Related Links:
Contax 645 AF Lens Reviews (Chris Lee, photonet) [2/2001]
Contax 645 AF Lens Info [12/2002]
Contax 645 AF Lens System (pdf) [8/2002]
Contax 645 AF Review (Chris Lee, photonet) [2/2001]
Contax 645 AF Review (Photograpy Review) [2/2001]
Contax 645 AF Sneak Preview
Contax 645 AF Specs (Jafa Photogr.) [2/2001]
Zeiss Contax Relationship [10/2002]
So please don't lose sight of the fact that the Contax 645 AF is a great
camera system with lots of nifty features and options as you read my "cons" review below.
But I thought it would be more valuable to you if I would focus here on what I see as the
"cons" of the Contax 645 AF system on this page.
"Cons" of the Contax 645 AF include:
Other issues may also intervene. For example, are there any stores in your area which
rent lenses for this system? Can you handle or try out the camera and its functional layout
and ergonomics before investing in a kit? Can you get repairs locally? Is there a strong used market?
Do used prices reflect a high value or percentage of new price? If not, why not? If you
have to sell-off the gear, will you have to do so at a big loss?
What are the competitors to the Contax 645 AF? You would probably identify the pentax 645
autofocus camera as one example. But how about the new Rolleiflex 6008 AF camera? Sure, the
Rolleiflex 6008 AF is a 6x6cm camera, but it has 645 backs available too. The Rollei lenses
are Zeiss lenses (both Zeiss designed and Zeiss manufactured). The older manual lenses will
work on the AF body, providing focus confirmation if not autofocus operation.
Are you sure you really, really need an autofocus 6x4.5cm camera? There is a good reason
that only a small minority of medium format cameras sold are autofocus models, and most of
those are Fuji fixed lens models. For many types of photography, autofocus offers few
benefits and many problems. Most pros use 35mm autofocus
systems for action and sports photography, rather than medium format autofocus systems, for
many good reasons.
As we will see below, medium format autofocus cameras are poor cousins to
their 35mm AF SLR counterparts. Autofocus is slow (around a second), motordrives are slow (
maximum 1.6 shots/second on the Contax 645 AF), there aren't any zoom lenses, and the one
long telephoto lens offered is a 350mm f/4 lens that costs a stellar $5,800 - but acts like
a 210mm lens on a 35mm SLR equivalent. So be sure you fully understand the system and autofocus
limitations in medium format before you pull out your money and buy any MF autofocus camera!
Finally, are all the lenses you want available for your camera,
and at a cost you can justify? Check into lens availability too. Sometimes lenses are listed, but
often require months to special order them for delivery. Can you use other non-autofocus lenses
on the camera? Is a lens mount adapter available? Can you use the bellows with odd-ball lenses?
The Contax 645 lenses described below were built by Kyocera in Japan following Zeiss designs
(i.e., Distagon for wide angles, planar for the 80mm and 120mm Makro lenses, and
sonnar for the two telephotos). So when folks say the Contax 645 uses "Zeiss" lenses,
they really mean Zeiss designed lenses, which are manufactured by Kyocera in Japan.
I emphasize this point because many people believe that they are buying lenses not
only designed by Zeiss, but manufactured at Zeiss plants in Germany, rather than in
Japan by a lens maker (Kyocera) they may not have heard about before.
Who is Kyocera?
Kyocera is a materials company, specializing in ceramics for electronics (Kyo-cera as in
Kyoto Ceramics). Kyocera is probably best
known among photographers for their Yashica 35mm SLR camera and lens lines.
Photo products are only a small fraction (~10%) of the overall corporate sales.
So what? If sales are bad for Hasselblad or Rolleiflex (i.e., users of Zeiss made lenses),
they don't have deep corporate pockets to bail them out. Kyocera does. On the other
hand, Kyocera doesn't have a lot of its corporate identity or sales marketshare
invested in the Contax 645 and 645 AF cameras and lenses. Due to the high lens costs, sales
are likely to be modest but profitable. But if the head office decides to make cutbacks, they
might decide to do it in a low sales volume specialty line like the Contax 645 AF rather than their core ceramic products.
Royalties to Zeiss are likely to be a lot less than
the cost of buying lenses assembled by Zeiss. So more of those Contax line profits will stay
within Kyocera. Competitors like Hasselblad or Rolleiflex have to buy assembled and tested Zeiss
lenses directly from Zeiss, rather than build their own versions from Zeiss designs like Kyocera.
Kyocera has a lot to gain if it can become
the Japanese maker of Zeiss quality lenses which also fetch Zeiss level prices!
Lest you be put off by this, recall that Kyocera makes a 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom for Leica,
made some of the Zeiss labeled lenses for the Contax 35mm SLRs, the top-rated lens
on the Olympus Infinity Stylus, and possibly some 60mm Nikkors for Nikon. Kyocera designed
and built the 80-200mm f/4 zoom for the Leica R series (per reports).
They are believed to have purchased the old Tominon lens production plant from which many
highly regarded lenses for Polaroid cameras and large format were produced. Their experience
in making Yashica 35mm SLRs also suggests their strengths in mass production of cameras
and lenses in the Japanese mode.
So Kyocera is a serious player in the Japanese photo industry,
and fully capable of making lenses as good as any made anywhere else in the world.
We presume that along with Zeiss designs and manufacturing equipment and technicians,
Kyocera also uses Zeiss testing standards and adds its own kaizen or Japanese
continuous improvement capabilities to that mix. So they can and do produce lenses
good enough to bear the Zeiss and Leica labels, which is more than most Japanese
lens makers can claim!
| New Lenses For Contax 645AF |
|---|
| In BJP Equipment News of 23 August 2002 there is an announcement of two new lenses for Contax 645 AF systems. The Carl Zeiss 45-90mm zoom lens is due in the UK shortly. Weise, a German specialist manufacturing firm, is going to produce a 45mm shift lens for the Contax 645 system. Only 100 of these specialty lenses are planned, and they are "approved by Zeiss". The lenses are expected to cost circa 1,600 British pounds (about $2,500 US$). Check Photokina coverage (next month's big show) for photos and details, and see British Journal of Photography of the above date for more details... |
Contax 120mm f/4 Makro, 140mm f/2.8, and 210mm f/4 Lenses
Note dropoff in central resolution of 120mm Makro & 210mm as you stop down
Note also how often edge resolution remains under 30 & 40 lpmm
Note also how 140mm f/2.8 has low resolution at wide open stops
Source: p.118-9, Pop Photo, Nov. 1999.
The lens range goes from 35mm f/3.5 Distagon to a 350mm f/4 APO-tessar telephoto,
roughly the equivalent of 20mm to 210mm in the 35mm SLR user's bag of lenses. The
1.4X teleconverter extends that to circa 490mm f/5.6, or about the equal to a
300mm f/5.6 lens. If you need more than that, plan on stacking teleconverters!
