kwen_wan1

Phil a crude form of compensation for LT shots would be to

cover the light sensor with a density filter and calculate the

exposure depending what density, density filter you used.

2x 4x etc.

<p>

To go the other way, to underexpose you put the density filter over

the lens.

<p>

But I thought the compensation dial worked for LT?

The Contax T3 was only released in 2001?

You have the T2?

For screen viewing is not so much resolution its more pixels,

just make sure you have enough pixels for the size you require.

<p>

if you want a fairly full frame picture standard 15 inch screen is

640 x 480 pixels and this should fit other screens.

<p>

I made mine larger and didn't compress the jpg much to show

off the quality of the T3 lens, if you just want to show off the

photography it can be smaller so it downloads quicker for 56k

users. (the more compression the more fuzzy and less sharp the

image will be)

Once I got used to the T3 focusing, acknowledged the weak

flash and found the correct lab capable to process the film the

results are outstanding. I would crown it the best lens on an

autofocus compact., better than any zoom lens and subjectively

anyway, almost embrasses my Contax G lenses! Infact there is

not much in it! Dare I say the T3 is a touch sharper?

<p>

The price is expensive in relation to other compact cameras but

in relationship to exotic lenses it is a positive bargain for almost

if not the same performance.

<p>

The scans from this particular lab are outstanding too, (not all

transfers to CDROM are the same) but to really appreicate the

contrast, colour and sharpness you do need to be viewing on a

suitable high end monitor or TFT. Preferably a new generation

high contrast FD Trinitron flavour. (I have two Diamondtrons and

my Plus 91 just kills off the Pro 900U for sharpness and contrast

especially with FPM fine picture mode enabled!)

<p>

If they could come up with a T3M (manual) that would be the

icing on the cake.

my scans above are scanned in at the print lab to CDROM, but

I'm thinking of getting a Nikon 4000 ED which is supposedly one

of the best film scanners or it's little brother the IV with less

resolution...however I haven't seen any sharp scans from these

as samples on the web. All seem a bit fuzzy?! Though are

perhaps too expensive for most people..however whats the point

of taking razor sharp images from the T3 if you digitise them at

poor quality ?...well my thinking.

<p>

A flatbed scanner is at best a compromise to scan 35mm film, it

just doesn't have enough resolution and doesn't have the optics.

OK for prints. Something from Agfa or Epson should be OK.

Geessz this thread has grown since I've last visited it!

Now I've got broadband I managed to upload some largish

scans for non T3 owners (but must have broadband!) to see the

qualities of this gorgeous T3 lens.

<p>

http://mailroom.worldonline.co.uk/street.jpg

http://mailroom.worldonline.co.uk/crisps.jpg

http://mailroom.worldonline.co.uk/slide.jpg

Phil, your T3's 'refusal' to take up the film problem, I haven't

experienced with my T3, but have done with my T4 and to some

extent my 35Ti. Generally as you say, no matter how far you pull

out the leader the camera does not take up the film. With my T4 I

found it was a matter of try and try again. If it was persistant at

failing to load up, it would finally do so perhaps after 6-8

attempts, usually with the film leader extended well beyond the

internal marking, also the film needed to be wound tight

manually by hand (by twisting the reel) so there is no slack in the

canister before inserting into the camera. It may or may not help

your cause.

<p>

As you are an experienced photographer I assume you have

taken all feasible steps and (unfortunately) it could be a problem

with the camera.

Heikki what a find! You are right in what you say, the T3 has a

'hidden' spot autofocus function. Though the AFL button for me is

slightly tricky to use, (shame 'spot focus' is not a custom

function). Shame also the distance display is not in the

viewfinder, verification would be easier. (Contax G cameras have

the readout in the viewfinder). Due to manufacturing tolerances

in the G cameras the actual autofocus area may be slightly 'out'

in comparison with the printed focus area in the viewfinder. e.g.

on my G1 the actual focus area is slightly to the left, not sure if it

is the case with the T3 the target on my T3 is pretty central.

<p>

Since having knowledge of the T3's default wider focus area

which does not correspond to the printed autofocus oval, hardly

any of my pictures are out of focus. The added 'feature' of 'spot

focus' for tricky situations is a bonus. Thanks Heikki for that

discovery.

hmm..sales assistant says the SA-2 does provide TTL with

TLA200 unlike the (non TTL) SA-1 adaptor . (perhaps he was

confused) But having a leaf shutter in the way means (if it does

support TTL) it is kinda off the film plane sort when the shot is

being taken and the blades are out the way. Though the initial

preliminary exposure data must be taken from the external meter

on the front of the body as otherwise the T3 won't know to

engage flash mode or not in autoflash setting. I think I will try

Jerome's method with the slave flash first before getting the SA-2

as at least the main flash can be bounced with the T3 flash as

fill.

