Nikon F3 ?? or Contax Aria and lens Q's

[andrew_felger1]

hello,

i have a nikon f3 and i like it. i am wondering though if i should

sell it and get a contax aria. mostly i like the aria for the zeiss

lenses adn i have a good lead on one with a 50mm old zeiss lens.

how good are the old nikon manual focus lenses? are the older zeiss

lenses noticeably better? i cant spend a fortune on any equipment

now, so older zeiss lenses or the old nikon all manual lenses are my

only options. any advice? thanks.

andrew

[alex_lofquist]

Many of the older Nikkor lenses are unsurpassed even to this day. There are exceptionally good buys now with people going to AF and digital.

 

While I don't have an F3, many would consider it to be one of the finest (if not the finest) professional, manual focussing cameras. I personally feel that it would be a step backwards to exchange for an Aria. If there is a compelling reason to get a Zeiss(?) system, keep the Nikon anyway. You may just be glad that you did.

[marbing]

50mm lenses from almost any manufacturer are likely to be very good (They are probably copies of Zeiss designs anyway) and inexpensive. The advantage of the more modern body (the Aria) is that you can get the benefits of new technology...matrix, spot and center weighted metering, faster shutter speeds, shutter or aperture priority or full manual operation plus lighter weight all around.

 

Plus, the Aria still uses the Zeiss manual focus Y/C mount lenses which are fairly easy to find used but in excellent condition and at affordable prices. (It helps when the lens was made of solid materials that can withstand prior use.) I have about 25 Zeiss lenses (for various bodies) and I am far from being rich.

 

[As a matter of fact, it was when I saw what I could get (for the same price as digital) I decided to switch back to film. Does that say that Zeiss is cheap or that digital is expensive?]

[al_kaplan1]

You're getting caught up in the hype of "If only I had a [camera name] I could take better pictures!" Forget it! Let's just say that the Zeiss lenses are different than the Nikkor lenses, as are other top line optics like Leica and Canon. Better? No. Only different. Spend your money on film. Practice and experience will do more for your photography than trading outfits. Sure the companies want you to buy new, the latest. That's how they make money. Many of us realize that over the last 30 or 40 years lenses haven't really improved a hell of a lot. The two big improvements in lens design were single coating (multi coating was a minor incremental improvement) and computerized design. That was years and years ago!

[walterh]

who said lenses are getting better? i though they get worse? at least mechanically.

 

just had to say this - sorry :-P

 

there is a serious side to this- some lens designs got worse because the constraints 1) money, 2) space for the electric contacts and chips, 3) AF mechanics needed to be incorporated. so if AF is not really required go mechanic.

PS: stay with nikon, take a 24mm F2.8 Ai or AIS, a 105mm 2.8 and you kill 90% of modern lenses fo almost no money :-)

[vdp]

Andrew, If you like the Nikon F3 why change? I own an Aria and it is an excellent camera but I have a number of friends who own and use the F3 and they love it. I don't think there is so much difference between 50MM lenses of the top brands. Also your lens selection (depending on what type of photography you do) is larger with Nikon. I started with Contax/Yashica and stayed with it. Had I started with Nikon I likely would have stayed with that.

[eye-of-searle]

Also,

 

If you ever intend or possibly foresee a need or desire to go digital, the Nikon system makes alot more sense. If not, I would still stay with Nikon. The F3 is an awesome camera and will last a long, long time. As mentioned above, you are not going to see alot of differences in 50mm primes from company to company. They are all generally very good. With some exceptions of course. But not with Nikon or Contax.

 

Jim.

[mskovacs]

I've been shooting with F3's now for a few years and I've been amazed by the amount of really awesome manual focus Nikkors I've been able to assemble for next to nothing.

 

I don't think you'll ever get anything with Zeiss written on it for a bargain. Maybe in relative terms but not compared to what I've been paying. Spend your money on a medium format TLR such as Rolleiflex if you want to see a real difference with the fine German glass.

[charles_miller]

I don't think you would be disappointed to go with Contax, but for a given amount of money, I really don't think you can assemble a better SLR kit than with Nikon lenses. Which Nikon lenses do you have now? There are some excellent old Nikon lenses, like the 28mm f2.0 AIS, 35mm f1.4 AI, late 35mm and 28mm PCs, 85mm f1.8 AI, 105mm f2.5 AI and f1.8 AI, 55 f2.8 AIS macro, 105mm f4 AI macro, and many telephotos. There are also a couple of decent wide angle zooms, including the late 28-85mm AIS and the late 35-70mm AIS lenses.

 

In terms of image quality, several Nikon and Zeiss lenses are similar. But in a few cases Nikon designed a lens for a combination of sharpness and low cost. So a few Nikon lenses, mainly their 50mm models, can be beaten in terms of sharpness wide open and for "bokeh". I wouldn't change systems based on just that.

[Guest]

Andrew, keep the F3. If you're thinking of the Aria because of its bells and whistles, as Meryl suggests, then don't forget there are Nikon bodies that meter (though not matrix) with MF lenses and have high flash synch and shutter speeds etc. If you're not using autofocus lenses, then there's little difference in performance between an F801(s)/N8008(s) or F90x/N90s and an F100: except a lot of money. An F70 or F601 would be cheaper still, and would complement your F3.

 

Besides, if you go Contax, you'll still be wondering whether Leica M would be better...

[andrey_letov1]

Hello Andrew,

 

I owned Nikon F3 for several years and about a year ago I

switched to Contax Aria. I indeed was in the same situation

as you are trying to stick to Nikon because I liked it soo much.

 

Also I read comments and this discussion of - get cool stuff and

you think you'll be cool - gets slightly old.

If you have good taste and talent it's always with you and it doesn't

matter what you're using. Switch to Aria and you'll be more than happy with it.

 

Now why I switched to Aria....few reasons....

One of them is that if you're not taking pictures of drug dealers

in Peru and then trying to run from them throwing your camera

into your car standing 15 feet from it then you don't have to go

with Nikon F3. It's definitely the best camera for that kind of

heavy use.

So it means that Nikon F3 is heavy in comparison with Aria.

Aria is also slightly smaller in size.

The lenses you get for Aria are of the top quality Zeiss.

Also I was always annoyed by manual winding of the film in F3.

Sometimes you forget doing it and miss a shot.

 

Metering is more advanced on Aria, but for me it frankly doesn't matter as I always keep it on spot or centerweighted. Meter never

failed and was super accurate on F3 as well.

 

You know, I used Nikon f3 and loved it and was pround of using it,

but switched to Aria and never regret it.

In fact I'm using my Aria the same way I was using Nikon F3, but it's

lighter, has auto-winding, uses Zeiss that is not so expensive

to get on Ebay, plus you can use top of the line flashes on it.

 

Currently I have Contax Aria, Planar 85mm 1.4 and

Vario Sonnar 35-135 and love it.