Leica Minilux vs Contax T2
Jophl
I'm making a comeback to photography. But this time, I will choose a compact
camera and let my creatibity do the rest without the burden of SLRs.
I have two compact cameras in mind - the Minilux and the T2.
Both cameras are superbly built although I still feel that the Contax edges
over the Leica slightly in this respect especially in the viewfinder
compartment.
Both of them use wonderful lenses - T2: F2.8/38mm Sonnar ML: F2.4/40mm
Summarit.
Here, the Leica edges over the Contax by having a faster lens.
Both cameras provide some degree of manual overriding. The Leica is better
here that it has more flash modes than the Contax and offers B exposure with
cable release option.
All the above are gathered from looking at their specs. I need someone with
practical experience with the 2/either one camera to advise me. I emphasize
a lot of the final picture quality.
Thanks.
Zeuspaul
I have had my Contax T2 for about two weeks. I just got my first roll
of film developed. I was a bit shocked at the results. ALL of the
pictures taken with a bright blue sky have uneven exposure. It looks
like I was looking down a tube.
At first I thought my camera might be defective. Then I found this at
from a poster at photonet " vignetting (guaranteed with the T2 in an
intense blue sky shot)"
It looks like there is at least one other person that has a Contax T2
that experiences vignetting or?
In my case it seems rather severe..or am I being too picky?? This
camera is worthless to me in its present state. Most of my pictures are
outside with a blue sky!
Here is an example of one of the many pictures that I find unacceptable
http://www.corbels.com/t2/vig.htm
Regards
John Snyder
Richard S.
exchange for something else?
The Yashica T4 also suffers from light falloff. I'm a little surprised
that the Sonnar is not much better than the Tessar in this regard.
I really wonder why the T2 is so much more popular than the Minilux,
which has much more uniform light distribution. Could it be because
the T2 got better press in Pop Photo? Magazine reviews can be very
helpful, but their subjective evaluations of image quality should be
taken with a grain of salt.
Also, it is very clever of Contax to keep the T2 price slightly higher
than the Minilux. After all, there's the popular notion that you "get
what you pay for."
I have used a 40mm Sonnar, which I'm sure is similar to the T2 lens.
It is extremely sharp, but for type of photography I do--mostly
landscape--I really prefer the overall appearance of the Minilux
images. That's a subjective evaluation, so take it with a grain of
salt. :)
Richard S.
http://members.aol.com/waponi/photos/phd.htm
On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 10:59:05 -0700, Zeuspaul <jo...@zeuspaul.com>
wrote:
Zeuspaul
that the Sonnar is not much better than the Tessar in this regard.<<
Is it a lens quality issue? Some have referred to shutters as being a
possible cause of the problem.
Is the Leica Minilux significantly better in this regard? Can it match
a decent lens on an SLR? Will sunsets have dark corners? I do not mind
cropping 10 percent. I would have to crop about 50 percent of some of
the T2 pictures. Leica does not seem to have addressed the problem in
the Mini 3. The lab just uploaded pictures from my wife's new Leica
Mini 3. The first thing I looked for was some sky shots and sure enough
there is a significant vignette http://www.corbels.com/t2/mini.htm .
I have read numerous accounts on the web of users indicating that their
Yashica T4 or Contax T2 gives results almost equal to or equal to their
SLRs. Do SLRs have this same problem?? I find it hard to believe that
people do not take pictures with blue sky...well ok unless you live in
Washington state:)
I have not been taking pictures for awhile..just getting back into
it. I do not recall this problem with my old Pentax Spotmatic. Maybe I
was not looking as carefully. Or maybe the effect is not as prevalent
on prints as it is on a monitor with digitally scanned film.
>>I'm sorry to hear that about your T2. Is it too late to return it in
> exchange for something else?<<
I am working on it. If I can return the T2 I will try the Leica
Minilux. I was hoping to find a camera that I can carry around with me
that can take good pictures.
I was thinking about adding a Contax Aria to my little collection. Now
I have cold feet. I do not know what to believe anymore after reading
all of the rave reviews of the point and shoots and then finding out
they can not take pictures of blue sky!!
>>I have used a 40mm Sonnar, which I'm sure is similar to the T2 lens.
