which equipment to choose? switch from contax t2 to digital

<p>hi,<br /> it came to several interesting themes during the several last threads. Still I am in search for the right equipment.<br /> my standard ist has been contax t2. i will need to switch to a camera which comes very close to the technical aspects of this camera and the lens but which is digital. please enter this thread if you can relate to the optical workings of the Contax T2. Please no general and only quite serious answers. I am doing research on a most perfectly euivalent to this camera since quite a while and am very sincere about it. Still, I am a beginner and haven't yet found the right solution.<br /> please also have a look at new pictures as for example these three by the photographer Wolfgang Tillmans who has switched from analogue Contax to a Digital Camera in his new series :<br /><br /></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am doing research on a most perfectly euivalent to this camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll say it right upfront, I have never used a Contax T2 or seen one in the flesh, but I too started out with one particular film camera that I used for many, many years, and was very attached to. If it wasn't for digital technology coming along, I'd still be happily shooting with that camera. I spend considerable time and effort looking for a digital equivalent, and learned in that process that there never is one. Due to various aspects such as instant feedback and negligible cost per shutter click, the digital image capturing process is inherently different from the same process involving film. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever produced a camera that is available in a digital as well as a film version, but otherwise identical. I think there is a reason for that.</p>

<p>In summary, looking for a perfect digital replacement for any film camera will inherently lead to disappointment. If you want to enjoy digital photography, put the Contax T2 out of your mind for a moment, pick up a digital camera that appeals to you for whatever reason, and start using it. </p>

<p>If using a Contax T2 is vital for your image taking, because you are only comfortable with this camera, working with it inspires you, or whatever, then use a T2. If you need digital output, scan the negatives or slides. Sure, it's more work than using a digital camera, but you have to do what it takes.</p>

<p>Best of luck!</p>

<p>thanks for your honest response. i think i get your point. <br>

guys, please only answer if you can. please lets be profound on this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever produced a camera that is available in a digital as well as a film version</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Leica made an SLR with both film and digital backs.</p>

<p>i see. so?</p>

<p>In terms of size, fixed lens, good quality optics I would suggest the Fuji X100. But I am not sure exactly which aspects of your current camera you consider most inportant.</p>

<p>The Leica SLR solution is very pricy and there were only about 5000 of the digital backs made...most are now 8 yrs or so old. You can still find a DMR back occasionally on Ebay, but they tend to run around $2k, add the camera body at $500-1k, and then start thinking about the lenses...generally $800 & up/per lens. Recently, Leica announced its latest full frame digital rangefinder, and is now taking orders...I believe it starts (without a lens) at around $6k, and you can get a 35mm Leica film equivalent (less lenses) for around $1-2k - both manual focus, of course. I don't know of other high quality film and digital point & shoot equivalents on the market. </p>

<p>Since the lens is what most people atribute their likes to you could check out fitting your T2 lens to a M4/3 camera. Trouble here is the lens will have a narrower angle of view to what you are used to. A brief search at Wiki suggests to me that the T2 is a Yashica camera bearing the Contax name? My reference page gives a lensmount-film distance of 45.5mm which means only 4/3 or M4/3 cameras [et al]can carry adaptors to use the lens. </p>

<p>If the OP values the physical size of his Contax and wants something comparable, no DSLR will fit the bill. What size prints do you contemplate making with the replacement?</p>

<p>Philip, so far all of your questions to the Beginner and other forums have been to ask how to make photos like other well known photographers - Wolfgang Tillmans, Richard Kern, Seiichi Furuya - or which camera they're using, etc.</p>

<p>Most of those types of photos can be taken with almost any kind of camera. In some cases when very large prints are desired a medium format or large format film camera or higher megapixel digital camera may be more appropriate.</p>

<p>Otherwise, it doesn't matter as much as just choosing a camera and taking photos. Study lighting, composition, posing of models. Take a workshop with a photographer who has experience in the type of photography you'd like to pursue.</p>

<p>But nothing matters more than just choosing one good camera that fits your budget and getting started.</p>

<p>Incidentally, for what it's worth, when Terry Richardson switched from film cameras comparable to your Contax T2 - notably the Yashica T4 with 35mm lens - to digital, he used the Ricoh GR Digital III extensively for awhile. Now he's using a Panasonic Lumix Micro 4/3 more often, as well as "full frame" dSLRs for some assignments.</p>

