Contax S2, RX or ST?
Cheng Hon Keat Eddy
I am selecting one of the above three to start my Contax collection, and would appreciate your comment of their performance.
Their cost in Hong Kong is very close to each other, and so cost is not the deciding factor. However, I have the following considerations in my mind:
The S2 is cute and elegant, and I do not mind the total manual operation. However, I have no idea of its mechnical realibity, as well as what regular maintainence measures are required for manual cameras.
If I decided not to go ahead with the S2, I am a bit confused with RX and ST. Each have their pros and cons (featurewise), but I find it hard to reach a concluding decision between the two. (I know selecting the RTS III may be a good solution, and indeed I plan to add it to my list when I save enough for it. For the time being I'll use the $$ on lens).
Look forward to hear from your ideas.
Thanx.
Axrd
I have an RX and recommend it strongly. I think the S2 is overpriced and
it doesn't have spotmetering (I don't think). The ST doesn't have
multi-exposure capability and its controls are not as well laid out.
Also, the RX has a digital focus assist feature that gives a readout in
the viewfinder to tell you if you're in focus or not. It's a bit too slow
for action shots but works well for everything else. With the RSTIII,
you're paying twice as much as you would for the RX just to have the
vacuum film plate which makes an indiscernable difference in image
quality.
I say go for the RX!
Alex
John Eh?
The S2 is spotmetering only. The S2b is centerweighted only. Main advantage
of the S2 is total manual operation a la the FM2 (but with Zeiss lenses).
Maybe one day I'll have the $ to move to Contax or Leica
Axrd <ax...@aol.com> wrote in article <541gk9$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>...
> I have an RX and recommend it strongly. I think the S2 is overpriced and
> it doesn't have spotmetering (I don't think).
>
cfor
In article <54075q$a...@news.hklink.net>, hkc...@hklink.net (Cheng Hon
Keat Eddy) wrote:
> I am selecting one of the above three to start my Contax collection, and
would appreciate your comment of their performance.
It seems to me that you haven't thought through your requirements enough,
if you are comparing an all manual camera to automatice (exposure and
transport) models!
I myself have looked into buying Contax. If I were to do it I would buy
used, either an RTSII or 159MM. If you would do likewise, you could save
enough $ to get an extra lens!
Paul van Walree
Isn't the 159MM one of the worst camera's ever built?
>dan
wal
Marcus Hanke
In article <54075q$a...@news.hklink.net> hkc...@hklink.net (Cheng Hon Keat Eddy) writes:
>From: hkc...@hklink.net (Cheng Hon Keat Eddy)
>Subject: Contax S2, RX or ST?
>Date: 15 Oct 1996 14:30:18 GMT
>I am selecting one of the above three to start my Contax collection, and would
>appreciate your comment of their performance.
>Their cost in Hong Kong is very close to each other, and so cost is not the
>deciding factor. However, I have the following considerations in my mind:
>The S2 is cute and elegant, and I do not mind the total manual operation.
>However, I have no idea of its mechnical realibity, as well as what regular
>maintainence measures are required for manual cameras.
>If I decided not to go ahead with the S2, I am a bit confused with RX and ST.
>Each have their pros and cons (featurewise), but I find it hard to reach a
>concluding decision between the two. (I know selecting the RTS III may be a good
>solution, and indeed I plan to add it to my list when I save enough for it. For
>the time being I'll use the $$ on lens).
>Look forward to hear from your ideas.
>Thanx.
You cannot compare an all-mechanical camera like the Contax S2/S2b to the
automated ST and RX. They have a totally different approach: Reliability under
the toughest conditions the former, sturdyness with automatic comfort the
latter. Your choice must depend on what you need, if you need a compact SLR
which is reliable and should work without batteries (in cold or very
uncivilized regions), then take the S2 or S2b (this one has center-weighted
metering).
If you are interested in general photography work without the need of being
battery-independent, take one of the others.
