I hear only great things about the 45mm Planar being the best standard ever made and figured that the 35mm Planar, being a rangefinder design, must be better. I haven't looked at any MTFs and have no interest to. That was only my thinking for my intended focal lengths. I like features of both cameras but the Contax is a bit odd since the viewfinder is a bit kind of did, but I didn't mean to make such a bold statement. I'm more comfortable with rangefinders because that is all I have ever really used seriously. Thank you all for your know it is apples and pears but both cameras can be used for the similar purpose. Metrix X edited this topic 111 months ago. For portraits my favourite is a MF camera with a waist level finder mainly because it facilitates a very human interaction between photographer and subject. The what you see is what you get of SLR and TLR is a paramount factor in envisioning the composition. Sure the Contax can take beautiful portraits but it's not the best tool for the job. SLR as it can control DOF and selective focus much easier. The autofocus will be faster on the Nikon if thats a concern,Īlso I'm not sure how close you can focus on the Contax but pay that some thought as SLR's usually get much closer than rangefinders.įor me it would be the F100 hands down for portraits, the G would be great for street primes between 28 and 85mm) you can shoot one handed if you need to.Īs far as Contax G2 is concerned, sorry I've no idea! It's very well balanced and as long as you use 'proper' lenses (i.e. I have an F100, it was complicated to set up as I wanted, but it handles better than any other camera I've owned. Nikon lenses - no problem all primes are brilliant.
Had a G1 and the 90mm had an enormous parallax and i was to much used to shoot with a SLR! So i only used the G1 with the 28mm, until i traded it for a Rolleiflex TLR. The ease of seeing through the viewfinder of a SLR puts the F100 in favour to me as i already have one and some nice lenses for it! Periodic argument edited this topic 111 months ago.Ĭlose portraits benefit from more tele photo lenses, especially when you're photographing women! Nikon lens(old lens) might not be as expensive as the contax lens but they are fantastic weight your options then you decide.īased on reviews contax is very good but the lens are super expensive, Nikon is more flexible photography wise since old and new lens works just fine with the F100. My suggestion is to read more about the reviews of each camera.
There's a saying it's the shooter not the arrow. Personally I'd look at medium format for portraits, but I'm a medium format kind of person anywayĪre you saying Nikon never made a lens good enough for portraits until the latest G lenses? I think its a bit of an apples and pears comparison.Ī better question would be, which do you prefer for portraits, SLR or Rangefinder. Maikeuls edited this topic 111 months ago. Originally posted at 12:06AM, 8 September 2012 PDT Well it's all user preference, but for those of you who have had both which do you prefer to use? And what led you to sell one system over the other? I feel that the AF, ergonomics, build, and size/noise on both systems will be different, but not much of an issue. The consensus is that Contax's viewfinder is OK at best and will be more difficult to work with seeing that it is 0.58x magnification. My feeling is that Contax has the better lenses (sharpness and bokeh) and that Nikon can't really compete at my intended focal lengths (50mm/35mm), with the exception of the latest G lenses, which are more costly. I'm interested in the 45mm/50mm and 35mm lenses mostly. I'm interest into getting into one of the systems to shoot handheld portraits.
0 kommentar(er)
