Charles Hess
(K=-183) - Comment Date 11/11/2003
|
Without knowing your photo interests and, more importantly, your budget, it's hard to answer your question. The F3 is a classic, a proven workhorse, some automation with its aperture priority, and a part of the huge Nikon system. Tons of excellent used Nikon lenses can be had on the market at great prices. The Contax ... those Zeiss lenses are top quality and some of the finest lenses made. They can be expensive. Will you see much of a quality difference with pro Nikon glass and the Zeiss glass? Probably, but not much. Tough choice.
|
|
|
|
Sawayasu Tsuji
(K=0) - Comment Date 11/11/2003
|
Thanks Charles, Im not a professional photographer, its my hobby and taking pictures are playing a big role in my life, and quality concern is always my priority. Budget wise I think they both are within, but like you said the Zeiss lense are REALLY expensive so are the accessories.
I have never used any Contax cameras before, so just wanna hear some comments for others.
thanks again.
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 11/13/2003
|
The F3 is a tank and can not be killed easily. I also think the F3 has better metering.
|
|
|
|
Ricardo Villagran
(K=1901) - Comment Date 11/13/2003
|
I am not agree regarding Zeiss lenses are TOO expensive.. If you check BH for example, a new Contax Carl Zeiss 50mm 1.4 is $275.00; 4 dollars cheaper than the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 -$279.00-, but in the 28mm range, the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 is: $309.00, 24 dollars cheaper than the Contax 28mm 2.8 -$331.00- A new Aria, will cost you around $500.00 -motor drive included- far lighter than a used EX+ F3 with the MD-4 motor, that maybe will cost something between 600-700...
Is not a matter of cost, is a choice based on which brand do you prefer. You will get the same shots with any of these 2 systems.
|
|
|
|
Dino D'Agata
(K=-133) - Comment Date 11/13/2003
|
I'm a biased Contax G and T user, but I must say, the microcontrast and color rendition by the Zeiss lenses surpasses Nikon by a mile. If you simply want good sharpness, quality lenses, go with the Nikon. If you want a certain lyrical quality, go with the Zeiss. I don't think the SLR lenses are any more expensive than Nikon glass. And by my comments I don't mean to say Nikon is inferior--most professionals use them. But Zeiss glass has a different quality to it, and if you like it, then you get hooked and don't want anything else. Best of luck.
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 11/14/2003
|
I have to add that I use Ziess glass on my medium format stuff and it is impressive.
|
|
|
|
Kym Skiles
(K=1520) - Comment Date 11/17/2003
|
I bought a used Aria earlier this year and took it with me to Italy over the summer. It's very lightweight (well, compared to lugging medium format stuff around :) and worked wonderfully. Of all the 35mm cameras I've had, the Aria is easily my favourite.
It's easy to use, easy to load, has exceptional glass, good battery life and just all-around fun. I'm not anti Nikon but I'm definitely a huge fan of the Aria.
|
|
|
|
Patrick (Washington, DC)
(K=339) - Comment Date 12/1/2003
|
Still need to know a bit more about your photography to answer in-depth, but let me say that if your prefer output that is high in contrast, razor sharp and strong [color] saturation alt. excellent tonalities for b&w - Zeizz glass it the way to go. I'd rather have a few good Zeizz lenses and a bunch of various Nikon glass (even though some of their glass is superlative, like the 85/1.4 portrait lens).
Then again, going with an all manual Contax/Nikon with no path to digital this day and age... In this case, a Nikon N80 or F100 might be a better choice. Or better up, just buy into Canon and select your lenses with care.
|
|
|
|
