Contax T3 - User Comments, Discussion (PART 2)

[efrank]

In case anyone hasn't heard: Contax will be having a national "Contax

Day" the weekend of Nov. 9th. For my own personal edification: is

the discount limited to 10%, or is a greater discount available

anywhere reputable? Thanks.

[tony1]

Hi All!,

 

<p>

 

Got my first roll print back! Very pleased with the result. I already

posted some of the images on the net.

 

<p>

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=156914

 

<p>

 

However, this photos shows very obvious flare and makes me wonder

whats the point of using the lens shade. No difference at all.

I shoot directly at the sun.

This one is taken with shade and uv filter:

http://www.photo.net/photo/402520

 

<p>

 

This is without the shade and uv filter:

http://www.photo.net/photo/402523

 

<p>

 

I like this photo but the foreground is too dark Can anyone advise me

what settings for my xposure to use?

http://www.photo.net/photo/402526

 

<p>

 

Thanks!

[armand]

Hi Tony,

 

<p>

 

You sure got a nice view from your balcony :-) Regarding

metering: where did you point at and what did you decide to

underexpose with EV -1/3 ? If you meter the darker part AND the

lighter part, you can start with something in the middle and then

do some more exposures, +/- EV 1/3, +/- EV 2/3. How does your

nagative look, did you scan from negative or from a photo ?

 

<p>

 

Armand

[andrew_schank]

A hood will never be of any use at all if the sun is actually in the

picture. Hoods only shade the elemeents if the sun is out of the

image off to the side. Shooting into the sun requires at least 3

stops of + compensation if you want any detail anywhere but the sky.

That is a very small amount of flare for shooting into the sun, by

the way. Try doing that with a zoom lens.

[jay_goldman]

Tony,

Look very carefully at your negatives. The printer may have

printed dark, even if the exposure is much better.

[tony1]

Thanks guys!

 

<p>

 

I need to clarify that the scanner is not so good and cannot capture

the full glory of the photo.

 

<p>

 

I tried using -1/3 exposure without any meter. I am inexperience in

this exposure compensation stuffs. My reasoning is that, most of the

background looks dark because the sky is getting very dark. Hence, i

decide to underexpose it because i think that the camera itself will

tend to overexpose due to the dark foreground thus making the sky

overexpose.

 

<p>

 

I should have tried bracketing. but again, in 1 mins time, the sky

will look very different.

 

<p>

 

I already put on a new roll of film and this time i will do

bracketing.

 

<p>

 

My scanner tends to make the scan picture looks darker, also, due to

the compression to jpeg format, most details are gone too. hence look

quite grainy.

 

<p>

 

Tony

[armand]

I just found out that German filtermaker Heliopan has a huge

assortment of filters, stepping rings and hoods that might fit the

T3 and can be an alternative to the original accessories.

Heliopan has collapsible rubber hoods in 24 and 25.5mm and

also stepping rings FROM 24 - 25.5 - 27 - 28 TO 30.5mm. They

also have filters and lens caps (!) in these small sizes.

 

<p>

 

Does anyone know the diameter of the original thread on the T3,

so BEFORE the adapter ring ? I suppose it's one of the

'standard' sizes........

[tony1]

But is heliopan filter of good quality? Its like i have a pair of

extremely good eye but when i put on a lousy sunglass, whatever i see

will be suck too.

 

<p>

 

Hoya is value for money but they do not have 30.5mm polarizer which

is multicoated(they only have single coated).

 

<p>

 

The next best will be B+W filters, though it is very expensive.

[tony1]

I bought the kinetronics 'staticWisk' , an anti-static brush, to

clean my lens.

 

<p>

 

I have search most of the camera shops here and it is very difficult

to find a polarizer filter which is:

 

<p>

 

1. 30.5mm and,

2. Multi-coated and,

3. Good quality(like b+w, hoya)

 

<p>

 

I give up.

[armand]

Tony,

 

<p>

 

If you have real good eyes (that 's why you buy a Contax isn't it :-)

) stick to B+W or Heliopan for filters. Both are equal in quality.

Value for money is a marketing term and has nothing to do with

absolute quality. Even the T3 is no value for money but that's not

the reason we buy these things... The glass for the Heliopan

filters comes from Schott, the same glass manufacturer as Carl

Zeiss uses. Heliopan has filters smaller than 30.5 mm so you

do not need the adapter. Use your good eyes and measure it for

me please :-o

 

<p>

 

best regards,

Armand

[john_mccormack]

Re:

>My T3 seems to be occasionally scratching the film, usually around

>negative number 25, and usually on one to two frames only. It happens

>on about one out of every three rolls I shoot.

 

<p>

 

I'm having the same problem. Just got a roll of Supra 400 back and

frames 35 and 36 have horizontal scratches on the negatives. This

image shows a crop of the frame 35:

http://www.photo.net/photo/406780

 

<p>

 

I suspect the rollers on the platen cause this. Anyone else having

this probelm? Some folks who use the Ricoh GR1 have also noted this

problem and think it may be caused by film with a thick base/emulsion

(Supra is one, I think.)

[kwen_wan4]

Hi Tony

 

<p>

 

on your T3 pics

http://www.photo.net/photo/402550

 

<p>

 

the top left and right hand side of the picture has a slight

darkening,

is that the T3 lens or something in the way?

e.g. window frame

[philip_bonner]

Of all the daylight scenic pictures with sky shown only the one has

darkening in the corners. Therefore this could very well be

natural light clouding.

