DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Whatbs going up with contax

roberto1

Well-Known Member
Well, maybe I should have posted this somewhere else, but as my post is S2-related, I will leave it right here.

As we all know, Kyocera has closed down the camera business, killing by the way the contax brand and leaving all us stranded (and I had bought two S2, one Aria and one RXII.).
angry.gif


After that some information had come to light as if Cosina would continue the contax brand (really easy to re-badge the Bessaflex and fit a Y/C mount, adding a switch to choose from selective to centre-weighed metering and a titanium cover and hop! that's a Contax, or contaflex, or Zeiss Ikon S3 to you).

But according to french magazine "Reponses Photo" it seems that Sony has interests in the Contax brand (and don't forget that sony manufactures Zeiss lenses under licence for digital cameras). So will we see anything new from contax? At least not in the short term. The same magazine also read that Sony had a little bit of finantial problems so the deal would be delayed, or cancelled sine die. All we can do is wait... and pray...

As technology goes by, I do not think there is much future for the multi-everything film-based (aka traditional) cameras. This market sector has been fully taken over by Digital SLRs (the only exceptions are the Canon EOS I, the Nikon F6 and the Leica R9, the latter enjoying a new easy of life thanks to the DMR), but the rest of traditional cameras are struggling to survive.

But there is a small market sector which still has plenty of future to survive. You've guessed it, the traditional mechanical cameras, of which only the Nikon FM3a, rests of Zenit cameras and entry level Yashica FX-3 clones made in china with Nikon or pentax bayonet. and how about Voigtlander cameras? They sell, and quite well.

Nothing can beat a mechanical camera when it comes to shocks, accidental dropping, and operating in really really harsh environments, and you can rely on them, their reliability and their ability to work without batteries. I remember taking my S2 out of the backpack at 3800 metres height, with a 50 km/h wind and at a temperature of -25 º Celsius. It worked!

And these cameras still sell, and really well. Just take a look around and watch the Nikon FM3a. A lot have been sold, even many of them regard this camera as an obsolete one, but nothing could be further from reality, the FM3a is a great and real workhorse, designed to withstand anything you can throw at it. Who would not like an agreement between Nikon and kyocera to produce the FM3a with Contax mount and looks? I would buy it, for sure! (and I am pretty sure that many people in this forum would buy it as well)

From my previous posts you will already know that my first S2 was bought in 1994 and some time ago the film lever could not be locked in its "rest" position, where it usually clicked, now it remained loose. I took it to my repair shop and was told that all the winding mechanism would have to be changed, at the cost of an arm and a leg (and Yashica Spain would only supply the complete winding gear train). I was sure it was nothing else than a detent spring, whether worn or broken. Armed with three different sized screwdrivers and the original repair manual, I began to take it apart. Within five minutes I found the offending spring, removed it (broke in my hands) and ordered a replacement to Tocad USA. I am waiting for their answer and for the parts, too (just to be sure I ordered two more, just to have plenty available when supplies dry up and the camera is no longer supported).

Best regards and Contax Forever!
Robert
 
I remember sony eventually decided to team up with another camera manufacturer instead of Contax. As a staunch N supporter I can only sit in the dark holding all my gears and weep. A well executed 35mm slide has around 10M usable pixels, is that all my N lenses can do? I pretty much have given up hoping for a N digital II... How about I migrate to Contax 645 and get a NAM and a coolscan 9000 or even a digital back? I assume there will be continuing release of new backs compatible with Contax645, right? Kyocera's holding the N mount without doing anything about it is unethical IMO and I can't see any business sense of it...
 
Good luck Robert. I wonder if another repairman might have been able to make a spring and fix it? This bodes ill for all those repairs that are going to be needed in the future for our Contaxes.
It would be nice to have a new Contax along the lines you suggest but I think that digital rules now. A digital version of the camera you suggest with a large full frame sensor would be wonderful and we could use our lenses.
There is a very interesting article in last week's Amateur Photographer (UK weekly photo magazine) about the Contax SLR range and history.
John
 
I understand that Carl Zeiss holds the Contax brand name.
It seems to me that the pictures I see printed and on the monitor which have been made from film are superior to those made digitally except those perhaps from the Canon full frame sensors. I know this is subjective and open to debate but that is just the way it seems. Film pictures have more detail and smoothness and are more pleasant to view - or is it just me?
 