As the two charts above emphasize, each lens range has
different optimal performance characteristics. The wide angle and planar 80mm
lenses work best stopped down to around f/16 or f/22. The 120mm and 210mm telephotos provide highest
central resolution near f/4 or wide open. However,
edge resolution is highest for these lenses at the mid-f/stops. For the
relatively fast 140mm f/2.8, a mid-range f/stop provides a good compromise.
So if you are shooting critter shots in dim light with your 210mm f/4 or 120mm f/4 Makro lenses,
you will get best central resolution when shooting wide open, as you would like. On
some other brands of telephoto lenses, the wide open performance in the center is not so good as this. You have
to stop down a lot to use them at best resolution (center and edge). Note that the 120mm
Makro lens is available only in manual versions, presumably due to
autofocus issues with macro lenses.
You also have
a relatively fast 140mm f/2.8 lens. Many folks will want to use this lens for portraiture.
The fast f/2.8 speed is useful in isolating the subject from distracting backgrounds.
The chart below compares a sample test of the 140mm f/2.8 lens
against a similarly fast 150mm f/2.8 Zeiss F-series lens for the
Hasselblad 6x6cm focal plane bodies.
You would expect that a 6x4.5cm lens would have
an easier time optimizing corner or edge resolution (with its 72mm image circle) than on a
6x6cm lens (with its larger 79mm image circle). But curiously, the Hasselblad 6x6cm 150mm f/2.8 F-series
lens does better in the edges than the Contax 645's 140mm f/2.8 lens.
Similarly, the Contax 80mm f/2 planar scored an impressive all "excellent" rating in central resolution.
But the 80mm f/2 planar had only two excellent ratings in the edges, and 3 ratings of
just acceptable. The fast Contax 140mm f/2.8 sonnar also has 2 acceptable ratings and 2 good ratings (along with
2 excellent and 2 very good ratings) in the edges. But all of its central ratings are
either very good (2 of 8) or excellent (6 of 8).
The 35mm f/3.5 has no excellent
ratings in the edges, and only one edge resolution value barely above 30 lpmm.
The same 35mm f/3.5 distagon has all excellent ratings in the center,
with none of the central resolution values below 50 lpmm, and three scores of 79 lpmm(!).
The average central resolution score for this lens was above 71 lpmm. By contrast,
resolution tests of 7 Hasselblad lenses produced only 2 scores over 70 lpmm among
all 7 Zeiss lenses.
But one might argue that the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses were better balanced as a tradeoff
between high central resolution with only modest falloff in the corners.
Now you know why these lenses get such rave reviews from users and many testers. It
appears that the central areas of the image will feature resolution noticeably higher
than many highly regarded Hasselblad Zeiss optics. But how critical are those corners
in your photos? How big do you intend to enlarge your images? If you intend to do
full frame enlargements beyond 8x10", you may have some problems with edge resolution
worth considering.
So I would caution folks to take a good look at those edge resolutions and compare them
against similar 6x4.5cm and 6x6cm lenses. It appears that the Contax lenses have been
optimized for a high central resolution value, but perhaps at the expense of edge resolution?
Even more disturbing, look at the differences between center and edge resolution for the
wide angle distagon and 80mm f/2 planar lenses. There is virtually no overlap between the
edge resolutions which are almost all under 40 lpmm, and the central resolutions, which
are all above 40 lpmm, with many central resolutions above 70 lpmm. Again, this is a huge
difference.
We will point out below that similar Hasselblad Zeiss lenses don't have as many
high central resolution values, but they also avoid the low edge resolutions seen in the above
charts and lens tests. Many other high end lenses, such as Leica in 35mm, work at improving and
balancing edge performance with central resolution. You can readily get high central resolutions
at the expense of edge performance (see, for example, Konica charts).
The hard part in great lens designs is getting very good central resolution with enough resolution in the corners
so you can make acceptable enlargements of the entire image.
If I were using telephoto lenses with these characteristics, I would be quite happy with the high
central resolution values, especially at wide open apertures. Lots of subjects like animal
or sports shots will likely be cropped and enlarged, so poor corner performance would be
masked. But if I were shooting documents or artwork, where uniform resolution is important,
I would have to be very careful to choose f/stops that offer sufficient edge resolution
to produce bigger enlargements without unacceptably low resolution in the corners. In other
words, I would be avoiding those f/stops with rather low resolution scores in the edges.
As another example, while the 140mm f/2.8 is relatively fast versus its f/4 speed telephoto cousins,
it has edge resolution under 20 lpmm. For a 4 lpmm quality on the print, you can only enlarge
about 5 times (20 lpmm film/4 lpmm on print => 5 X). That's about an 8x10" print size. The central
resolution wide open (40 lpmm) will support about 10X or about a 16x20" print. Most 35mm SLR
users routinely do 8x10" prints with good edges, so this performance level may not be very
impressive given the weight and cost of the Contax 645 AF system.
Unfortunately, sometimes you can't win. For example, the 80mm f/2.0 has a stunningly high
84 lpmm in the center at f/5.6, but the edge resolution is a very modest 28 lpmm. Unless
you can ignore softness in the corners, you can't get the full benefit of that high central
resolution without a lot of cropping, which defeats the purpose of having a large film area.
Normally, a mid-range f/stop around f/5.6 would be an optimal f/stop for most lenses, with both high
central resolution and good edge definition as stopping down has minimized the lens' aberrations.
But with the 80mm f/2 Contax AF lens, we have a very high central resolution (84 lpmm) mismatched with a
low edge resolution (28 lpmm).
Since edge performance is our limiting factor here, we can get peak edge resolution with the 80mm lens
around 40 lpmm at f/11 or f/16. Central resolution is respectively 67 lpmm (at f/11) or only 53 lpmm
(at f/16). So at f/11, we have our best tradeoff of 67 lpmm centrally and 41 lpmm in the edges.
At other f/stops, edge resolution will be less, so we will lose more in the corners with enlargement,
even if the center resolutions are higher.
At similar f/stops, the 80mm f/2.8 Hasselblad 80mm F lens offers
us at f/11 and f/16 central resolution of 67 lpmm and 60 lpmm in the edges. So while our
enlargement factor for the Contax 645 AF 80mm will be limited by that "best tradeoff" edge resolution
of 40 lpmm at f/11, a Hasselblad Zeiss 80mm will be much less limited by the high 60 lpmm score
in edge resolution.
Moreover, resolution losses in the Hasselblad print won't be very obvious (67 lpmm center vs.
60 lpmm edge is only 10% or so falloff). But the Contax 645 AF user might see significant
differences in resolution across the slide or print, with the center at f/11 "best tradeoff"
offering 67 lpmm centrally, but only 41 lpmm in the edges. The result is likely to be
a much larger and more obvious falloff in corner resolution on large sized prints. Now you
know why high end lens makers like Leica and Zeiss often try to achieve higher edge resolution,
even at the expense of high central resolution. It is the edges that often limit our ability
to make bigger enlargements.
