax 139Q that was fairly rugged, yet compact, and it allows you to use the Zeiss lenses you crave.

 

[bernard_L]

From looking at YouTube videos,(....) quality of the photos seem to be very good on the contax Zeiss lense.

Presumably you are not judging the quality of Zeiss (or other) lenses from youtube videos?

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

Good that you ask yourself this question. I would advise strongly that you do not invest too much into a camera before you find out what fits your preferences (pictures you want to take, and the process of taking pictures). Remember also that 100% of photographers that took a photo had a camera with them (not true anymore in smartphone era...) the point being that the oh-so-versatile SLR will tend to be left at home just on the day when the opportunity of photos arises; not so with the modest point-and-shoot.

And even within choices for point-and-shoot, KoFe's advice is valid:

Photography or status. It is your choice.

Why not start with a first-generation (1985-1990 vintage) non-zoom P&S, like (just an example):
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Exc3-OLYMP...Point-Shoot-mju-style-from-Japan/312766963207
If the style suits you, and you want to gain, err, status, you can "upgrade" to MjuII, Yashica T4, or even "better" Contax T2. No sure they will allow better pictures.

Oh, and just in case you feel that my recommendation of a P&S is condescending, here is what I had in my backpack during the last summer holidays:

• Fujica GS645W (MF) loaded with Neopan 400 for artsy-fartsy photography;
• Olympus 35RC (compact rangefinder, 70's vintage) loaded with FP4 for general snapshots
• Nikon AF600 Lite Touch (plastic P&S, 28mm lens) loaded with UltraColor neg film, for a project of small-town storefronts;
• Olympus Mju-II loaded with FP4, selected for its close-focus capability (35cm versus 90cm for the 35RC, IIRC), again for a specific project of patterns in the beach sand.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

the benefit of an SLR is that it is a system camera and with the appropriate attachments capable of almost any photographic task.a point-and shoot is perfectly fine for everyday photography but will bee quickly limited as the user advances.still, it may serve you well for many years and produce high-quality images rivalling many pro cameras.

 

[dylan77]

Presumably you are not judging the quality of Zeiss (or other) lenses from youtube videos?

I use a Zeiss on my digital camera and it’s great.

Good that you ask yourself this question. I would advise strongly that you do not invest too much into a camera before you find out what fits your preferences (pictures you want to take, and the process of taking pictures). Remember also that 100% of photographers that took a photo had a camera with them (not true anymore in smartphone era...) the point being that the oh-so-versatile SLR will tend to be left at home just on the day when the opportunity of photos arises; not so with the modest point-and-shoot.

This is a great point!

And even within choices for point-and-shoot, KoFe's advice is valid:

Why not start with a first-generation (1985-1990 vintage) non-zoom P&S, like (just an example):
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Exc3-OLYMP...Point-Shoot-mju-style-from-Japan/312766963207
If the style suits you, and you want to gain, err, status, you can "upgrade" to MjuII, Yashica T4, or even "better" Contax T2. No sure they will allow better pictures.

I’ve looked at these are the cameras, the Yashica is quite similar in price, and the Contax have photos that were sharper overall which is what I’m looking for.

Oh, and just in case you feel that my recommendation of a P&S is condescending, here is what I had in my backpack during the last summer holidays:

• Fujica GS645W (MF) loaded with Neopan 400 for artsy-fartsy photography;
• Olympus 35RC (compact rangefinder, 70's vintage) loaded with FP4 for general snapshots
• Nikon AF600 Lite Touch (plastic P&S, 28mm lens) loaded with UltraColor neg film, for a project of small-town storefronts;
• Olympus Mju-II loaded with FP4, selected for its close-focus capability (35cm versus 90cm for the 35RC, IIRC), again for a specific project of patterns in the beach sand.
• 
  I will need to check these out. Thanks

 

[foveon_m]

to get interchangeable lenses look for a Contax G2 kit with 28.45 and 90mm lenses.

 

[bernard_L]

I will need to check these out. Thanks

I did not mean to recommend these specific cameras; in such a thread there is a tendency for respondents to recommend... the camera that they have wisely chosen.
No, my point was just that I recommend fixed-focal-length compact cameras in a general way, as something I use myself (while my SLR bodies and lenses get less frequent use).
As an aside, a little interweb searching will show you that the Oly 35RC and the Mju II have their respective fanclubs.

Second point: fixed focal lens may turn out to actually result not in constraint, but in freedom... from the technical manipulations. Several famous photographers made all their career with just one focal length (although in the case of HCB that is not 100% true), whether a Leica with a 50mm or a Rolleiflex.

Sure, it may turn out that your pet subject is flower pollination by bees, or wild vertebrates, in which case an SLR is more appropriate. Or that the SLR shooting style suits you best. But, starting with a compact and finding out that after all you prefer an SLR would be, all things equal, a less costly mistake than the other way around.

