Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Leonardo Barreto on March 13, 2009, 09:01:32 am

Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Leonardo Barreto on March 13, 2009, 09:01:32 am
I have to make the final accounting on the on-going Platform Poll (thank you for your participation) and there may be some interesting up-to-date trends from arguably -The LL- the most populated watering hole of users of this, probably, endangered species of non-miniature cameras.

The one trend that pops up is the amount of users that keep shooting with their CONTAX 645 AFD and how much they love them, collect them or state will never live them. Do they realize this camera is no longer alive?

Isn't it ironic that while the remaining platforms struggle to be loved in this way the one that did it is out of the game?

Can someone resurrect CONTAX ??
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Leonardo Barreto on March 13, 2009, 09:47:15 am
It may be because it is a hansom system or because of the perfect symbiotic relationship of Japanese cameramanship and European finest optic lensmanship?  

(http://www.ilcontatto.com/images/vetrina/B8372_04.jpg)
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Carsten W on March 13, 2009, 09:56:34 am
Quote from: Leonardo Barreto
It may be because it is a hansom system or because of the perfect symbiotic relationship of Japanese cameramanship and European finest optic lensmanship?

Although the camera is handsome, this is hardly the reason. It is just a really well thought out, classic camera, with modern electronics. Only the slightly dim viewfinder and AF speed let it down. The features are great, the lens lineup is nice, and some of the lenses are really great. And... (drumroll...) it is black!
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on March 13, 2009, 09:56:55 am
Quote from: Leonardo Barreto
It may be because it is a hansom system or because of the perfect symbiotic relationship of Japanese cameramanship and European finest optic lensmanship?


Does it have fine Corrinthean leather?


Steve Hendrix
Phase One
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Graham Mitchell on March 13, 2009, 10:02:53 am
Quote from: carstenw
And... (drumroll...) it is black!

It's such a small thing but makes such a difference!
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Leonardo Barreto on March 13, 2009, 10:08:08 am
WHAAAT? when, where?   (this reminds me of Jurassic Park somehow)

Quote from: foto-z
It's such a small thing but makes such a difference!
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: bcooter on March 13, 2009, 11:06:52 am
Quote from: Leonardo Barreto
Isn't it ironic that while the remaining platforms struggle to be loved in this way the one that did it is out of the game?

Can someone resurrect CONTAX ??


Irony and digital medium format.    

It doesn't seem to be in any companies best interest to build this type of camera.  Instead we are  offered $45,000, 60 million pixel Mamiya's, which is kind of like making a 1000 horse power Kia.

It can be done but why?

Why seems to always come up in every medium format discussion.

Why does Phase have a deal with Microsoft though their software will not tether in Vista?

Why does the Hasselblad file need conversion to DNG before it will work in third party software.  Even Pentax figured that one out.

Why the hell didn't more companies adopt the HY6 or AFI or why is it even called an HY6 or AFI.   What was wrong with the name Rolliflex?  

I use to naively think the forums were a place where the manufacturers came to learn and by us users posting hopefully it would add thought, like someone would say, hmm, maybe we do need a lcd that is better than a Casio watch, but that was naive.

Obviously, these companies know what we are asking for and they know what the competition brings to the table because the users post the same "requests" today they we asked for 7 years ago.

We ask for better batteries, we get more mpx.  We ask for a better lcd, we get more mpx.  We ask for higher iso and we get a camera that will do it, (maybe), but drops down to the file size of a 4 year old canon to get there.  We ask for more accountability of delivery and instead we get software that is always in beta, wide angles that are "in the process" and a long laundry list of TBD.

We ask for a camera that has a full lens range and we get Russian tilt shifts or told to go buy a technical camera for wide angles and though I appreciate the dealers and manufacturer's participation it seems that online forums have become a place for a maker to defend their position and the dealers to sell rather than give across the board dialog about what is coming, what and when  we should expect delivery from these heavy investments.

Instead of leaf shutter lenses or right angle grips, 90 degree finders or removable prisms, we are offered RRS plates with a hand strap.  I have to laugh at this one cause I've had that on the Contax for 6 years.

It's not that information is hard to come by, it's just real information is vague.

Ask how much is the upgrade from a p30 to a P65+ and the forum goes quiet.  In fact the only time you get real numbers is when a maker is having a close out on demos and then the dealers plaster the place with craig list type of want ads.

The head scratcher on all of this is Hasselblad because it seems they could be in the best position of any company to control their own destiny.

Hasselblad has a brand name that actually carries some weight, they have the only full lens line up of leaf shutter lenses, they have a better than Phase lcd (not much but better, but better)  they seem to have a larger dealer network and from all accounts excellent service.

The best part is they have lowered their prices and stepped out of the silly upgrade game.  The downside is the file format that must be processed through their proprietary software before it can go to any third party application.

That's crazy and obviously nobody at hasselblad has shot 1,200 frames a day on deadline and works with outside retouchers because no matter how or when you process a file the retoucher wants and needs a raw and every retoucher on the planet uses Photoshop to process in.

This might not seem like a problem until you amass many, many terabytes of images then it becomes an obvious issue of time and drive space.

Now the real ironic part of all of  this is no user or buyer of medium format wants to see this segment go away.  Most of us have invested many 10's of thousands of dollars and it's somewhat disheartening to watch what was a $30,000 back drop to less than the price of a D3x in three years.   It's also quite an awakening to shoot a 5d2 and find that in many ways clients prefer the look to our previous 10x the costs medum format cameras that jam, burn through batteries like water and require 10,000 watts of light.

That's why we keep asking for more and offering suggestions, but it is beyond most of our understanding why a $30,000 camera back can't half even 1/2 of the functionality of a $3,000 dslr.

If you are a professional and make your living at "selling" the photograph, the camera isn't the goal, the photograph is and sometimes I think the makers believe it's the other way around.  

We only "talk" about these things because we're not getting what we're asking for and I may be wrong but I haven't heard of any photographer asking for a $45,000 camera.  People complain about the price of a D3x.  You can buy 5 D3x's for the costs of the newest Phase and the Nikon comes with moderate high iso, a real lcd with live view, build quality that can withstand a downpour and about a million lenses.

Regardless, there is no wonder why so many professionals that earn their living in photography use a Contax, or a Hasseblad H1 or a V system?   Because even out of production they are full featured and can be bought today without worrying about  what probably will not come out tomorrow.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Digital Darkroom in Dutch on March 13, 2009, 11:32:11 am
Is there a parallel with junk food? Sales figures of hamburgers (even the ones of good quality) and Coca Cola are higher than those for steak and a bottle of wine. We all have to suffer by the average taste and that seems to be equal in each market segment.

Canon and Nikon are governing the market (they are like MacDonald and Burger King) and they are not reading any forum because that will cost time and - you know - time is money.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: bcooter on March 13, 2009, 12:05:26 pm
Quote from: Digital Darkroom in Dutch
Is there a parallel with junk food? Sales figures of hamburgers (even the ones of good quality) and Coca Cola are higher than those for steak and a bottle of wine. We all have to suffer by the average taste and that seems to be equal in each market segment.

Canon and Nikon are governing the market (they are like MacDonald and Burger King) and they are not reading any forum because that will cost time and - you know - time is money.


The "taste" or value of the photograph is not in the capture device, it's in the actual photograph itself.  Monthly, even weekly there are 6 and 7 figure productions shot with Canon's and Nikons, (along with old V's, Film RZ's, Pentax 6x7's and Contax).