> It is extremely sharp, but for type of photography I do--mostly
> landscape--I really prefer the overall appearance of the Minilux
> images. That's a subjective evaluation, so take it with a grain of
> salt. :)<<
Does the lens retract like the T2? The T2 fits nicely in my inside
jacket pocket. I want to take landscape..seascape..street scene..sunset
pictures.
Thanks for the help
John Snyder
Richard S.
wrote:
>Is it a lens quality issue? Some have referred to shutters as being a
>possible cause of the problem.
The image from a simple lens will naturally be darker at the
corners/edges than at the center. Additional lens elements can
compensate for this.
>
>Is the Leica Minilux significantly better in this regard? Can it match
>a decent lens on an SLR? Will sunsets have dark corners? I do not mind
>cropping 10 percent. I would have to crop about 50 percent of some of
>the T2 pictures. Leica does not seem to have addressed the problem in
>the Mini 3. The lab just uploaded pictures from my wife's new Leica
>Mini 3. The first thing I looked for was some sky shots and sure enough
>there is a significant vignette http://www.corbels.com/t2/mini.htm .
The pictures at http://members.aol.com/waponi/photos/phd.htm
were not cropped to get rid of dark corners (although some were
cropped for other reasons). The third picture on the top row in Leica
Minilux Gallery 1 has the sky darker on the right hand side. The sun
was just to the left of the scene, and there may have been a bit of
flare, or maybe the sky was just lighter on the left.
I looked through my files and found the worst example of light falloff
I've had with the Minilux. It is an embarassingly poor Kodachrome 64
slide. I uploaded it to http://pw2.netcom.com/~rlsaylor/slide12.jpg
so you can see it. The left side and bottom were cropped a little to
get rid of some distracting elements. That's why there is more
darkening in the upper right corner.
>
>I have read numerous accounts on the web of users indicating that their
>Yashica T4 or Contax T2 gives results almost equal to or equal to their
>SLRs. Do SLRs have this same problem?? I find it hard to believe that
>people do not take pictures with blue sky...well ok unless you live in
>Washington state:)
>
You can see the effect in some of my Yashica T4 pictures at the above
web site. Certainly SLRs can have this same problem, especially when
using zooms at the wide end. None of my Pentax lenses seem to do it,
however.
<snip>
>Does the lens retract like the T2? The T2 fits nicely in my inside
>jacket pocket. I want to take landscape..seascape..street scene..sunset
>pictures.
Yes, the lens retracts completely into the camera, which I believe is
slightly bulkier and heavier than the T2. It fits nicely into a jacket
pocket, but not a shirt pocket.
Richard S.
Zeuspaul
I've had with the Minilux. It is an embarassingly poor Kodachrome 64
slide. I uploaded it to http://pw2.netcom.com/~rlsaylor/slide12.jpg
so you can see it.<<
Thanks. Wow, it is not just the T2. However most of your Leica Minilux
pictures look pretty good (composition too).
However some light fall off is noticable in most of the blue sky
pictures albeit less pronounced. (although I am sure you chose your
better pictures for display)
I went through the T2 roll and uploaded three sky pictures that seem to
have less fall off. Three picture total 120K
http://www.corbels.com/t2/less.htm The pictures lose quite a bit of
sharpness when I scale them down..I do not know the best way to do it.
The indoor pictures and pictures without a lot of sky do not seem to
have the same characteristic...or less pronounced.
I do not know if it is less light fall off or if it is better
disguised. When there is a lot of scenary or color variation in the
picture the vignette seems less drastic. If the sky is exposed such
that it is light in color then with light fall off the change in color
of the sky from light blue to white becomes quite noticable. A uniform
blue sky just makes it easier to see the change in color IMO.
Does the lens effect blue light differently than it does the other
colors? ie is the problem wave length related?
Some have indicated that vignette can be reduced by stopping down the
lens. Many of my shots were taken at f8. Someone argued that stopping
down a lens will not work on a point and shoot...I do not recall the
argument.
John Snyder
Richard S.
wrote:
>However some light fall off is noticable in most of the blue sky
>pictures albeit less pronounced. (although I am sure you chose your
>better pictures for display)
I chose the better pictures, but I didn't weed out any because of
light falloff. I was looking at composition, sharpness, and overall
color.
