Nikon F2 vs Contax RTS III to utilize Carl Zeiss lenses

I want to buy some CZ lenses (35mm, 50mm and a short tele)

 

If I use Contax system, I will buy COntax RTS III to get 100% viewfinder coverage.

 

I love to have a Nikon F2, but Carl Zeiss ZF lenses are just not so cheap.

 

Which system should I go into? a Nikon F2 or a Contax RTS III in term of usage feeling, hand holding feeling and shooting experience?

Which system should I go into? a Nikon F2 or a Contax RTS III in term of usage feeling, hand holding feeling and shooting experience?

 

- Does it really matter?

Nearly all high-end 35mm film cameras worked equally well, and had the equal handicap of using cruddy 35mm film!

 

An RTS iii is going to be 'younger' and therefore maybe stand a better chance of being in good order, but the F2 is also a well-made and reliable camera. However, F2 metering finders can be a bit inaccurate or totally broken these days, and spare parts are no longer available. Try before you buy.

 

IMO you'd be wasting your money buying new Zeiss ZF glass just to put on a film camera.

Edited November 10, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

I originally bought Zeiss lenses for Digital Nikon. When I went back to film, I could still see a difference. I post film pictures with Nikon and Zeiss on film camera week in classic manual camera forums.

Well, I have an RTS III and I love it for the ergonomics, BUT the RTS electronics on many of the cameras is fragile these days and there are really no spare parts available. My RTS III had an electronics issue with the viewfinder electronics (very very common) and it took me a year to track down a part and my tech told me to treat it carefully because I probably wouldn't be able to repair it again.

 

The RTS I and II seem to be the most fragile, some others are better. That's a shame because the RTS I is a great and pretty light machine. My Aria is a bit more "plastic feeling" but it's a great camera and I haven't had a problem of any kind with it.

 

That said, as I said, I love the way the RTS III looks and feels (though it is heavy) and if you have the carrying capacity to carry it along with those heavy big lenses, you'll certainly get some good pictures. Just don't pay too much for it and don't be TOO disappointed if you develop a fault. Note that my fault was really cosmetic and I could have continued shooting. The faults that took down my RTS I and II were NOT cosmetic and the metering was totally unable to calculate the exposure.

I have both the Nikon F2as with ai metering and the FM2n that also has ai metering. They are nice companion camera bodies.

Just an FYI - you can also use the Zeiss lenses designed for the Contax system (C/Y) on Yashica bodies - which, although not quite as elegant as the Contax bodies, may be easier to find and a lot less expensive.

Just an FYI - you can also use the Zeiss lenses designed for the Contax system (C/Y) on Yashica bodies - which, although not quite as elegant as the Contax bodies, may be easier to find and a lot less expensive.

I know there are many other options. But after studying quite a while, I narrow down to those only two cameras.

It is difficult to explain, but I am looking for the characteristics of the equipment.

Like, It will be much easier if I buy Zeiss ZK lenses, or ZS lenses because I am using m42 and Pentax K system. Or I can mount ZE lenses on my Canon digital.

Or I even don't need to buy anything because the lenses from these systems are very good performers already.

I know there are many other options. But after studying quite a while, I narrow down to those only two cameras.

 

Trust me when I say that I understand the aspect of liking/enjoying using a particular camera body.

 

With that said, film cameras are the epitome of the "light tight box" definition of a camera, and provided that the lens mount is sturdy and parallel to the film plane, the film is held flat, and the shutter is accurate the results from a Nikon EM can be identical to those from an F2, and the results from a Yashica FX-3 can be identical to those from a Contax S2.

 

We're not talking about adapted lenses-the Contax mount lenses are native on the Yashica C/Y mount cameras(like the FX-3, although there are plenty of others) and you can get away without the huge markup on cameras like the Contax S2 or the unreliability of the RTS III.

If you care only about Zeiss lenses then you're much better compare the Zeiss lenses made for Contax and the Zeiss ZF lenses. Their performance may be quite different.

I wonder why you like the RTS III which has electronically controlled shutter but pick the F2 which is fully mechanical instead of another Nikon body.

There are excellent Yashica ML lenses in the later Contax mount for much less money. FWIW

Just to talk about the RTS III a bit. It has a built-in winder that allows you to use either the lithium 2CR5 batteries or 6 AAs (which is handy if a little heavier). It can be told to leave the leader out of the cartridge when rewinding, which is very handy for me. It has a data back (at least mine does) which writes in the space between frames. It has flash metering (which I used once in a model shoot). It has the pressure place vacuum system to hold the film flat against the pressure plate. It is capable of handing infrared film without fogging it (though I did cover up the film window, probably not necessary). And the ergnomics are really really nice, lots of nice easy to use dials, good grippy material on the outside, easy to hold, and so on. If you get one with good electronics, it's a sweet camera to use.