What makes one SLR any better than another?

[kendo1]

I just very much enjoyed using my Contaxes. There was a solidness about them compared to similarly priced competitors' cameras.
(I now have some almost mint examples of the 139, 137MA, 137MD, RTS, RTS2- and trying to buy more Zeiss lenses.)
They felt 'right' to me.
There are some very good Yashica lenses too.
The 1.7 50mm ML is almost Zeiss quality. The 28, 55 macro and 135 ML are also very good and hold their prices very well.

 

[excalibur2]

I just very much enjoyed using my Contaxes. There was a solidness about them compared to similarly priced competitors' cameras.
(I now have some almost mint examples of the 139, 137MA, 137MD, RTS, RTS2- and trying to buy more Zeiss lenses.)
They felt 'right' to me.
There are some very good Yashica lenses too.
The 1.7 50mm ML is almost Zeiss quality. The 28, 55 macro and 135 ML are also very good and hold their prices very well.

Unfortunately I had a carppy 28mm and 50mm DSB, but someone gave me another 50mm DSB and that was much better, added to that I had a Yashica FR1 and that had the common frame counter fault. The 135ML I thought was a good lens but didn't have that something special compared to say a Canon 135mm....so other than using a M42 or Tamron adapter on my Contax 139 Quartz I'm stuck for lenses, so don't use it much.
For anyone confused with these posts the Contax and Yashica have the same lens mount.