>
>I went through the T2 roll and uploaded three sky pictures that seem to
>have less fall off. Three picture total 120K
>http://www.corbels.com/t2/less.htm The pictures lose quite a bit of
>sharpness when I scale them down..I do not know the best way to do it.
That always happens. Some people resize them with software which
automatically sharpens them a bit. I scale them down with bilinear
resampling in Paint Shop Pro, then use the unsharp mask to correct for
the fuzziness.
>
>The indoor pictures and pictures without a lot of sky do not seem to
>have the same characteristic...or less pronounced.
>
Most of the complaints I've seen about this concern skies. Some SLR
people correct it with a graduated filter which is slightly darker in
the center and feathers out to perfectly clear at the outside edge.
<snip>
>A uniform
>blue sky just makes it easier to see the change in color IMO.
>
That may be part of it.
>Does the lens effect blue light differently than it does the other
>colors? ie is the problem wave length related?
>
I really think this is the case. Air selectively scatters the blue
part of the spectrum, which is why the sky is blue. I think lenses may
also be selective about which wavelengths are more (or less) uniformly
distributed on the film plane.
>Some have indicated that vignette can be reduced by stopping down the
>lens. Many of my shots were taken at f8. Someone argued that stopping
>down a lens will not work on a point and shoot...I do not recall the
>argument.
>
I wouldn't believe the argument. Stopping down a P&S is the same as
doing same on an SLR. I think my bad sky example was shot at f/8
because of the slow film (Kodachrome 64). Most of the others were f/11
or f/16. Using a fast film with narrow aperture minimizes the sky
problem. I would rather lose a bit of sharpness due to diffraction (at
f/16) than have maximal sharpness (at f/8) with a bad sky.
The Fuji Mini Zoom is a perfect example. It vignettes badly at 28mm
using ISO 100 film. The problem disappears with ISO 400, probably
because it is forced to stop down more.
I believe the T4 program uses the widest aperture (and fastest shutter
speed) possible for a given EV, and I think this contributes to the
bad skies. The T2 program AE may be similar. If you haven't already
done so, try taking your landscapes using aperture priority at f/16
and see if it helps.
Richard S.
Aleksei Rozkov
optical quality of both ? Would I gain anything if I upgrade from T4 to
Minilux ?
Regards
/Aleksei
Richard S. wrote:
>
> I'm sorry to hear that about your T2. Is it too late to return it in
> exchange for something else?
>
> The Yashica T4 also suffers from light falloff. I'm a little surprised
> that the Sonnar is not much better than the Tessar in this regard.
>
> I really wonder why the T2 is so much more popular than the Minilux,
> which has much more uniform light distribution. Could it be because
> the T2 got better press in Pop Photo? Magazine reviews can be very
> helpful, but their subjective evaluations of image quality should be
> taken with a grain of salt.
>
> Also, it is very clever of Contax to keep the T2 price slightly higher
> than the Minilux. After all, there's the popular notion that you "get
> what you pay for."
>
> I have used a 40mm Sonnar, which I'm sure is similar to the T2 lens.
> It is extremely sharp, but for type of photography I do--mostly
> landscape--I really prefer the overall appearance of the Minilux
> images. That's a subjective evaluation, so take it with a grain of
> salt. :)
>
> Richard S.
> http://members.aol.com/waponi/photos/phd.htm
Jophl
the vignetting issue.
I certainly did not have this problem with my old SLR - the Canon 630 and an
EF35-70 lens.
I am quite certain now to settle for the Minilux. I do have 1 more question:
The Minilux zoom which just got the Camera of the Year from EISA is very
attractive due to its zoom lens. Anyone can comment on the choice between
the Minilux and its brother the Minilux Zoom?
Thanks once again.
Richard S.
wrote:
>I am quite certain now to settle for the Minilux. I do have 1 more question:
>The Minilux zoom which just got the Camera of the Year from EISA is very
>attractive due to its zoom lens. Anyone can comment on the choice between
>the Minilux and its brother the Minilux Zoom?
>
The Minilux Zoom is program AE only. It doesn't have an aperture
priority option like the Minilux. Also the lens is slower.
Richard S.
zpu...@my-deja.com
emphasize
> a lot of the final picture quality.
>
>
I recently bought a Minilux zoom and the photos have been outstanding.
