Hi Didzis,
I tried not to repeat all things that have been said already in the past here in the forum about ND image quality. Please read the ND therads for this and use the search function. You are right that you can take pictures with every camera. That was valid in the past with film cameras and will be also valid in the future with DSLRs, no matter which brand, sensor, lenses or Pixel amount.
How that image has to "look" for you to satisfy your "needs" is a question of personal taste and what you need for your usage. I read lamost all tests avaliable on the net about all the DSLRs. And I can tell you that all tehse tests only can give you an indication, but you can never "trust" a tester as long as you have not seen his results in print in real life. Then expressions like "excellent image quality" "impressive dynamic range" "sharp like nothing before", "image quality like Medium Format" will translate in real terms by your own benchmark. Only then you know, whether you get really what you want to have.
The ND gives very good images, but not straight out of the box without any additional work, as you might be used to nowadays with DSLRs available in 2006. So one big point is how convenient you would like to get your results.
But other things, which affect image quality and usage did not get mentioned by me, since we talked about it already many times in the past here:
1. If you want to have fullframe, you have only 2 options. Either Canon (5D, 1Ds, 1Ds MarkII) or Contax ND. This was an important factor for me. Marketing departements try not to talk about this, but believe me, this makes a difference in both image quality and what you can do with the camera. As a general rule you can say the bigger the pixel, the better the image quality, if everything else is equal.
2. If you want to have fullframe and very good wideangles, you have to use Zeiss lenses on the choosen body. Once you are used to the Zeiss wideangles, Canon wiedeangles on Canon fullframe cameras are a waste of money (this is my pesronal opinion). Zeiss lenses on Canon DSLRs is possible, but not really convenient (stop down metering, using an adapter etc.). So this was an important factor for me.
3. Marc mentioned here already many times, that he gets even with old Zeiss tele lenses better results on his Canon 1Ds Mark II than with similar Canon lenses. So not only the sensor and MP is important. Alos the lenses play a big role.
So even in 2006, the ND has advantages. Dynamic range is better than other 6 or 8MP DSLRs (I did not compare it to the fullframe DLSRs of Canon). Because of the bigger pixel, it has still an edge over the APS size-sensor DLSRs. And the Zeiss lenses make also a difference, in some situations an extreme difference (lens flare/ghosting), The CCD in combination with Zeiss lenses gives a better look of the skin (my personal taste) compared to the "plastic" and "unnatural" look of other DSLRs' images. If you look at some images of other DSLRs, you have the feeling someone put vasiline on it.
So again, there are still advantages of the ND even nowadays. But this can change very fast. IMHO the following points determine the final image quality in your print (no specific order):
1. The sensor (pixelsize & structure, CCD or CMOS, etc.)
2. MP (8MP only marginal better than 6 MP etc.)
3. The dataprocessing within the "black box"
4. The lenses (colour reproduction, sharpness, flare, bokeh, 3-D effect, microcontrast etc.)
5. The raw converter
6. Your know-how in image processing i.e. Photoshop CS2
7. Your printer, paper, ink, colour management etc.
So if you look at this list, many things can go wrong even if you use the best sensor in the world. The ND has surely not the best sensor in the world. It is one of the first generation DSLRs. Neither has a Canon D60 (3.300 EUR in March 2002) nor a Nikon D1x (6.500 EUR in June 2001). But in combination with Zeiss lenses, Photoshop Raw converter and the skills of a Photoshop experienced person etc., you can still get better results than someone with a Nikon D200 (1.700 EUR in 2006), bad lenses or lacking know-how in Photoshop. I am not that good in Photoshop. So Marc and Irakly will ALWAYS get better images with their ND than I do with mine. I have either to live with that fact, or spend a lot more time in my PS skills
We have to be realistic here. The improvements in DSLR technology was really dramatic over the last few years. So it is almost a sensation, that the ND can still beat in some areas the most modern 6 or 8MP DSLRs. But it is unrealistic to hope, that this advantage will last for the next 5 years. This is why I put my focus on the alternatives you have available NOW. Last year and the year before, the situation was different and so was the result if you compared the ND with others DSLRs. But we can not ignore, that many manufacturers released over teh last 6 months new DSLRs with better performance (than their predecessors) and will release even more over the next 6-12 months.
It is a different story to compare image quality of a Contax ND with i.e. a Nikon D100 (2.800 EUR in July 2002) vs. ND and D200 (1.700 in April 2006). The Sony R1 gives you already an image quality nowadays, that most users will satisfy in 98% of their shootings. But this is only possible (IMHO) because of the Zeiss lens. The R1 came out at christmas time 2005 for 990 EUR. Now you get it for around 680EUR. INCLUDING a Zeiss T* 24-120 Zoom. Just think about this!
We are living in a DSLR world, where the user pays today an exaggerated price for DSLRs, which are the "trash" of tomorrow.
Ask your friends who are using Nikon, Canon et alii: How much money they would have been willing to pay for an analogue body 6 years ago? How many would have paid 2000-9000 USD? So why are they doing it now, knowing that it is worth 3 months later maybe 50% of it. Is this a mirror of the stock market bubble of the year 2000?
So this is why I say, ND is very good, in 2006 still better than some other DSLRs, but not perfect. Know the weaknesses and learn to work around them as with every camera. But IMHO it would be smarter to wait a few months before making a buying decision for any kind of DSLR.
After Photokina, product cycles will slow down. We are today at an image quality, which is good enough for most users. Minor improvements will not justify to ask 1.500 EUR every 12 months from the users. You will see this with the new Canon 30D (1.400 EUR in April 2006), which is better than the 20D, but not better "enough" to make many 20D (1.600 EUR in 2004) owners to switch and pay again so much money.
On the other hand, look at the Canon 1Ds Mark II (8.000 EUR in Nov. 2004) vs. the Canon 5D (3.400 EUR in Sept. 2005). There is not that much reason anymore to buy the 1Ds Mark II today...
Regarding my Minolta 7D comment: we all know by now that decisions in this industry change quickly. Kyocera told us several times things they want to do (and they meant it at that time), but changed their mind later on. Zeiss Ikon should have been distributed by Hasselbald, now Zeiss has to it themselves. Minolta wanted to release a Mxxum 9D, and are now out of business.
We always try to inform you as much as we can and as much as we are allowed to. These are 2 different things. All I can say now is that according to a source, we can expect Zeiss lenses for the new Sony DSLRs. This is as of January 2006 and I can not promise anything in these turbulant and always changing markets. It is not official and we only will really know it, when it is announced.
But it would make sense. I do not know how Sony has the self-confidence to aim 25% DSLRS marketshare, if they have not a deal with Zeiss behind the curtains. Canon and Nikon will not give their market share away easily
And I do not know how Zeiss wants to survive in the SLR/DSLR market in the future, if they have not a deal in this direction with Sony. IMHO Zeiss-Ikon, ZF and ZM lenses are not enough to pay their costs. Zeiss Medium Format is dead. And the Nokia deal can not finance everything.
So I bought one of the last Minolta 7D, just to be sure to have a working model for whatever is coming this year