My First Medium Format Digital Camera

[Tom H.]

I do mostly landscape photography and have owned Canon gear since going digital.

Before that it was Leica; both M and R.

My print size is normally 17 x 22, occasionally 24 x36.

The thought of greater dynamic range has always appealed to me, and I have tried HDR a number of different ways, with a bunch of different software and find it challenging to make it look natural.

So I am thinking a used Contax 645 with a used Phase One 25+ back.

Not over-the-top expensive (though not cheap), also I like that the sensor magnification factor is 1.1, making all those wide angle lenses actually as wide as advertised.

I know there is a Mamiya, Pentax, and Hasselblad product out there, but think the reasonably priced Zeiss lenses are what's drawing me to the Contax.

Any thoughts much appreciated.

[TMARK]

I do mostly landscape photography and have owned Canon gear since going digital.

Before that it was Leica; both M and R.

My print size is normally 17 x 22, occasionally 24 x36.

The thought of greater dynamic range has always appealed to me, and I have tried HDR a number of different ways, with a bunch of different software and find it challenging to make it look natural.

So I am thinking a used Contax 645 with a used Phase One 25+ back.

Not over-the-top expensive (though not cheap), also I like that the sensor magnification factor is 1.1, making all those wide angle lenses actually as wide as advertised.

I know there is a Mamiya, Pentax, and Hasselblad product out there, but think the reasonably priced Zeiss lenses are what's drawing me to the Contax.

Any thoughts much appreciated.

The Contax is great.  Why I never bought one: it has a dim and smallish VF, compared with the H and the mamiya AFd. Its not a deal breaker.  What was a deal breaker, in 2001 when I last looked at the Contax, is battery usage.  Stock up on those 2CR5 batteries, make sure to get the AA grip.  Lenses and feel of the camera are awesome.

[tho_mas]

it has a dim and smallish VF, compared with the H and the mamiya AFd

dim due to the regular screen but you can get a brighter screen (e.g. by Bill Maxwell).
There's also a 1.2x eye magnification piece of the Nikon D3 that fits exactly on the Contax prism finder - great little accessory (especially for the 1.1 crop of the P25+).
With the waist level finder you have a nice, bright finder.
The WLF is a bit hard to get but sooner or later you'll find one.

[bcooter]

dim due to the regular screen but you can get a brighter screen (e.g. by Bill Maxwell).
There's also a 1.2x eye magnification piece of the Nikon D3 that fits exactly on the Contax prism finder - great little accessory (especially for the 1.1 crop of the P25+).
With the waist level finder you have a nice, bright finder.
The WLF is a bit hard to get but sooner or later you'll find one.

Actually the p25 is something like a 1.14 crop the p30 something like a 1.24 crop so it's not that huge of a difference.

As far as the Contax I've use the little nikon thing and it just made me dizzy (maybe I'm just naturally dizzy).

The best way to focus a contax is with the waist level finder and you'll think it's an RZ but you gotta shoot it horizontal.

As far as batteries, it takes two or  three cr2's per day with heavy, heavy shooting (like thousands of images).  I have the aa's in the 90 degree grip but only use em for a brief moment when the cr2's wear down.

The contax is great, the lenses are uber sharp and a little too contrasty for me most of the time, but the price can't be beat and you don't have to have a bunch of cables running from the back to the body.

BC

[archivue]

you should also consider a leaf Afi 5... new name for the last batch of leaf aptus 22...

[tho_mas]

Actually the p25 is something like a 1.14 crop the p30 something like a 1.24 crop so it's not that huge of a difference.

oh yes... I wasn't referring to larger or smaler crop... but any crop in difference to no crop as the eye piece darkens the egdes if you shoot full frame (so without a crop mask).

the little nikon thing and it just made me dizzy

if I remember correctly from that short paris video you are wearing glasses. Maybe with glasses it's not so comfortable, I don't know.

[siba]

Hi Tom,

I use the contax 645 with a P45. Before I got the P45 phase gave me the P25, which I had for about 5 months before the P45 was shipped to me. This is three and a half years ago.

I was absolutely blown away at the time at the detail, and the beauty of the P25 files. The step up to the P45 after that was nice, but basically the feel of the files was very similar.

I shoot several thousands of products a month tethered in the studio, as well as various shoots on location, shooting people. The closest to landscape I guess would be architecture work I do. At least, that's when I put the contax on a tripod and shoot at high f stops with longer exposures. In all these situations I've been very happy with the system.