In fact at the very high end digital is less of a presence that most people know and in todays economy, unless you are shooting a 1,000 image a day lifestyle shoot or catalog, many clients have recognized that film caputre is more "cost effective" than digital.

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/03/06/chr...fith-interview/ (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/03/06/christopher-griffith-interview/)

But in the end the only camera that matters is the one that doesn't keep you from getting the shot you want and that applies to the high and the low end of the industry.

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/03/12/the...in-photography/ (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/03/12/the-challenges-in-photography/)

Most are photographer's first, with a strong fight to try to develop our art, then business people, with the title of camera owners/users way, way down the list.

With digital capture most of us have learned to be, labs, retouchers, art directors and even some form of pre press house, but that was never the goal




Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Leonardo Barreto on March 13, 2009, 01:04:11 pm
We have to see the glass half full too. I am starting to contribute to a stock agency Alamy.com, they require a minimum of 17mp but this can be extrapolated even from a 6mp camera. My D300 is perfect since it is only a bit short with 12mp. The camera is DX, so lenses are smaller and now we have good wide angles, the LCD is huge, etc. So, no need to upgrade and I can continue sending images to my collection. So here the glass is more than half full.

The I have my old -and getting older- 645AFD Mamiya system and P25. Files are of a perfect 63megas (@8bits) sensel size is biggest at 9 microns, so there is very little or no noise in the shadows. It is true, now we have Canons and Nikons that can get close to it, and they offer some features my back don't. But, the backs can be used on view cameras and technical cameras. DSLR's have half the sensel size, and are near the limits of the envelop with diffraction and lens performance. So, I don't really have a need to upgrade. The back is paid, so I saved $8k. Glass more than full, at leas to me.

I am sure that owners of CONTAX AFD's think in the same way. The camera was built to last --even more so the T* lenses-- digital backs can shoot a million captures...
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Doug Peterson on March 13, 2009, 01:21:24 pm
Quote from: bcooter
Irony and digital medium format.    

It doesn't seem to be in any companies best interest to build this type of camera.  Instead we are  offered $45,000, 60 million pixel Mamiya's, which is kind of like making a 1000 horse power Kia.

I respectfully disagree with your comparison of a Mamiya to a Kia. But since you seem not to like Mamiya, you can instead buy a P65+ to mount on a Contax, Rollei 6008, Mamiya RZ, Mamiya 645, Hasselblad H1/H2, Hasselblad 500 series, and in addition use hasselblad 200 series lenses, pentax lenses, or use any of dozens of view/technical cameras. We've even had customers jurry rig a digital back to a Holga.

So you can have your 1000 horsepower in any flavor you want.

__________________
Doug Peterson (Email Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
Head of Technical Services
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Carl Glover on March 13, 2009, 01:47:47 pm
How about one to mount on the Hy6?
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Anthony R on March 13, 2009, 02:14:23 pm
To bring it back to the original topic. I always loved the Contax for the reason already stated plus: The Mamiya equivalent wasn't/isn't half the camera, the lenses are fantastic, the prices are/were incredible and it wasn't disposable like some bodies (ie. H series).

The viewfinder was a little on the dim side, but I didn't jump back to Canon because of that. The MFDB makers are what drove me back. The market is really in disarray and showed no sign/is STILL showing no signs of addressing end users concern, ie. usable iso above 200, lcd screens and the bloody price. Good job everyone. You're bound to lose even more market share with your refusal to make changes and the good ole global economic mess isn't helping. Maybe if you just met us HALF way.. but alas..
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Leonardo Barreto on March 13, 2009, 02:35:55 pm
Quote from: Carl Glover
How about one to mount on the Hy6?
 Good question Carl
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: mcfoto on March 13, 2009, 02:39:05 pm
Quote from: Carl Glover
How about one to mount on the Hy6?

There was a huge discussion on this very form ( 2 years ago )about the Hy6, being it was only for Sinar & Leaf. Since it was a Sinar backed body Phase was never to be part of it.
Denis
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Conner999 on March 13, 2009, 04:10:49 pm
Exceptionally well said.


Quote from: bcooter
Irony and digital medium format.    

It doesn't seem to be in any companies best interest to build this type of camera.  Instead we are  offered $45,000, 60 million pixel Mamiya's, which is kind of like making a 1000 horse power Kia.

It can be done but why?

Why seems to always come up in every medium format discussion.

Why does Phase have a deal with Microsoft though their software will not tether in Vista?

Why does the Hasselblad file need conversion to DNG before it will work in third party software.  Even Pentax figured that one out.

Why the hell didn't more companies adopt the HY6 or AFI or why is it even called an HY6 or AFI.   What was wrong with the name Rolliflex?  

I use to naively think the forums were a place where the manufacturers came to learn and by us users posting hopefully it would add thought, like someone would say, hmm, maybe we do need a lcd that is better than a Casio watch, but that was naive.

Obviously, these companies know what we are asking for and they know what the competition brings to the table because the users post the same "requests" today they we asked for 7 years ago.

We ask for better batteries, we get more mpx.  We ask for a better lcd, we get more mpx.  We ask for higher iso and we get a camera that will do it, (maybe), but drops down to the file size of a 4 year old canon to get there.  We ask for more accountability of delivery and instead we get software that is always in beta, wide angles that are "in the process" and a long laundry list of TBD.

We ask for a camera that has a full lens range and we get Russian tilt shifts or told to go buy a technical camera for wide angles and though I appreciate the dealers and manufacturer's participation it seems that online forums have become a place for a maker to defend their position and the dealers to sell rather than give across the board dialog about what is coming, what and when  we should expect delivery from these heavy investments.

Instead of leaf shutter lenses or right angle grips, 90 degree finders or removable prisms, we are offered RRS plates with a hand strap.  I have to laugh at this one cause I've had that on the Contax for 6 years.

It's not that information is hard to come by, it's just real information is vague.

Ask how much is the upgrade from a p30 to a P65+ and the forum goes quiet.  In fact the only time you get real numbers is when a maker is having a close out on demos and then the dealers plaster the place with craig list type of want ads.

The head scratcher on all of this is Hasselblad because it seems they could be in the best position of any company to control their own destiny.

Hasselblad has a brand name that actually carries some weight, they have the only full lens line up of leaf shutter lenses, they have a better than Phase lcd (not much but better, but better)  they seem to have a larger dealer network and from all accounts excellent service.

The best part is they have lowered their prices and stepped out of the silly upgrade game.  The downside is the file format that must be processed through their proprietary software before it can go to any third party application.

That's crazy and obviously nobody at hasselblad has shot 1,200 frames a day on deadline and works with outside retouchers because no matter how or when you process a file the retoucher wants and needs a raw and every retoucher on the planet uses Photoshop to process in.

This might not seem like a problem until you amass many, many terabytes of images then it becomes an obvious issue of time and drive space.

Now the real ironic part of all of  this is no user or buyer of medium format wants to see this segment go away.  Most of us have invested many 10's of thousands of dollars and it's somewhat disheartening to watch what was a $30,000 back drop to less than the price of a D3x in three years.   It's also quite an awakening to shoot a 5d2 and find that in many ways clients prefer the look to our previous 10x the costs medum format cameras that jam, burn through batteries like water and require 10,000 watts of light.