 

[bernard_L]

Maybe have a look at this thread:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/best-film-cameras.5515446/
Don't give too much attention to the dpreview article quoted in the first post: highly arbitrary choices. But read the discussion. Looks like a majority of pro-SLR; so I'm not just preaching for my own preference.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

 

[blockend]

Assuming you intend to scan your negatives, or get a lab to scan them for you, a little sharpening in post will cancel any difference between a Contax T2 and another reasonable quality compact film camera. There's a limit to what a 35mm negative can resolve and most of the attraction of film is the "film look". Absolute sharpness compared to relative sharpness is debatable when digitally processed.

As others have said, 1990s consumer electronics were a work in progress. There's a cottage industry removing high quality lenses (at considerable expense!) from boutique compacts whose circuits have died, and adapting them for other uses. There are wiser ways of spending the money being asked for these Gucci handbag cameras.

 

[Ariston]

Someone above had good advice. Before spending too much, buy a cheap slr and a cheap p&s, and try both out to see which you like. You can get both for far, far less than the price of a Contax. And you might be surprised. You might find that one of the cheap cameras is plenty capable.

 

[Les Sarile]

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

Strictly used as a point and shoot - where you rely on the camera to make all the decisions for you, I agree that anyone would be hard pressed to see difference in results between a pro slr and a point and shoot camera.

 

[Chan Tran]

I think for the price of the Contax T2 you can get a Nikon F5 and a 35mm f/2 lens. and set the F5 on P mode and you have just as good a P&S as the T2.
Second thought but you would have to settle for a plastic shutter release button.

 

[Les Sarile]

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.

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

While the lens on the T2 is a good lens, I don't think it's in the same league as a Zeiss lens in Contax/Yashica mount. I don't even think it's as good as a good Nikon or Canon SLR lens of the same focal length and aperture.

 

[bernard_L]

the point being that the oh-so-versatile SLR will tend to be left at home

you can get a Nikon F5

Mass, body only : 1210g
If an SLR, the Nikon F80 has a body-only mass of 515g, and not an entry-level model. Sure, some specs are better for the F5. Better be sure you need those specs badly enough to carry a body mass +140%.

 

[Chan Tran]

Mass, body only : 1210g
If an SLR, the Nikon F80 has a body-only mass of 515g, and not an entry-level model. Sure, some specs are better for the F5. Better be sure you need those specs badly enough to carry a body mass +140%.

As I said in the first post. The T2 is much easier to carry around but something like the F5 is much easier to use.

 

[bernard_L]

As I said in the first post. The T2 is much easier to carry around

Re-read the post from me that you quote.It is not Contax T2 / Yashica T4 or whatever versus SLR. Accepting that the OP might well prefer the ergonomics or the flexibility of an SLR, I'm just saying: think twice (specs, features, price, weight, reliability) before choosing an F5 over an F80.

 

[MattKing]

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.

What he said.
Just about every camera and every lens that cost more than $100.00 originally and is still working properly will give excellent results.
And a few of those under $100.00 will too.
Now if you are looking at issues of flexibility or use in particularly demanding situations, then you can start considering additional factors.
The camera used for this photo - an Olympus Trip 35 - cost me $2.10 at a thrift store. That is why $2.10 is in the image title.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/estuary-windfall-2-10.27182/

 

[AgX]

Welcome to Apug!

...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...

Not with all SLRs you can change lenses.
Not all cameras with a fixed lens are point-and-shoot

The main advantage of an SLR is to see the image as much as possible as it is exposed to the film.
The main advantage of a point&shoot camera is to yield a photograph with as little hassle as possible.


You have been ill-informed by the net. Try to get you a photography texbook from the 80s or so.

Forget about brands until you made up your mind in what your going. And even then go for something cheap for the start.

 

[Chan Tran]

Re-read the post from me that you quote.It is not Contax T2 / Yashica T4 or whatever versus SLR. Accepting that the OP might well prefer the ergonomics or the flexibility of an SLR, I'm just saying: think twice (specs, features, price, weight, reliability) before choosing an F5 over an F80.

Price. Although one could possibly get an N80 for almost nothing. The price of the F5 isn't expensive. Features wise they are about the same although the F5 has more. Weight for me is a non issue once you go past the pocket size camera. Reliability? All cameras we are talking about are used and I see in no way the N80 is more reliable than an F5.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Oh, and just in case you feel that my recommendation of a P&S is condescending, here is what I had in my backpack during the last summer holidays:

• Fujica GS645W (MF) loaded with Neopan 400 for artsy-fartsy photography;
• Olympus 35RC (compact rangefinder, 70's vintage) loaded with FP4 for general snapshots
• Nikon AF600 Lite Touch (plastic P&S, 28mm lens) loaded with UltraColor neg film, for a project of small-town storefronts;
• Olympus Mju-II loaded with FP4, selected for its close-focus capability (35cm versus 90cm for the 35RC, IIRC), again for a specific project of patterns in the beach sand.

Where I'm summer holidays are next to Kardashian Contax T4 luxury.
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