So you can't win. The high central resolution figures of some of these Contax 645 AF lenses
isn't as useful as you might hope. If you do use them, you have to crop a good bit to avoid
the lower resolution or softer edges of the image. If you select for the best edge resolution
to permit maximum enlargement with good edge definition, you lose that high central resolution.
On the other hand, you may have to avoid some f/stop settings were the edge resolution is just to
low to be useful for prints beyond 8x10".
One reason this edge resolution falloff may be less noticed by Contax 645 AF users lies in
the camera viewfinder. It shows only 87% of the image or negative area, rather than 100%
as is found in more traditional cameras (e.g., Hasselblad..). So what you compose on your
screen will be only 87% of what's on the film. If you crop to get that composition as seen
in the viewfinder, you have to trim off 13% of the film area around the edges. Naturally,
this reduces the problems from edge resolution falloff (but wastes some film area by cropping).
But if you are shooting slides, you may be surprised by what shows up in those unseen edges
of the film.
The above chart
compares a Hasselblad F (focal plane) series Zeiss planar 80mm f/2.8 against the faster
80mm f/2 Zeiss planar for the Contax 645.
The average edge resolution for the Contax 645 80mm f/2 is only around 30 lpmm, while for the Hasselblad
80mm f/2.8 it is nearly 49 lpmm. This is a huge difference, roughly 65% higher average edge resolution
for the larger format Hasselblad lens. A related test of an older 80mm f/2.8 C leaf shutter
Zeiss lens for Hasselblad scored all excellents in edge resolution.
Recall that both the Contax and Hasselblad lenses are Zeiss planar lens designs, and both
are 80mm focal length lenses. Isn't it surprising how much they differ in edge resolution?
While the Contax 645's 80mm
f2.0 scored over 50 lpmm centrally wide open, it achieved only 18 lpmm in the edges wide open. Ouch!
At a 4 lpmm quality print, the center of the negative can provide 12X+ enlargement (e.g., 20x24"), but
the edges will fall below 4 lpmm with even a 5X enlargement (e.g., 8x10"). The same lens
can provide very nice quality (4 lpmm on print) at 10X or better in corners as well as
center at other f/stops. But if you are buying this kit to use wide open, you might want
to compare it against the competing 80mm f/1.9 for the Mamiya 645.
The counter argument here is simply that you can't shoot
that 80mm f/2.8 Hasselblad lens at f/2.0, while you can shoot the Contax 645 80mm f/2.0
wide open at f/2. If you need a fast lens, and only a fast lens will do,
you should expect to live with its limitations and costs.
The closest Hasselblad speed lens
is the 110mm f/2.0, which is only slightly better in the corners and quite a bit worse in
central resolution used wide open. So in fairness to the Contax 80mm f/2, it has the same
average edge resolution as the Hasselblad 110mm f/2 (about 30 lpmm). The average central resolution of
the Contax 80mm was a good bit higher (63 lpmm) than the Hasselblad 110mm (49 lpmm). But
the Hasselblad 110mm is a larger lens, covering a larger image circle, so this difference is
not unexpected.
This is one reason
I prefer the Norita 66 system's approach to providing a fast lens option. You can use
the 80mm f/2.0 lens when you need the speed, or mount the slower 80mm f/2.8 normal lens
when you want fewer aberrations and better performance. Unfortunately, while you can do this
in most 35mm SLR systems (e.g., f/1.4 vs. f/1.8 Nikkors), you can't find many medium format
systems which offer you a choice of fast (e.g., 80mm f/2.0) and slower (e.g., 80mm f/2.8)
lenses. The Bronica S2/EC system also has some relatively fast (and very affordable)
lenses (e.g., 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, 125mm f/2.3, 135mm f/2.3,
150mm f/1.8). Like the Norita, you have a choice of three normal lenses, including an
80mm f/2.8 by Carl Zeiss Jena, a speedy 80mm f/2.4 auto-zenzanon (1/2 stop slower than f/2.0),
and the standard 75mm f/2.8 Nikkor. But only the Contax lenses feature autofocusing!
| Contax 645 Autofocus Speeds Table | |
|---|---|
| Light Level | Time to Lock-in |
| EV 7 - EV 12+ | .67 - .88 second |
| EV 5 - EV 6 | .9 - 1 second |
| EV 4 or less | 1+ seconds |
The point of the above table is to highlight the relative slowness of autofocus on medium
format cameras. Naturally, this slowness is largely due to the large size, weight, and mass of the
lenses and larger film frame in medium format. Lots of us
can focus lenses about this fast by hand (especially if you preset focus to expected distance).
Try counting off a second (one-one-thousand..) while focusing a manual lens. Can you do it faster too?
For most other shooting situations, medium format encourages a slower and more measured approach.
To achieve maximum quality, a tripod is often mandatory, especially with the larger and heavier
medium format lenses. I have documented many problems with autofocus,
with common shooting situations. While AF can sometimes be faster than the human hand and eye,
careful continous focusing by hand can produce up to 50% higher resolution
results than the discrete focusing steps of autofocus electronics. So even today, only a small
fraction of medium format new gear sales are for autofocus systems (est. ~10-15%).
An often overlooked corollary is that if you think
35mm autofocus setups eat batteries, wait until you try medium format autofocus! The
standard battery for the Contax is a 2CR5 lithium 6 volt battery. You may want to get
the optional MP-1 battery holder that takes 4 AA alkaline cells. But it will take a lot of
batteries to save the $400 mail-order cost of the MP-1 battery holder and vertical grip! Maybe
you better stick with the $65 P-8 power pack for D cells for cold weather use?
I have to admit a prejudice for larger magnification ratios in traditional medium format prism
systems, which are often 2.5X or 3.2X versus the paltry 0.76X offered here. If you shoot slides
for stock (i.e., in sleeves, not slide mounts), then you may also prefer that 100% of the image
going on film be shown in the finder, not just 87% as in the Contax 645 AF. Personally, I find
the large magnification (5x) and 100% viewing area from using a chimney finder make medium
format composition and previewing a real joy over squinting into a 35mm SLR eyepiece.
Your long
telephoto options are limited to a moderately fast 250mm f/4 for $2,150 (mail order price)
or a 350mm f/4 for $5,800. Consider that the 210mm is roughly equivalent to the unpopular 135mm
lens on a 35mm SLR, and the 350mm f/4 is just a bit longer than the 210mm focal length so
popular with 35mm SLR zoom users (e.g., 70-210mm zoom).
Why has autofocus been so slow to be adopted in medium format? One reason is that medium format
autofocus is so slow, as we have seen. A second reason is that the real strong areas of autofocus
use is in sports and action photography using fast telephotos. Medium format telephoto lenses
have to be a lot larger and longer than similar 35mm telephotos. For example, to match the
view of a 300mm f/2.8 sports telephoto on a 35mm SLR, you would need about a 450-500mm telephoto on 6x6cm.