I stumbled across this web page:

http://www.dentontaylor.com/tests/t3.htm

with shots taken with the T3 and the samples 'seem' to exhibit

an uneven illumination across the frame with a vague (discreet)

'hot spot' around the centre of the frame. All four corners of the

frame are slightly darker, similar to my T3 around f8. This is not

too noticable to the average eye, but f11 (on mine) it gets

noticable.

Has anyone stopped the T3 down to f11 or f16..I get pretty

horrible results regarding light fall off on the edges of the frame,

very noticable 'shadows' though perhaps not as noticable as in

T4 or 35Ti..usual clear sky brings it out more.

<p>

Good job it has a high shutter speed, think I will keep it tagged to

f5.6 if possible

John Erro

<p>

T3 program hangs onto something like 180th sec up to EV 16.5

at full bore f2.8, it's not until then, that the program allows a

smaller aperture. Program's weighted slightly more to stopping

down more rapidly than increasing the speed of the shutter once

the 180th speed as been reached.

<p>

For my own personal liking, program maintains too high a

shutter speed at lower EV values, I would prefer it to open up the

aperture a stop to f4 at 30th or 60th sec. These lower shutter

speeds are fine for me for the program to start stopping down.

Charles,

<p>

They do DO a black T3 see this link:

http://www.kyocera.co.jp/news/2001/0104/0402-e.asp

<p>

The link was originally posted by Mike Johnston on the

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_i

d=004u2K thread.

Jay,

<p>

If you do very low light shots like I do, e.g. night market, dimly lit

restaurant, street shots illuminated by street lighting or signs

then the flashing focus aid does attract people's attention.

The more dim the environment, the more noticable the focus aid

is.

<p>

Although I have not yet shot such scenes with my T3 I have

extensively with my Contax G1 which uses the same focus aid. I

had to tape it up, and use manual focus, and occasionally self

timer (so it doesn't look like you are taking a photo as your finger

is not on the shutter!). T5 would be handy as it has a waist level

finder.

Jerome,

<p>

in addition to John's response, and for clarifcation

"For my question A2, do you mean that even if in AFLock mode

you custom the camera to keep focus until turning off (CF6), the

lens is retracted after each frame ? It would be a bit odd, I think. "

<p>

Even though the AFL function is set, the lens does not stay in it's

extended focus position, it retracts to it's parked position (not

totally into the body). The focus position is memorised by the AFL

but it's not until you fire the shutter button does the lens extend

back out to the pre locked focussed position. (so there will be a

slight delay)

Paul,

<p>

"1) the "dial" for setting EV compenstation and defaults I find

hard a bit hard to turn quickly and accurately (this will probably

get better with time)"

- it's not too difficult as it is at first level on the mode menu, but

cycling around for the other functions is a slight chore.

<p>

2) I wish there was an electronic way to set a default f-stop, and

have that be the default when the camera turns on. I find that I

am using the camera a lot of outdoor activities, and many times I

want to set an f-stop and just use that every time I turn the

camera on.

- yeah, agree.

On the 35ti as a comparison a camera from the 'last century'

sets the f stop and stays there when switched on, plus I miss

having the half stops, 35ti has half stops all the way to f22.

Al has explained it beautifully.... I second that.

<p>

Though I started with 45mm from my 'migration' from SLR,

35mm is too close to 45mm and so my choice was logically

28mm. 45mm or 35mm is up to personal preference.

Adding to the T3/T4 debate, as owner of both too, the upgrade

depends ultimately on the size of your resources.

<p>

The T4 optically exhibits very similar traits to the T3, (for me

subjectively anyway, the same sort of colour, depth, delicacy of

detail which it renders beautifully - compared to say my 35Ti

which renders the detail more 'aggressively' 'stamping' out the

details with more 'authority', but less sharply. T4 is afterall a CZ.

<p>

However the T4 has more distortion than T3 in the corners, is

less sharp than the T3 in the corners, and is less uniformly

illuminated across the frame. Darker corners are more apparent

with T4 than T3 e.g. at small apertures on a blue sky.

<p>

Wide open the T4 is sharp but the T3 is even sharper. (my

subjective comments are based on different batches of photos

and not a 'scientific' side by side comparison so are somewhat

limited in value, and the keyword here is 'subjective') T3 appears

to have more resolving power too.

<p>

T4 Flash is also more powerful than the T3's providing better

illumination.

<p>

Focus on the T4 is active, while on the T3 it is passive. T4

focuses in the dark better and if you are doing candid night

shots, it's black body and discretness win the day. T3 gives the

game away with a flashing focus aid! Active focus appears to

have a problem with focusing at infinity, so the T4 has a focus

lock for distant objects but I have never found it to be a problem. I

actually have more focusing problems on the T3 due to it's wider

autofocus area than the 'point' focus area of the T4 (which I

prefer). U.S. version of T4 I think has multibeam AF. i.e. has a

waist finder. My T4 doesn't.

<p>

T4 is ligher than T3 (despite deliberate attempts to make the

camera lighter) but T3 remains the smaller camera.