I'm definitely one of those contax 645 users who's attached to the system, and I love the lenses and the feel of the system, and so am biased. I never used it with film. I switched to the contax when I had to decide on a medium format digital workflow.

It's quite a beautiful camera. It feels really great in the hand. I think for the money you'll be more than happy.

I put the nikon eyepiece on a couple of months ago, and I'm not convinced. It feels just a little bit more fuzzy than without. But, I've been too lazy to take it off agin, so I guess it's alright, but I think the idea sounds better than the reality. It didn't make a siginificant difference. In fact I would say I was a little disappointed.

I have the 35mm, the 45, and the 55 for wide angle. The 35 is a must. I took ages trying to find the 55, bought the 45 at the same time, because it was going cheap. In the end I've ended up using the 45 a lot more than the 55. The half stop more light may be the reason. But, also it's just a really nice lens. Wide, but not so wide that you can't shoot people with it.

The 80mm is my workhorse and is just such an amazing lens that I couldn't use enough superlatives. What's specific about this lens to me seems to be that it's incredibly sharp at it's sweet spot, but does really beautiful things in the not so sharp areas. I'm not just talking about the boket, I mean where other lenses are still sharp, the 80mm for the contax is just ever so blurred in some areas. I put this down to modern MFDB lenses being precision made for the digital backs, while this lens was made for film, and probably isn't so perfect, as such, but has an awful lot of character. Perhaps sounds like bullshit, but it's how I feel it. And the 80mm with my contax is the main reason I'm so attached to the system.

I also have the 210mm, which is very, very sharp, but I hardly ever use it. It's heavy to lug around.

I would definitely recommend the battery pack. It makes the camera easier to hold. I use the battery pack exclusively, and never the CR2s. But, that's me not wanting to spend a lot of money a month on batteries. I have a rolling system of 5 sets of 4 AA batteries which I have charging all the time. I've found that the CR2s last less than the charged AAs, and remember thinking that they were bloody expensive, considering I needed 2 or 3 a shoot.

In moments of sobriety, and thinking about a professional system that would perhaps suit my needs better, I feel that an integrated MFDB and camera which would use just one battery would be an advantage. And my contax and P45 is pretty sluggish. When I shoot people, then I sense the need for more speed. I never use the autofocus, unless I'm holding something in my left hand.

Good luck with it

Stefan

[rhsu]

I do mostly landscape photography and have owned Canon gear since going digital.

Before that it was Leica; both M and R.

My print size is normally 17 x 22, occasionally 24 x36.

The thought of greater dynamic range has always appealed to me, and I have tried HDR a number of different ways, with a bunch of different software and find it challenging to make it look natural.

So I am thinking a used Contax 645 with a used Phase One 25+ back.

Not over-the-top expensive (though not cheap), also I like that the sensor magnification factor is 1.1, making all those wide angle lenses actually as wide as advertised.

I know there is a Mamiya, Pentax, and Hasselblad product out there, but think the reasonably priced Zeiss lenses are what's drawing me to the Contax.

Any thoughts much appreciated.

From a Leica user yourself (not me), I recently attended a demo of Leica S2 (digital) just curious as to what was so great about it.  The digital specs and the new lens specs seem to match up with what I saw print wise and on screen and against its own Leica sensor.  The prints were ink-prints NOT optical prints.  If the print size you are referring to, is ink print, then S2 would do the job.  But if optical print, well that's different.

[Tom H.]

Hi Tom,

I use the contax 645 with a P45. Before I got the P45 phase gave me the P25, which I had for about 5 months before the P45 was shipped to me. This is three and a half years ago.

I was absolutely blown away at the time at the detail, and the beauty of the P25 files. The step up to the P45 after that was nice, but basically the feel of the files was very similar.

I shoot several thousands of products a month tethered in the studio, as well as various shoots on location, shooting people. The closest to landscape I guess would be architecture work I do. At least, that's when I put the contax on a tripod and shoot at high f stops with longer exposures. In all these situations I've been very happy with the system.

I'm definitely one of those contax 645 users who's attached to the system, and I love the lenses and the feel of the system, and so am biased. I never used it with film. I switched to the contax when I had to decide on a medium format digital workflow.

It's quite a beautiful camera. It feels really great in the hand. I think for the money you'll be more than happy.

I put the nikon eyepiece on a couple of months ago, and I'm not convinced. It feels just a little bit more fuzzy than without. But, I've been too lazy to take it off agin, so I guess it's alright, but I think the idea sounds better than the reality. It didn't make a siginificant difference. In fact I would say I was a little disappointed.