That's why we keep asking for more and offering suggestions, but it is beyond most of our understanding why a $30,000 camera back can't half even 1/2 of the functionality of a $3,000 dslr.

If you are a professional and make your living at "selling" the photograph, the camera isn't the goal, the photograph is and sometimes I think the makers believe it's the other way around.  

We only "talk" about these things because we're not getting what we're asking for and I may be wrong but I haven't heard of any photographer asking for a $45,000 camera.  People complain about the price of a D3x.  You can buy 5 D3x's for the costs of the newest Phase and the Nikon comes with moderate high iso, a real lcd with live view, build quality that can withstand a downpour and about a million lenses.

Regardless, there is no wonder why so many professionals that earn their living in photography use a Contax, or a Hasseblad H1 or a V system?   Because even out of production they are full featured and can be bought today without worrying about  what probably will not come out tomorrow.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: guyharrison on March 13, 2009, 04:14:25 pm
To Go Back to the REAL Reason for this Thread:  Why I personally love and will not abandon my Contax 645.

I shoot mainly nature and landscape.  I moved up to the Contax 645 while on a two-year road trip because I wanted the increased sharpness and slide size for large printing.  I was not even thinking digital at the time.  I shot Canon 35mm "L" glass and used only Velvia slide film, printed in Cibachrome (still hardly without equal, but very toxic).

The camera and lens set arrived in the summer of 2000, while I was in Alaska and the very next morning I was out with it shooting icebergs in stormy weather in a small boat.  The camera handled like a dream, it was simple and very intuitive.  I had to rely on auto exposure all day due to the difficult conditions (basic center weighting meter).  Autofocus was a little slow but incredibly precise.  The camera was rained on, salt-sprayed on, bumped around in the rocking boat (as were an assortment of lenses that I used).  It worked all day, no problem.

When I got the slides back, I literally could not believe my eyes.  Not just the incredible resolution of the zeiss lenses, but the absolutely beautiful, vibrant colors, wide tonality, dead-on exposures and focus.  Some of these photos are on my site, www.guyharrisonphoto.com.  I would post some of them but I am new here and don't know how.

The camera is simple, direct, tank-like in its construction.  Easy to hold in either direction (with vert. grip), instantly easy to access all important controls.  I have used it from -32 F (that's right) for hour-long moonlight exposures in Yellowstone Canyon, and at +115F for cacti in the desert.  Exposed to extreme dust, wind, humidity, rain, snow, ice, spray (I actually took photos from inside a waterfall), temperatures, and NEVER spending time in the luxury of a studio the camera is faultless and never even sent back for a factory service or cleaning (I do carefully clean my gear every day).

The lenses are simply the finest optical instruments I have used.  The 35, 120 macro, and 350 APO are just unbelievable and the rest are "merely" superb.  Modern design, fast aperture, and, despite diffraction, useable and acceptable at f/32 with incredible depth of field that more than compensates for the slight resolution loss.

I have no doubt that I can expect at many more years from the body and am looking to add another for a back-up (that's right, no back-up and I never lost a day of use).  The lenses seem like they will go for 20 years or so with taking average care.

I am now thrilled at the prospect of adding a digital back like the Phase One to step into modern digital imaging.  I see no end to the usefulness of this system.

With respect to Mamiya and Phase, which are good gear, I looked at Mamiya very carefully (at the time Hassy was not quite so advanced with regard to autofocus) and the quality did not seem to me to be in the same league as the Contax.

I knew that Mamiya was a more established line and they had great marketing and pricing promotions that Contax did not have, securing a large professional base.  I did not expect Contax to fold, but, honestly, I have no regrets so far and plan to keep using this system indefinitely.

One photographer's view . . . . hope it gave some insight.

As far as reviving the system, OH YEAH! It's nice to think so . . .

Guy
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Leonardo Barreto on March 13, 2009, 04:30:36 pm
You have to remember that this are apples and oranges. In film time you had a 6x7 RZ that was much heavier that a Nikon, it shot only 12 images, changing the film was a fine craft. If you put the motor drive and view finder it weighed one and a half tons. Film came in ISO 100, or ISO 50.... my 4x5 had no AF, or Program, you could not hand hold it. Focusing was hard, putting the film inside the holders on a hot day with the hands inside a changing bag.

I always enjoy the difference. There was a time for motordrive spray and pray shooting ant one for looking at an inverted image circle on an 8x10 focusing glass. The timing was different, with the view camera you try to be as fast as the setting sun, but when you exposed the plate it was like an important moment in the day. You didn't do "1,000 exposures" with a view camera.

Same as in the motor world, there are SUV's and there are sport cars .. and delivery trucks.

Maybe I'm just complaining to mother Nature for taking away those grand dinosaurs, or maybe it just depends on how you look at things...

Quote from: Anthony R
To bring it back to the original topic. I always loved the Contax for the reason already stated plus: The Mamiya equivalent wasn't/isn't half the camera, the lenses are fantastic, the prices are/were incredible and it wasn't disposable like some bodies (ie. H series).

The viewfinder was a little on the dim side, but I didn't jump back to Canon because of that. The MFDB makers are what drove me back. The market is really in disarray and showed no sign/is STILL showing no signs of addressing end users concern, ie. usable iso above 200, lcd screens and the bloody price. Good job everyone. You're bound to lose even more market share with your refusal to make changes and the good ole global economic mess isn't helping. Maybe if you just met us HALF way.. but alas..
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Leonardo Barreto on March 13, 2009, 04:44:31 pm
Amazingly loyal user. Have you considered the Hy6/AFi?  ... anyway, we may very well see it back, no? even the stock market is going up (at least for 2 days now)

Quote from: guyharrison
To Go Back to the REAL Reason for this Thread:  Why I personally love and will not abandon my Contax 645.

I shoot mainly nature and landscape.  I moved up to the Contax 645 while on a two-year road trip because I wanted the increased sharpness and slide size for large printing.  I was not even thinking digital at the time.  I shot Canon 35mm "L" glass and used only Velvia slide film, printed in Cibachrome (still hardly without equal, but very toxic).

The camera and lens set arrived in the summer of 2000, while I was in Alaska and the very next morning I was out with it shooting icebergs in stormy weather in a small boat.  The camera handled like a dream, it was simple and very intuitive.  I had to rely on auto exposure all day due to the difficult conditions (basic center weighting meter).  Autofocus was a little slow but incredibly precise.  The camera was rained on, salt-sprayed on, bumped around in the rocking boat (as were an assortment of lenses that I used).  It worked all day, no problem.

When I got the slides back, I literally could not believe my eyes.  Not just the incredible resolution of the zeiss lenses, but the absolutely beautiful, vibrant colors, wide tonality, dead-on exposures and focus.  Some of these photos are on my site, www.guyharrisonphoto.com.  I would post some of them but I am new here and don't know how.

The camera is simple, direct, tank-like in its construction.  Easy to hold in either direction (with vert. grip), instantly easy to access all important controls.  I have used it from -32 F (that's right) for hour-long moonlight exposures in Yellowstone Canyon, and at +115F for cacti in the desert.  Exposed to extreme dust, wind, humidity, rain, snow, ice, spray (I actually took photos from inside a waterfall), temperatures, and NEVER spending time in the luxury of a studio the camera is faultless and never even sent back for a factory service or cleaning (I do carefully clean my gear every day).

