In article
>1. This is not a scientific statement; purely a testimonial.
>2. I've used a Nikon FM2 for quite a few years along with a 24-50mm zoom.
>3. I first bought a Contax TVS and was very impressed with the shots.
>4. I then got a Contax 167MT with the Distagon 28mm 2.8 and 35mm 2.8.
>Being objective as possible, the Contax shots have more clarity, better
>contrast, richer colors. In fact, I think the TVS, in general, takes
>better shots than my Nikon FM2. Again, this is purely a testimonial
>statement. Nonetheless, humans use the cameras, and thus I think is
>another example of why Contax enjoys the reputation it does (the word gets
>around). On the "con" side, Contax doesn't have a good body that I like.
>The S2 manual body is ok, however it's way too overpriced. I'll use my
>167MT until it dies, and then hopefully by that time, they'll have a nice
>compact body out.
Ummm, this is comparing apples and oranges (like another post in the distant past [though this one is not so bad] that left the impression that the user prefered Leica optics to Nikon, but it turned out he was using a Tamron zoom on the Nikon, and a very expensive aspheric 35mm f1.4 on the Leica - no contest!) To be valid, compare the truly excellent Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS
and 35mm f2 AIS MF prime lenses (not a zoom - good as they can be, zooms are rarely in all ways the equal of primes) to the Contax equivalents (and not just center performance - the edges and corners are important, too!). Then tell us about how the similar-type lenses compare. BTW, I think that much
of the reputation that Contax enjoys is due more to skillful image-making
(advertising and marketing, which includes leaving the somewhat false impression that Contax/Zeiss are German [which is supposed to mean something in terms of quality, but I have never figured out what...;-]) than to reality.
Hope This Helps