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!

User comments btil June 2003

G

Guest

hi!
i need help.
i'm about to buy the 645 for a very important shoot, print ad.
client always get 6X7 slides.
can CarlZeiss quality on 645 slides be better than 6X7 (mamiya) ???

must decide soon. thank you.
 
Hi,

if this is an important shooting, I would test the camera, before buying one - no matter which model. I never shot with 6x7 or the Contax, just Rollei 6008 and TLR.

Zeiss lenses are a very good choice, but they can not break the law in physic. Assuming you enlarge each negative to the same print size, you can not have the same resolution if you compare the print of a 6x4,5 and a 6x7.

On the other hand, I guess in the print-ad industry the capability in photoshop is more important then the resolution in the original shot.

With color reproduction it could be different, but the bigger the negative/slide the more impressive is the picture in general, if this is the only check of the client for getting the mandate.

I would rent in your situation the Contax 645 and a Mamiya 7, an SLR Mamiya or equivalent. Shoot for a day with both cameras and compare the results.

And check whether your client is accepting at all the smaller slides of the Conatx 645.

Just my 2 cents
 
thank you dirk.

i shot for this year's national coverage beer calendar using fuji GA645Zi, drum scanned enlarge to 40X60cm print. they turned out okay. indeed photoshop took a vital role in the post.

this time the job is for regional coverage. and suddenly i felt credibility or something at a stake.
they're gonna hand out the result to many countries. all over asia.

i tried mamiya 7. certainly an issue when you need npc polaroid back, not a simple operation. most importantly they don't make macro lens for the series.

i prefer handheld most of the time, hardly use tripod. that left me not so many choices of cameras anymore.
this time the team prepared me RZ67. i must say it's a bitch shooting handheld with it. (sorry mamiya, i know that RZ is designed to use a tripod)

so now i must learn to use RZ handheld.
still not very sure on purchasing Contax 645.

thank so much for the kind reply.
 
I've recently posted a review of the Contax 645 system on my website, Danny Burk, as well as reviews of several other cameras. I am posting the text of my review (below) for your convenience.

*****************

Introduction

My first medium format camera was a Mamiya 7 II, purchased in July 1999. It's a nice camera but limited in what it can do, being a rangefinder…no long lenses, imprecise framing, difficulty using certain filters, and no closeup capability. It does, however, make very nice 6x7 images, and the results that it gave me were so far superior to 35mm that I knew that medium format was for me. After using the Mamiya for six months, I began the search for a medium format SLR which would replace 35mm as an all-purpose camera.

I considered many brands and models: Pentax and Mamiya in particular, as well as Contax 645. I gave a lot of thought to Pentax 67, but in the end decided against it due to its sensitivity to shutter vibration. To make a long story somewhat shorter, I finally chose the Contax due to its features as well as its Zeiss lenses, in particular due to the reputation of its 120mm macro lens. At this writing (June 2002) I've had it for nearly 2 ½ years, and it remains a great favorite.

The Contax 645 is somewhat like a slightly overgrown 35mm model. It is extremely user-friendly, like most 645 format- but unlike many larger medium format cameras. It's fairly compact for a medium format SLR, although its Zeiss lenses, with their all-metal construction, are considerably heavier than some other brands. It boasts many advanced features, again being similar to a 35mm camera in that regard, yet offering much better image quality and convenient aspects of medium format such as prism and waistlevel finders and interchangeable backs. Ergonomic level is very high, the buttons and controls generally being "just right", and as a whole the camera is very intuitive to use.

Don't let anyone tell you that 645 isn't enough of a jump in size from 35mm to be worth consideration…the difference is spectacular, and my guess is that these naysayers haven't even tried it. The image size of 645 is nearly 2.7x larger than that of 35mm; that of 6x7 is only a further 60% larger. These same naysayers don't complain that 6x6 isn't much different from 35mm…remember that a 6x6 cropped from square is virtually identical in size to a frame of 645.

Body

The body is well constructed of black composite material containing carbon fibre. It's lightweight but sturdy, and I typically carry it by the neckstrap with ease. It includes a built-in motor drive and normal top-of-the-camera dials, not a dreadful menu-based layout such as the original Pentax 645 had.