The lenses are simply the finest optical instruments I have used.  The 35, 120 macro, and 350 APO are just unbelievable and the rest are "merely" superb.  Modern design, fast aperture, and, despite diffraction, useable and acceptable at f/32 with incredible depth of field that more than compensates for the slight resolution loss.

I have no doubt that I can expect at many more years from the body and am looking to add another for a back-up (that's right, no back-up and I never lost a day of use).  The lenses seem like they will go for 20 years or so with taking average care.

I am now thrilled at the prospect of adding a digital back like the Phase One to step into modern digital imaging.  I see no end to the usefulness of this system.

With respect to Mamiya and Phase, which are good gear, I looked at Mamiya very carefully (at the time Hassy was not quite so advanced with regard to autofocus) and the quality did not seem to me to be in the same league as the Contax.

I knew that Mamiya was a more established line and they had great marketing and pricing promotions that Contax did not have, securing a large professional base.  I did not expect Contax to fold, but, honestly, I have no regrets so far and plan to keep using this system indefinitely.

One photographer's view . . . . hope it gave some insight.

As far as reviving the system, OH YEAH! It's nice to think so . . .

Guy
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: BJL on March 13, 2009, 05:30:27 pm
Quote from: Leonardo Barreto
The one trend that pops up is the amount of users that keep shooting with their CONTAX 645 AFD and how much they love them, collect them or state will never live them. Do they realize this camera is no longer alive?
This is perhaps a scary observation: the Contax 645 was discontinued despite being an auto-focus MF system of good modern design and quality and with well-considered lenses carrying a prestigious German brand name. One possible reason is that there were simply more good auto-focus MF systems than the market could support, so simply being very good was not enough. Other factors like not having a well-established professional support network might have come into play.

The scary thought is that this could be a precedent for other very good quality MF systems also not surviving; that is what many including Michael seem to think.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Carsten W on March 13, 2009, 05:38:23 pm
Quote from: BJL
This is perhaps a scary observation: the Contax 645 was discontinued despite being an auto-focus MF system of good modern design and quality and with well-considered lenses carrying a prestigious German brand name. One possible reason is that there were simply more good auto-focus MF systems than the market could support, so simply being very good was not enough. Other factors like not having a well-established professional support network might have come into play.

The scary thought is that this could be a precedent for other very good quality MF systems also not surviving; that is what many including Michael seem to think.

Honestly, I think that the real problem lies somewhere within Kyocera. If they had swapped out the focusing screen for a brighter one, and sped up the AF a bit, they would have had a camera in league with the H, but without the funky politics of Blad. And it is black.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: yaya on March 13, 2009, 07:04:51 pm
The problem wasn't the 645AF...it was the 35mm Digital N that killed it
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Leonardo Barreto on March 13, 2009, 07:43:53 pm
I am surprised that nobody would want to buy the brand, as Minolta was. All you need is a back maker, and you have a nice symbiotic relationship. Or at least someone should come with a body that would accept CONTAX 645AF lenses on one side and Phase/Leaf/Sinar backs on the other... maybe PANASONIC - or SIGMA ..

Quote from: yaya
The problem wasn't the 645AF...it was the 35mm Digital N that killed it
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Carsten W on March 13, 2009, 07:54:38 pm
Quote from: Leonardo Barreto
I am surprised that nobody would want to buy the brand, as Minolta was. All you need is a back maker, and you have a nice symbiotic relationship. Or at least someone should come with a body that would accept CONTAX 645AF lenses on one side and Phase/Leaf/Sinar backs on the other... maybe PANASONIC - or SIGMA ..

Apparently several companies have tried, and rumour has it that Phase was one of them. Anyway, Kyocera is apparently unwilling to sell. I have no idea what to believe, but wherever the blame lies, it is a bleeding shame. Great camera, which I would *love* to see resurrected.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Leonardo Barreto on March 13, 2009, 08:10:31 pm
But you could do an unauthorized body with CONTAX mount for the lenses in same way SIGMA, TOKINA and the others do lenses for Nikon/Canon/Sony mount, no?

Quote from: carstenw
Apparently several companies have tried, and rumour has it that Phase was one of them. Anyway, Kyocera is apparently unwilling to sell. I have no idea what to believe, but wherever the blame lies, it is a bleeding shame. Great camera, which I would *love* to see resurrected.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Carsten W on March 13, 2009, 08:16:28 pm
Quote from: Leonardo Barreto
But you could do an unauthorized body with CONTAX mount for the lenses in same way SIGMA, TOKINA and the others do lenses for Nikon/Canon/Sony mount, no?

Who would buy? You would want the Contax name on there. In any case, reviving the body without the lenses solves nothing. The system would remain unsupported. Contax really needs to come back to life.

What do Contax owners here do for an L-plate? One of the Kirk Big-L plates, and if so, which one? I don't use the MP-1 battery pack.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: David Klepacki on March 13, 2009, 09:06:06 pm
Quote from: carstenw
Who would buy? You would want the Contax name on there. In any case, reviving the body without the lenses solves nothing. The system would remain unsupported. Contax really needs to come back to life.

What do Contax owners here do for an L-plate? One of the Kirk Big-L plates, and if so, which one? I don't use the MP-1 battery pack.

I use the RRS L-plate for the Contax 645.  You can use it without the MP-1.  The body lug that appears to obstruct the plate can be removed easily.

Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: jimgolden on March 14, 2009, 03:07:28 am
Quote from: Steve Hendrix/Phase One
Does it have fine Corrinthean leather?


Steve Hendrix
Phase One


CLASSIC...
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: jonstewart on March 14, 2009, 03:14:10 am
Quote from: bcooter
Irony and digital medium format.    

...snip

Thank you for that. Absolutely spot on.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Carsten W on March 14, 2009, 05:14:42 am
Quote from: David Klepacki
I use the RRS L-plate for the Contax 645.  You can use it without the MP-1.  The body lug that appears to obstruct the plate can be removed easily.

Interesting! I am about to put in a big RRS order, and it would be ideal to get this there too. Does the side then still allow placing the lens directly over the tripod axis? I will be using it for panoramas, among other things.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: bradleygibson on March 14, 2009, 10:12:44 am
Amen, brother!

Any of the camera manufacturers reading this thread, please read this post.  Then, before trying to explain or defend, please read it again.

Spot on!

-Brad

Quote from: bcooter
Irony and digital medium format.    

It doesn't seem to be in any companies best interest to build this type of camera.  Instead we are  offered $45,000, 60 million pixel Mamiya's, which is kind of like making a 1000 horse power Kia.

It can be done but why?

Why seems to always come up in every medium format discussion.

Why does Phase have a deal with Microsoft though their software will not tether in Vista?

Why does the Hasselblad file need conversion to DNG before it will work in third party software.  Even Pentax figured that one out.

Why the hell didn't more companies adopt the HY6 or AFI or why is it even called an HY6 or AFI.   What was wrong with the name Rolliflex?  

I use to naively think the forums were a place where the manufacturers came to learn and by us users posting hopefully it would add thought, like someone would say, hmm, maybe we do need a lcd that is better than a Casio watch, but that was naive.

Obviously, these companies know what we are asking for and they know what the competition brings to the table because the users post the same "requests" today they we asked for 7 years ago.