A "fast" 500mm medium format telephoto is f/8, or 3 stops slower than the 35mm SLR lens. Ouch!
You also don't find many autofocus medium format zooms (outside of fixed zooms on Fuji folders).
The few medium format zooms you do find are slow in both aperture speed and autofocus speeds. There
also are no wide to telephoto zooms similar to those popular in 35mm SLR photography. Most medium
format zooms cover only a 2:1 ratio range, such as 140-280mm Variogon for Hasselblad or Rolleiflex.
So medium format autofocus use differs from typical 35mm SLR AF use in that there are few if any
interchangeable lens AF zooms.
While several leaf shutter option lenses were promised for the contax 645 AF (per Pop. Photo.
review cited above), none have been offered yet. Leaf shutter lenses provide you with the ability
to do flash synchronization at any speed. This technique allows you to select whatever f/stop
you need for depth of field considerations, and adjust the shutter speed to match the ambient
lighting.
Since the Contax 645 AF is a focal plane shutter camera, you can only use flash or
strobe up to 1/90th second (or up to 1/125th with their TLA strobe). Can you live with this
limitation? Many wedding photographers and those shooting outdoor portraits seem to greatly
prefer leaf shutter lenses to prevent "ghosting" and other problems. Is this an issue you can
ignore, or will it cause you problems from the slow flash synchronization speed limit?
Some other lenses that you may need are also not available for the Contax 645 AF as of now. There is not a shift or tilt/shift lens, so you might have to look into a lens mount adapter from Zoerk? You don't have a soft focus lens, but maybe you can get by with Zeiss Softars or your own soft filter creations? Can you get by with a fisheye or superwide adapter? How about stacking teleconverters for longer lens effects? The auto bellows might work with a leaf shutter lens with the right cable releases, if you don't mind hacking your own lenses to overcome missing optics in the Contax lineup?.
I really like the Contax auto bellows. It features TTL option, very handy
with bellows in eliminating bad exposures and calculations of bellows factors. The bellows
offers swing and tilt movements in 15 degree increments to left and right, up and down. You
can use shift and rise up to 15mm (with the above swing and tilts). The standard 80mm lens
yields a 0.8X to 2.2X magnification ratio. The camera can also be rotated 90 degrees easily
on the bellows, a handy feature for choosing horizontal or vertical orientations. On the other
hand, at $3,000 list (and $2,000 discount mailorder price), this bellows alone is more than
many competitor's 645 camera kits with body, lens, AE prism, and backs. Ouch!
The shutter delay is only about .18 seconds, which is very good for a medium format
electronic camera. The motor winder can do 1.6 frames per second on continuous mode assuming
no AF delays, but keep in mind you have only 16 shots with 120 rollfilm or 32 shots with 220 rollfilm.
Contax offers an interesting vacuum back insert option for use with 220 rollfilm to achieve
maximum film flatness and image sharpness. The tests I have seen
reported suggest the improvements are minor in most studio situations, so be sure you
test before you buy into this option.
I feel these 645 autofocus cameras are mainly aimed at newbies to medium format, upgrading
from 35mm autofocus SLRs. These users are used to fast autofocus, rapid motor drives, easy
film loading, lots of electronics and metering and flash modes, and all sorts of other "aids".
These folks haven't adapted to the simpler, slower, and less
automated methods of traditional medium format photography. Medium format is a different
series of compromises. Today's 35mm AF SLRs offer performance and lens options not available in
any 645 autofocus system. That's why medium format autofocus sales are so relatively low. If
you are a happy 35mm pro autofocus system user, you are likely to be disappointed by any
medium format autofocus camera.
Table of Approx. Equivalents: 6x4.5cm 35mm SLR 35mm f/3.5 20mm 45mm f/2.8 28mm 55mm f/3.5 35mm 80mm f/2.0 50mm 120mm f/4 70mm 140mm f/2.8 85mm 210mm f/4 135mm 350mm f/4 220mm 1.4X teleconverter
Table of Lens Cost: Lens List Discount 35mm f/3.5 $3,335 $2,300 45mm f/2.8 $3,125 $2,150 55mm f/3.5 $1,475 80mm f/2.0 $2,165 $1,500 120mm f/4 $3,335 $2,300 140mm f/2.8 $3,125 $2,150 210mm f/4 $3,125 $2,150 350mm f/4 $5,800 1.4X TC $1,030
Kit of 6 lens reviewed here costs $18,210 at list, or about $12,550 est. at discount. Even
at mail-order discount prices, a full kit of lenses and camera are going to run circa $25,000.
The contax 645 AF camera kit with 80mm f/2 lens and autoexposure prism and 120/220 back
lists for about $4,000. There are lots of nifty accessories, from lens hoods to a unique
vacuum back insert for maximum flatness with 220 film(!). By Contax
standards, the vacuum insert for the MFB-1 back is a bargain at only $389 (mail-order price).
Filter Sizes, Lens Weights, and Minimum Focusing Distance: Lens Filter Weight Min. Focus 35mm f/3.5 95mm 1 lb. 15 oz. 1 ft. 7.7" 45mm f/2.8 72mm 1 lb. 6 oz. 1 ft. 7.7" 55mm f/3.5 72mm 1 lb. 2.5 oz. 1 ft. 7.7" 80mm f/2.0 72mm 1 lb. 2 oz. 2 ft. 3.5" 120mm f/4 72mm 1 lb. 12 oz. 1 ft. 4.8" 140mm f/2.8 72mm 1 lb. 7 oz. 4 ft. 3" 210mm f/4 72mm 2 lb. 9 oz. 4 ft. 6" 350mm f/4 95mm 8 lb. 3 oz. 5 ft. 10"
Lens Distortion% Type 35mm f/3.5 0.45% barrel 45mm f/2.8 0.45% barrel 80mm f/2.0 0.25% pincushion 120mm f/4 0.35% pincushion 140mm f/2.8 0.85% pincushion 210mm f/4 0.95% pincushion
From contax mailing list: From: "DerekCooper.com" [email protected] Subject: RE: [Contax] 645 zoom lens Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 All Contax 645 lenses are internal focus. The body does not have any mechanism to provide focusing itself. ...
