Contax RX -- Opinions?

I own a bunch of Contax/Zeiss manual focus 35mm lenses and a Contax

Aria that I like very much. I am tempted to add another Contax body,

party because the Aria, though wonderful, is a bit light and small

for some of the bigger Zeiss glass. I've been thinking about getting

an RX or an RXII, but have never seen one of these cameras. If

anyone is familiar with the RX or its successor the RXII, your

impressions would be much-appreciated.

 

Thanks.

Cliff, The RX is a great camera! From the moment I picked one up I felt as if I was born with one in my hand -- the contoured fit is so perfect for me. The RX balances better with larger lens than the Aria. (I also own the Aria and it too is fantastic.) The RX has 8 custom modes and can do spot or center weighted metering, while the Aria, as you know includes the matrix mode. The RX is a quieter camera than the Aria and you definetly get a sense of heft and solidity with the all metel RX. I simply love this camera and when ever the oportunity arises I love saying so. By the way I like the DFI capability. While it doesn't function in low light situations it works just fine -- it is more accurate than my eyesight. Good luck to you.

Thanks Vincent. How large is the RX compared to, say, a Nikon F100 or F5 -- is it a bear?

 

Also, in what way does the RX differ from the Contax ST, other than DFI and a slower flash synch speed?

Yes, the RX (well ANY Contax body) is a wonderful piece of equipment to use. It will certainly feel far heavier than your Aria. I have a 167MT as my backup and that is also a joy to use.

 

The major difference between the RX and the RX II is that by dropping the DFI (Digital Focus Indicator) from the RX II they were able to make the viewfinder that much brighter. Apart from that, I understand that they are essentially the same.

Hi Cliff,

<p>

I have the RXII and love it. I feels great in the hands. I used to have an Aria but that felt too light so I upraded to the RXII. No regrets. I have read that the shutter is not as quiet as the original RX but I don't find the noise a problem.

<p>

For a comparison of Contax SLRs (current and discontinued) check out this <a href="http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html" > site.</a> (Look under the section on Camera Reviews)

<p>

Hope this helps,

<p>

Stuart

What Vincent said. I love my RX. Feels perfect and solid in my hand. Other SLRs I've owned and did not like as much: Pentax K1000, Nikon FE2, FM2, N60, N70, F80s. Those cameras were good, especially the FE2 and FM2 but for solid feel, low vibration shutter and balanced weight the RX is hard to beat. <p>Richard<br><a href="http://www.contaximages.com">The Contax Images site - www.contaximages.com</a>

Thanks -- a few questions:

 

1. How does the RX or RXII compare to the ST, the specs of which look similar aside from flash synch speed (ST is faster) and DFI (RX only)?

 

2. Does anyone actually sell the RXII in the U.S.?

 

3. How enormous and heavy is the RX? I am used to the Nikon FE and Contax Aria and know that the RX will be substantially bigger, but is it a giant like the big pro Nikons like the F4 and F5?

 

Thanks.

Cliff, see this link for a short, but good RX vs. ST discussion:<p>

 

<a href="http://www.cdegroot.com/photo/contax/faq/">http://www.cdegroot.com/photo/contax/faq/</a><br>(scroll down for the RX vs. ST part)

Cliff this is copied from the above mentioned site (c deGroot's excellent site):

 

"ST and RX

Q: What is your opinion concerning the Contax RX? How does it compare to the ST?

 

A: I don't own the RX myself, but I tried one for several days. I have the ST which I bought before the RX came out. If you compare those two models, each camera has something the other hasn't, so it's up to the customer to decide which one would satisfy the wishes more.

 

The RX has the focus/DOF-indicator. When I used it I found out that it is more or less useless in everyday photography, because it is very slow. In the time the indicator needs to react, the object you want to photograph (if it is living) moves already out of focus. On the other hand I do a lot of reproduction and scale model photography, and there the indicator of focus and Depth-of-field is much more exact than any split-field or micro-prism could be. The same would be valid for macro work, so if you do things like that (and tripod work generally), you would be very happy with the RX. If you prefer street scenes, travel, action, portrait etc., the RX's focus indicator might not be reason enough to spend the money.

The RX has custom functions. You can choose the working mode of the AE-lock, the automatic bracketing function and the option to let the film-leader stay out of the cartridge after rewinding. Additionally, the RX has a double-exposure function. It always disturbed me that a so-called "semi-professional" camera like the Contax ST doesn't offer these possibilities.