We ask for better batteries, we get more mpx.  We ask for a better lcd, we get more mpx.  We ask for higher iso and we get a camera that will do it, (maybe), but drops down to the file size of a 4 year old canon to get there.  We ask for more accountability of delivery and instead we get software that is always in beta, wide angles that are "in the process" and a long laundry list of TBD.

We ask for a camera that has a full lens range and we get Russian tilt shifts or told to go buy a technical camera for wide angles and though I appreciate the dealers and manufacturer's participation it seems that online forums have become a place for a maker to defend their position and the dealers to sell rather than give across the board dialog about what is coming, what and when  we should expect delivery from these heavy investments.

Instead of leaf shutter lenses or right angle grips, 90 degree finders or removable prisms, we are offered RRS plates with a hand strap.  I have to laugh at this one cause I've had that on the Contax for 6 years.

It's not that information is hard to come by, it's just real information is vague.

Ask how much is the upgrade from a p30 to a P65+ and the forum goes quiet.  In fact the only time you get real numbers is when a maker is having a close out on demos and then the dealers plaster the place with craig list type of want ads.

The head scratcher on all of this is Hasselblad because it seems they could be in the best position of any company to control their own destiny.

Hasselblad has a brand name that actually carries some weight, they have the only full lens line up of leaf shutter lenses, they have a better than Phase lcd (not much but better, but better)  they seem to have a larger dealer network and from all accounts excellent service.

The best part is they have lowered their prices and stepped out of the silly upgrade game.  The downside is the file format that must be processed through their proprietary software before it can go to any third party application.

That's crazy and obviously nobody at hasselblad has shot 1,200 frames a day on deadline and works with outside retouchers because no matter how or when you process a file the retoucher wants and needs a raw and every retoucher on the planet uses Photoshop to process in.

This might not seem like a problem until you amass many, many terabytes of images then it becomes an obvious issue of time and drive space.

Now the real ironic part of all of  this is no user or buyer of medium format wants to see this segment go away.  Most of us have invested many 10's of thousands of dollars and it's somewhat disheartening to watch what was a $30,000 back drop to less than the price of a D3x in three years.   It's also quite an awakening to shoot a 5d2 and find that in many ways clients prefer the look to our previous 10x the costs medum format cameras that jam, burn through batteries like water and require 10,000 watts of light.

That's why we keep asking for more and offering suggestions, but it is beyond most of our understanding why a $30,000 camera back can't half even 1/2 of the functionality of a $3,000 dslr.

If you are a professional and make your living at "selling" the photograph, the camera isn't the goal, the photograph is and sometimes I think the makers believe it's the other way around.  

We only "talk" about these things because we're not getting what we're asking for and I may be wrong but I haven't heard of any photographer asking for a $45,000 camera.  People complain about the price of a D3x.  You can buy 5 D3x's for the costs of the newest Phase and the Nikon comes with moderate high iso, a real lcd with live view, build quality that can withstand a downpour and about a million lenses.

Regardless, there is no wonder why so many professionals that earn their living in photography use a Contax, or a Hasseblad H1 or a V system?   Because even out of production they are full featured and can be bought today without worrying about  what probably will not come out tomorrow.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: bradleygibson on March 14, 2009, 10:19:25 am
Been dere, done dat.

IMO, the camera (at least with the e75r--I've not put an AFI back through its paces) still needs to mature somewhat before its ready to be used as a nature photography tool.  That AFi II-10 back looks pretty sweet, tho.

Quote from: Leonardo Barreto
Amazingly loyal user. Have you considered the Hy6/AFi?  ... anyway, we may very well see it back, no? even the stock market is going up (at least for 2 days now)
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: bradleygibson on March 14, 2009, 10:24:54 am
LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZp7uekTd20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZp7uekTd20)

The 'scoop' on Corinthian leather...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnZdMeEfG1Y...feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnZdMeEfG1Y&feature=related)

Quote from: jimgolden
CLASSIC...
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Khun_K on March 14, 2009, 11:00:54 am
Quote from: David Klepacki
I use the RRS L-plate for the Contax 645.  You can use it without the MP-1.  The body lug that appears to obstruct the plate can be removed easily.
I also use RRS L for my Contax 645 + MP1, also another RRS plate made specially for 645 w/o MP1 and I was quite bugged with the fact that the RRS does not support the L plate for just the body, I don't like to machine the parts that the camera may pivot against the plate, as a result, I live with my 645 with MP1 all the time. In studio it is OK, but on location when sometimes I put a bron-color ring flash, with the cable, with the radio transmitter and VS 45-90, shoot whole day under sun in temperature above 90F is a tough job.
But, what a lovely system, never let me down.  And I am moving up to P65+ from 45+ next month and still on Contax.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: David Klepacki on March 14, 2009, 11:28:38 am
Quote from: carstenw
Interesting! I am about to put in a big RRS order, and it would be ideal to get this there too. Does the side then still allow placing the lens directly over the tripod axis? I will be using it for panoramas, among other things.

Not without a spacing block and/or rail.  You will also need a small spacer for the bracket to clear the film/digital back.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: bcooter on March 14, 2009, 01:38:19 pm
Quote from: dougpetersonci
I respectfully disagree with your comparison of a Mamiya to a Kia. But since you seem not to like Mamiya, you can instead buy a P65+ to mount on a Contax, Rollei 6008, Mamiya RZ, Mamiya 645, Hasselblad H1/H2, Hasselblad 500 series, and in addition use hasselblad 200 series lenses, pentax lenses, or use any of dozens of view/technical cameras. We've even had customers jurry rig a digital back to a Holga.

So you can have your 1000 horsepower in any flavor you want.

__________________
Doug Peterson


Well, I still think the car analogy makes sense and let's be realistic, these cameras have been compared to cars since day one.  Michael mentions Mercedes and Toyotas in his article and in fact most reviewers rarely fail to draw a medium format camera to luxury car comparison.  Personally I don't see a Mamiya 645 as a luxury item, but to each his own.

Even the current pricing of medium format mimics cars.  Today you can buy a 2 year old Maserati for the price of a new Cadillac, a two year old Cadillac for the price of a new Toyota and looking at the demo prices from all the medium format makers today might be a good time for someone that is jonesing for a medium format back to buy a demo back, a used blad or Contax and start shooting, pretty much at the Toyota price.  

What I really fail to understand is everyone talks about the upgrade path of medium format cameras (not backs, cameras)  and seems to worry that their blad or contax has no where to go.     For some of us, no where to go is a good thing because I doubt if my Contax will need a firmware upgrade and I have yet to travel through a city where Contax 645's weren't for sale.  On this forum Hasselblad has a deal to have your H1-2 refurbished at bargain prices, so in my mind these old cameras are sill very viable.     I have had 3 brands and 5 models of digital backs mounted on the Contax and each in focus image is razor sharp, so I'm  not real sure what any new system will give me that I need. Need vs. want is a different thing.

For digital I looked at the Mamiya, (briefly) but didn't understand the advantage over a Contax other than the dealers were selling them in bundles.  The Contax has a fast lens line with the only hole a 100 to 110 f2 prime and regardless of current thought I do use the waist level finder a great deal, as 70% of everything I shoot for commerce is now horizontal and try shooting ground level horizontal with any fixed prism camera and you'll wish you had a chin guard.  Even if two or three years from now some company like Mamiya or F+H comes out with something I just can't do without, the costs of the Contax is so low and the used market still so robust that selling it would probably not result in a single lost penny.  The digital back won't hold it's value, but the camera and lenses will.

