Quote Originally Posted by Brac
Backing the Contax 167MT again... Nor do I believe the Nikon lenses are any better than the Contax Zeiss ones. Equal maybe...
None of the cameras under discussion were built down to a price but you will find you can get a decent 167MT for a lot less than a R4, R5 or F3...
As a final plug for the Contax, it was in production for almost ten years which I think speaks for itself.
Just to be clear, I agree that the 167MT is the bee's knees. I would not trade mine for the world. It is only the harsh environment factor that would make me look elsewhere. In my opinion, things such as the shutter speed switch, the door latch, the botttom plate fastener and the Single/Continous switch on the Contax are not up to Nikon F-Series standards. Also, as far as quality of the lenses, I should have been more precise. I really think the Zeiss lenses are tops optically - none better. But as a user of both systems over the last 20+ years, I would give the nod on build quality, or quality of the physical barrel itself, to the Nikon non-AF lenses. My ancient Nikkor 50 has less "rock" in it than my newer Zeiss 50. Also, the lugs on my Zeiss lenses showed wear much sooner than the Nikkors. Of course this is all just personal observation, not to be confused with fact! I am sure others will feel 180 degrees differently - all opinions combined will hopefully allow the pilot to make up his own mind. Best of luck.

Jon