<p>

T4 is noiser in operation, on activation, and on shooting. T3 is

velvet in operation. Functionality wise of course the T3 has more

features on board which are available on promotional literature,

but unfortunately not on the contaxcameras.com site (July).

<p>

My T3 (which may be a slightly compromised production model)

gives more wrong exposures than the T4 (in point and shoot

mode), the flash failing to fire in backlight situations. It also

occasinally focuses on the wrong point even given the chance

twice! as detailed in the above thread.

<p>

As to comparisons with SLR's or with Contax's own G system

the compacts T4 and T3 don't have a even illumination across

the frame (with the samples I possess) at small apertures

probably in the region of f8 - f16 (no aperture info). There is a

darkening in the corners of the frame particulary noticable with

clear skys, though with the T3 the effect is much less

pronounced.

<p>

I've posted some casual 'point and shoot' snapshots (not

photographic art!) of photos taken with the T3 and scanned to

CDROM via a commercial film scanner at:

http://webxone.com/t3

on shot aIMG0030.jpg there is a slight darkening of the frame in

the lefhand and righthand corners in the sky. T4 would be worse,

as would 35Ti, T3 is relatively subdued in comparison.

<p>

Price wise the T3 is not a 4x better camera than the T4 but the

increment is worth it for some e.g. me and others on this thread.

(but in my case I was not looking for a camera to replace my T4 it

was to replace the Nikon 35Ti). If you already have the T4 and

are perhaps not completely convinced that the T3 is the better

camera or that the gains are minimal, the Contax G1 and 45mm

f2 lens is just a little more than the T3 (well in HK anyway). This

would probably be the better purchase over the T3 as it give you

more control, more features, more expansion and a better lens.

Although not a compact is reasonably small compared to an

SLR, and your T4 would be there for situations where the G1 is

'too big'.

I think that 'probably' many light scratches (invisible in dim light)

which diffuses, are worse than a solitary visible one. But true

having one on the rear element is more significant than on the

front.

I think I probably do have a slightly suspect specimen if everyone

else has sharp pictures at close up and evenly illuminated

pictures across the frame for flash shots...

<p>

One thing I did notice (on my T3) is that the autofocus area is

approximately 5 ovals wide (if you take the autofocus 'oval' and

lay them out 5 times) and it prevents my T3 from focusing

through a gap in the door which is half open -if I sit stand about 2

metres back from it. (by the way, are the U.S. T3 distance scales

in feet?). If I take a vertical shot the autofocus area doesn't clip

the edges of the door and focuses through into the distance.

<p>

The above is the source of the problems I have with close up

focusing at wide apertures. Having analysed the 'duff shots' one

photo is of my son at the table with a basket from which he is

eating. The shot is vertical and instead of the focus on his face,

my T3 has turned it's attention on the basket. Although I

positioned the autofocus target on his face the width of the

autofocus area when the camera was vertical must have clipped

the basket in front of him and rendered that sharply

instead...hmmm. Of course if it was an outdoor shot with plenty

of sun the camera would have gone to a smaller aperture and

depth of focus wouldn't have been so critical.

<p>

So it's probably 'operator error' more than anything, and stems

from the fact that Contax did not represent accurately the width of

the autofocus area in the viewfinder. Some other brands

physically show the width of their multipoint autofocus.

<p>

Flash wise, 2 metres is not a very far with ISO 100 film and nor is

3 metres with ISO 200 which is about spitting distance! I am

surprised that most people achieve even illumination across the

frame.

<p>

Anyway...if it really bugs me I'll try for a warranty claim, though I

always dislike people opening up things to have a look,

especially if they were precision made in Japan.

T2 was not designed by Porsche Design only the original.

Bokeh surely is more important for longer lenses 50mm+ than a

wide angle lens? Adding to the original question; another

observatin is the T3 also has a lot more plastic, with a plastic

'chassis' . Feature wise it has compensated by adding in extra

features for those it removed from the T2, so on balance the T3

is better endowed?

Pricing wise in Hong Kong the Contax is the most expensive

(Even T2 was). Cheapest Hong Kong price for T3 is 624 USD,

Minilux is 429 USD, my Nikon 35Ti was 519 USD. The price I

paid for my T3 was 662 USD as this store was giving away a free

databack because Beijing won the right to host the 2008 Olympic

games. Not a bad price (I think).

So far I've found that the T3 although it can focus to .35m it's not

very good at it (on large apertures) - Due to it's wide (averaging)

auto focus area (when focusing is critical at close quarters with

shallow depth of field). Camera generally focuses on the wrong

point if the subject /s is not flat. Lens also does not appear to

perform it's best at very close range, not as good as 35ti

subjectively. Though the design of the Sonnar lens seems to be

uncompromised as the length of the barrel is unusually long. -It

appears the optical designers haven't compressed the length for

the sake of compactness. When focusing at infinity of course

there are no targeting problems and the camera returns VERY

sharp results even at f2.8