I like the ability to zoom so that enticed me to the Zoom version, plus
it has a "T" setting and the ability to put a Leica CF flash on the
camera in addition to, but not used at same time, the internal flash.
It does have a slower lens and max shutter speed, but I'll take the
Zoom anyday. BTW I purchased the Leica Highlights set which includes
the Minilux zoom & CF flash, leather case, for slightly more that the
camera price alone. Check with Samy's in LA.
Zoltan
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
JPMccormac
pocket. I want to take landscape..seascape..street scene..sunset>pictures. >
If you like this type of photography, consider the Ricoh GR1. See specifics at
URL below.
John P. McCormack
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/9273/gr1.html
Richard S.
<ale...@biotech.kth.se> wrote:
>Richard, since you have both T4 and Minilux could you compare the
>optical quality of both ? Would I gain anything if I upgrade from T4 to
>Minilux ?
>
I responded to Aleksei earlier by email, but I hate to leave this
question hanging on the NG. Here are a few thoughts.
If the overriding consideration is contrast and sharpness, might as
well stick with the T4. I think the lens is contrastier than that of
the Minilux, which gives the appearance of greater sharpness. (It may
actually be sharper. I'm not sure, but I'm doing some tests.) This is
good for certain subjects, but for things like flowers and foliage it
can result in a certain "hardness" which is not necessarily desirable.
You can see examples of this at my web site. Some people like the
effect. It is technically impressive, but not necessarily "artistic."
The Minilux images seem to have slightly better edge-to-edge
uniformity of contrast, sharpness, and light distribution, and
possibly lower distortion at the edges.
Optical considerations aside, the main things to gain with the Minilux
would be a faster lens, stronger flash, and much more control. These
things make it a much more versatile camera, and for this reason it
goes with me almost everywhere.
Richard S.
http://members.aol.com/waponi/photos/phd.htm
rob...@my-deja.com
fall-off in the corners. It is not as striking, because the sky is not as
blue as in the T2 and T4 pictures.
I own the the T2 and have noticed the uneveness of light, which is seen most
often in a blue sky, as mentioned above. Nonetheless, I love the camera,
because it produces images of startling sharpness and color. The viewfinder
and overall handling are far superior to the Minilux.
By the way, I would personally not even consider a zoom in a point and shoot
camera. The lenses are just too slow.
In article <9ZLRN2FAZWDU7o...@4ax.com>,
Richard S. <rlsa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 14:39:51 -0700, Zeuspaul <jo...@zeuspaul.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Is it a lens quality issue? Some have referred to shutters as being a
> >possible cause of the problem.
>
> The image from a simple lens will naturally be darker at the
> corners/edges than at the center. Additional lens elements can
> compensate for this.
> >
> >Is the Leica Minilux significantly better in this regard? Can it match
> >a decent lens on an SLR? Will sunsets have dark corners? I do not mind
> >cropping 10 percent. I would have to crop about 50 percent of some of
> >the T2 pictures. Leica does not seem to have addressed the problem in
> >the Mini 3. The lab just uploaded pictures from my wife's new Leica
> >Mini 3. The first thing I looked for was some sky shots and sure enough
> >there is a significant vignette http://www.corbels.com/t2/mini.htm .
>
> The pictures at http://members.aol.com/waponi/photos/phd.htm
> were not cropped to get rid of dark corners (although some were
> cropped for other reasons). The third picture on the top row in Leica
> Minilux Gallery 1 has the sky darker on the right hand side. The sun
> was just to the left of the scene, and there may have been a bit of
> flare, or maybe the sky was just lighter on the left.
>
> I looked through my files and found the worst example of light falloff
> I've had with the Minilux. It is an embarassingly poor Kodachrome 64
> slide. I uploaded it to http://pw2.netcom.com/~rlsaylor/slide12.jpg
> so you can see it. The left side and bottom were cropped a little to
> get rid of some distracting elements. That's why there is more
> darkening in the upper right corner.
> >
> >I have read numerous accounts on the web of users indicating that their
> >Yashica T4 or Contax T2 gives results almost equal to or equal to their
> >SLRs. Do SLRs have this same problem?? I find it hard to believe that
> >people do not take pictures with blue sky...well ok unless you live in
> >Washington state:)
> >
> You can see the effect in some of my Yashica T4 pictures at the above
> web site. Certainly SLRs can have this same problem, especially when
> using zooms at the wide end. None of my Pentax lenses seem to do it,
> however.