Let's be realistic.  From a professional standpoint few of the new cameras are a "must" buy except for a few rare cases or for rental houses whose photographers know little about the digital process and just say "give me the biggest one on the shelf".  

For rental guys 60mpx makes sense, for photographers that shoot for  commerce and own their own equipment, I have doubts.  

This doesn't mean anyone shouldn't buy what they want because it's just fun to have new stuff, but just like cars, buying a Maserati won't make you Lewis Hamilton, buying a 60mpx back won't make you Weston and had Weston's photographs had 20% more detail it would have changed nothing.

But to be clear there is nothing wrong with a Kia, maybe even one with 1,000 hp, but the valet won't park it in the front of Capo and just like cameras, Kia and Hyundai are probably doing better than Jaguar and Land Rover.  

Obviously Mamiya is doing better than Contax, Bronica, Pentax, but that doesn't mean that had Hasselblad had kept the H system open or Contax was still in production that Maimiya would have ever been a thought in Phase One's corporate mind.

The only problem I have with the Contax isn't the camera it's that the backs have not kept up with the development of the dslrs.  Everytime I look down at that tiny lcd I think about selling the backs, but I doubt if I will ever sell my Contax'.  

Still, when you start talking about Luxury items, or who needs/wants/can afford something in the world of modern cameras the AFI (god I wish they called it A Rolleiflex) followed by the Blad would be 1 and 2 in bling factor.    

I live and die for the photograph, but don't think bling doesn't matter because if it didn't we would all be wearing hemp and walking to work.

Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: revaaron on March 16, 2009, 09:00:08 am
I use it all the time. I have 80 f/2 and 45 f/2.8 lenses, 2 film backs and a polaroid back.  I'm looking around ebay for a very cheap aptus 11 or 17 for it. I'll put a digital back on it when they get cheap enough used. Until then, I can shoot and process a crap load of film with the 1000's that it would cost for a DB.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: siba on March 16, 2009, 10:02:33 am
The only good thing about processing films was sitting in the pub while waiting for them. It was a justifiable part of my workflow.

I guess the anticipation of the roll film coming out of the machine and the relief of seeing the exposure being correct was kind of fun.

But I would rather spend the money on a digital back than on film, developing and contact sheets. That was and still is very expensive. Just your average 10 film smaller shoot on my 6x7 would be at least $100, and the client is not paying for it, I am.

I don't go for all this doom and gloom regarding digital backs. The day I put a phase one digital back on my Contax 645 I became a happier man. That was three years ago. I don't care if it's the P25 I had initially, or my P45 I have now, or the P65+ I'll try to negotiate for myself in the next year or so. As a photographer I'm just over the moon that they exist at all.

I was wary of the Contax 645 initially, because I was very attached to my Pentax 67II, and had thought of 645 as inferior to 67. Sort of a compromise. But, that was then, and this is now, and I don't want to have to ever let go of the Contax system. Just as before, when there were Hassy people, mamiya users (2 types:645 and RZ), Pentax 67 (not really many Pentax645), and a few who for some reason used a Bronica, the Contax, amongst these, was a sexy camera.

Nowadays there is less of a choice and the Contax coupled with a digital back hasn't aged, and is still sexy. Anyone who has squeezed the shutter release of the Contax 645 can appreciate what I'm talking about. It feels incredibly solid. The no-bullsh*t design is a joy to handle, both ergonomically, and functionally. And then there are the lenses. The 80 f2 is probably the best basic lens available. It's razor sharp when you hit the sweet spot and then goes and does something beautiful in the out of focus areas. The new Hasselblad lenses are sharper over the whole area of the lens, but they lack soul, and yes I am biased. Then there's my little 35, 45, and 55mm family who each do there thing depending on what I need. The 45mm is incredibly versatile. The one time a year I get the 210mm out it's worth every minute.

Out of what's available I would argue that the reason most of us Contax users are passionate about the camera is that it's the only available system that was designed for film. So, if we're using digital then we feel that maybe there's a different look we can attain. Or, maybe it's just a different feel. Maybe it's just in our heads, but when I did a side by side test with a hasselblad friend of mine, I liked the fact that in my file there were some areas which were inexplicably not as sharp when other parts were. Nobody would have ever noticed if we weren't pixel peeping. My friend used to use Fuji and I Kodak in the bad old days. Maybe it's these subtleties that allow us to enjoy the photography more.

If I was still shooting film I would possibly still be using the Pentax 67II that I was very fond of. That clunk of the mirror was great. But in hindsight the forced move to Contax 645 because of digital was a piece of good fortune. Maybe one day I'll be forced to move on to something else, and be feeling the same way. I don't want to think about that now, though.

cheers
Stefan
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: evgeny on March 17, 2009, 03:04:09 am
Does it look less attractive than the current models?  

(http://forum.selldesk.com/forum/upload/images/Evgeny/sell/54M_08.jpg)
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: bradleygibson on March 17, 2009, 09:36:12 am
They definitely got the color right!

Quote from: evgeny
Does it look less attractive than the current models?  

(http://forum.selldesk.com/forum/upload/images/Evgeny/sell/54M_08.jpg)
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Alex MacPherson on March 21, 2009, 08:48:27 pm
I recently bought a Hasselblad H2 kit with the 80mm lens. I got it for a good price but  I guess I should have done more research. I do love
the camera but... I can't afford the lenses!

I am shooting film while saving for a back. I love the images but eek! I want more lenses.

I am thinking of jumping ship to the Contax 645. How do the lenses compare in quality to the HC lenses?
I could probably get a pretty nice Contax setup for the price of the H2 kit.

Are they close?
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: evgeny on March 22, 2009, 01:08:20 am
Quote from: Dolce Moda Photography
I am thinking of jumping ship to the Contax 645. How do the lenses compare in quality to the HC lenses?

I don't know how this compares to HC lenses, here is a 100% crop of an image shot with 45-90mm Contax 645 lens

(http://forum.selldesk.com/forum/upload/images/Evgeny/Tel-Aviv01.jpg)

(http://forum.selldesk.com/forum/upload/images/Evgeny/Tel-Aviv01crop.jpg)
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: mcfoto on March 22, 2009, 02:13:22 am
Quote from: Dolce Moda Photography
I recently bought a Hasselblad H2 kit with the 80mm lens. I got it for a good price but  I guess I should have done more research. I do love
the camera but... I can't afford the lenses!

I am shooting film while saving for a back. I love the images but eek! I want more lenses.

I am thinking of jumping ship to the Contax 645. How do the lenses compare in quality to the HC lenses?
I could probably get a pretty nice Contax setup for the price of the H2 kit.

Are they close?

I tried both the Contax & Mamiya AF in 1999 & went with the Mamiya. I liked the 80 mm lens better, more contrast & had a sharper B&W neg than the Contax. I was selling my Hasselblad 500 CM to go into a AF system. At that time the Contax lenses were twice the price of Mamiya, not sure about today in the used market. I would just wait & see if there are any more news on the Mamiya/Phase front.
Denis
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Carsten W on March 22, 2009, 04:09:45 am
Quote from: mcfoto
I tried both the Contax & Mamiya AF in 1999 & went with the Mamiya. I liked the 80 mm lens better, more contrast & had a sharper B&W neg than the Contax. I was selling my Hasselblad 500 CM to go into a AF system. At that time the Contax lenses were twice the price of Mamiya, not sure about today in the used market. I would just wait & see if there are any more news on the Mamiya/Phase front.
Denis

Some of the Contax 645 lenses are at the top of the heap, like the 35/3.5 and 120/4 Macro (which goes all the way to 1:1, by the way!). I have both, but unfortunately don't have any digital back, so I cannot confirm this. I think though if you look around at how many people in the platform thread use Contax, that is a testimony to the strength of the system. You should have an extra body though, since repair facilities are few, and there is no warranty any more.

I was out shooting with mine yesterday, T-MAX 400 with the 120 Macro, and I really enjoy the system. I am thinking about getting a Maxwell focusing screen though, as the stock one is a little dim.

On the topic of Mamiya, the Contax 645 80/2 is not the sharpest lens wide open, but it is f/2. I find it a bit, erm, unusual to judge a system based on its kit lens, to be honest, since this is rarely going to be the working focal length. The Mamiya system is popular, but if you look at threads in the last couple of weeks around here, and on getdpi.com, you will also see that there are quality issues with it. Not for everyone, but various problems come up with regularity. If I were shopping for a Mamiya, I would wait for the new camera from Phase (being designed currently), but then, it probably won't be that cheap compared to the current one and the Contax.

I picked up my Contax 645 + film back + 80/2 for a little over 1000 Euro, my 35/3.5 for 1400 and the macro lens for about the same. I am hoping to pick up a 210/4 at some point, which should cost a little less than 1000 Euro. At the moment the prices seem lower, however, so you could get some really good deals.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Alex MacPherson on March 22, 2009, 05:58:54 am
I dumped my Mamiya system for Hasselblad. I am not going back
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: ndevlin on March 22, 2009, 10:14:43 am
While I am a lover of the Contax 'feel', I would have grudgingly concluded that their lenses are no better overall than Mamiya or Fujiblad.  Each line has its gems and so-so offerings. Any difference in optics isn't worth switching over.  That said, there may be reasons to switch.  It appears that used Contax lenses continue to draw premium prices on the used market, so it's not a money-saving measure, either.

- N.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Evanjoe610 on March 22, 2009, 11:36:19 am
Evgneny,


Your images shot with the Contax 645 45-90mm zoom, is it film or digital capture?  I have that lens too and find it to be as sharp if not sharper then its prime version.
Unfortunately, I do not have a digital back as I'm still shooting film with it. With the limited amount of film I shot with it, I am seeing that this zoom is a gem.

The Contax 645 has great ergonomics in how it feels in ones hand.  The balance and use of Hasselblad optics and Pentacon6 optics (Schneider, CZJ. and Hartblei)
opens more lens choices to the user.  I understand that Zorkendorfer makes a cross platform adapter that will allow the use of Mamiya 645 optics on the Contax 645. I do not have any experience with that adapter.

Evan


Quote from: evgeny
I don't know how this compares to HC lenses, here is a 100% crop of an image shot with 45-90mm Contax 645 lens

(http://forum.selldesk.com/forum/upload/images/Evgeny/Tel-Aviv01.jpg)

(http://forum.selldesk.com/forum/upload/images/Evgeny/Tel-Aviv01crop.jpg)
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: evgeny on March 22, 2009, 12:20:15 pm
Quote from: Evanjoe610
Evgneny,


Your images shot with the Contax 645 45-90mm zoom, is it film or digital capture?

Evan, I shot this with an Aptus digital back. My another digital back, called Sinarback 54M, and Nikon 9000 scanner with Nikon glass holder, Wolf calibration targets and other extras are now for sell, contact me if you are interested.

Evgeny
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: CBarrett on March 22, 2009, 06:08:08 pm
Man, you guys are making this hard on me... LOL  I'm going to be picking up a P45+ in a couple weeks and am getting their camera and an 80mm along with it (though the back will spend most of it's life on my Arca).  I loved my Contax G2's and have wanted the 645 since it first came out, and have actually been considering getting the back in a Contax mount since you can still get Contax - Arca adapters...

Damn!

-cb
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Carsten W on March 22, 2009, 06:16:59 pm
Quote from: CBarrett
Man, you guys are making this hard on me... LOL  I'm going to be picking up a P45+ in a couple weeks and am getting their camera and an 80mm along with it (though the back will spend most of it's life on my Arca).  I loved my Contax G2's and have wanted the 645 since it first came out, and have actually been considering getting the back in a Contax mount since you can still get Contax - Arca adapters...

Damn!

-cb

So, what's the problem? Get one  There are many good cameras out there, and the Contax is very popular with many. You certainly won't go wrong with it.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Alex MacPherson on March 23, 2009, 01:36:08 am
Quote from: ndevlin
While I am a lover of the Contax 'feel', I would have grudgingly concluded that their lenses are no better overall than Mamiya or Fujiblad.  Each line has its gems and so-so offerings. Any difference in optics isn't worth switching over.  That said, there may be reasons to switch.  It appears that used Contax lenses continue to draw premium prices on the used market, so it's not a money-saving measure, either.

- N.

I disagree.

The difference in price between Hasselblad HC lenses and Contax is substantial.
 For instance, the Contax 120 Makro sells for about $1500 while the Hasselblad HC 120 Macro sells for $3000.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: ddk on March 25, 2009, 11:17:55 pm
Quote from: ndevlin
While I am a lover of the Contax 'feel', I would have grudgingly concluded that their lenses are no better overall than Mamiya or Fujiblad.  Each line has its gems and so-so offerings. Any difference in optics isn't worth switching over.  That said, there may be reasons to switch.  It appears that used Contax lenses continue to draw premium prices on the used market, so it's not a money-saving measure, either.

- N.

Well, it depends what you mean by better or worse, of course if sharpness is the only criteria then yes, all 3 systems are pretty close and quite wonderful. The difference is in the rendering and feel of each system, at the end of the day its subjective and personal and they all have something special to offer but for me Contax 645 is the ONE and ONLY for now.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Gandalf on March 26, 2009, 11:44:13 pm
To me there is a running theme on these threads: there are many differences between an amateur and professional photographer, and it has nothing to do with skills or abilities. Amateurs can use what ever equipment they want, what ever feels good, what ever makes them happy. Professionals need the tool that gets the job done, every time, and is bulletproof reliable. How a lens draws or which is sharper or which feels nicer is an irrelevant if you are worried about your gear crapping out or worst of all if it actually does on a shoot (been there, done that with nearly every manufacturer, have the grey hairs to prove it).

If you look on the threads, with little exception, you will see pros recommending the camera that is good enough for their work and clients, is reliable, has a good warranty and a strong dealer network. I'm not really shooting professionally an longer, but I have enough shoots that I have not been able to make time to send my partially working Leica DMR/R8 back Leica to get fixed (both bodies need repair) because I have no idea how long they will keep it and for that reason it is not a professional quality camera -- regardless of the image quality. With Canon or Nikon, they would send me a replacement, I would send in my camera to get fixed, get it back a week later and send the loaner back. That is what makes Canon and Nikon professional level tools, regardless of the image quality.

So back to the question at hand. If you are an amateur, get what ever makes you happy. My vote goes to the Contax because it feels nice and is a joy to use and the lenses have that great Zeiss quality (it's not sharpness, it's something else). If you are a professional photographer that involves working with models or clients on deadline (pretty much anything besides fine art), or aspire to become one, manufacturer or dealer support is king and that means Mamiya AFD or Hasselblad H2 or H3D. With Contax, bodies may be cheap enough to keep a spare or two, but if your back craps out will you be able to get another digital back with a Contax mount on very short notice? Honestly, I have no idea. But you should.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Khun_K on March 27, 2009, 03:23:38 am
Quote from: Gandalf
To me there is a running theme on these threads: there are many differences between an amateur and professional photographer, and it has nothing to do with skills or abilities. Amateurs can use what ever equipment they want, what ever feels good, what ever makes them happy. Professionals need the tool that gets the job done, every time, and is bulletproof reliable. How a lens draws or which is sharper or which feels nicer is an irrelevant if you are worried about your gear crapping out or worst of all if it actually does on a shoot (been there, done that with nearly every manufacturer, have the grey hairs to prove it).

If you look on the threads, with little exception, you will see pros recommending the camera that is good enough for their work and clients, is reliable, has a good warranty and a strong dealer network. I'm not really shooting professionally an longer, but I have enough shoots that I have not been able to make time to send my partially working Leica DMR/R8 back Leica to get fixed (both bodies need repair) because I have no idea how long they will keep it and for that reason it is not a professional quality camera -- regardless of the image quality. With Canon or Nikon, they would send me a replacement, I would send in my camera to get fixed, get it back a week later and send the loaner back. That is what makes Canon and Nikon professional level tools, regardless of the image quality.

So back to the question at hand. If you are an amateur, get what ever makes you happy. My vote goes to the Contax because it feels nice and is a joy to use and the lenses have that great Zeiss quality (it's not sharpness, it's something else). If you are a professional photographer that involves working with models or clients on deadline (pretty much anything besides fine art), or aspire to become one, manufacturer or dealer support is king and that means Mamiya AFD or Hasselblad H2 or H3D. With Contax, bodies may be cheap enough to keep a spare or two, but if your back craps out will you be able to get another digital back with a Contax mount on very short notice? Honestly, I have no idea. But you should.
Very true, as professional, the last thing you need to worry is whether there is a back up but as a professional you always need to prepare a back up, so overall consistency and performance is what defined a good system, apart from pure optical excellence. The Contax 645 is perhaps the best Contax body ever built, it is a nature extension of photographer's hand, and it is very important because that's how one can fully concentrated on shooting, rather than figuring out the camera. Contax 645 in this regard, is beautifully, robust, and just keep going.  It has just enough essential electronics to make it stable, require less maintenance, while on the other hand, my Hasselblad system although working beautifully when they are working OK, and focus better and sharper, but since it has much complicated electronics, it has more problems. One of my most favorite camera, the RTSIII is also a beautifully design and crafted camera but just not as reliable as 645, although perhaps until today it is still the one camera that gives the best feel when it is in a photographer's hand, too bad that it is long gone, and too bad that it feels more robust than 645, but at less built quality - meaning putting parts together.
The only problem I can find on Contax 645 was the vertical grip, and same as on the previous N series, is the integrated grip is not robust enough, especially when you use a heavy lens. Tools for medium format digital photography, to me, needs to be simple and Contax did just that. We only need ISO, the combination of shutter speed and f stops, enough battery and enough memory cards, and what else is needed?
The optical performance of all major camera/lens makers are all have their royal lovers, people would argue to death for which is better, but it does not matter as much as the photographer himself or herself.
We have all heard enough bad news for awhile, the fact that a long discontinued camera system continue to produce images of highest quality and show no sign of stopping is perhaps one of the best thing in this industry.

Regards, K
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: jaffa_777 on April 14, 2009, 09:17:52 am
I'm a film shooter in medium format at the moment until I can afford to buy a digital back for it.  I bought a Contax 645 because its such a great handheld camera with beautifull lenses.  I love this system hand downs and feel their is only one reason why I may have to sell it for something like Mamiya.  The slow flash sync.  I think I would be fine for most studio/shade and dusk/dawn shoots.  

But shooting at midday might be impossible?  How do you peoples out their who shoot this camera professionally deal with the 1/125th flash sync speed on a shoot outdoors? Especially using the sun as a back light and wanting to increase the shutter speed to cut down your ratios?   Its a big problem if you need to use the camera professionally.  I am looking for every reason to hold onto it though.
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Doug Peterson on April 14, 2009, 09:40:48 am
Quote from: jaffa_777
I'm a film shooter in medium format at the moment until I can afford to buy a digital back for it.  I bought a Contax 645 because its such a great handheld camera with beautifull lenses.  I love this system hand downs and feel their is only one reason why I may have to sell it for something like Mamiya.  The slow flash sync.  I think I would be fine for most studio/shade and dusk/dawn shoots.  

But shooting at midday might be impossible?  How do you peoples out their who shoot this camera professionally deal with the 1/125th flash sync speed on a shoot outdoors? Especially using the sun as a back light and wanting to increase the shutter speed to cut down your ratios?   Its a big problem if you need to use the camera professionally.  I am looking for every reason to hold onto it though.

Leaf shutter lenses are a much better solution to the problem, but they are not the only solution. Add a 2 stop ND filter in front of the lens and then turn up your lights 2 stops and you accomplish the same as syncing at 1/500th. The becomes limiting when you run out of extra power on the packs and have to either upgrade to higher wattage lighting packs, reduce light-to-subject distance, reduce use of of diffusion/bounce, or use multiple packs. Or you could rent a system with leaf shutter lenses when needed.

In other words, if you need high-speed-sync often then you need leaf shutter lenses. If you only very occasionally use high-speed-sync then you can get by without them.

Can't wait for Mamiya/Phase to release leaf shutter lenses. That could change this entire equation.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Alex MacPherson on April 14, 2009, 04:27:30 pm
Quote from: jaffa_777
I one reason why I may have to sell it for something like Mamiya.  The slow flash sync.


Uhh... the Mamiya has a 1/125 flash sync too.  
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: Doug Peterson on April 14, 2009, 04:43:23 pm
Quote from: Dolce Moda Photography
Uhh... the Mamiya has a 1/125 flash sync too.  

He may mean the Mamiya RZ which syncs at 1/400th or may be looking forward (as many are) to leaf shutter lenses announced, but not yet released, leaf shutter lenses for the Mamiya 645 platform.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
Title: Why CONTAX refuses to die?
Post by: jaffa_777 on April 15, 2009, 11:38:39 am
Quote from: dougpetersonci
He may mean the Mamiya RZ which syncs at 1/400th or may be looking forward (as many are) to leaf shutter lenses announced, but not yet released, leaf shutter lenses for the Mamiya 645 platform.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)


I thought I saw somewhere that the Mamiya AFD III was being released with leaf shutter lenses?  Thats the only reason really.  If so Mamiya are starting to make things interesting.  I am not sure what the lens quality is like, but I read one guy who uses a Leaf back on both the AFD and RZ, and said the RZ lenses still outshine their little 645 brothers.  RZ's so heavy though, I gotta shoot handheld most of the time, tripods too restricting, I like to move around my subjects.

Thanks for the idea on the ND filters too Doug.  I was thinking about that. I have never used ND filters.  Would good ones like B&W have any affect on image quality?   I'll have to try an ND filter on and my lights out with soft boxes on a bright day and see how much power I really have.  Their 750w Bowens.  I wonder if I could over power the sun with these, plus 2 more stops?  Hmmm.