OT: Nikon 35Ti or a Hexar better than a Contax T2? or Leica alternative?

[rich815]

I have a nice Contax T2. However, I may have a good opportunity at

getting a Nikon 35Ti or Konica Hexar at a good price. Would either

one of those be that much better than my T2? Or is there a Leica

P&S alternative I should consider?

 

I ask on this forum since in my experience it seems most Leica nuts

have at least one very decent P&S camera as well and usually it's

one of these types.

 

Thanks.

[andyaitken]

I'd say the Hexar is the best but it's also much bigger that the others. I once tested the other 2 and the Leica Minilux against each other and liked the Nikon the best - but it was very close. Of course there is now the Leica CM which in many ways could be considered an improved Minilux but it pretty pricey by comparison.

 

Personally, I'd stick with the T2.

[icuneko]

All these options are good, or very good. The Hexar AF, however, is the

only one offering manual exposure control, if that matters to you.

[les_lammers]

The CM has manual exposure.

[jtk]

IIF. :-)

[andrew_hall1]

http://www.photo.net/equipment/point-and-shoot/konica-hexar

 

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/hexar.html

 

The Hexar's hot shoe, f/2 lens and filter thread are its biggest advantages. OTOH, the 1/250 top shutter speed calls for an ND filter.

 

The other candidates offer Av mode along with exposure compensation, if not completely manual control.

[prime lens]

Fans of the T2 are very enthusiastic about its optics, but it has a squinty viewfinder and only an approximate readout of the shutter speed. I don't think it has full manual focusing.

 

However, the 35Ti is probably so close in optical quality as to be equivalent, and has some unique advantages: full manual focusing (or passive contrast-sensing autofocus), aperture-priority AE or programmed AE with program shift, LCD shutter-speed readout in the large, bright illuminated finder, 2 sets of accurate parallax lines that light up at closer focusing distances, spot-on 3D Matrix metering, and the ultra-cool analog chronometer dial readouts.

 

The 35Ti is bigger than the T2, but still "pocketable" (in a big pocket). It's a lot smaller than the Hexar AF, and has a 1/500 shutter speed (as well as f/22 minimum aperture and ISO 1600). The 35Ti has good depth-of-field at its closest focusing distance of 1.2 feet at f/4 and above. At f/2.8, the DOF is a bit small at the closest focusing distance.

 

The well-known Achilles heel of the 35TI is the little flash buttons you have to hold awkwardly to force the flash-on or flash-off modes (although you can set the camera to a constant flash-off mode via the highly opaque menus, which require the highly-opaque manual to set). The flash is oriented toward fill-flash applications. I have had very good life with its CR123A batteries.

 

I got fewer ruined shots in 1-1/2 years of actively using mine than I probably have with any other film camera. It produces exceptionally bright and vivid colors. While the bokeh does not keep up with my 40/2 M-Rokkor (CLE), or even the 40/3.5 Zeiss Tessar on my Rollei 35, it is only very rarely objectionable.

 

Mine is also still for sale, with the eyepiece diopter adapter, case, strap and manual. I got it from KEH in "LN-" condition, and it has suffered very little in the interim. There's hardly a more beautiful camera in the history of photography (except maybe a Leica CM, or certainly an M2 or M3).

 

-- Steve

[raymond_tai]

I have used most of these luxury P&S' mentioned and recommend the Minilux. As a Leica

user I find the contrast and tonal qualities of the Minilux Summarit (?) closely match Leica

lenses. It is really like getting a Leica lens in a small package. Prices have dropped since the

CM but IMHO the Minilux is all around superior to the CM save the CM has better

ergonomics with the finder to the left while the Minilux is wayyyyyy better built.

[mostly sports]

Be happy with your T2. It has a great viewfinder and a great lens. I regret selling mine. The

Minilux is bigger and the viewfinder is not as good, although the lens might be a tad better. I

can make great 11X14s from my Contax negatives. For that matter, the Yashica T4 was

almost as good as the Contax. Just a little softer in the corners. If you decide you want to get

rid of that T2, let me know. :+

[nasmformyzombie]

The Contax T2 arguably has the best lens, or at least equal to that of the Hexar AF. The Hexar is a much larger and heavier camera, if this matters to you. I know nothing about the Nikon, except I believe according to tests I saw some time ago, its lens is not the equal of the aforementioned. Leica nuts? Any of the Leica offerings will be much higher in price. It's the Leica way. :)

[andrew_hall1]

>Fans of the T2 are very enthusiastic about its optics, but it has a squinty viewfinder and only an approximate readout of the shutter speed. I don't think it has full manual focusing.