From: [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Lens Quality--How Do You Rate It? Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 [email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote: >I'm not sure I understand what you mean? There are zeiss lenses which are >zeiss designs made by zeiss in their own factories and Q/C. Yes, both in Germany and Japan. >There are >zeiss lenses which are zeiss designs made in Japan by Kyocera under >licensing by Zeiss but by Japanese workers in a Japanese plant, right? They're made by Zeiss, not Kyocera. (see below) >the website says "Productions of the cooperation between Carl Zeiss and >Kyocera" which means zeiss designs made in Japan under license by Kyocera, >right? ;-) No, Kyocera designs and manufactures only the camera bodies. >The Nov 1999 Pop Photo review makes it clear these are zeiss >designs made by Kyocera, for example. At least not the interchangeable lenses, all of which come with a certicate stating "Made in Japan [or Germany, depending on location] by the Carl Zeiss Foundation" and saying specifically that they passed the QC inspection by Zeiss. Andrew
From: "Meryl Arbing" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Lens Quality--How Do You Rate It? Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 Well, if Zeiss ships over its equipment and its engineers and the optical glass and the coating and the Kyocera factory assembles the components then Zeiss saves money by having the factory close to where the cameras are assembled. There isn't any doubt that the lenses made in Japan for the Kyocera/Contax cameras are 100% Zeiss and not just a matter of licencing the Zeiss name to be stamped on any old lens. A good comparison is to look at the Yashica line of lenses and the Contax line of lenses. Even though they are all for the same Y/C mount and are interchangeable across the two lines...there isn't a comparable quality. "Robert Monaghan" [email protected] wrote > quote: > > It is easy enough to tell which are the "real" zeiss lenses since the > Zeiss website http://www.zeiss.de lists all the manufacturers that use > THEIR lenses. They obviously don't list the Zeiss design "copies". > un-quote: ...
From contax mailing list: From: "Kaisern Chen" [email protected] Subject: RE: [Contax] 645 zoom lens Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 H all, These are the lenses using the 95mm filter, 645 line 35mm 350/4 45-90/4.5 N line 17-35/2.8 Brgds/Kaisern
from rollei mailing list: Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 From: "[email protected]" [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 6008AF not unlike Contax 645AF? I think there is no shared technology. All for the 6008 AF has been developed in the own Rollei technology center in Braunschweig, Germany. Contax 645 stuff all comes from Kyocera, Japan, maybe with the exception of the rural optical design of the lenses which still maybe from Zeiss, Oberkochen. Greetings Dirk you wrote: >The 6008AF Sounds similar to the Contax 645, too. Great camera! Great lens. >Not so great auto-focus, but not terrible either (compared to some 35mm >sysyems). Any chance Contax and Rollei shared technology? Or would that be an >"unthinkable" Leica/Contax collaboration kind of thing? (Not that >unthinkable, I guess, as some Zeiss glass was available in LTM...) > >I don't actually own a Contax 645, but I got to borrow one from the local >Contax dist. Sweet. But heavy! > >Chris L.
from rollei mailing list: Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 From: Bob Shell [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 6008AF not unlike Contax 645AF? [email protected] at [email protected] wrote: > All for the 6008 AF has been developed in the own Rollei technology center > in Braunschweig, Germany. I would be VERY surprised if Rollei developed their own autofocus sensor for such a low volume production product as the 6008AF. I'd bet they are buying this in from some outside supplier, and Kyocera is not out of the question, as they do a vast amount of OEM work for the photo industry. Bob
From contax mailing list: From: "DerekCooper.com" [email protected] Subject: RE: [Contax] Contax 645 Review Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 -----Original Message----- From: Golvala, Charez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 >Does anyone know of a good review of the 645 online? http://www.dannyburk.com/contax_645.htm I'd also be happy to answer any questions you may have about the 645 - absolutely love that camera, and don't think you could go wrong. Lots of images on my site are shot with it. Cheers, Derek Cooper www.derekcooper.com
from hasselblad mailing list: Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] An interesting quote... Andre', Don't forget that Carl Zeiss has a large plant in Japan. - And it is nothing particularly 'cheap' with Japan. They have the highest payed and best qualified industrial workers in the world. With the latest drop of the US dollar I would bet that American labour is a lot cheaper, - as well as German... Tom of Oslo
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 From: Frank Filippone [email protected] Subject: RE: [HUG] An interesting quote... Tom : The definition of the words "made in" are the key, as you point out. But the Leica cameras are all manufactured in Portugal, and QA and packaging are probably Germany, therefore the Germany mark. I can not be sure of the precise division of labor...... This is all interesting in the sibject of Zeiss as many of the lenses marked Zeiss were and are made in Japan ( Contax lenses come to mind first) and marked Made in Japan. But those lenses never saw Germany. In the case of future or even past lenses like the CB lenses, it makes for an interesting question...... and a future possibility.... Frank Filippone [email protected]
From: Lourens Smak [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Rollei distagon 50mm only 2.6?! Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 "Pho-Ku" [email protected] wrote: > http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html > > Its the worst lens in all of the MF lenses photodo has tested... is that > right? I own and use one, (and I have owned the Hasselblad version) it's an excellent lens. (both) The difference with the Hasselblad 50 (on the site) is very strange, since the Hass. and Rollei 50mm's are optically identical. There are only mechanical differences. (different shutter + aperture) even the focusing is identical. (degr. turn required from infinity to closest) Also strange: with the macro-planar 120mm the situation is reversed; hasselblad 2.7, rollei version 3.3... And, this is one of the rollei lenses that is always marked "Carl Zeiss", because the optical part is 100% assembled at the CZ plant. in other words: it is truly identical to the hasselblad version, the optical system is built with the exact same tolerances, on the exact same assembly line. Only the complete optical system (as 1 sealed unit, with this lens) is built into a different tube later. So much for photodo.com; This isn't the first time I have encountered strange test-results on the photodo-site, by the way; some Nikon-equipment is also valued either (much) too high or too low. (judging from real-life experience with those optics) and I don't believe it's just sample variation, esp. with rollei or hasselblad lenses. And come on, the Canon 200mm F1.8 has the highest rating... it's probably a very fine lens indeed, but it seems totally impossible to me that it is the highest rated of all lenses. ;-) Lourens
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad H1 Philippe Tempel wrote: > Or Contax has a deal with Zeiss that they are the > sole ones to have Zeiss for the 6x4.5 format? Nah, I > doubt it... The Contax trademark is still owned and exploited by no other but Carl Zeiss Oberkochen...