[nick_recob]

I read earlier someone had used their Metz 34CS2 in slave mode with

their Contax T3 as the T3's flash performance is less than stellar.

Any more technical info i.e.,what settings for the T3? P mode?

Apertures based on the GN of the Metz flash etc. etc. Thanks.

[robert goldstein]

I'm interested in the black T3, but I'd like some information about

the finish. Is it painted and likely to chip or some sort of

anodized metal?

 

<p>

 

Rob

[nick_recob]

Rob,

 

<p>

 

I have the black one. It's not painted black (and will not chip).

It's titanium nitride? I'm not sure what it is, but the titanium has

undergone some chemical process to make it black and even harder--

don't worry about scratching the black off--I don't think that will

happen unless you take a grinder to it!

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

I'm interested in the black T3, but I'd like some information about

the finish. Is it painted and likely to chip or some sort of anodized

metal?

Rob

 

<p>

 

-- Robert Goldstein (robgo2@earthlink.net), October 26, 2001.

[tony1]

Kwen: I think it is some metal bars which is out of focus.

[tony1]

Hi all!

 

<p>

 

I just realized how sharp the T3 zeiss lens is! Look at this folder

photos which is a sunset shot. The first one is with the exposure on

the scanner adjusted, and u can see the trees at the fore ground! The

one on right is the scan with auto exposure by the scanner and is the

same printout that I have, u can see the foreground is very dark.

These 2 photos are the same shot in a dark evening!

 

<p>

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=158925

 

<p>

 

I love my T3!

 

<p>

 

Tony

[john_mccormack]

Hi Tony,

 

<p>

 

Your comparsion shots with the scanner adjustment reminded me of a

neat trick for blending two images (shot at different exposures) when

the exposure range of different parts of the image exceed 7 or 8

stops. This works best when shooting slide film. Go to:

 

<p>

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/blended_exposures.htm

[ah]

Hello everyody,,, The past couple months I've been looking to

replace my second stylus epic. Went to the store looking for the

Yashica T4 by recommendation when I saw the T3--needless to

say I fell in love but the price was high enough I decided to

wait...since Ive been researching cameras of this type to get the

most for my money..I believe I've narrowed my choice down to

the T3 or the Leica minilux zoom---can anyone with experience

comment on the differences between these two machines--I

realize the Leica has a zoom lens but wonder if the quality is

really markedly inferior...from the the raving reviews I've read of

the Leica it seems to be on par with the T3--your comments are

greatly appreciated, thanks...AH

[nick_recob]

Minilux or T3?

 

<p>

 

Adam, I don't know if it's true or not, but I've heard the Minilux is

actually made by Minolta not Leica! My source is a person who has

been in the camera retailing business for 7+ years. Finally, I own a

black T3 and I have to say its incredible...the build quality, the

images it produces, it's portability, durability (I could go on and

on).Good luck with whatever you choose.

[john_mccormack]

Re: T3 or Minilux Zoom

 

<p>

 

I don't think it matters who makes the camera as long as the quality

is there. The Minilux Zoom has a fine lens, perhaps on a par with the

T3, I don't know. The lens is slower (35 - 70mm f 3.5/6.5 Leica Vario

Elmar) but it's a relatively fast zoom for a point and shoot

camera fairly fast at the wide end but a little too slow at the long

end.

 

<p>

 

The maximum shutter speed of 1/250s is slow by current standards - and

much slower than the T3 or fixed lens Minilux (f/2.4). I owned a

Minilux but sold it for the T3 because the size of the T3 is more to

my liking and the custom functions are great. The fixed lens Minilux

has a better flash and a bit faster lens than the T3. The Minilux does

take accept a cable release; I wish the T3 did.

 

<p>

 

Make sure you can live with the viewfinder on the Minilux; it's quite

small and some find it very frustrating.

[tony1]

I have bought the HOYA circular polarizer for the T3. Its fits well

to the adapter(screw). The only problem is that it doesn't have the

white marking , which larger sizes Hoya polarizer has which is to be

pointed to ther direction of the sun in order to get max polarization.

 

<p>

 

hence have to look thru it by eye then adjust accordingly when attach

to the T3.

 

<p>

 

What is the usual filter factor for a polarizer with the max

polarization? i was told that it is 2 full stop.

[tony1]

I have got back my second roll print. Interesting, in extreme

situations, there is vignetting. With the lens shade, there is also

vignetting though it does not neccessarily reduce the amount of

vignetting. Hence I think it is not a neccessary to get the lens

shade.

 

<p>

 

Also, the use of the uv filter reduce the amount of 'blueness' in the

sky, slightly but noticable.

 

<p>

 

Will scan the photos tomorrow.

[nikitatuan_nguyen]

Tony et al -

 

<p>

 

Which type polarizer (linear or circular) is required for the T3?

 

<p>

 

BTW, I have the SA-2 bracket & the TLA-200 flash, which when attached

still looks compact. One can attach the bracket and flash leisurely

in 1 minute. After a few test shots, my photos indicated that the

recommended range of the built-in flash (in the user manual) is on

the conservative side. With 200 speed film, at 7ft (or the far end of

the built-in flash's range) my subject's face was unpleasantly washed-

out. Maybe another 2-3 foot would give it a more balanced color. The

TLA-200 is sufficient w/100 film and quite capable w/400 film. With

either flash, there was NO hint of red-eye. :~)

 

<p>

 

Niki