contaxgary Posted December 13, 2009 Share #1 Posted December 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) On a number of boards I have been critical of those asking why only f/2.8 and why such a large form factor. My reply was something along the lines of needing a rather large lens to provide full coverage of the sensor area. After years of hiding in a closet, I pulled out my Contax T2, with a small, high quality Zeiss f/2.8 38mm lens and a full frame film sensor. The T2 is perfectly pocket-able and if memory serves me, the images were of good quality. Is it my imagination, or have we taken a step back with regards high quality in a small package? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 13, 2009 Posted December 13, 2009 Hi contaxgary, Take a look here X1 or Contax T2?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
nhabedi Posted December 13, 2009 Share #2 Posted December 13, 2009 Is it my imagination, or have we taken a step back with regards high quality in a small package? We have. There were lots of high quality small film cameras from various brands (all "full format" in Newspeak) and they don't have an equivalent in the digital world yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted December 13, 2009 Share #3 Posted December 13, 2009 The X1 will be every bit as nice as the T2 if not nicer. We are completely getting there with digital compacts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
contaxgary Posted December 13, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted December 13, 2009 The X1 will be every bit as nice as the T2 if not nicer. We are completely getting there with digital compacts. Perhaps you are right. My sense that the X1 is not as pocket-able as the T2 comes from viewing photographs of the X1. In particular, the Contax is a perfectly rectangular box, with rounded corners. It slides in and out of pockets. The X1 package just doesn't look as if it is quite there. If we must suffer a retractable lens, then why not put the thing all the way into the body, like the T2? Perhaps, handling the camera will convince me otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted December 14, 2009 Share #5 Posted December 14, 2009 Perhaps you are right. My sense that the X1 is not as pocket-able as the T2 comes from viewing photographs of the X1. You are right about that for sure. The X1 is not a true pocket camera. Hopefully Ricoh will make a large sensor GRD soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted December 14, 2009 Share #6 Posted December 14, 2009 My "pocketable" backup film camera will be the original Minox 35. Still working after decades of use with its incredibly sharp lens. -g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
contaxgary Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share #7 Posted December 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) My "pocketable" backup film camera will be the original Minox 35. Still working after decades of use with its incredibly sharp lens. -g and many of these small film cameras had optical finders built into the bodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted December 14, 2009 Share #8 Posted December 14, 2009 But those viewfinders were pretty dinky, eg the Minilux. So were the finders on all the Barnack cameras with the exception of the IIIg. Looking through some accessory finders for the M (from Leica, Voigtländer, and Zeiss), I am impressed how bright and clear they are. It's very hard to beat the finder on the M. Built-in optical finders are mighty useful -- the bigger the better. Who would be prepared to forego a built-in flash? It does look pretty nifty but I'd probably use it more outdoors than indoors. As for Contax, will there be a new Contax T digital? In the 90s there used to be a few luxo film compacts from Leica, Contax, Nikon, and Minolta. Who now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 14, 2009 Share #9 Posted December 14, 2009 But those viewfinders were pretty dinky... Not this one by far. Makers know perfectly how to build comfortable VFs in pocketable cameras. Problem is modern 'photogs' prefer chimping. See the result. Even a $2K digicam like the X1 needs an add-on VF. Did i say regression? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted December 14, 2009 Share #10 Posted December 14, 2009 As for Contax, will there be a new Contax T digital? In the 90s there used to be a few luxo film compacts from Leica, Contax, Nikon, and Minolta. Who now? I believe that Contax did introduce a small digital camera similar to the well-loved T2. (I still have my T2). But for Leica lovers, the X1 will be the first step towards a digital CM, but not with in-built viewfinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted December 14, 2009 Share #11 Posted December 14, 2009 Not this one by far.Makers know perfectly how to build comfortable VFs in pocketable cameras. Problem is modern 'photogs' prefer chimping. See the result. Even a $2K digicam like the X1 needs an add-on VF. Did i say regression? Well, in all fairness the Rollei didn't have a large LCD. If Leica was to only put Rollei's viewfinder on the X1, most wouldn't be happy. Plus, the X1 is not a truly pocketable camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEBnewyork Posted December 14, 2009 Share #12 Posted December 14, 2009 While all of these tiny film cameras are great don't we get ourselves back to the same digital physics problem....the angle of light hitting a sensor vs. hitting film? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 14, 2009 Share #13 Posted December 14, 2009 ...If Leica was to only put Rollei's viewfinder on the X1, most wouldn't be happy.... Why so, they don't like using their eyes any more? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted December 14, 2009 Share #14 Posted December 14, 2009 Why so, they don't like using their eyes any more? I think, as you stated, many prefer chimping today. If Leica left the LCD off, they would cut off a lot of the new generation of digital users who could care less about our old school preferences. To me, I would love one built it. However, I'd use the LCD over the external finder. I don't see the big deal in using a LCD to compose in general photos. Maybe in low light I'd use one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 14, 2009 Share #15 Posted December 14, 2009 ...If Leica left the LCD off, they would cut off a lot of the new generation of digital users... I did not mean to leave the LCD off of course. Chimping has become almost mandatory nowadays. My point is to know if a comfortable optical viewfinder can be built in modern compact digicams not only for oldies like me but for young photographers willing to do a little more than P&Shooting as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted December 14, 2009 Share #16 Posted December 14, 2009 My point is to know if a comfortable optical viewfinder can be built in modern compact digicams not only for oldies like me but for young photographers willing to do a little more than P&Shooting as well. Ok, then my original point stands. The X1 doesn't have one to keep size down... if the Rollei 35 had an LCD it would be much larger... that was my point. Also, how does using an LCD instead of a plain viewfinder lend itself more to P&S photography? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 14, 2009 Share #17 Posted December 14, 2009 ...The X1 doesn't have one to keep size down... So you think there was not enough room for a VF a la Rollei really? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 14, 2009 Share #18 Posted December 14, 2009 ...Also, how does using an LCD instead of a plain viewfinder lend itself more to P&S photography? Can you really focus and meter at arms' length? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theendlesshouse Posted December 14, 2009 Share #19 Posted December 14, 2009 Chimping is such a strange term? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted December 14, 2009 Share #20 Posted December 14, 2009 Can you really focus and meter at arms' length? I don't use my digital camera's with LCDs at arms length...I use them just like any other camera... up by my face with my arms in a good position. However, instead of my eye being directly on the viewfinder, my eyes are about 5-8 inches away from the screen. Who says you have to have your arms completely extended when using an LCD? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.