>
> <snip>
>
> >Does the lens retract like the T2? The T2 fits nicely in my inside
> >jacket pocket. I want to take landscape..seascape..street scene..sunset
> >pictures.
>
> Yes, the lens retracts completely into the camera, which I believe is
> slightly bulkier and heavier than the T2. It fits nicely into a jacket
> pocket, but not a shirt pocket.
>
> Richard S.
>
Zeuspaul
I have pretty much come to the conclusion that they all have light fall
off. I do not know if the T2 has more or less than any other point and
shoot. One would need a controled experiment to find out.
Most likely the light fall off in my pictures was increased due to my
exposure settings. I was overexposing by a half stop and using f8 and
less. Someone was recommending overexposing so I thought I would give it
a try. Most pictures were taken from a boat so I was trying to use fast
shutter speeds.
I think I will keep the camera. I do like the camera and my belief is
that I will encounter the same results if I swap the camera for another
point and shoot.
I have been taking the next roll of film without overexposing. I am
using aperature priority f11 and above when possible. From what I have
learned this should reduce the light fall off. The roll is PJ100
..still have a bunch in the freezer. I think I will change to 400 speed
so that I can favor the smaller apertures..f11 and f16.
Light fall off is most apparent if one does not make prints. An
enlarger lens corrects the fall off as it also has fall off. (one of
the many things I have learned about light fall off thanks to the news
group) I go directly from film to digital so the results are not
mitigated by an enlarger. The effect is considerably different in each
of my two computers..different monitors seem to show the effect
differently. Also the effect seems to become more pronounced when the
pictures are downsized and converted to JPEG...purely a subjective
observation.
Now I am looking for a camera that can take pictures of blue sky without
light fall off. It looks like I need at least two cameras:) It seems
most lenses have this characteristic. One way to reduce it is with a
special filter. The filter should filter less light in the corners to
compensate for the light fall off in the lens. (are filters an option
on the T2?)
It looks like this camera reserch project still has a long way to
go...and I thought it would be easy..
Zeuspaul
dmorg...@my-deja.com
and am so pleased with it quality-wise that I have
traded in my R system and gone for the light and
compact Minilux. A terrific camera that gives
nothing to the R series in quality of result or in
versatility. Go for it.
Richard S.
> Have used the Minilux and now the zoom version
>and am so pleased with it quality-wise that I have
>traded in my R system and gone for the light and
>compact Minilux. A terrific camera that gives
>nothing to the R series in quality of result or in
>versatility. Go for it.
FYI, Leica is coming out with new Minilux-type camera with a longer
zoom--the Leica C1. See
http://pw2.netcom.com/~rlsaylor/leica_c1.jpg
It's got to be the most beautiful point & shoot ever made.
Richard S.
Cliff Knight
Just MHO...
-cliff-
<dmorg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7relop$qj9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Have used the Minilux and now the zoom version
> and am so pleased with it quality-wise that I have
> traded in my R system and gone for the light and
> compact Minilux. A terrific camera that gives
> nothing to the R series in quality of result or in
> versatility. Go for it.
> >
>
>
>
Bill Schaffel
aperture priority, or full manual exposure control; scale manual focus; parallax
correcting rangefinder; exposure compensation, auto and manual film speed
setting; and a matching hotshoe flash that does not cause redeye.
Bill S.
Richard S.
<cli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Considering f2.4 "faster" than f2.8 is silly--it's about 1/10th of a stop!
>
>Just MHO...
>
>-cliff-
>
Anybody who says something is "silly" should first make sure they know
what they're talking about. f/2.4 is almost 1/2 stop faster than
f/2.8.
Richard S.
M. Bergman
50F1.8 AF lenses to see what a 1/2 stop costs-:).
Richard S. <rlsa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:s6LbN8Rq3BUrP7...@4ax.com...
Brian George
Panasonic? I never liked that about it. I have heard great things about
the T2 and Minilux, but more good things about the T2.
brian-
rob...@my-deja.com
to be compared with the T2 and the Minilux. The Hexar is quite a bit larger
and heavier and does not have a built-in flash. Although it defies easy
categorization, this certainly does not make it undesirable. You simply have
to know what it is that you want from a camera. In the end, they all involve
compromises in one way or another.