No it's not just you.
It's a little insulting to compare my N/50/1.4 on Velvia to my Nikon D70/kit lense, but the color and detail variation is just much more wonderful on my films, even after scanning them into the computer. That's why I hold them and weep, otherwise I'd have just happily throw them away. I'm actually very curious about the following question: has anyone compared the color gamut range between the films/films scanned/digital sensors? Notice that scanner's sensor is different from DSLR's sensor, which makes the comparison between the three meaningful. Also, anyone can comment on the ND's color (and color alone) as compared to films/films scanned/other DSLR? Last, to the credit of DSLRs, the noise-less property is just a huge leap and helps a lot in geometrical details... I hope it's not my prejudice, but I just can't convince myself to forsake films (again, as compared to D70/kit lense).
 
Sure, the less expensive digitals are worse than film, but the stuff I'm getting from my 1DsII with Contax and Leica lenses blows away anything I ever got from a Bronica GS-1 (6x7) or a Fuji GX-680 (6x8) using Reala printed at 11x17 for the digital vs. 11x14 for the film stuff.

I think what turns some people off is that it does look different - how could it not? Seeing a totally grainless sky can be unnerving, because our brain expects to see grain. But that's just a normal reaction. Frankly I'm ecstatic I don't get grainy skies any more.

Plus you'll be able to get far more color accuracy in the digital realm. It's the nature of the beast. Getting accurate and consistent response from at least three individual layers of chemical emulsion is a more daunting task than from a high-quality digital sensor.

I should add that color accuracy is not one of my prime motivators - I'm more into subjective interpretation, which can amount to less accuracy for more feeling and impact
biggrin.gif
.
 
As far as the ND I no longer have, I thought it was as good if not better than film in capturing overall color and dynamic range when properly exposed.

Exposure with digital needs to be approached differently than either slides or negs. With slides I tended to under-expose. With negs I would over-expose. Digital you want to over-expose but need to make sure you don't blow your critical highlights - when it goes, it drops totally, unlike film which will have a bit of a toe.

One nice thing about digital is that although less forgiving if you over-expose too much, you can check and adjust pretty much instantly on-location. And as with any process, familiarity wil bring consistency.

My wet darkroom including the Jobo ATL-3 and Omega D-5500 is now a fond historic memory of lots of hard work
happy.gif
.
 
One would hope some enterprising person handy at repair work would take up the banner for Contax mechanical cameras. My father once had a Packard automobile, and there was a repair man in Chicago that actually machined new parts for it, or had bins of parts taken for lost cause cars. Currently there are a number of expert repair people keeping ancient Leicas alive and shooting... I once had a Leica made in 1932, that I had repaired so it worked like the day it was built. Mechanical stuff lets that happen. Electronic stuff just gets tossed. Which is what will happen to all these digital cameras eventually. They won't be worth saving like some of these great old Contax machines (I still have a ST and RX).

I admit to having a fondness for film and still shoot a Leica M and Hasselblad on a pretty regular basis (occasionally the Contax units also). Film has a special look that isn't there with digital. For me it isn't just smoothness ( something I actually don't like about digital), but has more to do with a feeling of depth. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the rawness of street photography using old Nikons and Leicas with Tri-X is becoming a disappearing art form. And if you really want to see some great B&W film works, take a look at the most recent issue of Black&White. You forget how beautiful these images can be as the world migrates to Zeros and Ones.

However, digital is seductive, and the perfect medium for a society that has to have everything now. Not minutes or days from now. NOW. I myself am up to my eyeballs in it, and am spending the day learning about my new H2D which is totally dedicated to digital capture on an unprecedented level.
 
> Thank you for the news, John. I will do my best in order to try to find this issue of amateur Photographer. I guess I will have to order it from the editor. Best regards, Robert >
 
Hi DJ,

I agree that 1DsII with LZ lenses are powerful combination and they are great for landscape. They produce great colours and good spatial look.

In terms of resolution of fine details, digital suppresses film easily by increasing the no. of pixels.

Digital images, no matter how many pixels they have, still lacks the realism provided by film images. I think this degree of realism matters less in landscape as it matters less how the rock should look like to us. In human face, the difference is big.

I find looking at film prints,even small ones, provides me with a lot more confidence before I engage how an operation should go on the human face. Digital prints of human faces, no matter how big or small, do not provide me with as much informations as film do. I have tried very hard including the use of IDsI and RAW(help from my friend), but still cannot get what I want from film. The contour of the face is so much better rendered by film than digital. Digital images or prints are simply flatter and carry less meaning.

For important tasks, we shoot with both now, digital and film.
 
Back
Top