<p>The Ricoh GR Digital is an outstanding camera of its type. However it is rather expensive for the features offered, due in part to being of top notch construction with no compromises. If you won't feel constrained by the 28mm equivalent lens (actually 6mm but equivalent to 28mm focal length in terms of 35mm film) and the tiny sensor, you might like it. It also offers excellent pop-up flash - the results are remarkably good looking for a built-in flash.</p>

<p>If you browse <a href="http://www.terrysdiary.com/">Richardson's photo blog</a> using a browser with an EXIF data plug-in, you can easily see which camera he's used for a particular photo. Generally over the past year he's relegated the GRD III to more casual snaps while out around town, or backstage with musicians, but has used the Lumix more often in the studio.</p>

<p>However in the pocket camera category the best at any price right now may be the Sony RX-100, with the larger CX sensor and a good zoom lens. I haven't tried it personally and I'd want to handle it first and try the flash before deciding - the soap bar body design looks slippery to me so I'd probably add some rubber tape to give it a better grip. I'm also leaning toward the Nikon 1 Series - J1/J2 or V1 - also with the CX sensor.</p>

<p>The Contax T2, a handsome, well built and small 35mm camera. That's pretty much sum up all of its attributes. I don't know which characteristics of the T2 that you really want for your photography. Excuse me for not even taking a look at the photographs that you mentioned as photographs depend on the photographer and not the camera. <br>

In fact just about any digital camera available today could do the job of the T2 very well.</p>

<p>thanks for your opinion.</p>

<p>In a sense, you can't find a digital equivalent because the T2 is full frame, with a 38mm F2.8 lens and it is a pocket camera. I don't think we will have a digital version of that anytime soon.</p>

<p>I got a mint T2 for a very very cheap price, but I didn't see any performance gain compared to my Yashica GSN. So I sold it. I believe the buyer was as much happy as I was when I sold it to him </p>

<p>Sony RX-1 comes close (more or less pocket size, 35mm f/2 lens, full frame sensor). But it's not going to be cheap.</p>

<p>It's still a guess, though. The OP does not state what exact features of the Contax T2 are very important, and which not, and there is no indication of a budget - so honestly, a Canon Ixus could also be a right answer maybe. So, Philip, if you want serious answers, be far more explicit about how you currently use your Contax T2, what exact characteristics you value very high, which not, and which features the new camera must have, and most of all how much money you are willing to spend. As long as you cannot give us clear information like that, you should not complain if answers are not to your liking.</p>

<p>I used the Contax T2 for several years and always liked the size and the high quality of the camera. In the digital world I choose the Olympus E-Pl 1 with the Panasonic 1.7/20mm (40mm equiv. in the 35mm world). The lens is very sharp and the combination only slightly larger than the T2. The major drawback is the lack of an optical viewfinder. I added the EVF-2 in those cases where the monitor is not sufficient for my needs.</p>

<p>I think that the Fuji X100 can very easily be thought of as a digital version of that camera, along with the Leica X2. Okay, they're not full frame, but why should that be a requirement? They're both very good cameras with amazing image quality, that translates to wonderful prints. Going by conjecture, the Sony RX1 will blow away the Contax in every way. So basically, here's my list of what cameras will give you at least similar results to the T2:<br>

-Fuji X100<br>

-Leica X2<br>

-Sony RX1<br>

And if you're willing to use interchangeable lens cameras, I'm not sure what your size vs image quality requirements are:<br>

-Sony NEX-5R or NEX-7 with the Sony-Zeiss 24mm f/1.8<br>

-Any micro 4/3 camera such as the Olympus E-M5 or Panasonic G5 with the upcoming Olympus 17mm f/1.8</p>

<p>I still have my Contax T2 even though I went digital years ago. It is simply too precious a camera to throw away. The feature that made this camera so great for me, is the Carl Zeiss lens. So what you want is a digital camera with a Zeiss lens if you want to get another compact or a DSLR that will match your T2. I would look at the Sony line of cameras as they are a major user of Zeiss lenses.</p>

<p>Danny Low</p>

 

<p> <br>

"I would look at the Sony line of cameras as they are a major user of Zeiss lenses."<br>