The ST was released earlier than the RX and is quoted by Contax as being the
more professional camera. I don't believe this. It's true that the RX doesn't
feature the ceramical film pressure plate which is unique to the RTS III and
the ST, it's true that its shutter is slower (1/4000 vs. 1/6000, 1/125 flash
sync vs. 1/200), and it might be true that the ST's material is slightly
better. But on the other hand the ST does not have the ability to do
multi-exposures or leave the filmleader out after rewinding, whereas the RX
can do this (with custom programmable functions).
Additionally the RX has the focus indicator which is (as stated in this
forum quite often already) no help in dynamic sports or action photography,
but a very precise ranging support in macro, reproduction and still-life work.
If I had to decide now, I think I would buy the RX, as it is the same
price as the ST here in Europe. I heard that in the States it is even cheaper.
Marcus
Marcus Hanke
In article <walree.8...@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl> wal...@fys.ruu.nl (Paul van Walree) writes:
>From: wal...@fys.ruu.nl (Paul van Walree)
>Subject: Re: Contax S2, RX or ST?
>Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:59:12 GMT
>In <se4711-1510...@ppp-62.ts-2.dc.idt.net> se4...@mail.idt.net (cfor)
>writes:
>>I myself have looked into buying Contax. If I were to do it I would buy
>>used, either an RTSII or 159MM. If you would do likewise, you could save
>>enough $ to get an extra lens!
>Isn't the 159MM one of the worst camera's ever built?
>>dan
>wal
Hey, Walrus, I don't know if you are fair now! It's correct that the 159MM
disappeared from the market remarkably quick (was it two years?), whereas its
direct follower, the 167MT is still under production after ten years, but I
don't think that the product quality was responsible for this.
Maybe the lack of available MM-lenses and the popularity of the
integrated-winder-concept proved by the 137 were the main reasons for the
159's limited success.
And now the 159 is one of the most demanded used Contax cameras on the
second-hand-market, and I'm sure it would not be if it had serious quality
troubles.
But due to the vast production numbers of the 167, you'll get that one at
learly the same price you have to spend on a 159, and in my opinion the 167 is
superior.
Greetings,
Marcus
Paul van Walree
>In article <walree.8...@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl> wal...@fys.ruu.nl (Paul van Walree) writes:
>>Isn't the 159MM one of the worst camera's ever built?
>>wal
>Hey, Walrus, I don't know if you are fair now! It's correct that the 159MM
>disappeared from the market remarkably quick (was it two years?), whereas its
>direct follower, the 167MT is still under production after ten years, but I
>don't think that the product quality was responsible for this.
>Maybe the lack of available MM-lenses and the popularity of the
>integrated-winder-concept proved by the 137 were the main reasons for the
>159's limited success.
Excuse me for saying this, but I was told by a Contax dealer that
this camera disappeared quickly from the market after it became clear
that there was a serious malfunctioning of the electronics.
>And now the 159 is one of the most demanded used Contax cameras on the
>second-hand-market, and I'm sure it would not be if it had serious quality
>troubles.
Hmmm, I have never seen this camera, but maybe you are right.
>But due to the vast production numbers of the 167, you'll get that one at
>learly the same price you have to spend on a 159, and in my opinion the 167 is
>superior.
>Greetings,
>Marcus
Regards,
Walrus
qi bao
cfor wrote:
> I myself have looked into buying Contax. If I were to do it I would buy
> used, either an RTSII or 159MM. If you would do likewise, you could save
> enough $ to get an extra lens!
>
> edw...@nosc.mil
RTSII's silver oxide battery is notoriously sensitive to lowered
temperatures, although there is a dedicated external battery pack which
could help in those seize-up situations. The other oddity on the RTS II
is the one-step shutter release which does take a lot of getting used
to. A separate metering button is provided at the front of the camera.
Otherwise a superbly-built camera which could be had for a very
reasonable sum on the secondhand market.
