Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,677   Posts: 1,482,053   Online: 885
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    137
    Oh, I forgot - beware the G2! It was reported that it doesn't work properly in humid environment (rain forest)!

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by naaldvoerder View Post
    ....The vacuumback is only usefull using telefoto lenses with big apertures and minimal DOF, like the85mm at 1.4
    ...Jaap Jan
    Sorry Jan, just a slight correction. The vacuum back has nothing to do with DOF (depth of field) - it has to do with the depth of focus, at the film plane. It is therefore more important for short focal length lenses where the depth of focus is inherently small.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Stavanger or Trondheim, Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    771
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Oh, I forgot - beware the G2! It was reported that it doesn't work properly in humid environment (rain forest)!
    Hmm, that's not my experience. Mine has survived an amazing amount of mistreatment, including being dropped in deep snow and in the sea twice, not to mention being caught in various rain storms. It has worked fine in Malaysia and in the Amazon basin. What makes you think I don't treat my cameras with kid gloves?

  4. #14
    naaldvoerder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    578
    Images
    26
    I stand corrected. I have always assumed that depth of focus is possitively related to depth of field? Is that wrong?
    I have only recently bought a 18mm lens. I will have to give a closer look to my prints!!

    Jaap Jan

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,194
    Depth of focus and depth of field are, um, two sides of the same coin. Depth of focus diminishes as magnification (size of image/size of subject) decreases, depth of field increases as magnification decreases. Depth of focus hits its minimum when magnification is zero, i.e., the subject is at infinity.

  6. #16
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,045
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by reggie View Post
    I see they have it as an option on their 645, too. It is an insert that goes into the film magazine\magazine holder. I wonder if it makes a bigger difference with the larger film?

    I'm getting the Contax bug, I'ave always wanted to use one. Now I cannot decide between the G2, RTS III or the 645. The more reading I do, I like them all.

    -R
    The vacuum back for the 645 only worked with 220. According to the Contax literature, it was intended primarily for working with extreme close focus and shooting wide open. That said, there's no reason you couldn't use it for other shooting. I don't know that it was a big seller when the system was still in production, so they may be somewhat hard to come by. Now that 220 film is less widely available, you may also find less need for it.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete H View Post
    Hmm, that's not my experience. Mine has survived an amazing amount of mistreatment, including being dropped in deep snow and in the sea twice, not to mention being caught in various rain storms. It has worked fine in Malaysia and in the Amazon basin. What makes you think I don't treat my cameras with kid gloves?
    If I remember it well, it was reported by Bob Shell in his G2 review. It was the focus mechanism that was off in humid atmosphere - all his pics from a rain forest (Malaysia?) were good for nothing because of that -it saved me a lot of money, thanks Bob.) Not even the Contax could buy a wholly positive review from him...

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Magnificent Rockies
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    528
    Images
    1
    When my 167MT gave up I was inquiring about alternatives (adapter for my EOS camera to mount the Zeiss lenses) but just received my RX from KEH yesterday and processed my first roll last nite. Great camera body and has the heft I appreciate in a camera. Gives the impression of a solid camera and I can continue using that great Zeiss glass.

    I particularly appreciate the DFI as I see that my aged eyes aren't that good anymore and I was consistently off a smidge on the focus and the RX reminded me to tweak slightly. Also appreciate the diopter adjustment. So far, so good!

    Fred

  9. #19
    snegron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hot, Muggy, Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    784
    It seems like many here favor the RX and the RTS III. I checked the prices recently and the RTS III's are still a bit high compared to the RX's. Any more info on the RTS2's? Apparantly their improvement over the RTS1 was the addition of a titanium shutter.

    As others have mentioned, Contax's are aging every day (as are every other 35mm cameras on the market), so the question of reliability/longevity is important.

  10. #20
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,045
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424
    It is my understanding that the RTS II was a quantum improvement over the RTS. They're also as a general rule quite a bit newer than the RTS. Neither one supports the MultiMode metering options (shutter priority, program (Not that most of us actually care about program exposure mode)). Today, I would not buy an RTS as anything other than a secondary backup. I believe certain functions on the RTS are now unrepairable, as there is no remaining parts stock, certainly not from Contax at any rate. I believe this was true even ten years ago, when Contax was still very much a going concern. You may be able to get them serviced independently, but there is no guarantee of that. The RTS III was around for a VERY long time, so I would try to find one with as new a serial number as I could to increase the longevity. At this point in time, the Contax USA website still lists the RTS III and RX as being repairable in-house through their own service center, so parts availability is excellent.

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