I have the 35mm, the 45, and the 55 for wide angle. The 35 is a must. I took ages trying to find the 55, bought the 45 at the same time, because it was going cheap. In the end I've ended up using the 45 a lot more than the 55. The half stop more light may be the reason. But, also it's just a really nice lens. Wide, but not so wide that you can't shoot people with it.

The 80mm is my workhorse and is just such an amazing lens that I couldn't use enough superlatives. What's specific about this lens to me seems to be that it's incredibly sharp at it's sweet spot, but does really beautiful things in the not so sharp areas. I'm not just talking about the boket, I mean where other lenses are still sharp, the 80mm for the contax is just ever so blurred in some areas. I put this down to modern MFDB lenses being precision made for the digital backs, while this lens was made for film, and probably isn't so perfect, as such, but has an awful lot of character. Perhaps sounds like bullshit, but it's how I feel it. And the 80mm with my contax is the main reason I'm so attached to the system.

I also have the 210mm, which is very, very sharp, but I hardly ever use it. It's heavy to lug around.

I would definitely recommend the battery pack. It makes the camera easier to hold. I use the battery pack exclusively, and never the CR2s. But, that's me not wanting to spend a lot of money a month on batteries. I have a rolling system of 5 sets of 4 AA batteries which I have charging all the time. I've found that the CR2s last less than the charged AAs, and remember thinking that they were bloody expensive, considering I needed 2 or 3 a shoot.

In moments of sobriety, and thinking about a professional system that would perhaps suit my needs better, I feel that an integrated MFDB and camera which would use just one battery would be an advantage. And my contax and P45 is pretty sluggish. When I shoot people, then I sense the need for more speed. I never use the autofocus, unless I'm holding something in my left hand.

Good luck with it

Stefan

Stefan,

Can tell you are pretty passionate about the Contax.

Having never used one, I get the same impression just looking at it; don't know why.

Kind of like an old M4 or even the old Rollei SLX (far from perfect, but I liked it).

35mm lens (after the 80) was first on my list.

The other thing I'm curious about was going to a 4:3 aspect ratio, from a 3:2 aspect ratio.(If one comes from 35mm).

In the world of 16x9, seems I'm going the wrong way. Not to say you can't crop.

But I have a Panasonic GF1 as a point-and-shoot, - first thing I did was go back to the old 35mm aspect ratio.

[guyharrison]

Count me in as another Contax 645 enthusiast.

Forgive me for not posting links as I don't know how to do that, but I have a detailed post in the "MF in Extreme Conditions" detailing my use of the Contax as a landscape camera that you might find helpful.

At the prices it is selling for now on ebay it is without peer.

Good luck with your new system!!

Guy

[siba]

Hi Tom,

Hmmm......... aspect ratio.

A funny thing has happened over the last 3 or 4 years.
A lot of my work before used to be full page photos for magazines, and I shot almost exclusively vertically.
Stuff I shot for myself also tended to be vertical, much of the time. It was my automatic way of seeing the world through the lens.

I now shoot almost everything horizontally.
It's the nature of the internet world, and wide screen technology - so that we're now used to looking at everything horizontally.
It's actually quite a relief shooting horizontally. When I do a job now, I shoot everything horizontally, and expect the client to crop vertical if they so wish.

I have cropped vertical from my horizontal Phase one files, and have made very large prints without feeling that it was a problem (albeit on more art type paper).

Before digital, I used to use a Pentax 67. This meant that most of the time I was cropping from the vertical sides, for a lot of my photos. Portraits mainly. For landscapes which I shot for myself I tended to leave uncropped and had a horizontal, almost square format.

So, when I moved to 4:3, this was new to me, but wider than I was used to from my Pentax 67. If you don't have an issue with cropping then I can certainly say that the quality of the cropped horizontal photo will still be excellent. And, as you can't get a more rectangular sensor for your MFDB, the question is slightly academic. I suppose it will be a bit of a compromise having to crop. But if you get used to the 4:3 format, then you can look at it from the point of view of having gained more space above and below your normal shooting frame. And then you don't have to crop. Just have more sky, or more foreground in your photos   .

One thing you could do if you were to want to stick with a wider format is put a mask in between the prism and the focusing screen. At least this would help you compose. Because personally, I find it difficult shooting a landscape scene as I see it through the viewfinder, and then cropping it.

