Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In article <9706042310.AA24611@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>, wrote: > From: "Lucien_vD@compuserve.com" <Lucien_vD@compuserve.com> > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 05:49:53 -0400 > Subject: Re: Otto's RTS III V Ted's R7 & R8 > > Otto, = > > You story is consistent with what I heard here in Belgium, > even if Contax don't sell a lot of camera here. > > I remember a comparative test in a British magazine (??) > where the Contax body broke during the test. > > Ted, do you have the same kind of story about Leica R7 and R8 ? > > Lucien, > BELGIUM Lucien, In my opinion the Contax RTS III is a fine camera, which comes with good to excellent optics. And it even takes Leica-R lenses - once you convince a good mechanic to put a Summilux and an APO-Telyt onto his lathe to make it fit to the Contax mount. The Leica-R series did not have autobracketing, motorized film rewind and easy film loading until the R8 came out. The R8 does not have the first two features of the list unless one attaches an external motor drive to it. The missing features actually made me leave the R-series when the RTS III came out. I experienced similar failure rates with the R3, R4 and R5 in the 80ties as I do now with the RTS III and until today I have not seen any figures on other professional cameras, which would tell me, that they are (much) more reliable. Unless more users come up with hard figures on failure rates of their cameras, which could be compared, it would be wrong to downgrade the RTS III. The article in PRACTICAL PHOTOGRAPHY July 1995 was called "Test Report" by the magazine - however it was miles away from an objective and professional evaluation. Regards, Otto