Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,979   Posts: 1,523,715   Online: 1176
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    Viggi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Scotland; France
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by naaldvoerder View Post
    The RTS III is a rock, really nice, but heavy, usually supporting the 85mmP. If I could have only one body I would probably have kept my RX, a wonderfull camera with the most well-demped mirror.
    I picked up a 167MT and while I like the handling, the whining motor sort of bothers me. The Nikon F80 is smoother and quieter, although I actually prefer to shoot the Contax. Is the film-advance noise of the RX high-pitched? When I was shooting the 167MT at a market, some of the locals actually looked back at me when the camera advanced and I felt uncomfortable continuing. I had an easier time with the old Konica T3 (not to mention the Hexar AF). I just really want an RX.
    Contax / Yashica / Nikon / Konica / Fuji / Samsung / Bronica

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    You could go with a 139 Quartz and add a winder when you want it. The 139 has autoexposure and manual shutter speed selection.

    Another option is the 137MD, which is autoexposure only with just two manually selected shutter speeds - B and flash sync. I don't think the built-in film advance is too loud with this model.

  3. #13
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    I have the 159mm.
    It's manual advance (winder available) and quite small.
    I've never had a Yashica and was tempted to get one as a backup body until I read so much about the sub par mechanics and just got another 159mm.

    The 159 lacks mirror lockup but gives you 1/250 flash sync and aperture priority if needed.

  4. #14
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    brucemuir, I never found the Yashicas to have subpar mechanics. I used an FX-3 and FX-D Quartz for several years and had excellent reliability. The FX-3 has crappy body covering, but that's easily solved by buying one of the cool camera leathers that are available for it.

    The Contaxes are generally nicer, but nothing wrong with the Yashicas, especially if you buy the 1980s ones.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  5. #15
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    The contax coverings are nothing to write home about either Jim.
    I just saw a thread where maybe it was the 2000 (forget the exact model designation) where a couple people were complaining about gearing and other plastic parts.

    Like I said I never owned one and haven't been inside one to compare so take the internet advice with a grain.
    I got lucky and got a 159 with discolored covering for 35.00 usd so went that direction.
    I know the contaxs dont have the best rep in the electrics dept.

  6. #16
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    It's possible the FX-3 Super 2000 was less well made. Mine was the non-Super 2000 that maxed out at 1/1000 and it was certainly reliable.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  7. #17
    Patrick Robert James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    248
    Images
    35
    The Yashica FRI is the best Yashica body I think. I have had one for nearly 20 years, used intermittently, that is quite worn. Still going strong.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9
    Aria is smaller than the RX and the RX is more robust. I like my 2.8/28 mm and especially the 1.4/85 mm. The 85 is quite large and the 2.8/85 and the 2.8/135 are cheaper alternatives. Especially the 135 is exzellent! These Zeiss Contax lenses are not more expansive than Nikon or Canon of comparable quality! Leica is more expensive! I am using Contax bodies 167MT, S2 and AX since over 20 years and i will continue to do so, hopefully for another 20 years.

  9. #19
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,248
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    I've had 167mt's, an RX, and now an RTS III (which I bought because I got the body for a steal, and I had always wanted one when they were still making them but could never afford one). While the rubber covering on the used 167 I bought was starting to bubble a little where the hand grip went, I never had a mechanical or electronic problem with either one of the 167s or the RX. It's too soon to tell with the RTS III as I haven't had it that long (less than a year now). I've also had a G1 and a G2 for close to a decade, with no incidents or problems. I'm not a light user nor am I a heavy user of any of these systems (they get trotted out a few times a year, but when they do they're getting 30+ rolls put through them in a week, most specifically on the G1/G2 kit). The SLRs have been to Belize, Thailand and Cambodia (nothing like a tropical climate to stress a camera) without failure. I would opt for the RX if you are looking for an SLR body - I think it's the best compromise between function and weight, plus it has that nifty little feature of the focus indicator in the viewfinder. It's a manual focus camera that will indicate not only if you are in focus (it uses a center spot of the viewfinder for measuring) but it will also indicate if you are focused closer or farther, and can optionally show you the depth of focus of your chosen aperture, so you can play with hyperfocal focusing or front-focusing (useful if you have to use a very small aperture due to bright light outdoors, but want to blur the background) without taking your eyes off the viewfinder.

  10. #20
    jjphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by abhishek@1985 View Post
    ...I am interested in 28mm or 25mm lens for landscapes and 85mm/100mm lens for portraits. This would complement my Leica M6 with 50mm f2 hexanon.

    Please let me know your thoughts and key points I should consider as I am looking forward to use the same for street portraits as well as 28mm for landscape shots.
    Well, you should be buying into the lenses rather than the bodies and as others have mentioned even the Yashica bodies are OK. The bodies have an effect, of course, but the primary determinant of final image quality will be the lens. The 28/2.8 MM is excellent. I'm not sure about the 25/2.8. I understand there are 2 optical versions of this lens but I've not used both so I'm not really sure if there is a significant optical difference.

    As for the portrait lenses, I think you should do some research on each lens and see if the rendering each offers is what you are after. The 100/2 is a very nice lens, as is the 135/2 which is also worth considereing. I've had the 85/1.4 and 135/2 but only kept the 135/2.

    I wonder if ultimately you might be better off with a medium format body such as an M645 which is potentially lighter than your Bronica but which will give you a better result than any 35mm film camera, IMHO. The M645 lenses are very cheap too. The 120/4 A Macro is an ideal portrait lens, as is the 110/2.8 N and these are both at the expensive end of the Mamiya M645 range. The wider lenses are not very expensive and the 80/2.8 N is a really nice lens yet extremely cheap. I get that you're trying to get away from weight but I don't think there is anything you can do to replicate medium format image quality with a 35mm camera, even with Leica or Zeiss lenses.
    Last edited by jjphoto; 04-03-2013 at 03:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin