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

Irakly, Dirk,

If there is a possibility to download original files, I think the test should be done again.

I need to learn more about the 1Ds. Although we were shooting RAW, I have little experience in processing them afterward. After all, we well know that each camera has its' set of quirks. We are experienced with the ND and I know the Kodak ProBack, but the 1Ds is brand new to me.

I also think a set of shots should be taken of a model, to see how the performance compares with flesh tones. Plus, it would be good to equalize lenses. If I could get a Canon 50/1.4 Prime we could further stabilize the comparisons, then even the 80/2 zeiss on the 645 would be roughly equal. Also, in a couple of weeks I'll have the Kodak 14N to add to the mix.
 
> David,

Irakly said "Contax N Digital TIFF - image detalization is not as impressive as on Canon D1s pictures, bu it becomes evident only at 100% magnification. Some slight color bleeding was noticed in highlights. Beautiful saturated yet faithful colors despite sRGB solor space".

Now how do conclude that the ND can't even begin to comare with the D1s?

And, several of us that shoot with the ND have stated that the best way to shoot is in JPG mode. That was not part of the test. (Although, I really respect Irakly for making the test in trying to compare Apples to Apples."

It might be fair to say that the Canon outperformed the ND in many areas (and marginally in some areas), and was outperformed by the ND in an area or two.

But to say that it can not even begin to compare is very unfair. It goes back to can you make great images with the ND. The answer is yes. And you are also comparing an 8,000 camera to a 6,500 camera. Don't forget that.

michael.
 
Michael,

I was basing my statements on the photos that were posted from the test, not from Irakly's comments. It is very clear that the ND TIFF is losing detail by clipping in the red color channel. The ND also exhibits more noise than I would be comfortable with at ISO 160 (I can't tell this from the test, I can tell because I have had the ND for quite some time now). I always shot the ND in JPEG mode as well, but not because it was better than TIFF mode, just because it was "just as good" as TIFF mode and the files were much smaller.

I what way do you think that the ND outperformed the 1Ds based on these test results?

Color? The ND oversaturated the reds to the point of losing important detail. The 1Ds had a (very) slight yellow shift, but that might have been the light balance or RAW processing. I would much rather have to do a one channel levels-tweak in PS than lose data that I can never recover. Maybe some different crops would have shown the ND in a better light. JPEG compression for the web would never cause this.

Detail? The D1s is clearly showing more detail in the image, but that would be expected with twice the pixel count. The images from the D1s are a bit soft out of the "box", but Canon has said that they did this on purpose (they apply less sharpening in the camera than other manufacturers) so that the photographer can decide how much sharpening to apply after the fact (besides, UM in PS is better than any in-camera sharpening that I have seen).

Yes, I know that I am comparing an $8,000 camera to a $6,500 camera. We are also comparing a $10,000+ digital back and a ~$1,000 P&S. Isn't that the whole point of the test?
 
All of this testing and comparing of digital cameras is interesting and I do enjoy the pain of second guessing my $5000 purchase as much as anyone else but I am most interested in how to get consistently good images from my ND. I have scanned the archives and have gleaned some info on setting up the camera but I was wondering if anyone has a system of their own for the camera - camera setup through the complete workflow. In the above post Michael said that the best way to shoot is in jpeg mode, why is that? What's the trade off, do you sacrifice quality possible with a tiff file? I shoot mostly portraits for magazines and events, after two weeks of owning the camera I am still not confident to shoot a job with it. My raw files need much photoshoping after conversion (color way off and little contrast) and tiff's have a red cast. I would really appreciate any pointers that anyone could share. Thanks, Roger
 
Thanks very much to all of you for doing these tests and sharing the results with us, and allowing us to see comparisons with the only comparable camera on the market. We take it for granted that we can obtain s&le images and thorough reviews of digital cameras on the web, but to date, but with the exception of Michael's review at Lone Star Digital, English-speakers been deprived of this important information for the Contax. But thanks to Marc and Irakly and all the other people who've shared their experiences and images with us we can now make intelligent choices about which camera to buy. I'm really impressed with how well the Contax, at almost half the resolution, compares with the Canon.
 