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 From: Jim Brick [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad H1 AF Tom Just Olsen wrote: >I see not the big advantage in AF anymore (after >having switched from Canon FD to EOS). And certainly not on any MF >equipment. It makes it all to heavy. Nor is AF reliable, - a very >little talked of issue. With AF; still you have to check thoroughly that >the AF has focused on the right thing. > >Tom Just Olsen AF lenses, when used in AF mode always have less resolution (lp/mm) than the same lenses manually focused. This is because AF cannot achieve critical focus. If it does, it is just luck. Focus is typically achieved by digitizing the analog signal from a CCD sensor and creating a histogram from the digitized result based on contrast differences. As the focus gets closer, the histogram center spike gets larger. When it passes through and starts to get smaller, then the AF system backs up the number of steps it went past the high point. The problem is that there is considerable slop in the focusing that produces the high point. A range + and - from the critical focus point that allows electronic focus to think it is there. There is no solution for this. Other than using your eye and brain to do manual critical focusing. And... AF frequently cannot focus on the very thing that you want to focus on. It cannot see it. There has to be a contrast line between what you want to focus on and the surrounding area. But if this line runs in the opposite direction of the how the CCD focus sensor is positioned, you are out of luck again. Many of the latest AF systems have attempted to fix these problems. Orientation is the easiest to fix. Having little or no contrast between the focus point and the surrounding area is almost impossible to fix. I played with a Contax MF AF camera a while back. I tried to focus on a Plexiglas magazine holder, from the side, on the counter at KSP. It was holding View Camera magazine. The AF hunted forever. We all had a good laugh. It took about 1/2 second to manually focus on the edge of the magazine holder. I believe that the H1 will sell very well. It has all of the features that wedding (and similar) photographers really want. Auto everything. Auto exposure, auto flash and auto flash fill, auto focus, 32 frames per roll, interchangeable backs with an LCD that tells what's in the back and how much is left, among other things, motor, hand grip, remote, seamless integration of digital, etc, etc, etc... My dealer, who sells more Hasselblad equipment west of the Rockies than anyone except Samy's, say that they can sell the h*** out of these things. And I believe them. Me... Im a square. I have enough trouble dealing with my rectangular 35mm & 4x5! Jim
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] CFE for H1 Hello Tom, > Well. If I remember correctly, there is an adaptor that can fit a > Hasselblad on a Contax 645 body. NAH-1, I believe is the name/number of > it. > Unless the adaptor requires that you use the F-mode of the Hassy lens, > that > adaptor would need to have a motor in it - which isn't that big of a deal. Wake up, buddy :-) - The NAH-1 is just a lensmount with one side Contax 645 and the other side Hasselblad. Being a focal plane shutter machine, the Contax 645 does not care about the lens shutter of C(xx) lenses. You have to work in stop down mode for metering and using an f-stop smaller than full aperture of the lens (otherwise it stays just fully open). In this case it doesn't matter if it is a C(xx) of F(x) lens. The lens remains cocked, nothing triggers it. As said just a mount converter... > Motors are pretty small these days - your cell phone contains one!! It's > used for the vibrating "ring". Yes, but IMHO and not being an engineer the force that is needed to cock a C(xx) or even an F(x) lens (same mechanism, no shutter!!!) is higher than my ringing-vibrating-yelling Handspring Treo could move :-). > Indeed. However, Contax didn't seem to think that was a problem on the > 645. See above, you cannot compare the existing converters for a C645 with a possible one for the H1. Best, Andr�
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 From: Austin Franklin [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [HUG] CFE for H1 > OK. That sucks!!! For $500 I'd expect to have at least some form of > automation. At least AE. Hold on now...why wouldn't you have AE? It's shutter priority anyway, as there is no way of having the camera body adjust the aperture...and that doesn't get done on the 20x cameras, and they have AE. Yes, you would have to stop down to what ever f-stop you want, and you wouldn't get full aperture viewing, but I'd be surprised if you couldn't get some AE mode to work, selecting the shutter speed for you, at least at full aperture? Austin
From: "Doug Dolde" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Saiyonana, Hasselblad! Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 But have your experienced the "autofocus" on the Contax 645? It's quite poor. ...
[Ed. note: another caution to carefully check out the AF action...] Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 From: "UrbanVoyeur" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Hasselblad dumping!! oooo ooo ooo, now I'm a *retard*. All because I disagree with you. Oh Goodie. As I said, I tried them side but side on the same targets around the camera shop. 60-70% of the time, the Contax hunted but would not lock. The Hassie and Cannon locked immediately, just fine. I consider the overhead light in a camera shop more than sufficient. Again, if it doesn't lock, it doesn't focus and that does me no good. As to operator error, the two salesman using 2 Contaxes (the one I tired and another) had the same experience while I was in the store. I think they know how to use the camera. As for giving it enough time, I let is hunt for quite a while. The contax actually goes through the entire range 2 or 3 times before it gives up and stops hunting. Stealing a phrase from you, the problems with the contax MF AF system are well documented. Also, you have questioned the accuracy of your EOS IV. While I don't have the IV, I do have the EOS 3, and I tend to use very fast lenses either wide open or close to it. I have never encounter a situation where the AF focus was inaccurate. Whatever it is locked on is in focus. It will occasionally lock on part other than where I want, and I will either move the focus rectangle or adjust manually. In all seriousness, you may want to have your camera's AF checked. -- J www.urbanvoyeur.com "I. N. Cognito" [email protected] wrote... > "UrbanVoyeur" [email protected] wrote: > > >My point (implied and apparently too subtle) was that if the Contax hunts > >when the Hassie locks, it won't matter if the Contax is 0.01 mm more > >accurate. The shot will be lost because Contax will never lock up the > >subject. You can have a billion pixels in the sensor, but if can't lock, its > >a waste of silicon. > > > No retard, in sufficient light, a higher pixel count AF module will > ensure greater accuracy. Hope that isn't too subtle for you. > >As it stands, the H1 in my hands was faster and was always able to lock on a > >subject in the camera shop lighting. The contax only about 60-70% of the > >time. > > Sounds like operator error. The Contax always locked on when I tried > it. You just need to give it enough time. As I said, its built for > accuracy over speed. > > >I'd also like to add that AF accuracy and sensitivity are not mutually > >exclusive. Case in point: Canon, in particular the EOS 3 which I use on a > >near daily basis in extremely low light. > > Problems with 35mm AF sensors are well documented.
From: I. N. Cognito [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Hasselblad dumping!! Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 "UrbanVoyeur" [email protected] wrote: >The Contax hunts while the Hassie locks, side by side. So which is more >accurate? Thats a function of AF sensitivity, not AF accuracy, which is what we were talking about. At this point, it remains to be seen what type of AF sensor the H1 uses (pixel count), but until that is disclosed, the Contax has the highest pixel count by a couple of hundred thousand compared to either the Mamiya, the Pentax, or 35mm AF systems. AF ACCURACY (not low light sensitivity) was the primary criteria Zeiss set in agreeing to design an AF lens.
