Contax reconsidered

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Mar 10, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    All I remember about Contax is that;
    1. The lenses cost a fortune.
    2. It took great pictures.
    3. The mid-1980s model I held had superb feel and construction and
    at the time, I coudn't afford their system!
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Mar 10, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    bmoag Guest

    I also used a Contax for a while in the 1980s.
    The camera and lenses were high quality but when I look at my old pictures
    I cannot tell what was taken with Minolta, Nikon or Contax.
    Nor do I remember, nor do I care, nor does it matter: only the final image
    matters.
    What I do recall was that it was far more sensible to trade out of the
    costly Contax line for equipment of equal or better value at a much lower
    total cost because the Contax stuff was just not significantly better than
    other quality Japanese brands.
    I have held on to my old Leica M3 and lenses despite the dubious
    cost/performance ratio: the Leica brand, especially of this vintage, is
    worthy of the veneration that Japanese franchised Contax can only pretend to
    deserve.
    I couldn't care less what happens to the Yashica/Contax franchise but it
    will truly be epochal--and heart breaking--when (I don't think there is an
    "if" much longer) Leica has to rent out its 35mm name to a low cost Asian
    OEM (ignoring the fact that Panasonic/Matsushita already is pimping a Leica
    badged Panasonic Lumix--its only digital, after all).
     
    bmoag, Mar 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.