Hello, Danny, which Sony would you suggest here?</p>

<p>Looking at the Sony line-up it is clear that the lenses used may be designed by Zeiss but they are thoroughly modern designs - unlike the 5 element Sonnar of the Contax T2. The Sony RX1 lens for example is very coy about telling you how many elements are used but the description mentions that one element is aspherical. So not a traditional 5 element type Sonnar as found in the Contax T2 then. I suspect it will be very similar to the lens in the Fuji X100 which has 8 elements in 6 groups with one aspherical element. Remember that the name <em>Sonnar</em> as used by Zeiss although typically the 5 element type, also covered a number of different designs so is more a trade name than a specific lens design. The Vario-Sonnar zoom lenses in the other Sonys had better be a modern design as old zoom lenses are pretty dire.<br /> Two points : 1) while Carl Zeiss is a good name and you can expect above-average performance you will not necessarily get the same character of image as with the Contax T2. This is because the Sony / Zeiss lenses appear to be modern designs while the T2 lens was a modern take on the original 5 element Sonnar. 2) And as has been said a few times above, the biggest variable in any photographic system is you, the photographer, rather than the camera or lens. The biggest single thing you can do to make better images is to work to improve your photographic skills.<br /> </p>

<p>Philip</p>

<p>Are you looking for a compact like the Contax T2 or are you looking at a DSLR? The only reasonable choice for a compact Sony is the RX100. However their line of DSLRs has several models and there are several Zeiss lenses as well as Sony lenses for them. But they are not cheap. The T2 was an extraordinary low price camera for one with such a nice Zeiss lens.</p>

<p>BTW both Leica and Zeiss have stated in the past that what made their lenses extraordinary was not the lens design so much as the proprietary coatings they apply to the glass. Computers have enabled lens designers to design better lenses quicker but the coatings are still somewhat of a black art.</p>

<p>Danny </p>

<p>Hello Danny,<br>

yes, I am looking for digital compact which is comprarable to a contax t2 and their zeiss lenses (technically speaking).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>it may be good if there is a 35mm-size, full-frame image sensor with it. this is one of the basic characteristics needed.</p>

<p>Philip</p>

<p>It is not the size of the sensor so much as it is the resolution that matters. It is easier to design a sensor with a high resolution if it is full size but engineers have gotten very good at making APS size sensors that are excellent. The pattern is the higher resolution comes first in a full size sensor and is then implemented in the APS sensors in the next generation of APS sensors. So the fact that RX100 sensor is not full frame is not very important in this camera.</p>

<p>The RX100 has a 20MP resolution. This makes it equal to 35mm film. If you took the best 50mm lens and the best line resolution that lens could resolve using the finest grain film and calculate how many pixels it would take to record all the details, it would be approximately 16MP. So the RX100 has the resolution to be equivalent to a full frame 35mm film camera.</p>

<p>With digital, resolution is only one of many factors that affect picture quality. With film, the body was just a box to hold the lens and the film. The lens and the film determine the final quality of the photo. With digital, the sensor and the software that processes the sensor data is the "film". I would try to find a review of the RX100 if you really want to know the technical details of how well it processes the sensor data.</p>

<p>One big advantage of the RX100 is it shoots RAW. With a good photo editor such as Photoshop Elements, you can "develop" the sensor data yourself if you want to do the extra work. I do not know if you ever did darkroom work with film but a digital darkroom is so easy to use and can do so much more than traditional darkroom. There are even after market programs that can alter to RAW data to simulate the look of specific films. So if you like the pastel colors of Afgacolor, you can alter the images to look like they were taken with Afgacolor film.</p>

<p>Even if you do not want to do digital darkroom work, you can typically change the jpeg parameters in any advanced compact so the finished jpeg images are the way you want it.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Philip Buttmann - yes, I am looking for digital compact which is comprarable to a contax t2 and their zeiss lenses (technically speaking). it may be good if there is a 35mm-size, full-frame image sensor with it. this is one of the basic characteristics needed.</p>

<p>John Tran - In a sense, you can't find a digital equivalent because the T2 is full frame, with a 38mm F2.8 lens and it is a pocket camera. I don't think we will have a digital version of that anytime soon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with John, what you are looking for does not exist - and maybe never will. There is a reason for that - full frame sensor and compact camera are not a sensible match. The few people who really need a full frame sensor will happily carry a DSLR, which can be very compact with a single prime lens. The folks who prefer a compact camera would find one with a full frame sensor not compact enough, or the whole contraption would be too expensive. </p>