That’s really a very small difference and easily overcome.
The difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 in light-gathering potential is precisely 2/3rds of a stop. Sure, f/3.5 is slower than f/2.8, but is this really a problem? Let’s think about it. The TVS has a variable maximum aperture across its range of focal lengths, but at its fastest (at the wide-end of the range) it only reaches a maximum speed of f/3.5. The other three cameras feature a maximum aperture of f/2.8. The Contax TVS compared to the T, T2, and T3Īs touched upon, the big gripe when comparing the TVS to the other Contax compacts is leveled against the relatively slow lens of the TVS. This is coarsely true, but there are finer points that differentiate the TVS from every other model in the range. Made of the same titanium as the earlier cameras, and fitted with all the latest technology, some shooters have described the Contax TVS as a zoomy version of the T2.
#Contax g2 battery series
In 1994, Kyocera released the Contax TVS, a variant of the T series that swapped the prime lens of its predecessors for a Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-56mm f/3.5-6.5 zoom lens (the “VS” denotes that this is the Contax T with a “Vario-Sonnar” lens).
#Contax g2 battery manual
It was a true point-and-shoot camera, eschewing the manual focus rangefinder of the original T. This second of the series continued the high level of build, retained the same high performance lens and respectable creative controls, but added automation in the form of available autofocus. In 1991, Kyocera further refined the formula with the Contax T2. It even had a synthetic ruby for its shutter release button. This camera was exceptional, allowing creative control and packing a phenomenal Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 38mm f/2.8 lens in an astoundingly small and well-built body. In 1984, Kyocera released the Contax T, a titanium-bodied compact rangefinder camera aimed to satisfy the well-heeled photographer looking for a luxurious and incredibly compact 35mm film camera. Sure, it lacks certain capability compared with the others in its line, but the unique things that it offers over these other cameras do overbalance the few ways in which it comes up short. I’ll even go so far as to make the bold claim that the Contax TVS is the one Contax compact that’s actually worth buying these days. But also because I’ve spent the past few weeks shooting the TVS and I feel it’s been overlooked. I’ll add that voice, partly because it’s my job. There’s some truth to this, as is the case with most popular opinion, but a more nuanced and balanced voice might add enough useful commentary that people might realize just how good the Contax TVS is. The choir sings that the TVS is the compact Contax that you buy, only if you can’t afford the Contax T3 or T2 or T.
Still, if I were presented with one of these cameras and a lens I would like, at a decent price, I may well pick one up for a carrying around camera.Popular opinion on the Contax TVS says that its sluggish aperture and softer zoom lens make it a third-rate camera. Given the heavy use of electronics, these cameras are basically irreparable should there be an issue that compromises the accuracy of the camera's meter. It's definitely the most affordable option of the bunch, the G1 currently demands more than $500 but can easily go for more than $600. In my opinion, the real question for the Contax G1 or G2 or any other Contax autofocus film camera, is whether it's worth the price tag. The best part you ask? The lens offerings were Zeiss glass and had quite the reputation for making some beautiful images. Debuting the 1990s, near the height and end of the film reign, the Contax G1 and its little brother, the Contax G2, were nearly the size of a point and shoot 35mm camera but capable of utilizing interchangeable lenses. In this video, Kyle McDougall does a review of the formidable Contax G1. A large part of that reputation came from the Contax G1. Few camera brands have ever been able to achieve the same reputation that Contax film cameras managed to achieve during the height of film.
0 kommentar(er)