159 MM is a very complete picture-taking tool for serious photographers.
I would recommend it wholeheartedly over any other pre-87 Contaxes. But
the downsides are dark (relatively speaking) focusing screen, loud
(relatively speaking) mirror flip and that the good viewfinder
information can be difficult to read from cetain angles and in strong
light.
qb
qi bao
Axrd wrote:
>
> I have an RX and recommend it strongly.
>I think the S2 is overpriced and it doesn't have spotmetering (I don't think).
Very much so but it does have spotmetering (nothing else) while its
darker brother S2b prefers the good old centre-weighted meter.
>The ST doesn't have
> multi-exposure capability and its controls are not as well laid out.
> Also, the RX has a digital focus assist feature that gives a readout in
> the viewfinder to tell you if you're in focus or not. It's a bit too slow
> for action shots but works well for everything else. With the RSTIII,
> you're paying twice as much as you would for the RX just to have the
> vacuum film plate which makes an indiscernable difference in image
> quality.
Name a thing (important in picture taking) that a ST can do and a 167 MT
can't at one third of the price, I'll chuck my 167 MT straight out of
the window. I just don't see the Kyocera rationale behind the ST. I
think its time for the axe. Any last requests, Mr. ST?
> I say go for the RX!
Couldn't agree more.
>
> Alex
regards
qb
Marcus Hanke
In article <32650B...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk> qi bao <q-...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk> writes:
>From: qi bao <q-...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Contax S2, RX or ST?
>Name a thing (important in picture taking) that a ST can do and a 167 MT
>can't at one third of the price, I'll chuck my 167 MT straight out of
>the window. I just don't see the Kyocera rationale behind the ST. I
>think its time for the axe. Any last requests, Mr. ST?
>
Imprinting the date between the slides so you can still sort them correctly
five lazy months after your holiday trip. - But, basically you are right. The
databack and the faster shutter itself don't seem to justify the high cost
compared to the 167MT.
When I compare my 167 and my ST it is clearly visible that the ST's material
quality is superior to that of the latter (look at the fixation of the bayonet
ring, for instance. The upper cap of the body is metal on the outside, too,
not plastic). Then there is the better ergonomy of the dials and buttons. But
on the other hand, I prefer the viewfinder layout of the 167MT.
But when compared to the RX, I must admit that the RX might offer you the
better value for your money.
Marcus
John Eh?
qi bao <q-...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk> wrote in article
<32650B...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk>...
Doesn't the 167MT have sliders and buttons in the place of knobs and dials?
While it may be as competent a camera as the RX/ST/RTSIII, my guess is it's
feel is more electrical and less mechanical than the others.
>
> Name a thing (important in picture taking) that a ST can do and a 167 MT
> can't at one third of the price, I'll chuck my 167 MT straight out of
> the window. I just don't see the Kyocera rationale behind the ST. I
> think its time for the axe. Any last requests, Mr. ST?
>
Luca de Alfaro
qi bao <q-...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk> writes:
>cfor wrote:
>> I myself have looked into buying Contax. If I were to do it I would buy
>> used, either an RTSII or 159MM. If you would do likewise, you could save
>> enough $ to get an extra lens!
>>
>> dan
>> edw...@nosc.mil
>RTSII's silver oxide battery is notoriously sensitive to lowered
>temperatures, although there is a dedicated external battery pack which
>could help in those seize-up situations.
I have used it often at up to -15 C, and I haven't had any problems so
far. It might be a good idea to have a spare battery handy, though, in
cold weather.
>The other oddity on the RTS II
>is the one-step shutter release which does take a lot of getting used
>to. A separate metering button is provided at the front of the camera.
? I find the separation of the metering button and the shutter release
to be an excellent idea, and I found this intuitive from the first
time.
>Otherwise a superbly-built camera which could be had for a very
>reasonable sum on the secondhand market.
[rest snipped]
Luca
Tse-Sung Wu
Are there any net resources about these and other recent Contax cameras?
Couldn't find a FAQ. Mailing lists? Interested in learning more about
cameras no longer in production (as I've tried to glean off this
thread): ie, a way to get into Contax/Zeiss on a grad student budget.
TIA,
Tse-Sung