 

You don't know what "squinty" means until you have used LTM Leicas, Contax RFs or folders.

 

The T2 has optional scale focus with electronic assist. http://www.kiwi-us.com/~mizusawa/penguin/CAMERA/manual/T2manual_e.shtml

[andrew_hall1]

>the Minilux is all around superior to the CM save the CM has better ergonomics with the finder to the left while the Minilux is wayyyyyy better built.

 

...along with the infamous, costly E02 error.

[john15]

The Summarit on the Minilux is a superb lens but what about this frequently reported problem with the EO2 error message which seems to mean that the shutter must be replaced?

[MTC Photography]

The Contax T3 has a recomputed six element 35mm/2.8 Sonnar lens, better than

the 38mm/2.8 on Contax T2. Beside T3 is also smaller.

[rich815]

Thanks for all the comments and thoughts people. I knew this was the right group to ask. Seems I'll see little to any improvement to the T2 except perhaps in the personal ergonomic front but that's a very personal choice. I'll keep the T2 for now and let the others go. The 35Ti I could have gotten was under $250 and the Hexar (in sort of user condition but working with good glass) about $300 or so. The T2 I got for only $150 so I'll count my blessings and use that with abandon! thanks again. :-)

[icuneko]

<The CM has manual exposure.>

 

The following are from Leica's website for the CM:

 

"Exposure operating modes: Automatic program, optional flash activation (also in back lit situations), aperture-preferred

automatic exposure, pre-light to reduce redeye effect; Slow (slow shutter speeds); Flash OFF; Slow with synchronization at the end of the exp.

 

Exposure system: Automatic program mode with automatic exposure control, option of flash activation (also for against-the-light exposures) and aperture priority with aperture preselection

 

Focusing modes: Autofocus, manual focusing"

 

It seems from this it has only manual focusing.

[icuneko]

Sorry, my last line above should read, "It seems from this it has manual focusing, not manual exposure control."

[michael_bach2]

The Konica Hexar AF is a wery wery good camera, but I think most of the cameraes on you

list will give you good images. The flash system on the Hexar is wery nice too (rear curtin

sync)

 

Tjek my web site 90% of the photos is don with the Konica Hexar AF.

 

www.micbach.dk..........."Photography workshops in Spain"

[skip_williams]

I've had a T2 for many years and had a very nice Hexar AF at the same time before it got sold. In the end, The T2's ergonomics and quality were too nice to give up, especially it's size. The Hexar's lens was nicer, being 1 stop faster and a Summicron clone, but I found myself wanting more with the large size of the Hexar. For that size/weight, I hankered for a Leica M and went that route. I miss the silent, stealth mode of the Hexar, which was neat. OTOH, I found the tiny control buttons very "fiddley" and cryptic.

 

The T2 DOES have a sort of manual focusing. You can turn the top-mounted dial and the camera will indicate in-focus via the green focus confirmation light in the finder. It's not perfect, but it's not scale focusing, per say.

 

The lens on the T2 is superb and the prints always stand out with that camera. I can't see anything in that size being practically superior, especially with the great looks of the T2.

 

I'd keep it and never look back, especially at $150!

 

Skip

[icuneko]

<The Hexar's lens was nicer, being 1 stop faster and a Summicron clone,>

 

The Hexar AF's lens is not a Summicron clone. See this site:

http://www.xitek.com/info/showarticle.php?page=2&id=320

 

It shows this lens is more akin to the old, Nikon 35 1.8 rangefinder lens and the more recent Hexanon LTM limited-edition 35 f2.

 

However, it does produce smooth bokeh similar to the Summicrons,

thus the erroneous and ongoing comparison.

[cliff_gallup]

I have the Contax T3 and the Hexar AF. I have not conducted rigorous testing, but my impressions are that (i) colors are rendered with greater warmth and saturation by the T3, (ii) the Hexar lens is a bit sharper, and (iii) black and white images with the Hexar look distinctive and Leica-like. I trust the Hexar more and prefer the look of the images I get. The T3 is great for its size, but I think the Hexar is a cut above, flawed only by the maximum shutter speed of 1/250th. It's bigger, but it's not nearly as heavy as, say, an M6.