In article <37DB2398...@bellsouth.net>,
Richard S.
George) wrote:
>Isn't the Leica Minilux supposed to be made by a parent company of
>Panasonic?
That's what I've heard too. Still, it appears to be well-made.
>I never liked that about it. I have heard great things about
>the T2 and Minilux, but more good things about the T2.
There seem to be a lot more T2s out there. Supposed to have a sharper
lens and be more user-friendly. Certainly got better reviews. The T2
might be a better camera, I don't know. I wanted the extra 1/2 stop,
stronger flash with more modes, and cable release (couldn't find that
in the T2 specs), so I got the Minilux. Glad I did, because I've never
been more pleased with any camera that I've owned.
Something did go wrong with the lens cover. (Might have been my fault,
but I don't think so.) Got it repaired under warranty (took several
weeks). No problems since then.
Note to the P&S detractors: the T2, Minilux, and other high-end
compacts are no more "point & shoot" than any SLR with AF and program
AE, so it's perfectly legitimate to look for features beyond a mere
shutter button.
Richard S.
>brian-
Bill Schaffel
neither will my Contax G2 or Canon GIII. Yet all three are compact cameras. As for
point and shoot, every auto everything SLR out there is a point and shoot.
By the way, Pop Photo and B&H like to constantly class the Hexar as a point & shoot as
opposed to a rangefinder.
Bill S.
jimr...@my-deja.com
considering in light of its superb lens, features, ergonomics, size
ansd price. Good luck!!
n article <37D191A7...@zeuspaul.com>,
Zeuspaul <jo...@zeuspaul.com> wrote:
> >>The Yashica T4 also suffers from light falloff. I'm a little
surprised
> that the Sonnar is not much better than the Tessar in this regard.<<
>
> Is it a lens quality issue? Some have referred to shutters as being a
> possible cause of the problem.
>
> Is the Leica Minilux significantly better in this regard? Can it
match
> a decent lens on an SLR? Will sunsets have dark corners? I do not
mind
> cropping 10 percent. I would have to crop about 50 percent of some of
> the T2 pictures. Leica does not seem to have addressed the problem in
> the Mini 3. The lab just uploaded pictures from my wife's new Leica
> Mini 3. The first thing I looked for was some sky shots and sure
enough
> there is a significant vignette http://www.corbels.com/t2/mini.htm .
>
> I have read numerous accounts on the web of users indicating that
their
> Yashica T4 or Contax T2 gives results almost equal to or equal to
their
> SLRs. Do SLRs have this same problem?? I find it hard to believe
that
> people do not take pictures with blue sky...well ok unless you live in
> Washington state:)
>
> I have not been taking pictures for awhile..just getting back into
> it. I do not recall this problem with my old Pentax Spotmatic.
Maybe I
> was not looking as carefully. Or maybe the effect is not as prevalent
> on prints as it is on a monitor with digitally scanned film.
>
> >>I'm sorry to hear that about your T2. Is it too late to return it in
> > exchange for something else?<<
>
> I am working on it. If I can return the T2 I will try the Leica
> Minilux. I was hoping to find a camera that I can carry around with
me
> that can take good pictures.
>
> I was thinking about adding a Contax Aria to my little collection.
Now
> I have cold feet. I do not know what to believe anymore after reading
> all of the rave reviews of the point and shoots and then finding out
> they can not take pictures of blue sky!!
>
> >>I have used a 40mm Sonnar, which I'm sure is similar to the T2 lens.
> > It is extremely sharp, but for type of photography I do--mostly
> > landscape--I really prefer the overall appearance of the Minilux
> > images. That's a subjective evaluation, so take it with a grain of
> > salt. :)<<
>
> Does the lens retract like the T2? The T2 fits nicely in my inside
> jacket pocket. I want to take landscape..seascape..street
scene..sunset
> pictures.
>
> Thanks for the help
>
> John Snyder
>
ira moore / marianne stolk
rolls...the lense was sharper and there was more contrast.......
the T2 is smaller and lighter and easier to take along in your
pocket...but what's your priority?? good photo's or convenience?
ira moore