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 From: Bernard Cousineau [email protected] Subject: Re: [Contax] Rollei / Zeiss connection To: [email protected] > What's the connection between Rollei and Zeiss? Rollei buys some lenses from Zeiss, and they build some Zeiss designs to Zeiss specifications under licence. > Are these all made in the same place? Rollei lenses labeled "Made by Rollei" are made by Rollei in Braunschweig (aka Brunswick), Germany. Zeiss lenses that are "Made in Germany" are made in Oberkochen. Zeiss lenses "Made in Japan" are ...well, you get the idea. This topic was covered on the list very recently. I think that, at this point, all AF (N or 645) Contax lenses are made in Japan. > Is it possible to use the 645 lenses on the 6000 series or vice versa via an > adaptor? No, and this is unfortunate. Both cameras feature fully electrical lens mounts, so the interface would theoretically be simpler (you would need a chip in the adapter to get things to work, but this wouldn't have to be a huge deal). It would be great to get 1/1000 flash sync using rollei PQS lenses on a Contax 645. Heck, even AF could theoretically be made to work with the new Rollei AF lenses. As far as I know, neither company publishes specs for their camera-lens interface, so some reverse engineering (or cooperation) would be required. Perhaps this can be a project for someone with electronic prototyping experience on the list. > What functions do you loose when using 645 lenses on the N? Only automated focus bracketing, I think. > Isn't an 80mm lens in MF about equivalent to a 50mm lens in 35mm film? They are both considered "standard" lenses, if this is what you mean. > In medium-format > photography, it became famous for its excellent flatness as the standard > focal length of the well-known twin-lens Rolleiflex. > I think of 50mm lens in 35mm cameras as the "flat, nuetral" (thus "normal" ... > though I know there are multiple reasons given for this description) lens. I think that the flatness that they are talking about here is "flatness of field," a traditional characteristic of Planar lenses. This refers to the lens' ability to focus a flat subject on a flat piece of film. It is interesting that Rollei chose to use the 2.8/80 Planar instead of the 2.8/85 Sonnar for their rangefinder line. Perhaps this is because the S85 for 35mm was not "Made by Rollei" (I have one from the mid-1970's and it says "Zeiss" on it). Or perhaps they felt that it is too similar to the S2.8/90 for Contax G. > Here we have a Cosina built Voightlander clone Rollei (this is the same > camera as the Voightlander R2 I believe) using the Leica M mount. For > lenses we have Rollei branded Zeiss licensed lenses built for the Leica M > mount. That's pretty fun, eh ! It gets better. Rollei's optical factory were aquired when Voigtlander was split apart in the 1970's (Voigtlander had been making lenses in Braunschweig since 1849). The Rollei non-Voigtlander-branded lenses are, in a way, more "Voigtlander" than the Cosina-made Voigtlander-branded lenses. Rollei also used to sell Voigtlander camera bodies, some of which were based upon Zeiss-Ikon (not to be confused with Zeiss) designs. It's a small world. > The choice of focal lengths is odd. Rangefinders are famous for working > well with wide angles but the widest lense is a 40mm here. Well, Rollei claims that "Further interchangeable lenses are in preparation" in the "Rollei News" newsletter available on their German site (http://www.rollei.de). It will be interesting to see what they come out with. The 40 and 80 were already being produced by Rollei, so they are logical choices. The 1.8/50 is odd. Is this the same lens that they sold for Rollei SLR's? Perhaps even old stock, remounted? I doubt that they would have ordered a new design from Zeiss for such a small run. New lenses (IMO) would have to be different from existing Cosina and Leica offerings. Wasn't there a Rollei 30mm P/S camera a few years back? Perhaps we will see a return of the Tele-Tessar 4.0/135 which was offered on Rollei 35mm slr's and on the Tele-Rolleiflex (also rumored to return)? Perhaps Rollei will make their own Noktons, Skopars, Heliars and Skoparexes using Voigtlander formulas? The possibilities are endless... Bernard
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] H1 list mania The truly amusing thing is that one of the cameras that people keep harping on as a major competitor to the H1 is the Contax 645 (and a very nice camera it is) with Zeiss lenses ... which are Carl Zeiss design specifications manufactured by Kyocera in Japan... Godfrey ...
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: CONTAX 645 AF From: "Tom Thackrey" [email protected] Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 "cayuga" [email protected] wrote: > I'm thinking of investing in a Contax 645 AF w/120mm f/4 lens for > portriats. > > Any opinions about the Contax? It's fantastic. I have the 140 f/2.8 which is probably a bit better for portraits because of the wider aperture. The best, easiest-to-use and sharpest camera I've owned. However, if all you are going to shoot is portraits, you will spend most of your time with the camera rotated 90 degrees so get the optional grip. -- Tom Thackrey www.creative-light.com
From: [email protected] (Foto28) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 09 Dec 2002 Subject: Re: CONTAX 645 AF I've got a comprehensive review on my website: www.dannyburk.com then to "reviews" :) Regards, Danny =============== Danny Burk www.dannyburk.com - fine art photography
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 From: "Ing. Ragnar Hansen AS" [email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad lenses on Contax 645AF I have used CF and FE lenses on Contax 645 with the adapter made by Novoflex. The adapter was a litlle sloppy but pictures turned out sharp. You have to meter and shoot with the lenses stopped down manually as the adapter does not transfer anything. Ragnar Hansen
From: [email protected] (Carol R) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: CONTAX 645 AF Date: 24 Dec 2002 "cayuga" [email protected] wrote > I'm thinking of investing in a Contax 645 AF w/120mm f/4 lens for portriats. > > Any opinions about the Contax? Ive had a Contax 645 for several years now. It produces a negative that is absolutely equisite. I also have the EOS3, among the fastest auto focus and while the Contax is outperformed in AF speed, it does a good enough job. My problem with this camera is that when using the prism finder and shooting group pictures, it is next to impossible to manually focus and be sure you nailed it, image on screen is very dark and small. There is a magnifier that I bought to aid in this but it magnifies the center spot, the same as the autofocus target. This is fine if handholding as can lock focus and then recompose, but if want to take a group shot using a tripod, you are focusing on belt buckles. You would have to raise the camera to focus on faces and then, reposition the camera on tripod. I bought the split screen, the magnifier, and had the screen lightened, but still do not feel comfortable with the focusing under some conditions. The waist level finder works fine, but only frames horizonal (645) otherwise this would be the way to go. If I had it to do over, I would get a Hassy and use its waist level finder. I believe the newer Hassy lenses are as good as the Contax. Carol R
From: [email protected] (Foto28) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 08 Mar 2003 Subject: Re: 645 Auto Focus camera comparisons I'm catching up while on vacation, so I'm reading this a bit late... For detailed info and review on Contax 645, you can check my website: www.dannyburk.com - then to "reviews". Regards, Danny www.dannyburk.com - fine art photography
From: Mark Rabiner [[email protected]] Sent: Mon 3/10/2003 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] H1 Vs Contax ... The Contax 645 has well known battery problems which stopped me in my tracks from further considering the system. It's been a few years and the problem does not seem to be addressed. They eat batteries. If you where shooting in the field it would be best to hook it up to your car battery and hope your car starts for the trip home. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabinergroup.com Email: [email protected]