One of my favorite things about Contax bodies is the AE lock switch. It's integrated with the off/on lever; to lock exposure, simply flip the lever to "lock" and it will retain the same exposure settings until you release it, even for the entire roll. Another exceptional feature of the 645 is its built-in flash meter, similar to Contax's 35mm RTSIII…this is perfect for precisely-metered studio flash use such as my flower and macro work, and since it is TTL metered, no compensation for extension is necessary. Just spotmeter the desired area and flip the flash meter lever; it fires a preflash and displays compensation, if any, that is necessary to attain this exposure. Adjust the exposure compensation dial and all is well…no fussing with resetting flash power levels. This actually works with any flash; I very rarely use on-camera flash, so cannot offer an opinion in that regard. Exposure and lens data is imprinted along the edge of each frame, an extremely nice feature and difficult to do without once you've gotten used to it.

The body includes just about any feature one would want, such as multiple exposure capability, automatic bracketing, self-timer, continuous firing, mirror lockup and much more. Mirror lockup is unfortunately limited to a short interval to save battery life, necessitating continual relocking if one is waiting for wind to stop (my most frequent aggravation). Film backs include a well-designed insert, which is usable for either 120 or 220 film by simply rotating the pressure plate.

Metering is generally very accurate, except that it is oversensitive to bright red objects. After much testing, I determined that it underexposes by exactly a stop on such objects as red flowers and stop signs; I give it +1 stop exposure compensation and get perfect exposures, although I find it annoying that accurate metering across the entire spectrum didn't seem to be a Contax priority.

My other complaint is the 645's well-known appetite for batteries. I get around 5-6 rolls of 220 per 2CR5 battery, similar to many other users. Fortunately I've discovered an online source for them ( sunnbattery.com) at $4 each, rather than the $10-11 charged locally.

Lenses

While not an extensive lineup, the 645's lenses are extraordinary and are one of the main reasons to buy into the system. Focal lengths run from 35mm to 350mm, plus a 1.4x Mutar teleconverter. As yet there are no zooms nor a 2x teleconverter; although not yet officially announced as of June 2002, it's believed that 45-90mm and 90-180mm will soon be available. All primes have full DOF scales as you'd expect from superior lenses. The entire range can also be used with Contax's "N" series of 35mm autofocus bodies.

My setup includes 35mm, 45mm, 80mm, 120mm, 210mm and 350mm focal lengths. Every one gives superb image quality; two deserve special mention. The 120mm macro is, quite simply, the best single lens I have ever used. Image quality is unbelievably good; nearly all of my flower portraits were made with this lens, and it serves as a superb general-purpose lens as well. If I were limited to one lens for this camera, the 120mm would surely be it. Like the others, the 350mm is superb quality, and fast (f/4) with close-focus capability…however, it is very bulky and heavy (8.5 pounds/3.8 kg), necessitating special arrangements for carrying (see below). I don't have the 140mm, since I consider it too close to my present 120mm macro to have both. There is also a 55mm available, which is a nice bridge between the 45mm and 80mm lenses; I'd initially planned to obtain it but have decided to wait for the 45-90mm zoom instead.

Lenses are of the usual Zeiss build quality…heavy, all-metal construction, exuding high quality across the board. Thoughtfully, all have 72mm filter threads save the 35mm and 350mm, which take 95mm filters. Very nice metal hoods are available for each focal length, and are stored by reverse-mounting onto the lens.

My relegation of the lenses' autofocus capability to a brief note is due to the fact that I treat them as manual lenses at all times. I have no use for autofocus for anything besides birds (handled by Canon 35mm), and quite honestly ignore the fact that they have anything besides manual abilities. To the credit of Zeiss, the manual operation is very smooth and positive-feeling, virtually as good as any non-autofocus lenses. If you are interested in writing me with questions about the 645, feel free, but don't ask me about autofocus capability since I have no experience with it!

Accessories

There are quite a few accessories available for the system; I will mention only those that I actually have and use. Besides the regular film backs, a Polaroid back is available; this is handy for checking tricky studio-lit exposures, but I don't use it in the field.

I normally use the prism finder; I also have the waistlevel version, which sees limited use but is nice for special purposes. I use it when shooting upward, for ex&le to pick out details in tall trees…no need to acquire a stiff neck from stooping to awkward positions. Similarly, it's good for very low shots…an angle finder is not needed, nor is lying on the ground for flower macros a necessity. However, it is *extremely* cumbersome to use for verticals: the image is inverted and I find it far more difficult to use than a view camera with its inverted but much larger image. It's also incapable of spotmetering, so a handheld meter is useful in these instances. I use the grid screen at all times, as I do in all of my cameras. Regardless of which finder is in use, the image is bright and easy to focus.

Three different extension tubes are available, and are a nice addition to attain closer focus with the 210mm and 350mm lenses in particular. I also have the bellows for studio use; it's quite a piece of work and is a masterpiece of design. It's extremely well-constructed and fully meter-coupled, and is virtually a miniature view camera in that it allows tilt, shift, swing, and rise/fall in the macro range. Unfortunately there are no short-mount lenses available that could allow infinity focus; this feature (or dedicated tilt/shift lenses) would be a great asset for landscape use. As much as I love my Contax 645, the lack of movement capability is the main reason that I've also obtained a Fuji GX680III.

My method of use in the field

I have no problem carrying the entire 645 system while hiking. I keep the camera itself, with one lens mounted, stored in a small Tamrac shoulder bag; it's carrying via the neckstrap while hiking. The rest of the system, except the 350mm lens, goes into a Tamrac "superlight" shoulder bag…this includes four lenses plus teleconverter, waistlevel finder, a complete set of filters for color and b&w use, film, and many small accessories. If I feel that I'll need the 350mm lens, it must be handled separately due to its bulk and weight. It lives in a Lowepro Micro Trekker backpack, and I simply strap this on for hiking. It's virtually weightless compared to a large pack such as a well-filled Pro Trekker, and doesn't need to be removed during the hike unless I actually want to use the lens.

I plan to purchase the 45-90mm and 90-180mm zooms when they become available; these will be convenient for ultra-compact use in difficult terrain such as steep or very lengthy hikes, or for those occasions when one can't carry a large shoulder bag. I'll be glad to answer your questions about the Contax 645.

Regards,
Danny Burk
 
Hi Danny,

thank you very much for your detailed review of the Contax 645. I am glad that now also Contax Users of the Medium Format have an expert on this Forum.

Regarding the mentioned zooms, I can confirm that they are definitely coming. They are listed in the new Contax N-Digital brochure with the remark "under developement" what means nobody knows when they are actually coming
happy.gif


I guess it will be for the Photokina in September in Cologne/Germany

dirk
 
Danny,

I would be interested whether you have thought about using a digital back for your 645. What would be the Pros and Cons for it in your view?

dirk
 
Dirk,

Presently I don't have an interest in doing in-camera work digitally. A very important reason against it is due to the small image area; wide-angle capability is much reduced, and for that reason I would not consider it even if it were more advantageous in every other way.

I drum scan my transparencies of all formats; besides Contax 645, I also shoot 6x8, 617, and 4x5. The quality of any of these formats *as film* surpass most digital technologies, and at a far lower cost.

Besides the above...there is nothing like seeing a real transparency on the light box!
happy.gif


Danny
 
Hi Danny,

I hope Kyocera/Zeiss will bring out something like a 5.6/135 mm S-Planar for the bellows, with a focus range from infinity to perhaps 1:1 (depending on the length of the bellows). I don't mind, they can use the Hasselblad 5.6/135 as an ex&le. In my opinion the tilt and shift functions of the bellows are more or less senseless without such a lens.

Uli
 
Hi guys ( strange no woman in the MF chat )

In short Pentax645 or Contax645 I will have to buy it second hand due to the $$$$ factor.

The camera would mainly be used for weddings and portraits.
Thanks Jan
 
Back
Top