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!

Digital v Film again

Michael,

> But .... still your claim that a point and > shoot can out shoot any digital is just not so.

That claim is like in the movies, where the old Ford Galaxy, or Chevy Van seems to be able to keep up with the Ferrari. Not very likely in reality.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Lynn, if you want to compare the pictures than 1. you've got to make a print out of an ND.made picture : o.k. the printer will be important for the quality 2. you've got to scan the slide of the XA : o.k. than the scanner will be important for the quality

Whatever you'll do for comparing - you will always have some other items that will be of great importance for the final result regardless wether it's a print or or the monitor

Regards Paul
 
Sorry to butt in as I have very little interest in digital, (I have an Olympus 4040 for snapshots), I am not a pro etc. But I would second DJ's caution, particulalry as - evidenced by the pictures in the gallery - Mark's opinions should be treated with the greatest respect, and Irakly's too.
 
Marc,

I did not receive your long private message.

Let me deal with your comments in sequence where appropriate.

Your comments on the photo can be viewed on http://contaxinfo2.com/photopost_3/showphoto.php?photo=899
And are:
“I'm sorry Clive, but don't these demonstration shots from a non Contax camera belong in the test Gallery?”
Not very smiley and warm in my book.

Out of context comments? I was ready for this defence and posted dates so that others could view the whole message and see that they do actually represent your views at the time.

It appears that you have forgotten a vital element of your criticism of the Contax ND – that of image quality:
July 27th – you advocate that all images need work in PhotoShop.
Oct. 3rd – “But I'm not totally convinced of the image quality on this camera quite yet. The need to lift every image in PhotoShop so much concerns me because the more you have to screw around with digital images the more the danger of artifacts and degraded image. Also weak the blacks from this camera concern me a lot.”
Nov 23rd – “Conversly, we still do not have decent software for the Contax ND. At ISO 400 the Canon G3 delivers better pictures at 1/10th the price (and I'm not kidding about that).”

Actually I do not mind digital images per say. I am well on the road to being 100% digital in the future and welcome that day. What I do object to is when people who have bought a dog try and convince others that the image quality is as good as film. That might influence others to make a mistake.

Before Michael Hahn hits the roof:
“I've invested heavily in that look for years and years. However, this camera is a DOG, and those defending it are either honestly unaware of what is really possible from a good digital camera, or "whistling past the graveyard" IMO.” – Marc Williams Dec. 6th.

Marc, I apologise about labelling you as a wedding photographer. This was a honest mistake based on your postings of Jul 3rd where you claim to be considering the ND for pro’ work, mainly weddings and on Sept. 28th, Oct. 2nd, Nov 26th, Dec 2nd, Dec. 4th and Mar. 13th. where you mention doing wedding photography.
Also, anyone viewing your web site www.fotografz.com might also be forgiven for making the same mistake.

Yes, nearly everything is being printed digitally. BUT that does not mean that you cannot still produce a film image in the old fashioned way. You went digital because of financial reasons, NOT to improve image quality.

Perhaps I got confused with your swapping and changing: There are references to purchases of two Kodak camera and two Canon cameras after your investment in the N Digital. Once you had decided to get rid of the Contax and buy other systems you began to defend it. Maybe the less you use it the better it is?

Marc, you claim to be well versed in all manner of digital imagery and I do not dispute that. But despite all your experience and the fact that you shoot many times the images of others such as myself you needed expert help to obtain the best from the ND. What chance have others got of getting decent results?

Marc, you make many and varied comments about all sorts of things. I have brought some of these points to light because you appear to contradict yourself constantly.
You make more than one comment to the effect that you do not trust Contax as a company yet remain patron of this site.

You state three times that you would not buy another Contax but then try and swap your ND for another Contax.

You offer expert opinion on matters such as lens resolution where other experts use microscopes to form opinions yet you shun the use of a common loupe or magnifying glass to view a print.

You moan at the expense of a $6,500 digital camera that does not perform as it should yet later state that it is worth the money as a pure tool for monochrome.

Your comments taken together do not add up!

I do wonder what sort of ‘deal’ you got from your Contax agent in order for you to remain so loyal after posting such heart felt and well documented criticism of both the product itself and the company’s after sales service?

Clive
 
Clive, have you ever shot with this camera? I really do not understand substance of your riot here.
 
Thank you Irakly,

I was waiting for someone to raise this issue.

If it were a car we were debating then I would never comment without trying it. But, we are discussing the OUTPUT from a digital camera and YES I have seen output from a digital camera including Michael Hahn's Contax ND.

NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clive
 
Hey guys,

let me step in here for a moment
happy.gif


Please cool down everybody. There is no problem with having different opinions as long as the information exchange does not get too "hot" / too personal.

Clive,

let me assure you that I know many, many people who have problems with the Contax ND directly after buying it. I get many e-mails off-forum about this. But as far as I can see it with Marc and others this problems are decreasing after (timeconsuming) learning about the pro and cons of that camera.

As every other camera model, none is perfect. Every model has its limitations. And we have to learn each time from the very beginning, which limitation the new model has and to try to live with it/work around it.

However with the ND is special, since it is so significant more expensive than any competitors's model at that time (Canon 1ds did not exist yet) and the hype about the first full-size chip was producing very high expectations in the minds of the users.

Even worse Kyocera did the worst marketing job in the industry and did not communicate with its costumeras - this did not change yet by the way.

So it is normal that you can see the different moods in this situation reflected in the postings of the members. If you are paying so much money and the vendors does not care about your problems, things are getting really frustrating. And this is not only Marc. There are many more members who bought the ND, tried it out for a week and then complained and returned it.

Marc decided to do it the hard way and invested the time to learn more about the camera and got therefore over the time better results on a monthly basis. This is why also his opinion changed. The better the results, the better the opinion.

But this does not change the fact, that the ND is a lot more complicated at the beginning, if you do not know how to use it/get the best out of it. Any Canon digital camera is giving you easier and faster the results you expected. Beside of the faster AF and better flash possibilities
happy.gif


So there is nothing wrong about purchasing different camera models and using them for different situations.

P.S. The title "Patron of Contaxinfo.com" is a sign that Marc is supporting this site with a small monthly fee of 7USD so that we can easier cover server costs, bandwith costs etc. of this site. Maybe some people did not know, but Internet is not for free and at the end of the day someone has to pay the bill for a board like this
sad.gif



Hope that clears some points up and cooles others down
happy.gif


Dirk
 
> People, This is getting boring and my in basket is overflowing! Keep it up and I'll soon have to start marking my User Forum mail as Junk Mail! You're trying to objectively answer a question that is not a totally objective issue. I'm also amazed that you seemingly often look at ex&les on the web which will NEVER be a defining medium for quality. How about answering us what's better, an oil painting or a watercolor???

If you put as much energy into taking better photos as arguing this point you'll probably get better shots that we'll all appreciate, digital or film.

Guy
 
Clive, your arrogance is commendable. Are your picture-taking skills just as good? I am just wondering...
 
Clive, now I know why you didn't get my other e-mail. I stupidly replied directly to the forum e-mail.

I've answered your recent post in detail with a private e-mail so we don't bore these good people with all of this. But now I need your e-mail address to forward it to you. If you're interested contact me at: fotografz@comcast.net
 
Back
Top