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]] Sent: Mon 3/10/2003 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] H1 Vs Contax Mark Rabiner wrote: > > >The Contax 645 has well known battery problems which stopped me in my >tracks from further considering the system. >It's been a few years and the problem does not seem to be addressed. >They eat batteries. If you where shooting in the field it would be best >to hook it up to your car battery and hope your car starts for the trip home. Not to mention the slow hunting autofocus, slow flash sync, and big vibrating focal plane shutter vs really fast AF; smooth, quiet, BTL shutters. Oh yeah... the H1 is electronically (computer) coupled to numerous digital backs. Jim
From: Tom Christiansen [[email protected]] Sent: Mon 3/10/2003 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] H1 Vs Contax you wrote: >I have the op to get a Contax pretty cheaply...is it worth it quality wise >or should I just bite the bullet and jump on the H1 bandwagon? I used to own a Contax 645 system. It is a truly awesome camera!! I liked the built-in flash meter, built-in 1% spot meter, the fast lenses, and the data back. However the weight and battery consumption drove me nuts. I got about 7-10 rolls of 220 on a good (Energizer e2) lithium battery. Granted, I took my time composing while leaving the camera on, but still. 1-2 rolls of 220 per charge on a set of 1800mAh NiCd's. The AF is a bit on the slow, noisy side. Then my eyes decided that they liked squares better than rectangles, so I bought a 501CM. I haven't looked back since. The bottom line is that if you're working with the camera in the studio and have access to freshly charged NiCd's at all times, you'll probably love the Contax 645. I know I did. But if you need fast AF or plan to use the camera in a place where freshly charged NiCd's aren't available (or don't like spending more money on batteries than film) then buy something else. Tom
From: Tom Christiansen [[email protected]] Sent: Tue 3/11/2003 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] RE: H1 Vs Contax Daniel, >I'm apt to lean towards a camera that's reliable and I won't have to worry >about changing batteries too much. Are either the H1 or the Contax - do >they have a battery-less mode? As in in case of emergency, you can fire off >at 1/60th or 1/1/125 at least? The Contax does not operate without battery. It does, however, have a rather cool long exposure mode. You trip the shutter with a mechanical release (!) and it will stay open until you let go of the release. While in this mode, the camera uses almost no battery. Great for star trails and such. But it still needs a battery to operate! Tom
From: Tom Christiansen [[email protected]] Sent: Tue 3/11/2003 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] RE: H1 Vs Contax Godfrey, >The notes I've read on this list about the Contax 645 being battery hungry >are the first I've heard of that, and I'd want some verification before I >accepted it as gospel. Not to say that people are prevaricating, but >"battery hungry" means different things to different people. I was the one who claimed Contax 645 to be battery hungry. I got 5 rolls of 220 on a good brand (Duracell, Sanyo, etc.) 2CR5 lithium. Almost double of that with a Energizer e2 battery. I think the factory supplied 2CR5 lasted 3 (three) rolls of 220!! I'm a bit surprised you haven't heard of this before... According to the two Contax mailing lists I subscribe to and to www.photographyreview.com, I'm not the only one with this experience. But when I bought the camera, I thought exactly what you're thinking now, "battery hungry means different things to different people", "how bad can it really be?", etc. The Contax 645 is a great camera and if you do like I did and get the battery grip, a few sets of NiCd's, along with a fast charger which will plug into your car, then you're all set. My main motivation for trading the 645 for a 501CM is still that the 501 offers lower weight, simplicity, good prices on used gear, and square format. Contax 645 offer great features - which is why I bought that camera to begin with. I just chose to trade in the features to get back to basics. Tom
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 To: [email protected] From: mike rott [email protected] Subject: Re: [Contax] Comments on 645 battery "problems"? >On another list, someone claimed that the Contax 645 eats batteries, and >that it has "battery issues". Is this true? > >Any input appreciated. > >Austin The 'battery issues' are that it eats batteries. I have heard reports as low as 2-3 rolls of film/battery. I generally get between 15-20 rolls of 120 film/battery which I find poor, and I rarely use AF. You can get the 2CR5 batteries for around $3 each, which helps. I really wish there was a rechargeable 2CR5 lithium battery. I have just bought a used battery/grip for the 645 off ebay and should get it sometime in the next few days. This allows the use of AA batteries including rechargeables. With recharageables I have read you get even fewer rolls/battery set which could be a problem if you are shooting a lot, or travelling. I am going to try a set of lithium AAs first and see what the price/performance ratio is like compared to the 2CR5, I have heard over 30rolls/set. If this doesn't work well, I will try regular rechargeables, keeping a spare 2CR5 for emergencies. You can have the AAs and 2CR5 loaded at the same time and use a switch on the grip to switch between them. I am hoping that this will solve the battery issue for me. mike
From: Henry Posner [[email protected]] Sent: Fri 3/14/2003 To: [email protected] Subject: [HUG] Re: H1 Vs Contax you wrote: Are there any brighter screens for the Contax 645? According to http://www.brightscreen.com/ there are, but I have no personal experience with them. -- - regards, Henry Posner B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: [email protected] (RMIRANI) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 12 May 2003 Subject: Re: CONTAX 645 [email protected] (PEACOCKJP) wrote: >I have an opportunity to get a Contax 645 at a great price and wonder if >anybody has any feedback about this camera Fantastic camera...body design is superb and the lenses are just brilliant. The battery problem is real, so you should factor in the cost of a P-8 battery pack or the vertical grip. Using 2000mAh rechargeable batteries, you'll generally have few problems, though the camera gains in weight, no trivial thing given that this camera is definitely on the heavy side for 645. The normal lens is excellent, and the 120mm lens is even better. I've also used the 45mm and the 140mm with very good to excellent results. Lens prices are definitely high, but deals can be had on eBay with some patience...last Xmas, there were a lot of deals as several people were dumping their kits to go digital. Telephotos are not very affordable and a bit scarce, but an option if you live in a metro area with rental options is to purchase a Hasselblad-Contax adapter and rent one of the Hasselblad tele lenses -- this is what I do, though I generally don't use teles much with medium format. (I've also used the 110mm f2 Hassy lens for certain portraiture effects and gotten great results). Though much is made of the automation in this camera and its 35mm SLR-like ergonomics, it's still a box like most medium format options...significantly better results will come from a more deliberate style and a tripod. For fashion and portraiture shoots in the studio or in good light, though, handholding works well and does produce nice results. I've worked with colleagues who've shot everything at a wedding with the 645, using a tripod for the formals and pre-wedding bridal preparation shots, and handholding with a flash for the reception and candids. Good luck, whatever you decide, Robert
From: Tom Christiansen [[email protected]] Sent: Mon 7/7/2003 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] H1 Battery consumption Hi, >I had an opportunity to borrow an H1 for a week and fell in love with it. >The only drawback was the battery consumption. I had the same experience with the Contax 645. AWESOME camera!! but the battery consumption is a killer. >Is this the kind of thing that was common with the Contax 645? The >batteries are 123's and cost about $7.99 in most places. I got them at >cost ($3 ea.) but that still gets expensive if I go thru 6 a week. With the Contax 645 (using 2CR5's) I got about 5-7 rolls of 220 per battery change. Granted, I did take my time metering, locking the exposure, composing, and then take the shot, but still..... Tom
End of Page