Buy a digital back for my Contax 645?

[Theodoros]

I thought that the Sinar backs, the early ones were simply made by Jenoptic. Later on, Jenoptic simply disappeared out of the digital back making business. Leaf backs have always been developed and made in Israel ( and maybe some development by Creo in Canada).

Actually that's not exactly what happened... Jenoptik was a share holder of Sinar until after the Sinarback 75LV was developed... They retired the share holdership later on, but did sign a contract that they will continue to make the backs for Sinar... None ever claimed that Jenoptik also made Leaf backs... The relevance between early Leaf and Sinarbacks though is obvious (as well as the naming 22, 54, 74 etc... the timing and the sensor used), where Leaf backs where assembled is rather irrelevant.

Never the less, no matter what history is, it can't change the fact that Sinarback E-motion 75LV is an excellent MFDB judged by any standard among modern backs.

EDIT: In fact the current MFDB line of Sinar (75H, 86H & e-Xact) are still made by Jenoptik... The whole e-motion line of self contained backs (along with 75LV) was stopped after HY-6 production was seized...

[Peter Devos]

Thanks for the info :-)

[lowep]

Comparing a Contax to the A7R2 is like comparing a 2001 BMW M3 vs a Toyota Prius.

How about a C645 lens mounted on a Sony A7? 

[Theodoros]

How about a C645 lens mounted on a Sony A7?

I do that on my Nikons (thanks to the JAS adapter I bought last year) and it caused me to sell all my Nikon glass other than the 17-35/2,8 (to have for WAs), the old 35-70/2,8 (to have as a walk around lens) and the 85/2.8 micro PC (which I need professionally with or without the Kenko DGX 1,4X TC)... I suspect that there will be more need to do it on a Sony α7 body, as the glass of it seems to be more of a problem than it ever was for Nikon...but this is saving even more money to spend on a good MFDB...

[araucaria]

Eventually they will release a speedbooster with electronics for the contax glass, amazing combination with the a7rii.

[lowep]

Eventually they will release a speedbooster with electronics for the contax glass, amazing combination with the a7rii.

Yep, like this

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... These two were shot with the Leica Zeiss lenses and a P30+ (HMI lighting)...
...

Fabulous shots, especially the second one.

[kipdent]

Before the new Phase One 100MP (good grief!) back announcement usurps every other thread this week, I wanted to thank everyone again for their input so far on my quest for choosing a MFDB for my Contax 645. As a result, I have narrowed my choice down to three backs: The Phase One P45+, the Leaf 75, or the Sinar 75LV. The sensor dimensions, pixel size and likely overall image results are, I think, most likely fairly competitive on these three. I also very much appreciate the Leica S suggestion with a Contax lens adapter--that idea is haunting me more each day, though I know to get the wide angle field of view that I'm used to with my Contax 35mm lens, I would have to invest in Leica glass--which in this case would be twice as much as the camera! Still, it's amazing to me that a Leica S (006) can be had in the $4,000 range now.

My heart, so vulnerable to marketing, says get the P45+ and be done with it; my common-sense mind says get the Sinar at a far-less cost and get to know MFDB photography. Any more feedback would be welcome, and thanks again--

[D Fuller]

My heart, so vulnerable to marketing, says get the P45+ and be done with it; my common-sense mind says get the Sinar at a far-less cost and get to know MFDB photography. Any more feedback would be welcome, and thanks again--

I was mulling this same question earlier this year. You should read this thread: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101101.0 a lot of good stuff.

It's a little more money, but you might also look at the P65+. I ended up there. Three reasons:
   1. Color. I tested the P45+ and the P65+ and I just liked the colors produced by the 65 better. Especially skin tones and reds, but people talk about greens as well.
   2. 60Mp resolution. It's not 100Mp, but it sure has got a lot of detail.
   3. Wide angle lenses. I love the Contax 35mm. The P65+ delivers it without cropping.

It's a completely useable system with the Contax. (This is also true for the P45+.) Contax doesn't do live view easily, because it has to be set to bulb to do it, so that's kind of a non-issue. But the P65 lets me use the camera just as I've always used it, but with the added ability to shoot tethered, even firing the camera from the computer. That's wonderful in the studio, or for architecture. But most often, I'm using it in the non-tethered mode. I love it.

FWIW, I also own lots of Nikon gear, which Is my primary commercial still system, and a Sony a7s, which i want to like more than I do. (And a Red Epic Dragon, which is the camera with which I make most of my living.) So I use the Contax where I want to and other cameras when they are the right choices.)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

P45+ backs and other older P1 backs use Kodak sensors. With the P65+ Phase One switched over to Dalsa. It seems that quite a lot of folks think Dalsa based sensors yield better colour. Also the P45+ has 1.1x crop factor while the P65+ is full frame.

Dalsa based sensors usually are not very good at very long exposures (IQ-260 being an exception), in that area the P45+ is king of the older generation sensors.

I bought my P45+ two and a half years ago, at that time it cost me 10k$, but it seem prices are much lower now. If you can afford it, why not try? You can probably sell it without a big loss.

Folks suggesting to switch to Leica, and that may make some sense. On the other hand the Leica has a somewhat smaller sensor, more like 1.3x crop. The S (Typ 006) uses a kodak sensor, similar to the P45+ in many ways, while the S (Typ 007) uses a CMOS sensor.

Best regards
Erik

I was mulling this same question earlier this year. You should read this thread: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101101.0 a lot of good stuff.

It's a little more money, but you might also look at the P65+. I ended up there. Three reasons:
   1. Color. I tested the P45+ and the P65+ and I just liked the colors produced by the 65 better. Especially skin tones and reds, but people talk about greens as well.
   2. 60Mp resolution. It's not 100Mp, but it sure has got a lot of detail.
   3. Wide angle lenses. I love the Contax 35mm. The P65+ delivers it without cropping.

It's a completely useable system with the Contax. (This is also true for the P45+.) Contax doesn't do live view easily, because it has to be set to bulb to do it, so that's kind of a non-issue. But the P65 lets me use the camera just as I've always used it, but with the added ability to shoot tethered, even firing the camera from the computer. That's wonderful in the studio, or for architecture. But most often, I'm using it in the non-tethered mode. I love it.

FWIW, I also own lots of Nikon gear, which Is my primary commercial still system, and a Sony a7s, which i want to like more than I do. (And a Red Epic Dragon, which is the camera with which I make most of my living.) So I use the Contax where I want to and other cameras when they are the right choices.)

[torger]

P45+ backs and other older P1 backs use Kodak sensors. With the P65+ Phase One switched over to Dalsa. It seems that quite a lot of folks think Dalsa based sensors yield better colour.

A comment on color Kodak vs Dalsa color. Kodak color is more saturated and subjective, although you can control it with a profile it's much harder to make truly neutral color with the Kodak. On the other hand if you have the same taste on subjective look like the Kodak color scientists you probably like their color. One advantage with having saturated response on the sensor is that you can achieve more saturated color with less noise increase in the final image (which is good for Kodak, as the sensor is quite noisy...).

Modern DLSR sensors and the Dalsa all have a bit less saturated response (more filter overlap) and have the ability to make more neutral color with just a matrix, making it easier to bend their color response with a profile in the direction you want. They're certainly easier to work with when making camera profiles.

I'm using a Kodak now and had a Dalsa before. I'd prefer to have the color response of the Dalsa, but I chose the Kodak for other reasons and I'm satisfied with the color.

[Theodoros]

A comment on color Kodak vs Dalsa color. Kodak color is more saturated and subjective, although you can control it with a profile it's much harder to make truly neutral color with the Kodak. On the other hand if you have the same taste on subjective look like the Kodak color scientists you probably like their color. One advantage with having saturated response on the sensor is that you can achieve more saturated color with less noise increase in the final image (which is good for Kodak, as the sensor is quite noisy...).

This is true only with P1 backs, it's rather an impression people have with respect to Dalsa sensor based P1 backs being more color accurate than the (earlier) Kodak sensor ones... The truth however is that its P1's "tuning" that differs, not the Kodak sensor itself... One can easily notice the difference if he compares a P25+ to a CF-22 or a P45+ to a CF-39MS... The fact that the Sinarback 75LV is almost "dead accurate" (Dalsa sensor), it rather has to do with Sinar's tunning (and probably related with the fact that the back is among the most "quite" ones for noise) of the back (IMO) as Sinar is famous for color accuracy and calibration method... Lets not forget that the Sinarback 54H which I use and is the most used back for painting reproduction is a Kodak sensor back...

Modern DLSR sensors and the Dalsa all have a bit less saturated response (more filter overlap) and have the ability to make more neutral color with just a matrix, making it easier to bend their color response with a profile in the direction you want. They're certainly easier to work with when making camera profiles.

I'm using a Kodak now and had a Dalsa before. I'd prefer to have the color response of the Dalsa, but I chose the Kodak for other reasons and I'm satisfied with the color.

First paragraph I agree and confirm, the second paragraph - although it's a personal matter - one must take in mind that MFDBs are anyway way better than DSLRs for color (even early P1 backs)... It's a comparison between backs I refer to... not a "general" comparison that one can compare with his DSLR experience... I say this because the O/P might get the wrong impression (as all of us before we actually got involved with MF) out of our (correct) posts...

[Bo Dez]

Having used both the P45 and 65 extensively my vote is save for a little longer and go with the 65. That is if you can find one for that is Contax fit.

[Theodoros]

Having used both the P45 and 65 extensively my vote is save for a little longer and go with the 65. That is if you can find one for that is Contax fit.

As I said before, I've tried the P65+ on a Mamyia camera, what I found positive about about it if compared to the P-45+ is the more neutral color, the wider AOV but mainly it was the exposure+ mode of it... (15.5mp resolution but with quadrabled sensitivity and no noise increase or DR drop). The negatives (compared to P45+) where the luck of longer exposure, the drop of quality for some lenses at wider apertures near the edges and (of course) the unnecessary size of files... Also, the compatibility with view and tech cameras is considerably worst than the Kodak sensor 39mp backs.

I recently thought of trading one of my backs (the CF-39MS) for a P-65+ (as to add WA access to the 35mm lens) and add another Sinarback (tethered only) as to replace the MS ability of the CF-39MS... But I did change my mind after I found a solution as to add a ...24mm f3.5 lens on my Contax!!!  That way, I'll go even (much) wider than using the 35mm lens with the P65+ and also keep better (respective to 35mm) AOV will all my lenses (and avoid introducing issues at wider apertures too).

I think the 36/37x48/49 sensors are perfect for the Contax lenses as they use the best part of the lens image circle, but also use ALL of that best part, wider sensors may cause some issues with some lenses and enforce to make the system slower too, narrower sensors OTOH, won't improve the performance further at all (than 37x49)... As to Leica S, I think it's a great camera, but it's 3:2 ratio and one can't detouch the back of it (nor use two MFDBs on it). I would consider the Leica only if I was to replace my FF DSLRs altogether with one...

[kipdent]

I recently thought of trading one of my backs (the CF-39MS) for a P-65+ (as to add WA access to the 35mm lens) and add another Sinarback (tethered only) as to replace the MS ability of the CF-39MS... But I did change my mind after I found a solution as to add a ...24mm f3.5 lens on my Contax!!!

What lens are you referring to? I'm guessing it would require some sort of adapter to use on the Contax 645, yes? And might you have any images captured with this 24mm lens you could share here?

Thanks!

[Theodoros]

What lens are you referring to? I'm guessing it would require some sort of adapter to use on the Contax 645, yes? And might you have any images captured with this 24mm lens you could share here?

Thanks!

There are two UWA lenses that can be used on a Contax 645, one is the Pentax 25mm f4 (both I & II versions) where one has to make a 6.7mm adapter with an aperture ring on it (the Pentax aperture is mechanical coupling much like the Nikkor lenses, one has to link the the aperture ring on the adapter internally so that he can control the lever in the back of the Pentax lens that mechanically controls the aperture). The other is a 74 degs image circle 35mm TS lens (the Samyang 24mm f3.5) of which the rear group of elements is recessed by more than an inch, one has to remove the tilt and shift mechanisms of it and machine a tube that will shorten the lens by 19mm from its mounting side... I am working on the later and will post pictures of the conversion as well as images after it will be finished... The aperture ring is mechanically linked to the aperture blades on this lens and it is positioned mid frame... So, there is no need for one to bother with aperture control on the Samyang... Tried the lens with 10mm side shifts on a FF Nikon and it seems fine from f5.6 to f11, I expect it to improve further on the borders with (the much wider) Contax 645 mount, as it seems that the image circle is wider than the Nikon mount at the mount's plane and some of the edge performance (when unconverted) is affected because of that...

[kipdent]

Well, it's decision time for me, the original poster. I have identified two backs for the Contax, and I am anguishing over the decision--or whether to take the advice of an early poster who suggested the Leica S with a Contax lens adapter. Here is what I have narrowed the filed down to:

1) Phase One 45:  I realize finding a P65+ would be ideal, but they are rarer than hen's teeth in the Contax mount

2) Sinar eMotion 75LV: Has the Dalsa sensor, built-in white balance, and reputedly better color than the Phase One. However, the cost of a Sinar adapter plate (still available) for the Contax is breathtaking at nearly $2K! Is that good money chasing after bad when it comes time to sell or upgrade?

3) Leica S (006): Same ballpark price with a Contax lens adapter, and I'd have two wonderful cameras, though the Contax would not be digital. Also, with its higher crop factor, the beautiful panoramic look of the Contax 35mm lens would be lost.

Please just, tell me where to spend this money! ;-)

[Miyata610]

P45 

[eronald]

Are S006 Leicas really $4k now? where?

Edmund

[JV]

$4k seems quite low... Leica Store Miami has one at $5,495.

Be aware that used lenses remain pretty scarce though... and expensive...