Roger,

I say JPG is better because there does not seem to be any added benefit to shoot in tiff or Raw Mode. Considering the additional storage requirements and battery processing required to save files in the larger formats, jpg saves seem to work out very well.

I also have to "tweak" my shots with a photo editor. Yes, that is disappointing, but it is not that hard, and you get a chance to really study the shots you are taking. My main problem with the ND are blown highlights when using a flash. I'm still working on that.

Also, the test that were performed had the ND set at ISO 160, which I have never shot at. I shoot at ISO 100 and certain reviews say that at ISO 50 the camera "sings".

And David, while I admire your very close analysis of the files, I still get the feeling that there is a certain amount of "nitpicking" going on and that the original concept of taking a good photo is getting lost. Ok, you can argue (and you effectively do), that there are some color problems with channels. But, these seem minor and correctable. For me, it gets back to the idea of being able to take very good to excellant shots consistantly. Shots, which have workable digital files. If your argument is that the ND is a "waste of money" or simply does not work, then I have to completely disagree with you. I also have a Canon G1. It takes "cute snaps" and can probably be used to take some really great shots. But there is no comparison in handling or functionality when compared with the ND. I recently sold a shot of a very large commercial building, shot at 17mm and the client was thrilled. No comments like, the colors need tweaking, or the angle was wrong, or that there was a loss of detail. It was taken with the ND, and 30 minutes after the photograph was taken it was e-mailed as a 2.7 megabyte file to the client. That was pretty cool, and a real life story of how capable the ND can be.

michael.
 
Guys, let me please intercede here.

It was my gear and my studio we used. I have over $25,000. sunk into the 3 captures we tested (not counting lenses). I have little or no bias about any of it, because they are all in my camera vault to be used as earners. Neither Irakly or I are professional camera testers. All I care about are end results as a photographer.

I have used the ND for portrait work and it is terrific. The Kodak ProBack is better. I have used the ND at weddings to great effect (see images in my Gallery portfolio). I believe the Canon 1Ds will be better because it is faster and flash work is more sophisticated, plus I can shoot RAW and see the histogram, or set the blown whites to flash (which you can do with the ND, but not in RAW).

You are looking at J-pegs in miniture size. And they were all processed by eye. We should've put a MacBeth color chart in the picture and matched to it. But I can't do that in real life shooting, so I didn't.

I have found in use that the ND is a fine all around camera that goes its own way. It demands you pay attention to it , and the exposures have to be accurate, or you get the color problems mentioned. It is a more deliberate tool than the Canon, or even the Kodak ProBack when mounted on a Contax 645.

Anyone familiar to the deliberateness of shooting a Leica M will understand. It just doesn't roll over and "pant at your feet" like some of these other machines do. At first I was pissed at it for that reason. Now I love it for the very same reason. I am making better and better images with it as time goes on. And for me all the tech stuff is just , well, stuff.

They just need to fix the software so the RAW can be used effectively. Or get on the Adobe list. The power issue is becoming less of an issue with 2000 mAh batteries now available, but a solid battery like everyone else offers would be nice. Not being able to review RAW was a mistake that we'll just have to live with.

I think I'll go take some pictures with my 1950's technology Leica Ms and Blad. No brainer, and the images are outstanding every time.
 
I have just uploaded a shot taken with the ND into the test area of a girl, Lena, and another of the same shot magnified to illustrate a problem I have with my ND and skin. This picture was taken in raw mode in sunlight. What is the cause of this problem? Is it a setting I am using incorrectly, or is it the camera? Any advice is welcome.
John
 
John, it seems like you just did not notice spots on the girl's skin, seriously. I would want to see more pictures of her face in different lighting to blame the camera.
 
Back
Top