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!

Contax ND

Marc, 6mp Mega-Vision medium format backs have this chip. I am sure that you have seen what they are capable of.
 
irakly & marc where do you all live? may be we can all get together and explore this beast called contax ND
 
Mehrdad, Irakly lives in Grosse Pointe and I live in Franklin...both suburbs of Detroit, Michigan USA.

I just returned from shooting a wedding (in Irakly's part of town), and I took the ND with a NAM-1, so I could use the Contax 645 lenses (I always shoot the 645, both film and with a Kodak 645C DCS back). I shot all RAW, and am downloading them right now.

I'll report on my experiences when I see what I've got. I've already a peeked, and some of the news is good...but not all of it.
 
Thanks for the info marc, I live in Los Angeles but do travel alot for business. when i am heading your way, i will let u know, may be we all can get together.
 
Mehrdad, same for me. I come to LA to shoot TV commercials as part of my job as an ad agency Creative Director...and my sister in law lives there.
 
Contax N Digital Performance Report:

As stated in my previous post, I promised to share a few observations after developing shots taken at a wedding job this weekend. I used a Contax 645 with a Kodak DCS 645C Proback; a Nikon D1-X, a Leica M7, and the ND body with a NAM-1 adapter. No N lenses were used, just the 645 glass.

I shot the ND strictly in RAW mode @ ISO 64, using a Contax flash on a bracket. Because I could not review the images while in RAW mode, I limited the shots taken with the ND to non-critical subject matter. I shot a total of 54 images, roughly the amount I get from a 1 gig card loaded in the D1-X when shooting tiff files.

THE CAMERA: extremely slow and unsure when focusing in dim lighting of the reception hall. Even the 645 is faster and surer. BUT, it did focus eventually, and the images it did manage to grab onto were spot on. When I moved out into the better lit lobby area where the bar was set up, focus was much less of a problem. This is not a camera for use
in critical situations where the light is poor. A flash that throws bars of light onto the subject to create contrast would help I think (like the Nikon AFDX flashes do). The Nikon never missed, even when they turned off the lights entirely and the room was only candle lit. However, for daylight, non action shots even at a wedding, I wouldn't hesitate using this camera. The camera literally ate the first set of batteries in no time. The second set allowed me to shoot the rest of the card. I now use 3 extra battery carriages, so swapping them was just as fast as with the D1-X. The second set were 1950 mAh.

THE SOFTWARE: Way, way to slow for processing quanities of images like I shoot at a wedding. Each function and step in that function requires processing time. Contrast that to the Kodak RAW processor program where you do each corrective function and see its' effect in real time, and it is all applied to the final image at the same time. I can correct an entire CF card in the Kodak program in the amount of time it took to do 2
images in the Contax RAW developer program. Transfering images to PS in the 2 programs is equally slow, but remember, each Kodak file is 94 meg. If I crop the Kodak file in the processor, the Kodak becomes even faster, an option I don't see on the Contax developer.

THE IMAGES: where the Kodak corrected files need little or no work in PS, the Contax files need a lot of work, even more than the Nikon tiff images that come straight from the camera without using a processing program. BUT, when worked on they are better than the D1-X in general, and second only to the Kodak digital images. The main image advantage is that even when using flash, there were no blown out whites so common to digital cameras. And that includes flash shots where the foreground subject can often be overexposed in comparison to background subjects. Of course they'll be lighter, but not blown out. Selective burning of the foreground image brings them right into balance.

Another observation is something Irakly pointed out, your exposure has to be accurate, or you will have great difficulty with the color balance and blacks. When I experienced this problem, I simply converted the image to B&W and, as I said before, this camera makes perfect B&W images (probably because the tonal range it captures is so wide).

THE LENSES: the 645 lenses are superior to the N lenses IMO. I will run a test on the 85/1.4 and the 80/2 to see for sure. The 35/3.5 produced incredibly sharp images, and the 140/2.8 beautiful portraits with perfect Bokeh.

CONCLUSIONS: This is a good camera for daylight and better lit situations not requiring critical action
capture. It is terrific in the portrait studio, and worth $6,500 when compared to the $11,000 Kodak
because it will give you the level of quality to make a 11X14 print that's better than the D1-X or Canon 1D is abe to deliver under the same circumstances. The tonal range is difficult to manage in RGB color space, but a dream come true in B&W (which I shoot a lot of). It should be noted that Kodak makes a 6 meg DCS camera specifically for B&W capture that I suspect has the same tonal properties as the ND...and costs more than the ND.

The software is good and has most of the necessary controls (cropping?). But it is snail slow compared to the Kodak RAW processor. Even using the camera for vacations, let alone any quanity oriented job, is not advisable in the RAW mode. It would take a month of Sundays to process. It's much better to shoot a series, select the best and process...like a portrait session or artistic shoot.
 
Marc,

Thanks for the excellent feedback. I also experienced the difficulty with the blacks when the exposure was somewhat off with extreme contrast ranges - the shadows acquire a bluish haze when you try to make them significantly lighter.

I'm not surprised the 645 lenses are sharper - your only using the center portion of an optic designed for a larger image. I'm going to start thinking about the 645 lenses to augment the two zooms instead of the N fixed lenses. But I will wait for your comments on the 85 / 1.4 (and for my wallet to recuperate).

Has anyone shot with both the ND and N1 with the same lenses that can give us a comparative review of the AF system with both? I thought the N1, although not on the same level as the best Canon & Nikon, was not so shabby, and that the ND had the same mechanism.

Thanks again, Marc. Let's hope Raw Data Developer 3.0 comes out soon with a quantum leap in performance and a suitable GUI. And perhaps a ROM update that provides better on-camera handling of low-light.

DJ
 
Thanks DJ, I can say without any qualms to get your hands on a 140/2.8 from the 645 series lenses.
No 135mm lens from any 35mm system I've ever used is as good. And the AF was pretty good, probably because you're in closer and can select an edge to grab focus.

God I hate this software. I have 10 gig worth of pictures from 3 different cameras that I'm wadeing through. I just don't have the time to fool around with such a slow program, and all the post work required to reach a printable image. BTW, the Nikon RAW developer isn't exactly a Porche at speed either. But the tiff images are very, very good right out of the camera, so I never shoot RAW with it.
 
Marc, that's excellent. All you say is absolutely true and well put on. It totally supports my notion that this camera is excellent for small-volume high quality production and demands almost as slow pace as medium format equipment.

My only question is how exactly did you use the flash. I managed to get excellent flash shots with Metz 54MZ, but for fill flash I had to use auto non-TTL mode because the camera seems to refuse to recognize flash compensation in TTL mode. Also I find a hardware limitation of manual exposure mode to non-TTL is rather stupid to put it gently. But, as far as I know, Nikon D100 has some very similar quirks with a flash.
 
SORRY TO SAY...

My initial report on my wedding shoot was prematurely incorrect. Every image has a terrible moire' pattern and ended up being unprintable.

There were a few images worth the PS work to save them. I ran a PS Noise reduction actions program I usually reserve for extreme blow-ups from my D1-X when shot on ISO 800. I posted one of the "saved" ND shots in the Gallery here. Even after running the noise reduction program at full power, the darks had to be selected and a blur tool applied.

Unless someone can point out an obvious mistake on my part, I am returning this camera to Contax'
and/or sueing them. This is the last straw.
 
Back
Top