The RX is quieter. This might be a subjective point, because the technical data says that the ST is a very quiet camera measured in dB(A). But in fact the level of noise is not so relevant when it comes to the individual sound of the noise. The ST's winder has a whining sound which I find annoying, much more apparent than the 167MT or even the 137MA. The RX's winder sounds smoother.

But on the other hand there are some points for the ST, too:

 

The ST has a faster shutter. The 1/6000 over 1/4000 is not so important as the 1/200 flash sync over 1/125.

The ST has the unique ceramic film pressure plate which promises a better flatness and is less likely to be scratched or damaged by dust.

The materials used in the ST are at some points better than those of the RX, but the overall material quality of the RX still is far ahead of 90% of the current camera market.

The ST makes use of standard AAA batteries you can buy all around the world, the RX needs a more expensive and lithium cell which might not be obtainable everywhere.

In Europe the price of the RX and the ST is the same, but I heard that the RX is cheaper in the States, so if I considered all, I might buy the RX. "

I can answer the 3rd question. It is somewhat like a F4 without the battery grip at about 400g lighter.

I used to own Aria, RX, ST, RTS III, and used RX II. RX is about as big and heavy as an F100 (or a little smaller). The things I specifically liked RX are DFI and quieter shutter. RX II is basically a simplified RX. ST is roughly the same weight as RX, but only a little bigger than an Aria. Compared to RX, ST has higher sync speed and maybe more accurate metering. As my experience, RX balances perfectly with 85mm f1.4. However, if you do not mind the extra weight and cost, I'd highly suggest you to get a RTS III.

ihave had the RX for three years and during that time is has proved itself as a very robust, very reliable camera. I have dropped the thing a few times onto concrete and apart from the prism leaping out of its place -no damage done. Built as good as the nikonF5 or canonEOS1V without the autofocus. High eyepoint viewfinder with diopter adjustment and lightshield for timed exposures... specs are great with the DFI assistance, zero shuttershake/vibration and custom functions leading the way. Expensive rubber covering is far superior AND ergonomically safer that other pro-cameras... Took the camera around japan in tropical heatwave and typhoons...no problems -although everything else was soaking. When i bought into the system it was a toss-up between RX/zeiss lenses or leica R4/lenses but i found Contax specs much better;camera bodies lighter than leicaR-system (by a tonne!) and lenses cheaper/higher sharpness- eg leica 50mm1.4 is 500pounds+ second hand compared with 70pounds for the Zeiss planar 50mm1.4.

My RX is getting refurbished -can't wait to get it back.

<p>Cliff, what did you end up doing with all this input?<br>

BTW, Vince, I normally question the logic of copying and pasting text from other pages, but since DeGroot's site no longer exists it turns out to be a very good idea!</p>

<p>I bought an RX cheap a few months ago, as Contax prices have been coming down recently (probably since many are no longer officially supported repair-wise.)<br>

I normally dislike SLRs, but the RX is very nice. It strikes me as a luxury camera, with controls thoughtfully placed, nice contours and a good heft. With slide film (like Velvia) and Carl Zeiss glass, the results took my breath away - absolutely stunning colors and bokeh.<br>

Operation is quite easy and straight forward. The shutter is not too loud- certainly quieter than the Contax S2 (which was similar to the Pentax K-1000.)<br>

With a zoom or long focal length lens on it, the camera can become quite heavy. I used it with a Sonnar 135/2.8 and my arm became tired after half a roll. Maybe I need to work out more?</p>

<p>Would be perfection if they had put the on/off switch on a separate lever from the AEL lever. When I turn off the AEL I often inadvertently turn off the camera (I get too excited sometimes).</p>

<p>Other than that, yeah, luxury....</p>

<p>Bumping this thread. I shot with a Contax Aria for a while before I went digital and I want to start shooting a little 35 and using my lenses again. My Aria was put through daily pro use a few years ago. It's got some film advance issues and with a tet roll it seems that everything I shot at 1.4 is focused just a tad behind the actual focal point. <br /><br />Looking at RTS3/RX/ST all online. Not sure what to get still, I may just grab a Contax 139 or something for the interim, but I do want ttl with my tla360.<br>

<br />Any Contax users still on the forums?</p>

<p>Yeah, we're lurking. ;)<br>

I too am about to revisit film -- though local labs are almost all closed.<br>

If you can find a clean 139Q, it's a fine platform for your Zeiss glass albeit without the sophistication to fully optimize the TLA360.<br>

The RX may be my 'favorite' Contax SLR body. Easy to use, quiet and very flexible. The complexity of RTSIII has always put me off, especially the vacuum back.</p>