Contax S2B or Leica R6.2

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"what's so awful about Minolta?" <em><strong>Robin S.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing Robin, but when compared to the more sophisticated and bargain priced R5 and R7 cameras, it's simply<strong> overpriced</strong><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Contax being merely a brand name which never appeared on any lenses nor was it ever a manufacturer"<em><strong> Fred C.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well Fred, the lens caps that came with the lenses had a <strong>boldly stamped "CONTAX"</strong> on them; coupled to the fact that the mount is called a Yashica/"Contax" mount, I think the folks understand my reference.</p>

[lewis_henning]

<p>Thanks everyone for your responses. Really helpful stuff.<br>

Cheers</p>

[stephen_york3]

<p>Compared to the Contax, the Leica is probably easier to repair. Remember, most mechanical cameras these days are "oldish." And Leica is great for maintaining spare parts for older cameras. I just got a new prism on a 40 year old Leicaflex SL! In contrast, Contax is out of business, but back in the day the S2 was considred a good camera.<br>

I've used most of the cameras mentioned -- R6 and 6.2s, Leicaflexes, original SLs, and SL2, M4, M6, M7, MP, M6ttl, and even your own Nikon FM2 (which I didn't like because of the squinty viewfinder).<br>

Based on price, I wouldn't get into Leica rangefinders at this point. Prices have shot of drastically in the last few years, and there are suitable alternative in Voigtlander and Zeiss.<br>

If size and weight don't matter, I would go for the SL or SL2, depending on whether you like microprisms or split image focusing. I prefer the SL, but I also have rangefinders for change of pace and low light. The Leicaflex tend to have a smoother focusing screen (in contrast the Rs are grainy), and I prefers needles over diodes for metering. They are, however, big and heavy.<br>

The R6/6.2 are great cameras. Very light and small.<br>

The most "bang for the buck" are the R6 and Leicaflex SL. Both the 6.2 and SL2 tend to command relative premiums.<br>

After 15 years of using rangefinders exclusively, I find myself gravitating back toward Leica SLRs. It's a good time to get into Leica SLRs, because compared to rangefinders they are cheap.<br>

Any of those cameras you are considering are very good though. </p>

[stephen_york3]

<p>Compared to the Contax, the Leica is probably easier to repair. Remember, most mechanical cameras these days are "oldish." And Leica is great for maintaining spare parts for older cameras. I just got a new prism on a 40 year old Leicaflex SL! In contrast, Contax is out of business, but back in the day the S2 was considred a good camera.<br>

I've used most of the cameras mentioned -- R6 and 6.2s, Leicaflexes, original SLs, and SL2, M4, M6, M7, MP, M6ttl, and even your own Nikon FM2 (which I didn't like because of the squinty viewfinder).<br>

Based on price, I wouldn't get into Leica rangefinders at this point. Prices have shot of drastically in the last few years, and there are suitable alternative in Voigtlander and Zeiss.<br>

If size and weight don't matter, I would go for the SL or SL2, depending on whether you like microprisms or split image focusing. I prefer the SL, but I also have rangefinders for change of pace and low light. The Leicaflex tend to have a smoother focusing screen (in contrast the Rs are grainy), and I prefers needles over diodes for metering. They are, however, big and heavy.<br>

The R6/6.2 are great cameras. Very light and small.<br>

The most "bang for the buck" are the R6 and Leicaflex SL. Both the 6.2 and SL2 tend to command relative premiums.<br>

After 15 years of using rangefinders exclusively, I find myself gravitating back toward Leica SLRs. It's a good time to get into Leica SLRs, because compared to rangefinders they are cheap.<br>

Any of those cameras you are considering are very good though. </p>