Anyway, I think if you shoot with the contax 645 and the 35mm, it's nice and wide. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

cheers

Stefan

[eleanorbrown]

Just a quick comment here....my first medium format set up was the Contax with P25 back.  I don't remember ever having any issues with focusing and strangely enough, don't even remember the finder being dim.  Only reason I changed to the H2 with my next Phase back was because Contax went out of business. Eleanor

[Dale Allyn]

I'm not sure that my post will be of interest, but will toss it in anyway.

I have a P25+ which I shoot mostly on a Mamiya camera body. I had considered the Contax, as you are doing, and very nearly went that direction. Contax does certainly evoke a certain passion in many, and I think it's justified to a point. It was/is a really nice camera. The reason that opted for the Mamiya mount DB was for a bit of future proofing, and it has turned out to be a good choice for me. Choosing the Mamiya mount allows me to upgrade my body to the more modern P1 DF while still supporting the options of tech cameras, etc. I can keep an inexpensive AFD II or III for backup, while using a newer DF as my main body (I've not yet upgraded to the DF though). Of course one can attach a Contax mount to many other camera types as well (such as Alpa, etc.), but the list is not evolving so much as we see for the Mamiya mount, obviously due to the fact that the latter is in current production.

None of this may matter if one's style is to build a kit and use it without making periodic upgrades to certain elements in the kit.

I do really like the P25+ and will likely go with the P45+ (or P65+ if longer exposures are supported in the future) eventually. I had expected to upgrade the back long before now, but the P25+ is doing great and my time has been consumed elsewhere such that there's less pressure to upgrade yet.

Good luck with your new kit. I think it's a great way to get into MFD.

Dale

[vgogolak]

Just to reinforce a Contax decision. I have had the C 645 from film thru Kodak, 25, 45 45+ now P65+. Thje lenses are GREAT and inexpensive-I have all of them
Hassey lenses too (200 and 500 series)
I have looked at H6Y, Mamyia, Phase, Hasselblad, and saw little incremental value. Heck, you even get focus confirm with Hassey lenses.

There's a lot of life and parts float in this system. (and I have been photographing for almost 60 years!)

Go for it and enjoy...

Victor

[Dick Roadnight]

I do mostly landscape photography and have owned Canon gear since going digital.

Before that it was Leica; both M and R.

My print size is normally 17 x 22, occasionally 24 x36.

The thought of greater dynamic range has always appealed to me, and I have tried HDR a number of different ways, with a bunch of different software and find it challenging to make it look natural.

So I am thinking a used Contax 645 with a used Phase One 25+ back.

Not over-the-top expensive (though not cheap), also I like that the sensor magnification factor is 1.1, making all those wide angle lenses actually as wide as advertised.

I know there is a Mamiya, Pentax, and Hasselblad product out there, but think the reasonably priced Zeiss lenses are what's drawing me to the Contax.

Any thoughts much appreciated.

You do not tell us what your budget is, but my requirements are very similar to yours, and my first pro digital camera (after a Leica D-lux 3) is an Hasselblad H3D11-50 with the option to upgrade to a Hasselblad H4D-60, with a triple/hex sliding back and a Sinar P3 and a set of Schneider Apo-digitars. I already have the 50-110 zoom.

The cost will be horrendous (even without electronic shutters) but it will be very versatile kit (especially with my 10m tripod) which will produce very nice pictures, with enough res for most purposes.

One of the best things about this kit is Phocus 2, which is superb for landscapes.

[edwinb]

You do not tell us what your budget is, but my requirements are very similar to yours, and my first pro digital camera (after a Leica D-lux 3) is an Hasselblad H3D11-50 with the option to upgrade to a Hasselblad H4D-60, with a triple/hex sliding back and a Sinar P3 and a set of Schneider Apo-digitars. I already have the 50-110 zoom.

The cost will be horrendous (even without electronic shutters) but it will be very versatile kit (especially with my 10m tripod) which will produce very nice pictures, with enough res for most purposes.

One of the best things about this kit is Phocus 2, which is superb for landscapes.

the sinar artec is a lot more portable than the p3, can be fitted with any popular camera back and has step and repeat sliding back mechanism built in- worth a look  
edwin

[Dick Roadnight]

the sinar artec is a lot more portable than the p3, can be fitted with any popular camera back and has step and repeat sliding back mechanism built in- worth a look  
edwin

Hi, Edwin...

I have been thinking about the F3, as it is light and can use the same range of mounted lenses as the P3.

[revaaron]

This is EXACTLY what I want... but with the limited number of film shots I shoot with my contax, it's not in the cards price-wise.